Andrew Oswald justifies ?10,000 pay increases for vice-chancellors (Soapbox, THES , February 7) by saying: "It is plain that vice-chancellors are underpaid, not overpaid. It's a rough job that takes talent and experience."
No one would argue with this. If people are to get ?10,000 increases because they are underpaid and because they are doing a job that takes talent and experience, what about lecturers?
Or does Oswald intend to say what he implies: that lecturers are not underpaid, and that lecturing does not require talent and experience?
Peter Chadwick
Middlesex University