Skip to main content

Day: 25 October 2015

Leading think tank proposes half a billion in cuts to Higher Education

A leading think tank has proposed that the government should cut half a billion pounds from higher education to be redirected to further education.

The paper entitled ‘Higher, Further, Faster, More’ by Policy Exchange argues that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) should take £532 million of grant funding, aimed to aid widening participation efforts and provision for high-cost subjects, and use it instead to safeguard the further education sector.

Policy Exchange, established in 2002, is one of the leading UK think tanks and is thought to be David Cameron’s “favourite think tank”.

The aim is to boost higher-level professional and technical education and any money left over should go to universities with limited financial reserves.

They propose that “universities should not only be required to maintain their responsibilities in these areas but to now partially fund them themselves”.

The think tank highlighted that since the introduction of tuition fees, funding for higher education has increased by 26 percent since 2009-10 and universities have £12.3bn of unrestricted reserves.

Further education in comparison has seen a reduction is funding. The National Audit Office has warned that more than one in four institutions could be bankrupt by the end of the year.

Policy Exchange argue that by prioritising the funding of higher education the government is not addressing the need for more students to be trained for technical and professional jobs.

The paper also proposed a widening of maintenance support for students in further education, not just limiting it to higher education students. They argue that no matter which education route a student takes they should have access to financial support.

Johnathan Simons, head of education policy at Policy Exchange, said the UK needs “many more people with high-class technical and professional skills.”

“That is why we think a proportion of the government grant to universities should be reallocated towards offering more students higher-level technical qualifications at further education institutions, and why the student loan system should be expanded so that young people have access to finance to support their higher-level study whichever route they choose.”

John Widdowson, president of the Association of Colleges, said that the paper made a “strong and convincing case” on the redistribution of education funding.

“The government must now… ensure that the further education sector has the funding it so desperately needs to enable colleges to tackle the massive skills challenges faced by this country,” he said.

“The outdated practice of highly funding our universities while continually taking money away from colleges is creating a surplus of graduates and not enough people with the qualifications required for technical and professional jobs, such as engineering and construction.”

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, has argued however that it should not be an “either-or” choice between the two and it is “misleading to suggest universities are awash with cash reserves.”

“The increase in the fee cap in England to £9,000 was largely a replacement for cuts in direct government funding. Fees, also, do not cover the cost of high-cost subjects such as science and engineering.

“Universities also need capital investment to invest in world-class facilities and to leverage additional funding from external sources.”

Michael Spence spoke to The Mancunion about these proposals and argued: “This proposal is a ludicrous race to the bottom in which they tackle to chronic underfunding of Further Education by underfunding Higher Education.”

“The suggestion that we should take money from widening participation programmes, aimed at getting people from less well-off backgrounds to university, is a callous attack on these very people.”

Visa restrictions for international students is ‘racial discrimination’

A number of UK universities are reported to be turning away applicants from countries based on the ‘credibility’ of the area they come from. Offences are often based on graduates from the same country as applicants not leaving the UK after the end of their courses.

Stricter visa rules implemented by the Home Office are said to cut the number of overseas students in the UK by 15 per cent. They have said there is no limit to the number of ‘credible’ students wanting to study in the UK.

Speaking to The Times, the NUS International Students’ Officer Mostafa Rajaai said the move was “very unfair” and that because of this policy “prospective students from these countries have a very negative view of the UK now.”

Refusal rate for non-EU applicants over the last two years is at 9 per cent, based on nearly 250,000 credibility interviews conducted by the Home Office. Universities must reach a 10 per cent refusal rate in order to keep their sponsorship licence, prompting reports they were being forced to make more decisions based on ‘credibility’.

One source claims that “some universities were told by the Home Office to stop recruiting from certain regions, mainly in Pakistan”.

This news comes only a couple of weeks after Home Secretary Theresa May announced her plan to continue to include international students in net immigration numbers, stating they are a major factor in escalating migration numbers. Her approach has been described as “chilling and bitter” and received criticism from her fellow cabinet members and various refugee charities.

New Home Office rules and May’s plan are seemingly against the position of the prime minister. “As I’ve said before, no cap on the number of overseas who come and study at our universities,” he has said on the matter.

Overseas students make up 18 per cent of the UK student population, with 435,500 studying here in 2014. The current worth of international students is estimated to be £7bn annually.

Overall, refusal rates have dropped within the past year falling from 15 per cent at the start of 2014 to 5 per cent at the end of 2015.

Strict university security at MDU Israel debate

The Manchester Debating Union hosted on Thursday night what was arguably their most over-subscribed event to date. Entitled “This House Believes Israel is a Force for Good in the Middle East” speakers included Yiftah Curiel, an Israeli diplomat and spokesman of the Israeli embassy in London, and long term human rights campaigner and journalist Peter Tatchell. The motion did not carry, with 64 per cent voting against.

A restriction on the amount of people that could attend was imposed by university security who would only allow the event to take place on campus if the audience was limited to 200.

Despite debates usually being held in the Roscoe building where the capacity is much larger, the debate was moved to the fourth floor of University Place in a smaller lecture theatre.

Students queued to get into University Place, which meant the debate started 25 minutes late.

There was a high level of university security at the building entrance and two private bodyguards for Curiel remained in the lecture theatre throughout the debate. The atmosphere however was far from overbearing as the audience listened to what each speaker had to say.

The participants of the debate enjoyed a robust and fair discussion with the audience largely staying quiet when the motion was being proposed and opposed. Despite the topic of the debate being whether Israel was a force for good in the Middle East, the conversation often slipped into the familiar discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict and the prospects for peace between the two parties.

There was however one interruption when Yiftah Curiel was responding to a question about the treatment of people inside Israel with a member of the audience demanding that he “give proper facts.” This stopped proceedings as the chair of the debate and head of the Mancester Debating Union, Jack Mellish, appealed for calm. When Curiel then gave his response, the heckler left mid-way through, much to the amusement of the audience.

Speaking after the debate Yiftah Curiel said it was unfortunate that more people could not have been at the debate and that it was important that this kind of dialogue took place.

Peter Tachell echoed this sentiment saying, “the more the better, if the debate venue has been predetermined [with regards to numbers then] it’s very wrong.”

Regarding the the audience restriction, Jack Mellish said it was “unfortunate that only 200 could attend as so many hundreds wanted to,” but he could also see why security may have wanted to limit the numbers attending. He added, “the Students’ Union were absolutely brilliant and got us a big a venue as possible.”

The University of Manchester has been approached for comment regarding the security arrangements of the event.

Medical Students Left Out of Contract Negotiations

Earlier this month, The Mancunion reported that junior doctors and other healthcare professionals marched through Manchester in protest of the proposed changes to junior doctor contracts. Similar marches took place across the UK, and the doctors’ protests have gained much media attention.

However, the Manchester medical students who have been involved in the campaign still feel as if they are being ‘ignored’ when it comes to negotiations.

There is fear amongst medical students that their voices will not be heard, as they are not yet employed by the NHS. This reduces their power in comparison to junior doctors, because while they can march, they are unable to go on strike. In an effort to combat this, Manchester students are making plans of their own to oppose the changes.

One student, speaking to the Manchester Evening News, said, “medical students are becoming increasingly concerned about the outrageous situation we see unfolding in front of us. I am in my final year of medicine which means I will be signing that contract next summer. It seems only fair that we should get a say on it. It certainly feel that we are not getting a chance do that—even though we stand to lose the most from this new contract.”

The student, named Alex, went on to say: “Anger amongst medical students is at an all-time high, coupled with an ever-shrinking level of morale.” While this is partly due to the fact that junior doctors could lose up to 30 per cent of their earnings, Alex also emphasised that it was not just about their pay: “Patient safety is paramount to us and we want to know that the system we’ll be working in is going to safe.”

The British Medical Association has expressed concern that the new proposals, which include longer hours, will impact on doctors’ abilities to perform their job to the highest standard.

Medical students and the Campaigns executive have been contacted for comment, but have not yet responded.

Girls scared away from science by gender stereotyping

The Opening Doors project focuses on inadvertent gender bias shown by students and sometimes teachers throughout 10 schools based in the South of England. The guide urges schools to prioritise gender bias as well as more recognised racism and homophobia.

It was noted that although all schools involved had policies on tackling derogatory language surrounding these issues, complaints involving sexist behaviour were treated less seriously.

This ‘harmless banter’ was shown to considerably affect the confidence of students who despite efforts from the school “found it difficult to break out of their roles, and many girls, in particular, passively accepted the situation.” Cases in which a teacher was thought to have shown gender bias were not perceived to be sexist. However, such behaviour was seen by female students as reinforcing gender prejudices.

An Improving Gender Balance survey included in the guide collected opinions on gender from 921 female students across Years 9 to 11. 45.6 per cent of these students thought that “girls are often steered towards humanities,” and 64 per cent said they were “aware of at least two examples of gender issues in choosing careers.”

The Telegraph reported in February this year that only 13 per cent of science, technology, engineering and maths workers are women.”

A similar guide published by Institute of Physics in 2012 found that girls attending private, single-sex schools were “four times more likely to choose physics than their contemporaries in mixed, state-funded schools.”

The report, made this year, attributed this substantial difference to a school’s environment. It claims that 81% of schools are not doing enough to ensure female students progress into subjects such as mathematics or the sciences at a higher level.

Dame Mary Archer, the chair of London’s Science Museum, spoke on the subject science in single-sex schools earlier this year. She said that “going to a single-sex school is quite a traditional route for women my age because nobody said ‘you shouldn’t do that, dear’—not until it is too late anyway.”

Speaking further on the subject she went on to speak about self-confidence in young girls and said that, unfortunately, “there’s a sense that ‘I can’t be as womanly as a scientist as I could be as a beautician or a journalist.'”

The University of Manchester’s student population is 53 per cent female and 47 per cent male. This balance is not seen throughout the university, with the School of Physics and Astronomy estimated to have only a 20 per cent intake of female students.

Physical Education (PE) was another focus, as it was a common grievance with female students. Schools with strong PE departments had a range of sports available to both genders through mixed sessions showed less evidence of gender bias. However, it was noted that within schools lacking in a range of activities “girls resented being prevented from taking certain sports considered unsuitable for them.”

On the matter of gender stereotyping in schools, the government has said that “no woman should feel that their gender is a barrier to their success.”

Residents oppose Owens Park plans

It was previously reported by The Mancunion that plans for a £200m revamp of the Fallowfield accommodation campus are moving forward. While this may seem long overdue to those who have lived in the outdated buildings, many local residents are concerned that this will have a negative impact on their community.

The plans include an expansion of the living accommodation into a student village, which will be able to house an extra 1,000 students—more than a 50 per cent increase. This has sparked concerns amongst residents that local services will not be able to cope with this large influx of young people.

Peter Bowers, chairman of the South East Fallowfield Residents group, has said: “The topography of Fallowfield is already very unbalanced—several streets are totally dominated by students. Most behave perfectly appropriately, but there are enough of them so that we do suffer.

“There have been several large house parties and we have a lot of transient noise when groups of young people move down the road making a huge amount of noise. And that’s any time of the day or night.”

These concerns have arisen just weeks after it was claimed that a police crackdown on student noise levels during Welcome Week was ineffective.

Resident Paul Jefferies believes the new housing would be better in a city centre location: “Fallowfield has become a free-for-all festival of selfishness, and council tax payers foot the bill for mopping up.”

Despite the intention to oppose the plans, residents have admitted that it is time that the halls got a facelift, with Bowers stating: “Parts of the plan look really good.”

As previously reported, this won’t be the first time that residents have opposed changes to the Fallowfield campus, as similar plans announced in 2001 were pulled due to resident opposition.

Better sex education key to tackling sexual assaults, campaigners say

The growing problem of sexual assaults on the country’s university campuses has fuelled calls to reform sex education for adolescents. In an era of ‘lad culture’ where objectification and degradation of women is rife on campuses, campaigners insist the consequences of systemic sex education failures are clear to see.

The Sex Education Forum (SEF) claims that many incidents of sexual harassment and confusion over consent derive from a poor or non-existent sex education earlier in life. The forum asserts that the most effective means for tackling these issues is prevention through a comprehensive sex education programme—implemented earlier on—that will produce better informed and more responsible adults.

Many young adults today characterise their sex education experience as vague and biologically-centred, barely touching on issues of consent or the emotional implications of sex.

The term ‘consent’ has become increasingly problematic and the varying notions of what people perceive as consent are “as starkly different as they are concerning” one female student said. In a 2014 survey, only one third of respondents said they had learned about consent during their sex education.

These hazy perceptions around what can be considered consensual or non-consensual sex are, according to campaigners, indisputable symptoms of a society that is in desperate need of an earlier and better sex education.

In spite of this new pressure to reform sex education in British schools, it is still not even a mandatory part of the UK school curriculum; many students do not even receive teaching under the current system that campaigners deem to be inadequate.

The SEF and other campaigners are asking the question: “When people are never taught what consent means or what is respectful behaviour towards others is, how can we expect them to act appropriately?” A recent survey showed that at the beginning of this academic year, 17 per cent of students had been sexually whilst two-thirds of that group did not know how to report their abuse. A different poll has shown that one in seven female students are sexually assaulted in the UK during their time at university.

Campaigners say these statistics are unacceptable and Universities UK echoed their sentiments, saying there must be a “zero tolerance” approach.

As evidence showing the prevalence sexual assault mounts, campaigners argue that there needs to be a conversation about sex education; one that will pressure the government to make it compulsory, occur earlier in children’s lives and provide useful, life-long guidance that goes beyond how to open a condom packet.

Osborne: Sorry Birmingham, President Xi is coming to the Northern Powerhouse

The President of China, Xi Jinping has visited Manchester as part of his four-day state visit of the UK. It is the first time in ten years that a Chinese head of state has visited Britain.

The Birmingham Mail has reported that George Osborne personally veered the Chinese President’s trip away from Birmingham to come to Manchester instead. Osborne recently opened contracts up to Chinese businesses to work on the £50 billion HS2 project that will, at first, connect London to Birmingham.

The Midlands city will also house HS2’s headquarters. Despite officials’ and businesses lobbying the Chancellor to bring the Chinese President to Birmingham, Manchester prevailed in the contest. A spokesperson at Downing Street said the Chancellor has no comments regarding the decision.

In the promise that China will invest millions of pounds in the North West, Osborne took the opportunity to show off the UK’s Northern Powerhouse to Xi Jinping. To make Manchester the ‘hub of the North’, Mr Osborne has encouraged Chinese companies to invest in various projects around the city.

Mr Osborne accompanied Xi Jinping and his wife, First Lady Peng Liyuan, in their visit to Manchester, which included a visit to the University of Manchester. The 62-year-old also toured the Manchester City ground, despite being a life-long Manchester United fan.

Xi, a chemical engineering graduate, visited the National Graphine Institute at the University of Manchester—meeting there with Vice-Chancellor Nancy Rothwell and Nobel Prize winners Kostya Novolselov and Andre Geim—where he learned all about the huge potential of the new-found material.