Skip to main content

Day: 6 November 2015

Outrage at Higher Education shakeup proposals

Written by Marcus Johns on . Posted in News.

The government has published a green paper consultation document on the future of Higher Education detailing proposals to fundamentally alter England’s Higher Education system.

The most controversial proposal in the green paper is the plans to give the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills the “power to set tuition fee caps.” Currently, changes to tuition fee caps can only be raised through changes to legislation by parliamentary vote.

Michael Spence, the Education Officer of the University of Manchester Students’ Union said: “This makes their claim that they will keep the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) at arm’s length from Ministers both laughable and demonstrably false. It is an affront to democracy, a blatant ministerial power grab, and an attempt to shut down debate about what the fee level should be.”

Of the proposals, another of the most contentious is the plans to link tuition fees with university standards using the TEF. Financial incentives are proposed to improve teaching at universities under the plans which will allow universities that can demonstrate high quality teaching to raise tuition fees.

Labour MP Gordon Marsden has likened the proposals to a “Trojan horse for raising fees,” a fear which many students have now expressed at the paper.

Spence added: “However it is tying TEF scores to tuition fees which presents the biggest problem. Basically institutions which do better in the TEF would be able to charge more their courses. The proposal in the Green Paper is that there would be up to four “TEF levels”, with institutions being able to charge up to a certain amount for tuition depending on which TEF level they reach.

“However all this will achieve is elitism and create a very dangerous cycle in higher education. Since the institutions judged to be better will be able to charge more for their degrees, they will be able to invest more in enhancing their metrics, which I am already concerned will not reflect quality teaching, and hence be able to charge more, leaving other institutions behind.

“This will create a system whereby the wealthy institutions get wealthier and wealthier, exacerbating longstanding problems in the sector.”

The proposals have wide implications above and beyond the raising of the £9,000 limit currently in place. Though previously the Chancellor George Osborne has said they would be permitted to rise in line with inflation in July, this is the first time an explicit financial incentive for teaching has been outlined.

Under the plans, universities would be ranked into three or four groups depending on the teaching quality, which will be assessed under the Conservative government’s recently introduced Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Those in the higher bands will be permitted to raise their fees at different levels than those who perform less well.

Universities Minister Jo Johnson has said that these proposals aim to rectify the disparity between research and teaching, calling teaching the “poor cousin.”

The President of the NUS, Megan Dunn, said that it was “reassuring to see the government putting access to education at the heart of their proposals,” though adding that the NUS was “adamant that the Teaching Excellence Framework should not be linked to an increase in fees.”

The proposals also aim to make it easier for new Higher Education institutions to open, despite the Conservative government’s concerted efforts to tighten controls over higher education and clampdown on international students, including the removal of London Metropolitan’s University’s license to sponsor overseas students in 2012.

Within this it aims to allow new providers “quicker access to student funding” and will not impose caps on student numbers that are prevalent in the current higher education system. It will also be scrapping the minimum number of students required to become a university and ease access to degree-awarding powers, despite its previous rhetoric about the ease for institutions abusing the current system, which is now sees as too restrictive.

President of Universities UK and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kent Dame Julia Goodfellow said in a statement from Universities UK: “The diversity of providers and the range of courses offered is one of the strengths of the UK university sector, and we support competition and choice.

“It is important, however, that any new Higher Education provider entering the market is able to give robust reassurances to students, taxpayers and government on the quality and sustainability of their courses.”

The government has also proposed to merge the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) will be merged into a new Office for Students. There are concerns that this may come under undue government influence with regards to higher education policy and data collection.

The idea to include students in the process was met with anxiety, Spence explained: “Whilst this sounds good on the surface, it will put student representatives in the horrible position of raising fees for future students, something many of us could never in good conscience do.”

Moreover, the government has failed to outline the appropriate transfer of powers given that the OFFA and HEFCE would be wound up under the plans. For example, no mention has been made in the paper on the current distribution of quality-related research funding (QR) that is currently distributed by HEFCE using the Research Excellence Framework.

Goodfellow added: “With a wide range of issues covered in the paper, we will be considering carefully the complex, but vitally important, areas such as how funding and regulatory powers are integrated” and “the future of the sector bodies and their relationship to government.”

Under the current Royal Charter system, universities cannot fail. The paper has envisaged terminating this in its chapter on managing the exit of institutions from the Higher Education market—the paper refers liberally to the market when discussing higher education provision. This ‘exit’ clause has the propensity to allow universities to fail.

The Mancunion has used the Freedom of Information act to obtain key information from the university with which it can be held to account for its actions. Under the proposals in the green paper, universities could become exempt from this so that they have equal footing with private providers, who are currently exempt.

Spence called this proposal a “terrifying suggestion” adding that “FOI is a vital tool for Students’ Unions and student newspapers trying to hold their university to account, without it university administration would be even more opaque.

“It is unbelievable that the government would have the audacity to talk about increasing the transparency of students’ unions on one hand, whilst reducing the transparency of universities on the other hand!”

Plans are also presented, which parallel the Tory government’s attitude towards trade unions to take “steps through [their] trade union practices and increase transparency around how funds are spent.” This has been interpreted as a veiled threat to Students’ Unions across the country. Spence added: “The reforms they speak of are not an attempt to improve union practices or to increase transparency, they are an attempt to silence and eventually break unions.

“Including this line is a direct threat to students’ unions which have long been a thorn in the side of governments. Furthermore students’ unions are very strictly regulated by the Charities Commission, making government intervention completely unnecessary.”

The Russell Group, of which the University of Manchester is a member, released a joint statement saying that: “The Government’s green paper rightly recognises that ‘higher education is a national success story.’”

The Russell Group ignored changes that the green paper proposes in their statement, lacking any direct reference to tuition fee changes or any specific policy proposal in the paper. Though it did allude to the additional changes to the newly introduced TEF: “Russell Group universities provide an outstanding education for students where teaching is enhanced by first-rate facilities and delivered by world-class academics.

“But we are far from complacent and our universities continue to invest millions of pounds in a wide range of measures to improve teaching and learning and to ensure their doors are wide open to talented students from any background.

“The autonomy of our universities is crucial to their success. It is vital that any regulation is risk-based and proportionate and does not add to the current burden or stifle innovation.”

Continuing on this theme, Goodfellow stated: “We welcome the green paper’s emphasis on protecting the interests of students and demonstrating the value of a university education.

“The recognition of high quality teaching in our universities is a welcome step, but we must ensure that this exercise is not an additional burden for those teaching in our universities and that it provides useful information for students, parents, and employers. Universities are already improving the amount of information to students about courses to ensure that their experience matches their expectations.

“Universities have made considerable progress in recent years to increase the numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university and graduating with a good degree. We recognise there is more to do, and Universities UK looks forward to leading the Social Mobility Advisory Group announced in the green paper to build on progress and identify best practice.”

As with the Russell Group, Universities UK expressed concerns regarding the autonomy of universities,  adding that it is of vital importance to assess “how the green paper protects the autonomy of our world-class university sector.”

Top 5 Best Dressed Male Celebrities

Written by Meg Roberts on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

1. Harry Styles

As a self confessed Directioner, my judgement may be slightly biased here, but even so, it can’t be denied that Harry Styles is gaining serious recognition in the fashion industry. His transformation from a Jack Wills-clad boy next door to an edgy, rock and roll style icon has been dramatic.

Now a regular feature in men’s fashion bible GQ, and often pictured on the front row of high profile London Fashion Week shows alongside supermodels and rock royalty, he is a force to be reckoned with in the fashion world. Open silk shirts, velvet blazers, psychedelic and paisley, black ripped skinnies, bandanas, and layered necklaces all formulate the classic Harry Styles look.

Photo: Ikkinphotography @Flickr

2. Dougie Poynter

Another member of an international pop sensation whose look is anything but stereotypically boy band. Dougie’s style, whilst originally rooted in pop-punk infused fashion, is now altogether more old school rock and roll. Think Seventies inspired print shirts worn oversized, paired with a structured blazer or biker style leather jacket, and accessorised with a fedora and a treasure trove of vintage necklaces.

Photo: 18097936@N00 @Flickr

3. Alex Turner

At the risk of being entirely focused on band members, I just couldn’t leave Alex Turner out of any self-respecting article on best dressed male celebrities. Since the drop of 2013’s ridiculously sexy AM, electric guitar riffs, a hint of R’n’B, and the promise of Alex Turner doing you no good, his style has metamorphosed into a modern take on my favourite era for British and American fashion—a nod to the slick teddy boy subculture of the 50s.

By day, Turner’s signature look is created with a black leather jacket, an open short-sleeved shirt, tailored trousers, and brogues. By night, we’re talking a high fashion tux, a cigarette tie, and enough hair spray to destroy the ozone layer in its entirety.

Photo: disneyabc @Flickr

4. Eddie Redmayne

The quintessential English gentleman, Eddie Redmayne’s epitomises everything that I love about British male fashion. His decidedly understated look is all about clean lines. This means classic tailoring paired with a crisp white shirt and brogues (Burberry mac optional). Pair Redmayne’s achingly cool yet uncomplicated British style with his boyishly good looks, and it’s not hard to see why he was voted GQ’s Best Dressed Male for 2015.

Photo: super45 @Flickr

5. Kanye West

One half of international power couple KimYe, and possibly the most talked about personality in the male fashion stratosphere—and often credited with the total style overhaul of Kimmy K—this article wouldn’t be complete without an honourable mention to Kanye West. Kanye’s style is eclectic and capsule, expressing his preference for a select few favourites in his GQ feature, investing in high end jersey basics for the ultimate in sports luxe taking the form of colour block vests and oversized t-shirts juxtaposed with a premium bomber or leather jacket.

Frida Kahlo and the rebel commodity

Written by Madeleine Jones on . Posted in Opinion.

“I’m an unconditional ally of the Communist Revolutionary Movement.” These were words that Frida Kahlo wrote in her diary in 1952.

This is the same Frida Kahlo whose face and art is being used on blogs, magazine covers, social media, and all kinds of products by people—mostly Western women and girls—admiring her for being ‘cool’ and a ‘feminist icon’. This, however, is all taking place while the same people are largely unaware of her political beliefs, and ultimately falling into huge hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that she was indeed a communist, and this was integral to her life, art, and actions. Today, it is unlikely that she would approve of her image being romanticised, exoticised, commercialised, and marketed. Items like notebooks, badges, pillow cases, mugs, jewellery, bags, phone cases, T-shirts, purses, and other commodities with her face on are sold in their masses. Buying these would simply be an act of blind capitalism and giving money to the kinds of people Kahlo would have considered to be her enemies.

During her life, she dictated her birth date as 10th of July 1910, the day the Mexican Revolution began, despite being born on 7th July 1907. She wanted her birth and life to be indelibly bound to the revolution she felt so strongly for—she referred to said revolution as “the one true thing to live for.” She attended rallies—though not as many as she wanted to, due to injuries from a bus crash aged 18—to overthrow Porfirio Díaz’s dictatorship, and later for the Communist Movement.

According to her diary entries, Frida herself was very interested in the idea of world revolution, and stood in alliance to other struggles in Russia, China, India, Poland and Czechoslovakia. She also wrote that “Mexicans and negroes are subjugated for now by capitalist countries, above all North America,” clearly establishing her anti-colonialist position. She also produced a considerable amount of art related to her political beliefs. It is no coincidence that the paintings of hers that circulate the internet, and, on products, are self-portraits that look typically aesthetically pleasing. Instances that, rarely, have anything overtly political visible.

White, middle-class feminists will talk about how inspirational she was and is because she didn’t remove her facial hair, was the founder of the ‘selfie’, and had such a difficult life. They will also hasten to add that she was a feminist, so of course we can blog about how amazing her aesthetic is and buy products with her face on without much acknowledgement of what her political ideology was.

What I find particularly frustrating is white feminists praising her for her dark facial hair and thinking that it’s aesthetically cool because it is so far removed from what they possess. For women with darker hair and for non-white women, it is often a different story when it comes to body hair, due to white, Eurocentric standards of beauty. It is very easy for white feminists to romanticise something that they have never experienced.

White, middle-class feminism is not feminism—it is not about holistic equality. It is about self-indulgent, middle-class, colonialist capitalism. The selling, superficial praise, and misrepresented iconography of Frida Kahlo in the West epitomises all of this. It is an act of consumer capitalism, not feminism, to take a subversive figure, de-politicise them, and turn them into profit-making commodities for a market that will swallow up anything presented as edgy or radical.

Frida’s political beliefs were a huge part of her life and what she did, so appreciating her art means recognising her politics—they go hand in hand. Sure, her position as a feminist of her time and place is important, but there’s more to her definition of equality than many middle-class white leftists probably think about. She is not simply a cult figure representing soul-searching female identity. She possibly wouldn’t even have spent as much time on her aesthetic if she was able to manoeuvre herself more than her injuries allowed her to.

If you consider yourself a fan, supporter, even a comrade of Frida Kahlo, then don’t buy products with her face on, and don’t put images of her online if you are simply presenting how cool and fashionable she was.

She is, of course, not the only one. I could have written an article just like this on other revolutionaries, too. We have all seen T-shirts with Che Guevara’s face on. Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. has been commodified for a wholesale market. There are dolls of him sold to children, which audio-play a recorded part of his ‘I Have A Dream’ speech. This might not sound so bad. The issue is that Western powers focus on that speech so as to portray it in a way that fails to acknowledge the power structures and colonialist history of institutional racism that prefigure Luther King Jr. stepping up to the podium to speak.

Any revolutionaries with profitable potential are picked up, especially ones who are not Western or are not white, since it’s easier to use their ‘otherness’ as a selling point. Anything they did or said, that encourages people to think critically, is stripped of its significance and turned into a fashionable item.

The message I want to put across is to think about what you’re buying. What is it? How was it made? What does it mean? Economic power is everything; now, put your money where your mouth is.