2013-06-20T02:57:33-04:00 Leo Boe http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=leo-boe Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Leo Boe Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1395334 2012-04-02T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-02T05:12:01-04:00

Leo Boe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-boe/ Studying' in the Britain - one big immigration scam (29 March) Telegraph journalist Ed West takes this to harrowing new levels. He uses concern over bogus colleges as an excuse to launch an uninformed and grossly misguided tirade against immigration and international students themselves. It seems, however, the only thing that has gone West is the truth about beneficial impact of international students on the UK education system - from educational, cultural and financial perspectives.

Of course there are a few bogus colleges within the UK, and these must be closed to protect the experiences of students studying at these institutions. However, linking this problem to the growth in legitimate international student numbers within the UK and then going on to say that greater international student numbers in itself is bad is nothing less than bigoted, xenophobic, and abhorrently naïve.

What West fails to acknowledge are the benefits that British society, British academia, and the British economy gain from these international students, let alone the idea that bringing the best and brightest students from across the globe to study here benefits UK students as much as non-UK students. Large numbers of students from across the globe often results in a clash of ideas from those with different cultural experiences and this helps to challenge traditional ideas, inspire learning and developing new thinking. This cannot be underrated, however difficult it may be to measure.

There is of course also the financial argument that the income from the fees and other expenditure of these students supports UK universities, bringing in £3.3 billion (Higher Education Policy Institute Report; The Economic Costs and Benefits of International Students , 2007) to the UK economy annually, and whilst I believe that the fees that institutions charge international students are unjustifiably high and risk pricing a number of students out of the market, potentially damaging the diversity of students represented at institutions, West's implication that UK universities are "complicit" in a "scam" is deeply offensive and ignorant.

What is more impacting than this, however, is the extent to which there is added value beyond the fees coming from these students. Even if a majority of international students did stay in the UK after study to work, which they don't with 80% leaving within five years of finishing their study, there is still the argument that in the high skills, globalised economy, we should be encouraging and supporting them to be able to do so to benefit the UK. The HEPI report went on to talk about another £1bn increase in UK GDP resulting from international students working in the UK after study.

One softer and more indirect benefit of overseas students studying in the UK, is the idea that these students take away with them the experience of having physically lived in the UK; using education as a form of international development, which also results in positive attitudes, and therefore increased future trading opportunities, and indeed international relations, for the UK.

Moving on to contribution that international students make to British academia. The government talks about strategically important subjects, ie those which are assumed to potentially boost the economy more than others- Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Although I lament the fact that these courses have had a value-judgment placed upon them implying that they are 'worth' more, the government can't hide from the fact that at postgraduate taught (Master's) and research (MPhil/PhD) levels these courses and departments are often kept open due to the large numbers of international students. A 2007 Universities UK report showed that in these strategically important subjects 71% of taught postgraduate enrolments and 48% on research programmes were non-UK students. Now, you can speculate that the government should therefore invest more into postgraduate study than it currently does to attract more UK students into further study, and amen to that, but for the time being, those who are in many cases more likely to take up these courses and therefore lead research in these areas and actually drive them forward, are overseas students.

If we value the future of subjects which are seen as necessary to drive the UK economy as being sacrosanct, and indeed as public goods within themselves, then the right-wing media need to leave international students out of their rhetoric. Simply put, without these high numbers of students contributing to academic disciplines, some vulnerable subjects may well find themselves off the radar in years to come. More harrowing a thought, perhaps, is that people like West would prefer to see a UK without overseas students at postgraduate level contributing intellectually to academia which has, indirectly, a positive influence on the British economy through the creation of jobs in various fields as they are driven forward.

"Legalised people trafficking" is how West describes student immigration. Academic tourism, is how I would put it. Although he starts off by discussing a London based institution losing its Highly Trusted status, the rest of his article is nothing less than a misinformed and xenophobic attack on non-EU students, simply for deciding to come to the UK to study and in turn, to contribute to academic fields, many of which the UK depends on for economic growth.

If we value broad, diverse student populations which are mutually beneficial to all those within them, if we endorse the clashing of ideas in an intellectual environment to challenge the status quo within academia, if the UK is keen to develop strategic and vulnerable areas of study, and if we acknowledge the positive economic impact, even excluding international student fees, non-EU students bring to the UK, then I would certainly be swallowing my fear-mongering, intolerant, and narrow-minded choice of words if I were Ed West. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1177075 2012-01-02T19:00:00-05:00 2012-01-02T15:23:19-05:00

Leo Boe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-boe/ " We could see some astronomical upfront fees being levied on those who wish to continue their studies beyond undergraduate level, with virtually no financial support from government."- Aaron Porter, NUS President 2010-2011

Students were rioting in the streets over rises in undergraduate fees in England and yet under the radar, fees for Master's and other postgraduate taught courses have been rising significantly. As universities reel from the loss of 80% of their teaching grant, they will need to somehow plug the funding gap and for many the postgraduate market, as well as international student recruitment, are obvious places to look to raise income.

With postgraduate fees uncapped, universities are now looking to see how much income they could generate from students in order to keep themselves afloat. Logical though it may seem, this puts institutions in a very awkward place. On the one hand, temptation to increase tuition fees would be advantageous to make up for lost revenue from the government. On the other, any question of pricing based on quality and satisfaction rather than on how much the market can bear will be thrown even further into the wind.

In turn, this will increasingly raise questions of how much a Master's degree is 'worth', and indeed whether it is 'worth' taking out commercial loans- the only option available to many- which have to be repaid soon after completing one's course. Ultimately, if institutions raise their postgraduate taught fees and should the government not introduce any funding or support system, UK postgraduate applicant numbers will plummet, and widening access will become an increasingly ignored, cursory detail. Increasing postgraduate fees, however, institutions will argue, is a necessity in order to maintain other cross-subsidised provisions.

We have already seen many institutions announce significant rises in their PGT fees. Being aware of such changes is key to imagining the future landscape of higher education altogether. Should higher education become a victim of circumstance resulting in a sustained drop in the number of undergraduate course applicants (this cycle has seen a 15% decrease thus far) due to debt aversion, the number applying to postgraduate study will fall even more sharply. If we accept the premise that the number of postgraduate students from the UK/EU, around 80,000, is 'rising only very slowly', according to CentreForum's Tim Leunig, it is necessary for the government to further invest in fairer funding mechanisms, to avoid fewer applicants.

As an aside, I would at this point reject the notion that students post-2012 will form a culture which sees high levels of debt as a fact of life, and who will therefore not be put off postgraduate study after already being around £37,000 in debt.

I reject absolutely the cost of postgraduate degrees being based on market mechanisms simply as botched attempts at keeping institutions open, just as I resent, but understand, institutions' raising undergraduate UK/EU fees. In both undergraduate and postgraduate cases what I resent more than the fees themselves is the government's lack of responsibility and indeed its dereliction of duty to students, to the national economy, and to society in not providing a progressive funding model which minimises the burden on students and institutions.

Should the current model continue, lack of fair access to postgraduate education will mean that the government and, by extension, public institutions will be doing society a disservice. After all postgraduate study is a discriminator in the job market which should not give unfair competitive advantage to those from traditionally non-debt averse backgrounds. Moreover, if the government is serious about boosting industry and about building a knowledge economy, it is inconceivable that it wouldn't want to further invest into a sector which would deliver vocationally relevant skills, which in turn would return the investment.

Ultimately institutions are having to set fees on the basis of widening access considerations, recruitment targets, (unfortunately) market indicators, quality, and, (hopefully) the necessity of providing courses as social goods. All the while concerning themselves with being financially solvent. If or when the priority shifts from one of these objectives to another, an opportunity cost will be borne. In a landscape where financial tenacity means remaining in existence, it is certain that market indicators will be the only, if not the most weighty, factor in the equation determining fees. As an unintended consequence, the ideal of widening access at postgraduate level will be shunted aside.

The government ought to see postgraduate education as an area for strategic investment, and must act by providing more support and funding mechanisms. The current system, without any public financial support or loan system, will become unsustainable as the rises in postgraduate fees begin to take effect. This coupled with rapidly increasing student debt in the new undergraduate fees environment will result in an increasingly socially exclusive postgraduate community, without major reform. It would, therefore, be just and indeed necessary for the government to provide a progressive student-loan system for postgraduate study.

In the meantime I hope institutions look to introducing hardship funds, as mine has and, where possible, generous bursary opportunities to try to ensure fair access to Master's courses. In principle this is not the ideal solution alone. The coalition government must ultimately complement these efforts should it decide to positively reform part of the HE sector... which, indeed, would be a first.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1171740 2011-12-27T19:00:00-05:00 2012-02-26T05:12:01-05:00

Leo Boe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-boe/
Indeed most students who have been involved in the movement over the last two years will know that these are just the headliners, and indeed that the double headed Cleggeron dragon has rampaged its way right through youth services and provisions and doesn't look as if it's likely to stop any time soon as it flails around trying to 'do things' and 'reform' services for the better. It's ok, though, because it's all in the name of deficit reduction, and this is all just pragmatic, right?

The disconcerting, yet expected, narrative of the coalition government is centred around this obscure notion that withdrawing funding from public services will be replaced by the private sector somehow. Oh dear.

Anyway, back to #nov9. The day was nice enough, the two coach loads of students leaving Warwick Students' Union for central London had a fantastic optimistic vibe about them. Our coaches were abuzz with talk of whether first years, college students last year, had been on the 10.11.10 national demonstration which saw 60,000 people attend, and with reminders of relevant chants from those referring to building bonfires through to the casual "Nick Clegg shame on you shame on you for turning blue".

So there I was, certain as much as anyone else that we would be marching against the government's path of destroying the future of millions of young people, armed with words, placards, and conviction, wary perhaps, that the government had deployed just as many police officers that had been deployed after four days of riots on the day of the demonstration. Tweets were flying around about rubber bullets and pre-emptive tactical kettling.

We had our maps, our contingency cards, and those responsible had everyone's emergency contact details. The 60 or so Warwick students met and cautiously avoided anarchist groups dressed in black - we, the Warwick SU 'officials', were of course to steer students away from the danger of kettles and uncouth activity.

We gathered by LSE Students' Union by Aldwych Street, waiting for the march to begin. The atmosphere was fantastic, and everyone was in good spirits, in solidarity with one another. Regardless of the kind of political or activist background, students were there en force to send one clear message to the government, or at least, that's what I thought.

Whilst walking around the crowds, admiring slogans and placards, a student handing out a magazine stopped and asked if I wanted a copy. Before I had the opportunity to answer he told me that he knew who I was and that he followed me on Twitter. Rather taken aback and wondering indeed whether this was true, I asked if I could have a copy of the publication he was handing out. The rest of the conversation went something like this:
"You tweet a lot about Israel"

Feeling rather uncomfortable, "not that much", I responded. Before I had the chance to say anything else, "yeah and about how much you hate Palestinians"
"I've never tweeted let alone said anything about hating Palestinians because I don't, I tweet about Israel because I'm Jewish."- again, cut off-
"Tweeting about Israel because you're Jewish must mean that you hate Palestinians, come on admit it! Why can't you and other Jews just stop hating Palestinians? Do you see Israel as a legitimate state?"
"I'm critical of the government's approach to expanding settlements and of human rights abuses on both sides - I don't hate Palestine or Palestinians, and yes I think that Israel and Palestine both have the right to self-determination"
"I can't believe you just said that about Israel, Jews have no sense of justice"

Fairly shocked and disheartened at the student's lack of willingness to listen to my side of all of this, and noting his decision to bypass me to get to students to pass out his pile of magazines, I decided to continue making sure my students were all together. How exactly does the Israel/Palestine question factor into a march defending, extending, and protecting the rights of students and future generations of students vis a vis government cuts? I asked myself.

So remember that feeling of solidarity and that buzz I was talking about, and how there may be a variety of political views on the spectrum but that everyone had come to the demonstration with a single purpose? Disillusionment doesn't even begin to describe how I felt, not at the purpose of the march but at the student movement. Because this wasn't an attack on being a Zionist, this was a gross generalisation of a faith and of a people, based on false inferences by a student with a perverse sense of evangelicalism who would not let me put my case forward. His disgusting rhetoric, if not hate speech, was not what I nor what any student should or would expect to be confronted with at a national student demonstration. Had I been an average first year student I may have taken this as an example of what the student movement is like on the whole, something which I would say would be misguided and untrue.

I know that right across the political spectrum the movement, as a whole, is bigger and better than that, because if there is one thing I like to think we can all broadly agree on it is in the necessity in respecting each other's identities. My views on Israel (though I would argue are fairly progressive and left-wing) can of course be questioned, but to bring my identity as a Jewish student into question and then make ignorant inferences about Jews in general is anti-Semitic and has no place within the movement.

I wouldn't want any of this to dissuade Jewish students from being involved in the movement nor of coming to future demonstrations by any means, in fact it is examples such as these which I would use to encourage students from any minority background to get involved and to strive to challenge bigoted views in society -- from the student movement up to the highest echelons of business and government.

I would never argue that there is one spot on the political spectrum that those within the student movement would nor should align themselves with, but in times of demonstrations it is at least conceivable that there would be an aligned political view on an issue such as government cuts or tuition fees, and that solidarity around the view would be paramount to other issues.

Today is the eighth and final night of Channukah, the Jewish festival of lights, which celebrates, the overcoming of adversity. To me it is a reminder of tolerance, respect, and renews my hope for better coexistence of minority and majority groups in the UK and around the world so that this kind of interaction at an event based upon solidarity and common views and values doesn't happen again. ]]>