Your name’s not down, you’re not coming in…

The title of this piece is similar to what a lot of potential students will be hearing shortly, as universities get set to reject the highest number of applicants ever.

This unfortunate circumstance is certainly a product of the highly inclusive and open system the United Kingdom currently has – but with limited resources, can we really keep blaming ourselves for the inability to offer universal higher education?

There were about 660,000 applications this year for university courses, nearly 200,000 more than just four years ago.  At this rate of expansion, it’s clear to see how universities struggle to keep up in terms of providing quality education within the current fees limitations, all the while providing residences, bars, extra-curricular activities and investing in capital projects to keep up with the times.

Lecturers union, the UCU, fears up to 170,000 people could be disappointed, as a cap on places is enforced.

It’s often remarked upon that a university degree is an absolutely ‘must’ when entering the job market, and even that won’t guarantee you a position – but that being said, what price are we now paying in our attempts to have a more educated workforce – and isn’t competition for places a good thing to force up standards?

No doubt our sincerest condolences go out to those who have been unable to make it through this year – perseverance is no doubt crucial in an ever more competitive environment.  The question we ask of our readers on this, is how would you change the system, if you would at all?  Think about it – comments are welcome.

A tax on graduates – new plans to scrap tuition fees

Today, Business Secretary Vince Cable announced a rethink on university funding, seemingly favouring a ‘graduate tax’ – an idea long championed by the National Union of Students.

But it’s not popular with everyone and could lead to students ‘paying back’ far more over their careers.  The University and College Union called the scheme ‘unfair’ with repayments tied to earnings.

The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “If the government thinks it can get the public to swallow higher fees as some sort of graduate tax it is living in a dream world. We need a proper debate on how to fund our universities, not an exercise in rebranding.”

A crucial stumbling block of such a policy is of course the time lags associated.  There would be a transition period between how universities currently receive funding and the income generated from a graduate tax.

Further to this, Mr. Cable has spoken of two-year degrees, which would involve classes during the traditional long summer vacation, and would also see extra hours of tuition in term time.  Dr Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the private Buckingham University, which offers a standard two-year academic degree, said: “Many more people are suited to two-year courses than realise it.

However again, Sally Hunt at the UCU has commented, “Two-year degrees may sound great on paper but are in effect education on the cheap. They would be incredibly teacher-intensive and would stop staff from carrying out vital research and pastoral duties. Our universities are places of learning, not academic sweatshops, and we need to get away from the idea that more can be delivered for less.”

Whichever side of the fence you sit on, it’s certain that the new government is determined to implement a radical shake up in the education sector – whether or not these measures will be as unpopular as Tony Blair’s top-up fees remains to be seen.

Debunking the stimulus argument for higher education

In the past few months, we’ve witnessed a dramatic change in global rhetoric vis a vis public spending.  Even the stalwart socialist types across the globe are lately arguing for deficit reduction in lieu of the out of favour ’stimulus’ packages that seem consigned to Brown-era government.  It’s interesting to note that meanwhile, there are still those calling for huge and untenable public investment in universities.

Certainly, investment in higher education can yield economic results for years to come- but this is not an absolute principle and we must not allow for this idea to force our hands in distressing economic conditions.

There are plenty of factors to consider.  What kind of degrees are students obtaining?  How will they benefit the UK economy in decades to come?  What is the current public outlay per student, per degree, per lecturer, per module?  It’s not purely as simple as offering a one-liner about ‘the right to higher education’.

While lowering barriers to entry is a desirable and achievable goal – it’s no use if we’re producing 50,000+ more photography graduates per year.  There simply aren’t the jobs for them post-graduation.  More so, there are diminishing returns involved in terms of how much public money can be employed juxtaposed with potential future gains.

Pam Tatlow, of ‘Universities Think Tank – Million+’ has recently stated why she believes the coalition government should be promoting universities as ‘a source of long-term returns to the national exchequer’.  This is a false dichotomy founded on the ’stimulus’ principle which even the most socially driven politicans are steering away from.

Trying to explain to repossesed families or struggling businesses that they should be taxed more, or that they should benefit less from any tax cuts due to an investment in higher education is surely a kick in the teeth for those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives.  The argument falls short when you consider the opportunity cost of creating greater public debt for speculative future gains.

And that’s not all.  Recently, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) has shown research that displays how 78 per cent of top employers are now filtering out any job applicants with less than a first or a 2:1 – thereby cementing the idea that a degree should not be viewed as a prerequiste to a right of employment.  In fact, they go as far to offer employment advice along the lines of ’shelf-stacking’ and ‘burger-flipping’ for those on 2:2s.

The point in this article, therefore?

Prospective students, current students and indeed graduates must not allow themselves to fall into the trap of assuming the right to higher education at a cost to the general public, nor assume the right to employment post-degree.  Education is an endeavour for knowledge, understanding and crucially in these times – a salary.  But let’s not fool ourselves into believing it is owed to us.  Your ‘rights’ stop where your ingenuity and tenacity does.

For all those on this path – best of luck, and keep on at it.

Sharia Shenanigans

This is a guest post for Student Rights by Natalie Wold.  Views expressed in this piece do not constitute Student Rights’ views or opinions on the matter discussed.

Sunday, while meeting a friend for lunch near Whitehall I had the privilege of witnessing the hundreds of protesters who took the streets of London in protest for and against Sharia Law.  Group one, Muslims Against The Crusades purportedly by Al-Muhajiroun chanted their views against democracy and their favour for Sharia law by holding signs such as “Democracy is the cancer, Sharia is the Answer”.   While the other peaceful group was lead by One Law for All and Iran Solidarity to mark the anniversary of the killing of protester Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran last year.

I’ve always heard of the remarks made by groups such as Muslims Against The Crusades on the television but this was the first time I have ever seen it up and personal.  It was a scene so striking that anyone who passed the chanting of “Sharia will dominate the world” and isn’t worried about the future of the Western world has a lot to wake up to.

After watching from a distance I became so captivated I made my way over to the front lines of the protestors and immersed myself in the group.  What caught my eye the most was the group of boys around the age of twelve or thirteen holding signs reading, “UK watch your Back, Islam is Coming Back” and “Man Made Law go to Hell” as well as another boy violently waving a flag while debating a spectator saying how he could kill her with his wooden flag pole.
While listening to all of this, I began a discussion with a member and spokesperson of Muslims Against The Crusades and asked him about the demonstration.  He made it clear that they were only there to spread the work of Sharia and express unfairness the media has placed upon them.
The only thought that was racing through my mind was the radicalisation and brainwashing of those young boys who were waving their flags and holding their signs, shouting out “Death to democracy”.  I can only imagine how far those young boys will go in the movement of taking down democracy in the world and how manipulative and violent they with become in order to obtain Sharia.

Zakir Naik banned from entering the UK

‘Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.’

The words of Home Secretary Teresa May resonate around the counter-terror and counter-radicalisation blogs this morning as ‘hate preacher’ Zakir Naik is halted in his attempt to enter the UK for a series of speeches.

On June 1st, Student Rights submitted an ‘Open Letter to David Cameron’ alongside a petition which gained 68 signatures.

Since then, the Home Office has been working to explore Naik’s previous speeches, including one now infamous incident where Naik stated of Osama Bin Laden, “If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

Student Rights spokesman Raheem Kassam has stated, “It’s a promising precedent that this government is alert to the dangers of radicalisation. Speakers such as Naik are touring the UK and we must expose and impede them to stop them spreading hate across the country.”

The video below shows Zakir Naik speaking in late 2006…

How do you solve a problem like funding cuts?

 There’s been a lot of talk recently about university funding cuts and the implications for students, jobs, and the future of higher education in the United Kingdom.  Cambridge University has begun employing a quasi-American model to fix this problem – donors… lots and lots of donors.
In 2005 (in an act of prescience, no doubt) Cambridge University began their largescale fundraising drive, calling upon alumni and friends to donate to keeping the institution a, ‘world leader in teaching and research’.  And my has it paid off.
Since the beginning of the campaign (which marks Cambridge’s 800th anniversary), the university has raised over £1bn and is the first institution outside of the United States to have done so.  More than 45,000 alumni have contributed to raising the funds, with many making regular financial gifts.
But there are other factors to consider.  While commercialisation and gifts can help to pull universities out of some inevitable funding problems, Cambridge attracts a lot of international attention and high-earning alumni.  They also distinctly outspend other organisations.  From what we can tell from their recent Annual Reports, this level of funding is equal to the net expenditure for the organisation for just one year… and it took 5 years to obtai

Our first Parliamentary Candidate Research Report

A new Student Rights report has revealed growing support for tough action against extremism and radicalisation in the UK, specifically on university campuses.



We surveyed 164 parliamentary candidates during the general election campaign period, revealing that over 90% of prospective parliamentarians are aware and greatly concerned about extremism in the UK.

Raheem Kassam, Director of Student Rights comments: “It is greatly encouraging that such a majority of potential lawmakers in this country are aware that radicalisation is a growing problem. What we would like to see now is staunch action alongside university and police authorities in tackling extremism and the recruitment that is occurring on campuses UK-wide. It must start with proscribing the Islamist group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’ immediately.”

- The report asked ten questions of candidates standing for Parliament and revealed that most candidates and re-standing MPs are cognisant of extremism issues, however felt that they were underinformed on some issues, especially pertaining to university matters and radical group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.

- A majority of candidates endorsed Special Branch action on campuses, while maintaining that university authorities also need to be pushing a lot harder against radicalisation on campuses – actively tackling issues when they arise.

- Freedom of speech is maintained as an ideal by the findings of the survey, however in the face of security concerns, 68% of candidates responded that threats must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only 4.9% endorsed absolute freedom of speech, even in the case of hate-speech or threats.

- Conservative Party candidates appeared the most attuned to these matters, with 100% being ‘concerned greatly’, with 90.6% of Lib Dems responding in the same manner and 87.5% for Labour.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE