Home » Posts tagged 'education' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: education
Is BPP suffering from the "Stockholm Syndrome"? Roll on Friday…
I don’t do ‘undue deference’, which is why I once felt uneasy when a partner at a firm in the Magic Circle carried my bag from one room to the next, when moving rooms in a training contract interview.
That’s why I suppose I love ‘Roll on Friday‘, which, according to them, “provides news, views and gossip on the legal profession – including the top firms’ salaries.” ‘Roll on Friday’ is essential reading for me, as I am thinking about (remotely) applying for a training contract this Summer. However, I am taking my MBA much more seriously, as it genuinely interests me, unlike the training contract application process. We cover in huge detail “organisational culture“, i.e. the importance of what makes a corporate tick to how it involves its members and individuals outside the company. A really useful introduction to corporate culture is given here in the Times newspaper.
This is precisely why I devour articles by ‘Roll on Friday’ which provide insight into culture in the City: e.g. on international corporate law recruitment here, “There were red faces at recruitment firm First Counsel, chosen by Slaughter and May to advertise its vacancies, after it posted a pompous and apparently xenophobic job advertisement.” Or this, for example (!), “A City law firm has announced a “great temporary opportunity’” for fresh-faced law graduates to, errr, work as catering staff.”
And this is precisely the cheeky humour I love, when ‘Roll on Friday’ (@RollOnFridayWeb) tweeted us the following on 28 June 2011 (status here),
“Stockholm Syndrome? RT @legalaware: @carllygo @seeyouatthebar @_millymoo @jfierce_mighty haha. I think BPP is brill #justsaying”
I found this incredibly amusing.
So, what is “Stockholm Syndrome“? Not being as cultured as ‘Roll on Friday’, I had to look it up on Wikipedia. This is the current entry for the condition:
In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxicalpsychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them.
Are members of BPP then showing ‘Stockholm syndrome” towards BPP? Looking at this legalistically, we have to be showing a positive emotional response in conditions of extreme stress. Otherwise known as “terror bonding” or “traumatic bonding”, one has to identify what the extreme stress of being at BPP might be? Is it teaching or studying the GDL, LPC, LLM or MBA, for example? Or is it the highly demanding nature of the exams?
And why my outburst that “BPP is brill”? This boils down to my reaction to a rather vociferous article provided by David Mitchell in the Guardian with the rather aggressive title “When it comes to the crunch, private sector knows best”. David climaxes towards the end with this ‘pièce de résistance':
It’s not expertise, it’s ruthlessness, it’s the prioritisation of profit. What Lygo is offering people running universities is the opportunity to divest themselves of many of the problems inherent in their jobs. If you don’t want to take the tough decisions, he’s saying, if you doubt you’ve got the backbone to make the efficiency savings, then we’ll handle them for you. Pass your troubles on to those of us untroubled by conscience. Not only would this be a dereliction of the universities’ duty, it would also help perpetuate the myth of the private sector’s omnipotence and the public’s doltish money-burning idiocy.
Mitchell is of course entitled to his views. He was, indeed, at Cambridge, which some might say is the world’s best University in the World, beating Harvard. Well, actually, to be accurate, he was there for three years, and I was there for eight as a student (doing several degrees, not re-sitting the same one). Mitchell is talking nonsense if he believes that Oxbridge does not have any commercial drivers. Indeed, the Institute of Economic Affairs has even in a blog article mooted the notion that Cambridge University ‘should go private‘.
And yep – I really enjoyed my GDL and LLB(Hons) because of the huge amount of personal pastoral care I received after my life-threatening meningitis (I was in a coma for two months during my GDL), and Carl Lygo, CEO at BPP, has argued, until he’s ‘blue in the face’, that institutions such as BPP and Cambridge operate in different areas of the education sector, but that ‘there’s room for both of them’ (paraphrasing wildly). Anyway, I think both institutions are great. Maybe I am, in fact, exhibiting “Stockholm Syndrome” towards Cambridge, having been set free from them after nearly a decade? Anyway, please keep up the brilliant work, “Roll on Friday”!
@legalaware can be followed here. @RollonFridayWeb can be followed here.
Compass: Education is for people not profit. PLEASE SIGN!!
Up and down the country innovative campaigns have sprung up to oppose the government’s education reforms. Last night’s vote to increase fees for university students up to £9000 will turn Higher Education into a market. It reflects the wider commercialisation of our education system must be strongly opposed at every opportunity. Instead we need to see education and other public services democratise. So today we have a letter published in The Guardian aimed at uniting all groups of campaigners.
The widespread anger over higher education fees is the first step in what inevitably starts as a defensive campaign. First we fight to protect what we have. But soon, through the process of struggle, wider fissures opened up. For the sudden eruption of protests and anger on campuses and city streets has been reaching boiling point for some time. Because this isn’t just about fees, but about the final transformation of our education system from a public into a private good.
What we are witnessing is just the latest and sharpest manifestation of the remorseless process of commercialization of our lives that creates insecurity, anxiety and sheer exhaustion because it piles all the pressure of coping on us as individuals. And that burden is just too much, even for those families who used to see themselves as quite ‘well off’. Hope is systematically being taken away. The anger and frustration is real, widespread and well founded.
The key word in the higher education debate is not so much fees but variability. It is the ability to compete on price, whether it’s at the bargain basement or luxury end of the university market that signals the ultimate victory of the economy over society; of profit over people. The flow towards university privatisation will become inexorable. However, when it comes to fees, Scotland and Wales are showing that something different is not just desirable but feasible.
Today we are all conditioned to think of education as a positional good – how do we or our children benefit disproportionately compared to others? It is a rat race in which the winners are just the fastest rats. Since the 1980s universities and schools have been steadily and remorselessly marketised and pupils and students commodified. Success, as the new common sense would have it, could only be achieved through competition, between institutions for the best scholars and students and between students themselves. The pressure becomes almost unbearable – the right nursery begets the right primary, which paves the way for the right secondary and then the right university – leading ultimately to the right, that is, best paid job. Along the way those who can’t stand the pace are weeded out and those who can are tutored, coaxed and coached by parents who are only doing their duty as they help burn out those who they love the most. Mental illness amongst our young people reaches inexorable heights.
This instrumentalism is such a narrow view of what it means to be human and to be educated. That is why the students’ struggle resonates across our country. The students themselves are showing maturity beyond their years. They know this is not just about them and they cannot win any lone concessions on fees without the wider support and consensus. And why would they want to ‘win’ if it means others lose out still further? They understand what solidarity means. That is why campaigns like UK Uncut, which links corporate tax avoidance to the rebalancing of our depleted public finances, is critical both morally and practically. If one company, Arcadia, paid its tax return in full then Higher Education could be securely funded. But they are allowed to escape their responsibility to society while the rest of pay in full. The students know that Educational Maintenance Allowance is critical for hundreds thousands of young people from low income families who now attend Further Education colleges and that cleaners on their campuses should be paid a living wage. Students don’t have to be told that we are all in it together. They know it.
The political class may choose to forget but we don’t; that it was the greed of the banks and the free market regime handed to them by our politicians that tipped the nations finances into crisis.
But the cuts in education and elsewhere cannot be successfully opposed with just a No. Progress demands a vision and then the practical steps towards a better of way of being.
We start from the belief that education cannot just be a debt trap on a learn-to-earn treadmill that we never get off as the retirement age is extended. There is so much more to life than this and we want it for all – not just for some. Education in our good society is a universal public good which all must explore to reach their fullest potential. It is centered on an inter-generational transfer of wealth, in the spirit of Edmund Burke, in which everyone matters.
We recoil at the horror of passing on a world to the next generation that is worse than the one handed to us. This has gone on long enough. What is happening is wrong and we must say so in every legal and peaceful way we can – in parliament, in the media, in the all sites of education and on the streets.
We want to help create an educational sphere where it is the value of learning that matters not its price. It is about the protection and extension of a precious public realm where we know each other not as consumers and competitors but as citizens and cooperators. The driving force of education should be creating the capacity for self-organisation. It is the democratisation of schools and universities in which staff, pupils and communities share with managers the joys and responsibility of reform. We want society to enjoy the annual harvest of enquiring, critical and free minds – not the production of hard, cold and self-interested calculating machines.
Education is ultimately about how we learn to live together – not why we fall apart.
Neal Lawson Chair of Compass
Brendan Barber* General secretary of TUC
Aaron Porter President of NUS
Sally Hunt* General secretary of UCU
Christine Blower General secretary of NUT
Len McCluskey Unite general secretary designate
Tony Woodley Joint general secretary of Unite
Dave Prentis General secretary of Unison
SOAS Occupation
King’s College Occupation
Tremough Occupation
Save EMA Campaign
Caroline Lucas Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion
Jon Cruddas Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham
Councillor Sam Tarry Chair of Young Labour
Professor Richard Grayson Goldsmiths, University of London, and former Liberal Democrat candidate
Gavin Hayes General secretary, Compass
Joe Cox Campaigns organiser, Compass
Cat Smith Chair of Compass Youth
Lisa Nandy Labour MP for Wigan
Eric Illsley Labour MP for Barnsley Central
Bill Esterson Labour MP for Sefton Central
Katy Clark Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran
Cllr Rupert Read Green party
Cllr Willie Sullivan Labour party
Sian Berry Former Green candidate for London mayor
Adam Ramsay No Shock Doctrine for Britain
Zita Holbourne Joint chair, Black Activists Rising Against Cuts
Lee Jasper Joint chair, Black Activists Rising Against Cuts
Richard Murphy Tax Research LLP
Clifford Singer False Economy
Sunny Hundal Editor, Liberal Conspiracy:
Howard Reed Director, Landman Economics
Martin Dore General secretary, Socialist Educational Association
Anthony Barnett Founder, openDemocracy
Dr Alan Finlayson Swansea University
Jonathan Glennie Research fellow, Overseas Development Institute
Dr Jeremy Gilbert UEL
Prof Ruth Lister Loughborough University
Prof Stefano Harney QMUL
Prof Martin Parker Warwick Business School
Prof Malcolm Sawyer University of Leeds
Prof Prem Sikka University of Essex
Prof Peter Case UWE
Prof Gregor Gall University of Hertfordshire
Prof Christine Cooper University of Strathclyde
Svetlana Cicmil UWE
Fabian Frenzel UWE
Dr Steffen Boehm University of Essex
Dr Paul Warde UEA
Dr Lee Marsden UEA
Prof Howard Stevenson University of Lincoln
Prof Michael Fielding Institute of Education
Dr David Toke University of Birmingham
Yiannis Gabriel University of Bath
Prof George Irvin SOAS
Armin Beverungen UWE
Dr David Cunningham University of Westminster
Stevphen Shukaitis University of Essex
Kevin Brehony Royal Holloway
Gabrielle Ivinson Cardiff University
Dr Michael Collins UCL
Pat Devine University of Manchester
Dr Joe Street Northumbria University
Judith Suissa Institute of Education
Jonathan Perraton University of Sheffield
Jo Brewis University of Leicester
Stephen Dunne University of Leicester
Jo Grady University of Leicester
Dr Marie Lall Institute of Education
Anoop Bhogal University of Leicester
Stuart White Jesus College, Oxford
Dr Chris Grocott University of Birmingham
Mark Perryman University of Brighton
Prof David Parker University of Leeds
Prof Ken Spours Institute of Education
Chris Edwards UEA
Nicola Pratt University of Warwick
Dr David Harvie University of Leicester
Dr Priyamvada Gopal University of Cambridge
Michael Edwards UCL
Dr Ben Little Middlesex University
Hugh Willmott Cardiff Business School
Dr Gareth Stockey University of Nottingham
Prof William Outhwaite University of Newcastle
Matthew McGregor Student officer, Sheffield University 2001-02
Prof Simon Lilley University of Leicester
Katherine Corbett Middlesex University SU arts and education chair
Dr A Kemp-Welch UEA
Graham Lane Former chair of LGA education committee
Prof Robert Hampson
Prof Sally Tomlinson
David Ritter
Laurie Penny
Anne Coddington
Rebecca Hickman
Martin Yarnit
Byron Taylor
Nick Dearden
Victor Anderson
Rosemary Bechler
Dan Taubman
* Indicates that this person signed the short version of the letter that appears in today’s Guardian only
LibDem party members – stop *** whingeing! you're delivering your promises
Nick Clegg has in fact been very principled, but it pains his activists to say so.
He has had a Coalition agreement indorsed by his own Party to the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Democrat party, on behalf of the voters who voted for them, have agreed on this position regarding the cuts, and this was made clear months’ ago. Other bloggers don’t seem to understand to understand this concept. The Liberal Democrat activists, if they wish to do anything at this late stage, have to work out how they reached this agreement on such an emotive issue, and decide that this may be the cost of being so unprincipled in their thirst of power in the first place. There’s absolutely no point the Liberal Democrats saying they were unable to implement their manifesto; stop whingeing, as you could have asked for a General election, which is a huge improvement on the mess we’re currently in.
If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.
The Coalition Agreement : Our Programme for Government
Link here
@wesstreeting classic tweet
wesstreeting Wes Streeting
Were Academies ever a good idea? An Academic question?
This article first appeared here http://anpa2001.wordpress.com/
Posted on June 15th 2010 by anpa2001
I was at the Fabian Society Hustings last night in London on 14th June 2010.
Following a question regarding 3 things the contenders would rather Labour hadn’t done or had got wrong, Gaby Hinsliffe asked the audience for other suggestions. Someone shouted ‘SATs’ and I said ‘Academies’ as I don’t think Labour should have introduced academies. This raised a small cheer but then a woman in front got very cross and started raising her voice and pointing her finger at me in disagreement. I didn’t catch what she said but she sure liked academies. Ed Balls then had a little joke with her saying ‘you can be my campaign manager’ and something about giving her a fiver.
Teachers have moved away in their droves from supporting the Labour Party because of SATs, League Tables and Academies. Whilst Ed Balls and some other Labour Party people may draw attention to the fact that under Labour it was ‘failing’ schools which were offered academy status whereas now it is the opposite end of the Ofsted spectrum i.e. ‘outstanding’ schools, this should not detract from the arguments against all academies. Academies fall outside local authority control, are effectively outside the state system, cost a huge amount of money in start-up costs and reduce workers’ rights. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that they are not always a beneficial force in the education of the children they are supposed to be catering for. From an education point of view I do not accept that academies through their structure and the nature of the fact they are sponsored and taken out of local authority control makes them good value for money or good for children.
I think it’s a shame that at the hustings Ed Balls didn’t take the opportunity to practice what he was preaching and demonstrate that he is interested in listening to the people. Rather than ignoring me (and those who applauded my comment) he could have invited me to communicate with him via his website and defended his position.
http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/Home/why-we-oppose-academies
http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/Academies-FAQ-leaflet-4pp-6883.pdf
Read the Browne Report and executive summary.
Here is the full report.
Here is the executive summary.
England has an internationally respected system of higher education. There are now a record number of people enrolled, studying an increasingly varied range of subjects at a diverse set of higher education institutions (‘HEIs’). Graduates go on to higher paid jobs and add to the nation’s strength in the global knowledge based economy. For a nation of our scale, we possess a disproportionate number of the best performing HEIs in the world, including three of the top ten.
However, our competitive edge is being challenged by advances made elsewhere. Other countries are increasing investment in their HEIs and educating more people to higher standards.
In November 2009, I was asked to lead an independent Panel to review the funding of higher education and make recommendations to ensure that teaching at our HEIs is sustainably financed, that the quality of that teaching is world class and that our HEIs remain accessible to anyone who has the talent to succeed. Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively. Our recommendations are based on written and oral evidence drawn from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators. We have looked at a variety of different systems and at every aspect of implementing them – financial, practical and educational – to ensure that the recommendations we are making are realistic for the long term. I would like to thank all those who have contributed their
knowledge, experience and time to this review. Our findings are contained in our full report and summarised here.• Great advances have been made in making it possible for more people from all backgrounds to enter an HEI. Currently 45% of people between the ages of 18 and 30 enter an HEI, up from 39% a decade ago. Improvements have been made to ensure that students from disadvantaged schools or backgrounds are given a fair chance to study for a degree. Our recommendations build on this success. Support by way of cash for living (‘maintenance’) will be increased. Those studying for a degree part time will be given proportionate access to funding to those studying full time.
• The quality of teaching and of the awarded degrees is the foundation upon which the reputation and value of our higher education system rests. Our recommendations in this area are based on giving students the ability to make an informed choice of where and what to study. Competition generally raises quality. The interests of students will be protected by minimum levels of quality enforced through regulation.
• England’s HEIs are very varied, in the type of student they attract, the standards of attainment they require for entry, the courses taught and so on. While most of higher education takes place in an HEI called a university this one word does not capture the reality of their diversity. Our recommendations reinforce this diversity. And since one size does not fit all, we would expect the result to be that HEIs will set varied charges for courses.
• A degree is of benefit both to the holder, through higher levels of social contribution and higher lifetime earnings, and to the nation, through higher economic growth rates and the improved health of society. Getting the balance of funding appropriate to reflect these benefits is essential if funding is to be sustainable. Our recommendations place more of the burden of funding on graduates, but they contribute only when they can afford to repay the costs financed. Students do not pay charges, only graduates do; and then only if they are successful. The system of payments is highly progressive. No one earning under £21,000 will pay anything.We estimate that only the top 40% of earners on average will pay back all the charges paid on their behalf by the Government upfront; and the 20% of lowest earners will pay less than today. For all students, studying for a degree will be a risk free activity. The return to graduates for studying will be on average around 400%.
In formulating our recommendations we had to balance the level of participation, the quality of teaching and the sustainability of funding; changing one component has an impact on the others. What we recommend is a radical departure from the existing way in which HEIs are financed. Rather than the Government providing a block grant for teaching to HEIs, their finance now follows the student who has chosen and been admitted to study. Choice is in the hands of the student. HEIs can charge different and higher fees provided that they can show improvements
in the student experience and demonstrate progress in providing fair access and, of course, students are prepared to entertain such charges.Our recommendations will lead to a significant change; we do not underestimate the work that will be required. Since this review was commissioned the pressure on public spending has increased significantly. This will add urgency to make funding sustainable. We hope that, as these recommendations are debated, no one loses sight of the powerful role that higher education will play in continuing to build the greatness of this nation.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Review Panel, byLord Browne of Madingley, FRS, Feng Chairman
12 October 2010
Are A level students fundamentally stupid?
Despite rising A level grades, it’s a genuine question: are A level students fundamentally stupid? When lots of young students who’d just reached 18 saw the leadership debates, I wonder how many of them were realistically thinking of the near future. OK, they would argue that they took Nick Clegg and Vince Cable at face value in promising no cuts, but you don’t expect me to be that stupid, do you? Here is a typical view of students in the election campaign, here with Julian Huppert MP, winning Liberal Democrat candidate in Cambridge.
These students voted for Nick Clegg like turkeys voting for christmas. I have absolutely no sympathy for them now. A good argument is that Labour commissioned the Lord Browne report, and therefore the conclusion would have been the same had Labour still been in power. The outcome seems to be not in favour of a graduate tax but to be in favour on no upper cap for how much Universities can charge for their tuition fees.
So why did you vote for Nick Clegg then?
You’ve only got yourselves to blame.
