Brexit – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

Un-civil War for UK Universities If Welsh Break Ranks on EU Fees?

A tweet from Chris Marshall, Head of Policy and Strategy, at Swansea University on 6 January suggested that the first shots may have been fired in the battle to lure EU students to Wales when their fee status changes to ‘international’ later in 2021. The sub-text and purported THE headline is that the “Move sets Wales apart from rest of UK post-Brexit”. It implies that the Welsh Government is legislating, or planning to legislate, to mandate differential fee treatment for EU students attending Welsh universities which would probably provide legal protection from the anti-discrimination principles of the Equality Act 2010.

Just a word of caution. The link to the timeshighereducation.com source lead me to a page that read You don’t have permission to access this page.and a search of the THE web-pages does not find the article. It seems possible that someone jumped the gun, that the website has not updated or that the story, for some reason, never appeared.

If the Welsh Government does legislate in a way that gives legal cover for EU students being charged the same fee rate as Home students it may be the starting gun in a race to level the playing field in the UK. Those with long memories in UK higher education will recall the period when the post-study work rules in Scotland were more benevolent and seen as a boon for international student recruitment north of the Border. There seems little doubt that legislators in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland would come under pressure to allow the same benefit if Wales makes a break.

It would probably be a relief for Swansea University who management of their current preferential treatment of EU students seem a bit convoluted. The main fees page states, “Your Tuition Fees will be chaged (sic) at the same rate as International students” but the Undergraduate Scholarships page tells us there will be an “automatic discount to tuition fees for EU students that join us in the academic year 2021/22 and will reduce the fees to the same level as UK tuition fees”. Perhaps this is just an attempt to spare the feelings of other international students who will be paying £5,550 a year more for a course in, say, Business Law, LLB (Hons).

Another version of the preferential pricing is seen at Bangor University which has a £5,000 EU student scholarship for EU undergraduate students in 2021/22 – with the spin that £2,500 is off fees and £2,500 is off university accommodation. The difference between the International fee for a BA in Business Studies and the Home fee is £6,000 so it nearly makes up the difference. Maybe there is a hope that having a ‘scholarship’ split between fee and accommodation is a way of defending a legal challenge on discriminatory pricing?

There may well be other variations on these themes but the trend for many universities reviewed in England and Wales appears to be to proclaim on the international fees page that EU students will be subject to international fees from 2021/22. The underlying blanket sweetener, discount, scholarship or bursary for students from 27 European countries is offered discretely, some might also say discreetly, on a separate page. It all seems less than transparent and might suggest that there are deliberate attempts to keep the preferential treatment of students from Europe under the radar.

Checking the Government Position

In a written statement from Kirsty Williams, the Minister of Education for the Welsh Government, on 10 August 2020 said that EU students ‘will not be eligible for support or, in the case of higher education courses, home fee status’ after 1 August 2021. A search of the Welsh Government pages shows a new statement on the fee situation (6 January, 2020) which says ‘the Welsh Government will provide support to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals who benefit from citizens’ rights under the various withdrawal agreements.’

The European Union statement on Citizens’ Rights under the Withdrawal Agreement says that ‘The Withdrawal Agreement protects those EU citizens lawfully residing in the United Kingdom, and UK nationals lawfully residing in one of the 27 EU Member States at the end of the transition period.’ This does not, however, include EU students who are resident in the EU.

The ‘citizens’ rights’ question relating to fees was also answered by Michele Donelan in October 2020 when she indicated that “current EU principles of equal treatment will continue to apply for those covered by the citizens’ rights provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement”. It is difficult to see that the Welsh statement makes allowances for a significantly wider group than has already been accounted for in England. The devil, as always, is in the detail and the intentions of Governments are not always clear so I would be very happy to have authoritative guidance on the issue and whether the statement from the Welsh Government makes a material difference.

Legal, Moral or Ethical?

A material change in legislation would, of course, save the blushes of English universities currently planning to discriminate in favour of EU students against other international students. But it would not save the moral dilemma of advantaging students from Europe over those from Asia, Africa and the Americas. Neither would it satisfactorily respond to international students who have long held the view that they are exploited by universities to subsidize home students.

What the THE did write about on 6 January was that UK universities were ‘‘weighing options’ on EU Student Fee Discounts”. In the article Smita Jamdar, head of education at Shakespeare Martineau, suggests that “in my mind there’s a question over whether ‘EU national’ really is a nationality-based discrimination”. There is also a suggestion that transitional arrangements could be considered a proportionate response to the changing situation for EU students.

It’s all interesting stuff that will play out over the coming year but thus far the vast majority of universities have decided to charge EU students international fees for 2021/22. When a university chooses to significantly increase the price of a course from year to year there are not usually ‘transitional arrangements’ for new students. It is also difficult to argue that EU students have not had fair warning of their likely change of status given the Government’s General Election promise to complete Brexit.

It really is about time that the organizations with an interest in students – Office for Students, National Union of Students, UKCISA and others – got to grips with the situation. Clarity would be a very good thing but so would some considered responses on how differential pricing is equitable even as a transition measure. At the very least, universities might be challenged to indicate the timetable for any transition rather than allowing a systemic, divisive and discriminatory system by default.

Image by David Peterson from Pixabay

Jeopardy for UK Universities – Part 2

Responses to an earlier blog showing that, post-Brexit, a number of UK universities would continue to offer all European Union students preferential tuition fee status over international students suggested it was worth digging deeper. It’s also worth considering what the consequences might be if a group of international students or the National Union of Students decided to test whether a university’s blanket discount for EU students was discriminatory. The recruitment implications for pathway operations if some university partners provide preferential fees for EU students is another dimension for consideration.

Research on university websites suggests that universities planning to give EU students the same tuition fee as UK students in the 2021 academic year include:

Bedfordshire	Buckinghamshire
Solent	Leicester
West London	Royal Holloway
De Montfort	Portsmouth
Oxford Brookes	Nottingham Trent

In most cases the intention is clearly stated but there are more subtle versions of preferential pricing such as the University of Gloucestershire where details are buried in the 2021/22 Fee and Bursary Policy (on page 14 of 19). It notes that “The International Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from your first year’s tuition fee” while the “EU Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from each year”. So, an EU undergraduate student on a three-year degree course gets the benefit of an additional £6,000 of grant “automatically awarded at the point of offer”.

Some of the university websites are so Delphic or poorly organized that it is difficult to confirm their position one way or another so the list may not be comprehensive. At least 13 universities reviewed do not seem to be in a position to show fees for 2021/22 or say they are awaiting further information from the Government. These include some surprisingly big players:

Coventry	Northumbria
Cambridge	Liverpool
University of the Arts, London	Brunel*
Queen Mary	Loughborough
Greenwich	SOAS
Brighton	Hertfordshire
London South Bank

*A source has indicated that Brunel are offering the same rate to EU as Home students in 2021 but I am unable to verify this on the website.

The legal consequences seem ill-defined and it remains possible that last minute Government action might change the situation. Scotland has already decided that post-Brexit it could not legally continue to offer EU students the same, free tuition as Scottish students. Edinburgh University is publishing 2021/22 fees that have three rates – those for Scottish students, Home/Rest of UK, and International/EU. This would suggest that the university sees little room for manoeuvre in maintaining even the Home/Rest of UK for European Union students.

Legal analysis is very thin on the ground with the Time Higher Education article by Elizabeth Jones of Farrer and Co being an exception and the piece does not run to exploring remedies that might arise if the differential fees are illegal. The university would, presumably, be obliged to honour its contract with the EU students to charge them at home rates so could not change that arrangement. If that is the case then it is possible they might be required to reduce fees for all other international students to the same level.

As an example, the difference for De Montfort would be around £5,000 a year per student. HESA data for 2018/19 indicates that the University had 1,020 EU and 2,025 other first degree, full time international students so, if one took a third of the latter number that could suggest around 675 first year international undergraduate students and, therefore, a potential cost of £3.375m a year in lost fees if they had to be charged at the lower rate. There are many ‘ifs’ involved in the calculation and I am happy to make any corrections needed if an authoritative source is able to say how much is at stake.

There’s also the interesting matter of what international students who are attending a course with a commercial pathway provider have been advised about their fees. Just as an example, De Montfort is aligned with Oxford International Education Group (OIEG) which offers an integrated degree – the student can either study an International Year Zero (IYZ) and then go on to do three years with the university or an International First Year (IFY) and go on to do two years with the university.

The point is that the OIEG website shows the “International or Tier 4 Visa students” fee for IYZ at £14,995 for 2020/21 and 2021/22 and for the IFY at £14,995 in 2020/21 rising to £15,995 in 2021/22. EU students on the same courses are being charged £9,250 in 2020/21 and the 2021/22 fees are not yet announced. Commercial providers in a similar situation may soon have to choose whether to continue to offer wholescale preferential rates on the basis of nationality.

Some pathway operations have grown large numbers of EU students into their operation with the lure of being charged the same as Home students when they go on to the university to complete their degree an important sales points. For example, the 2018 QAA Report on the Navitas pathway operation with Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) noted, “The significant growth in student numbers at the Cambridge College, based on recruitment of home and EU students, is a trend that the Provider is looking at in relation to other colleges.” Individual course pages suggest that ARU is currently planning that in 2021/22 EU students will be considered international but that could be tested if other universities and their partners appear to be successful in their recruitment efforts with preferential fees.

It would be good to see the UK Government confirm its position so that UKCISA and universities have to provide certainty to students about the fees they will pay. This is also a moment where the NUS could step up to ensure that international students are being treated equitably. The current situation was wholly foreseeable and organizations that are meant to have student interests at heart are only noticeable by their absence.

If universities offering lower EU fees are successful in their recruitment efforts it does not take a great leap of imagination to see how this could become widespread across the sector. It would mean universities choosing (rather than being obliged by Government) to embed preferential treatment based solely on nationality into their recruitment processes. That seems an unfortunate consequence which should be challenged at the earliest opportunity.

Jeopardy for UK Universities Giving EU Students Financial Preference

Anyone who thought that “Brexit means Brexit” or that all UK universities would accept that EU students no longer have special protection on tuition fee levels should think again. Some institutions are publicizing that EU students starting in Autumn 2021 will pay Home student fees for the duration of their studies. Some suggest it may be illegal and for international students from other countries it will reinforce a suspicion that Euro or Western-centric policies, pricing and priorities continue to prevail in some English institutions.

The straightforward fact is that if you are a student from China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Canada or anywhere outside the EU, there are at least six universities in England who have decided to charge you a significantly higher tuition fee to sit alongside an international student from a European Union country in the 2021/22 academic year. It is a distinction not based on that student’s language capability, their government’s contribution to English higher education, their intelligence, or their capacity to pay. The privileged treatment applies, without any form of means testing, to students from some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

A review of the 40 English universities with the most European Union students (HESA, 2018/19) shows that five have either maintained EU rates at the same level as UK students or put in place special ‘scholarships’ that have the same effect.

University	Number of EU Students	University Statement
Bedfordshire	1,725	Approved-schedule-of-mainstream-fees-2021-22-081220.pdf (beds.ac.uk)
Solent	1,310	Following the UK government’s confirmation that EU students will no longer be eligible for home fee status benefits, we’ve made the decision to keep EU tuition fees the same as UK tuition fees for 2021 entry.
West London	1,240	No statement – shown on fee schedules
De Montfort	1,175	DMU recognise the challenges this brings for our prospective EU students, and therefore for undergraduate EU students commencing their course in the academic year 2021/22 an automatic discount will be applied to reduce their undergraduate fees to £9,250 for the duration of their course.
Portsmouth	1,120	If you’re an EU, EEA or Swiss national or an EU national with settled status in the UK, starting a course in the academic year 2021/22 or later years, you will no longer be eligible for the same fees as UK students. You’ll pay the same fees as an international student. But a Transition Scholarship will be applied to your fees reducing them to the same amount as UK students.

A sixth, the University of Kent, which dubs itself “The UK’s European University”, has put in place a blanket 25% reduction on the international fee level. Seven others currently either indicate that they cannot confirm fee liability or do not have any 2021/22 academic year fees shown on their websites. Among these is Coventry University which, with over 3,600 EU students in 2018/19, has a lot at stake.

Beneath the top 40, Royal Holloway, University of London, was among the first universities to indicate its intention to maintain EU student fee levels in 2021/22. Their online statement suggests good intent as they note, “At Royal Holloway, we wish to support those students affected by this change in status through this transition. For eligible EU students starting their course with us in September 2021, we will award a fee reduction scholarship which brings your fee into line with the fee paid by UK students.” The institution is keeping its options open for the 2022 intake and a cynic might suggest it will see how enrollment goes before deciding whether to extend the reduction.

While the argument about support through transition sounds good universities do not, generally, take on wholesale financial risks incurred by students as circumstances change. Students often find that the currency exchange rate goes against them during the course of undergraduate study, in the case of Indian students by around 18% between September 2017 and July 2020, but universities don’t cover the cost. Giving a blanket dispensation on fees to favour students from 27 countries is unheard of and a cynic might argue that it is driven by enrollment objectives more than anything else.

It also raises the question about the nature of the cross-subsidy that non-EU international students might be giving to the new class of “EU international” students. The Migration Advisory Committee report of September 2018 made the point that, “There is no doubt that international students offer positive economic benefit, including cross-subsidising the education of domestic students and research.” This suggests that allowing EU students to continue paying “home” fees will mean that their full-rate international student peers will be subsidizing them.

Relatively little has been written about the legality of this type of favouritism for one group of international students over another. In July 2016 Elizabeth Jones, a senior associate at Farrer & Co, wrote for Times Higher Education that “Universities are required by the Equality Act 2010 to treat students in a way that does not discriminate on the grounds of any “protected characteristic” such as race (which includes nationality), age, sex and disability.” She noted that providing students from the rest of the EU with the same fees as UK “home” student fees was, at the time, an allowable exception because it was mandated by legislation.

A statement by Michelle Donelan, Minister of State for Universities made it clear that this mandate no longer existed. “Following our decision to leave the EU, EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals will no longer be eligible for home fee status…for courses starting in the academic year 2021/22.” In July 2020, Gerrit Bruno Blöss, CEO of Study.eu, commented on the damaging impact this could have but noted that, “A few institutions are also evaluating potential legal loopholes to charge different fees.” Perhaps they found them or simply decided that nobody would notice or dispute their decision.

The UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) is simply publishing Donelan’s statement and reflecting that further guidance on regulations from Government may not come before the Student Loans Company (SLC) system launch in February 2021. It is surprisingly coy, given its remit as “the UK’s national advisory body supporting international students” about whether maintaining a significant price differential between two groups of international students is fair, decent or appropriate. It claims every UK university as a member and must know that some institutions are publicising their 2021/22 academic year pricing strategy on that premise.

UKCISA’s 2020 Policy Position Paper notes that a key part of delivering a world class student experience is communicating “a clear message of welcome to all international students in the UK, at every level of study”. That seems quite difficult if the system becomes underpinned by preferential treatment for students from the EU without real clarity on what makes such exceptions equitable or even reasonable. This is particularly so when so many other institutions have made it clear that the ‘international’ fee will apply to EU students from the 2021 academic year.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Office for Students (OfS) is silent on the issue. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the OfS shows a level of disinterest in whether international students get value for money from a UK education. Perhaps they could provide comparative information to at least fulfil their promise to “ensure that all students are provided with the necessary information, advice and guidance so that they can make informed decisions about where and what to study.”

It’s also not clear where the National Union of Students stands on this anomaly. Back in 2013 their position was that, “It is scandalous that non-EU students are charged fees that can be thousands of pounds higher than those for other students.” One would think that they would at least expect everyone designated an international students to receive equal treatment from universities.

With the pandemic and Brexit diverting attention it may not seem important that a handful of universities have gone out on a limb to preserve a point of privilege for EU students. But reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose. It’s time for the UK authorities to clarify the situation and possibly for Messrs Sue, Grabbitt and Runne to become involved.

NOTE

In principle I am in favour of all education being free and would welcome a situation where universities were able to focus only on teaching, learning and research in the interests of students and broader humanity. This blog reflects the realities of international student fees and the potential for preferential treatment to emerge when universities make decisions driven by economic factors.

Image by Thanks for your Like • donations welcome from Pixabay

AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD – ATLANTIC CROSSING

Whenever I come to the UK I think of the album Atlantic Crossing despite it being one of Rod Stewart’s less worthy offerings. It’s mainly notable for the song Sailing which was recorded at Muscle Shoals at 10.30am while Stewart was, unusually for the time, singing, stone cold sober. He didn’t want it released as a single, but it became the theme song to a ten-week BBC Series about the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and his best-selling UK release.

The song was originally by the Sutherland Brothers, two folk-music playing brothers, whose lyrical genius is shown by the fact that the second verse of a song entitled Sailing contains the lines, ‘I am flying, like a bird, across the sky’. They later combined with rock group Quiver to tour and record the undemanding pop song ‘Arms of Mary’. Quiver’s other claim to fame is that they were the first band to play the legendary Rainbow Theatre in London.

So, a song with a misleading title, by a folk/rock combo, sung by a sober Scottish singer and on the album under protest becomes famous because of an aircraft carrier. It may not be the strangest tale in the history of music, but it is as whimsical as some of the experiences of an itinerant Englishman. And Atlantic Crossing was Rod’s first effort to make his mark after moving to the US so I feel a certain empathy.

My latest sojourn to England has been enjoyable as ever but has shown that I am rapidly becoming out of touch with the ways of the Angles. It’s not that I have totally forgotten everything that was handed down by my forebears, but I have found myself doing things that only a tourist does. It’s very unnerving but a reminder that I am visiting rather than coming home.

I have forgotten how to cross the road without endangering myself and every driver in the area. I keep looking the wrong way and stepping out full of confidence that nothing is going to hit me. After a few tries I have found that the only way to be safe is to approach the road with my head swivelling like an owl in a barn full of field mice.

After eating I keep asking for the check (and yes in America it is a check even when it is a cheque). Restaurant staff are too polite to ask me if I am just being ironically trans-Atlantic or just influenced by too many shandies. I usually blush and stammer, ‘oops sorry, I meant bill, but I live in San Diego now….’, before trailing off under a stare that suggests they really don’t care.

Arriving without an umbrella was also not my best idea. I had forgotten how much it rains in England and how, even when it is not raining hard there is a misty, spitting sort of precipitation that leaves you damp. All of this not helped by the reality that older English hotels are delightful but not endowed with ways to get warm or dry.

The good thing about the weather is that I have been freed to have more baths in seven days than I have in the last seven months. At first, I was timid because I had got used to a shower routine that is vital in a place where it doesn’t rain for nine months of the year and the water bill makes H2O seem more valuable than gold. Once I got over my culture shock, I plunged into a routine of baths both morning and night and have every intention of squeezing in three during the last 18 hours before the plane.

I have lost the ability to deal in the coins of the realm and had an uncomfortable moment in the supermarket where I kept trying to feed the automatic checkout with a fifty pence piece that wouldn’t work. The shop assistant who came to my assistance was surprised enough to blurt out loud that her grandfather had “some of those antique coins” in his collection. I reverted to paying for everything with notes to save time and embarrassment but am left with a bag of metal for the charity collection on the plane.

It has been lovely to hear people speaking in accents and tones that are as redolent of my youth as Manchester United getting relegated to the old second division. Both these features have mixed memories because for every Norfolk burr there is an estuary sentence full of glottal stops, dropped aitches and foul language. And for every memory of the glorious recovery under Docherty and onwards to Ferguson there is the sadness of watching incompetent management buy Ian Ure from Arsenal, who became my constant nemesis as the worst player in United’s history.

Difficult to get this far without mentioning Brexit. Truth is that it is difficult to know what to say and this is not the place for a political rant about the ineptness of a referendum for such a significant change to be based on a 50/50 vote. Neither is it helpful for someone with their interests in another part of the world to question the right of a minority government to drive legislation that will change the future for millions.

Almost everyone I have spoken to has been sad but resigned to leaving the European Union. Some of the Scottish and Northern Irish seem steely eyed about taking a new opportunity for statehood, independence or realignment that places them back in the European fold. The Brexiteers, my favored name for the ‘Leavers’, continue to sound like a raddled, sulky, deceitful, agit-pop band, but seem uncertain about the “sunlit uplands” that await and even less sure about the veracity and quality of the politicians leading them.

Next time I return I believe it will be to a nation that is making its own way in the world. That was how it was when it became the land of the ‘mother of parliaments’, the lone defender against fascism and the leader of cultural and technical innovations that continue to influence creative enterprises around the world. My fingers are crossed that its future allows it to rediscover its courtesy and civility, be a beacon to the ambitious and the oppressed and, above all, a place to be proud of.

Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD FINDS THE BREXIT BONUS

Having completed my own Brexit nearly two years ago I hadn’t expected too much more from my home country. But the political meanderings over two years since the vote have been the gift that keeps on giving. And over the past two weeks I have been in higher demand than usual by US acquaintances looking for answers.

Being an authoritative source on all matters British and political has its responsibilities. That hasn’t prevented me claiming that every time anyone in the UK says ‘the Queen’ or ‘Her Majesty’ they have to add ‘God Bless Her’. But by and large I have been a serious commentator on what are extraordinary times.

It’s very difficult to explain the role of the Queen (God Bless Her) in a Parliamentary democracy. There is also a touching faith in this ex-colony that she is the smartest person in the country and should just step in to direct MPs on which way is up. It’s particularly difficult to explain that she has to avoid becoming involved in politics.

That leads to a whole bunch of unanswerable questions about why she gets to pick the Prime Minister, give Royal Assent to Bills to make them law, and why it’s Her Majesty’s Government. This gets compounded when I comment that Boris Johnson’s majority would have been lost long ago if the Sinn Fein members chose to sit. I’d invite everyone to work out why a democratically elected Member of Parliament can’t sit because they won’t swear allegiance to someone who has no direct authority over them.

The House of Lords is another source of mystery and amusement to an incredulous American. The notion of an unelected group being able to stymie the progress of Bills passed by elected MPs is as mystifying to me as anyone. I have taken to calling them the House of Unrepresentatives and relying on interminable, dull, repetitive detail to bore my listeners – a bit like an ordinary day in the House of Lords really.

For the interested (and this is a bit of a pop quiz for readers in the UK) I explain that the full name is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled. It meets in a Palace and doesn’t have a fixed size but its make up includes 92 hereditary peers, 26 bishops, and a bunch of people appointed by the Queen (God Bless Her). At this point I usually have to confirm that Her Majesty remains above politics and only acts on advice.

One contention of the Americans is that this is a separation of powers issue which arises because we don’t have a written Constitution. My first line of defence is to argue that it is difficult to see how a document written in the 1780s is entirely fit for purpose over 220 years later and they spend a lot of time in court arguing over interpretations. A little more smugly, I usually go on to point out that the first ten amendments, passed in 1791, are largely based on Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689).

Talk then turns to the machinations in Parliament and the role of the Prime Minister. Here, the difficulty is that there is a tendency to confuse his role and powers with those of the President in the US. There is some consternation but also some envy when I explain that the Prime Minister is not elected by the populace and that there’s a reasonable tradition of Prime Ministers being ousted by their own party.

Explaining the powers of the Prime Minister is a bit like trying to explain dark matter. Aficionados believe it is exists and there is even a reasonable theoretical basis for suggesting it makes a real difference. But every time push comes to shove the evidence disappears as quickly as a manager of Chelsea football club.

Boris Johnson losing his first three or four votes has made this even more complicated than explaining how Theresa May’s rose to the top political post in the UK after a career with no visible achievements. Equally difficult is explaining why Boris has been able to instantly make the leader of the opposition look like a statesman of gravitas, sense and focus. And neither is as satisfying as explaining that Jo Johnson’s election and appointment to a Government post was nothing like the rise of Ivanka and Jared to positions of authority in the White House.

Speaking of Jo Johnson reminds me that Brexit has been a goldmine for memes. My favourite three currently are:

Jo Johnson resigned to spend less time with his family
James Bond to the Queen ‘The Members of Parliament, Ma’am?’. The Queen, ‘Yes, 007, all of them’
The picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg lounging on a bench in the House of Commons being turned into a brilliant visual where he is cuddled by a topless man

Grimmer, but beautifully framed in its righteous scorn, was a comment in the speech by Sir Nicholas Soames after being removed from the Conservative party for voting against the Government. He commented on the actions of ‘…my right-honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and other members of the Cabinet whose serial disloyalty has been an inspiration for so many of us.’ Truth, humour and sadness captured in a dozen words.

All this has a serious side and for expats the gloom of the falling pound has only been matched by the sense that the country is being ridiculed for its introspection and in-fighting. But then, almost miraculously, another day of extraordinary tension showed a silver lining and confirmed something I had been saying for months to my American friends.

I had patiently explained that MPs are representatives and therefore have a duty to do what they think is in the best interests of their constituents even if their constituents didn’t agree. I also said that MPs could and would vote against their party on issues of conscience. The voting, changing of party and ousting of members from the conservative party brought this home in spectacular style.

It was a matter of enormous pride to see MPs face down bullying, threats and the prospect of their careers ending in order to vote in the national interest. For those I know in the US it was great theatre but it has been interesting to see them reflect that partisan politics mean it has become impossible to imagine such a widespread demonstration of individual accountability in their Senate. At least members of the Mother of Parliaments, for all the chaos, have shown their willingness to take responsibility whatever the personal cost.

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Brexit – University Challenge But Pathway Provider Opportunity?

Last Friday saw a pretty eye-catching announcement by the University of Surrey whose problems appear to demand radical cost-cutting action including offering all staff voluntary redundancy. One highlight was Vice-Chancellor Max Lu’s comment that ‘Some of the main financial challenges include reduced income due to Brexit….’. If that’s right a number of universities might be even more troubled.

In 2017/18 the average percentage of EU students (defined as EU domiciled but non-UK) in all degree awarding institutions listed by HESA was 5.94%. With an EU population of 9.9% Surrey was considerably above the norm but far from alone with Lancaster University and City University at 10.1% and 10.5% respectively. This might go some way to explaining Lancaster’s desire to set up a remote campus in Germany.

Leaving aside relatively narrow, specialist degree awarding institutions, Cranfield with 21.2% EU and University Colleges Birmingham with 20.6%, look to have a lot at stake. The broadly-based university with greatest exposure seems to be Aberdeen where 19.9% are EU. If the big brands and specialists are able to overcome any Brexit jitters the next most vulnerable English university looks to be Essex with 12.8% EU.

Table 1: Top 20 Universities for EU Students As A Percentage Of Total Enrollments (excluding specialist institutions) 2017-18

Of course, the spectre of Brexit may just be the University of Surrey’s way of getting impetus for restructuring. To be absolutely fair Lu’s comments continue, “… and an ever more competitive student recruitment environment, significantly increasing pension costs and a national review of tuition fee levels.”. That would be true for every university so it is interesting that he adds, “Our university also faces the not inconsiderable impact of a fall in our national league table positions.”

The potential for league tables to create such havoc with a University’s finances is troubling and needs consideration at another time. But the potential for a sharp fall in European Union recruits is certain to be a concern for those institutions with heavy representation and it would bring even sharper competition to the battle for UK and full-fee paying international students. In that respect the bigger brands have an inbuilt advantage and will be looking to take an even bigger share of the market.

As Brexit plays out it will also be interesting to see if more pathway operators are able to convert university nervousness about recruitment into opportunities for partnership. Navitas seem to have a head start in operating overseas campuses for partners, but QA Higher Education operates UK campuses with full-degree courses for several of its partners, and INTO have been doing the same for Newcastle University in London. It’s an interesting development area for pathway operators attempting to diversify and deepen their services.

AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD GOES BACK TO BLIGHTY

Visiting England after more than a year away is like putting shoes on after a year in flip-flops. In fact it really did mean putting on proper, all encasing shoes after months of fearlessly baring my toes to the world. I guess it’s how a four-year old feels when they are fitted with their first pair of school shoes.

I’d expected to be a somewhat changed person on my return but as the wonderful Rupert Brooke wrote, ‘If I should die, think only this of me That there’s some corner of a foreign field, that is forever England’. However far you stray from your beginnings some things are too deeply embedded to change. And at this time of year his words carry an even greater poignancy.

Travelling near Remembrance Sunday, I found myself buying a poppy a day – they seem to break with startling regularity – and being sorry to miss being in England to commemorate the 100th year of the Armistice. The two World Wars are written large in the heart of every child who grew up with parents in the Forces and I have stood quietly and respectfully on many sombre early November Sunday mornings. With age I have stood with increasing thanks – it remains the greatest gift and good fortune to have grown up in a period of relative peace and economic stability.

I have always been able to survive the first verse and refrain of the Last Post but there is something that happens after that which is too heart-breaking to endure. And Bunyan’s magnificent verse is a memorial to everyone I have known and loved – ‘At the going down of the sun and in the morning. We will remember them. Permission to lose control of stiff upper lip, sir.

The trip was six whirlwind days with three cities, five hotels and multiple modes of travel. My arrival at Heathrow was marked by a cool, overcast English day – it was absolutely perfect. Keats’ ‘seasons of mist and mellow fruitfulness’ are missing from California but the English late autumn was a reminder that seasons are built into my blood.

Needless to say the trains were terrible. How it is possible to take longer and to have more changes to get from Liverpool Street to Norwich than to go via Cambridge is a warping of the time-space continuum. Hawkwind’s long neglected song ‘Quark, Strangeness and Charm’ gets close to the experience with the line ‘All that, doesn’t not anti-matter now, we’ve found ourselves a black hole out in space.’

My own theory is that the London to Norwich line is part of a black-arts operation by CERN where the stranger particles from the Large Hadron Collider are diverted for investigation. Passengers are used as substitutes for Schrodinger’s Cat and so whether they existence or are comfortable is unknown (and certainly not cared about). Scientists run the railways as a cosmic experiment and while Einstein wanted trains travelling at the speed of light he is losing out to Lord Kelvin’s views that they should terminate like the heat death of the universe.

To make matters worse Planck’s Constant has been replaced by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to build the timetable. Higg’s Bosun is a grumpy ex-naval man who was the lucky mascot of the Irish Rover, the Flying Dutchman and the Titanic before deciding that he preferred to drive a train. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg summed it up when he used quantum mechanics as a metaphor for the railway system in saying, “There is now, in my opinion, no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics.”

Enough about the trains though because it is the people that make the difference. Some very amusing evenings of drinking and snooker and late-night burgers and Indian meals. And most of all conversations that would only make half-sense to an outsider because they are framed in the context of shared experiences, disagreements and understanding of each other’s values and views. It was great fun and I was humbled that so many people made an effort to meet up during their busy lives.

I also caught up with my older sister for the first time in eight years. It’s a good reminder that when your parents are no longer around there is usually nobody but family who remembers your earliest years. In our case it was a peripatetic first ten years full of different schools, a father disappearing to trouble spots at short notice and a reliance on a very small family unit.

It was a delight to be able to talk about our family, about the misunderstandings we have had with each other and reflect upon all the ways in which life might have been different. But as importantly to share the good things that happened in the period when connections were lost. People say that you can never make up for lost time but we had a pretty good go at it.

I’ve noticed that throughout this blog I have talked about England and when asked that is where I say I am from. For me the United Kingdom has always been a ‘community’ where the squabbles of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England have been largely suborned to a belief that there is strength in unity. Respecting and believing in each other’s right to a national identity within that house is as important as respecting and regarding a person’s individuality.

In that context the potential for a botched exit from the European Union to drive an irreversible wedge and create four countries is depressing. It would be a strange future if the territorial certainties, secure since the effective partition of the Republic of Ireland with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, were to change. But I guess that previous generations probably felt the same as the Empire disappeared in a flurry of declarations of independence.

It confirms that change is the only constant of the human condition and Remembrance Sunday was a timely reminder that there is much to be grateful for. After a week back in San Diego I particularly realise that I am fortunate to have roots and friends on both sides of the Atlantic. It is certainly something to think about as Thanksgiving approaches.