A Defence for Aaron Porter

I wanted to tweet a defence of Aaron Porter, but there really is too much to say for 140 characters.

Mr Porter, President of the National Union of Students (NUS) has been under increasing criticism for his leadership. He has suffered smears and accusations from political opponents (it is widely believed the brief against him over the ‘leaked e-mails’ where he conceded tuition fees came from the Liberal Democrats). Mr Porter has even suffered votes of no-confidence, many of which have failed. Today I heard reports that he was chased down the street in Manchester, adding to the eggs thrown in Oxford.

I firmly believe that those who are against Porter (and the NUS as a whole) are ruining the student movement.

I’m not a member of the NUS, but I am a sympathiser and why is this? Because I have heard and seen Aaron Porter speak. He is articulate, he is intelligent, he is able to control his anger and funnel it into rhetorical passion, just like other presidents in the NUS are able to. Many criticise him for being too moderate; I disagree. In fact, I’d argue that sometimes he hasn’t been moderate enough. Some of the rhetoric used through the tuition fees campaign felt sensationalist to me, which isn’t needed with such a talented orator at the helm. I accept Porter has made mistakes, but none have been critical to losing public support. If the radical left think they wouldn’t make any mistakes at all then they are deluded by arrogance.

Fact of the matter is, students need Aaron Porter. He needs to be the acceptable face that will gain sympathisers like me and even the Daily Mail readers. The public would have been impressed with the strength of feeling had 50,000 protesters turned up in March with a shared, peaceful voice. Instead the news was about the violence and the tone was condemning. The radicals lost the tuition fees that day, despite Aaron Porter’s determined attempts to keep public opinion onside. If you look throughout history, radicalism rarely worked without an acceptable, peaceful face leading it. Martin Luther King, Ghandi are two examples. I’d never say Aaron Porter is as iconic and important as these but he needs to take the roles they assumed for the sake of students.

I’m not saying Broad Left etc should just crawl in a hole and shut up, they have a right to a voice in a free democracy even if I disagree with it, but why are they trying to take over the NUS? Surely the more intelligent view would be to work with them? History has shown us that you rarely win debates without winning minds and you only win minds through debate, discussion, negotiation.

In my view, democracy only works through consensus, it fails when one faction of society tries to enforce their will without compromise. This is why I will never support radicalism in any aspect of the political spectrum and will support excellent communicators and consensus builders.

Old and Sad – Let’s not get too excited

Labour have met expectations and won the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. I should probably be overjoyed, reinvigorated and enthused by this but, strangely I’m not. I know exactly why too.

With this election, I don’t think it’s entirely clear whether it was a Labour victory or a coalition loss. By my reckoning, the figures seem more likely to back the latter than the former.

Image courtesy of the BBC

Labour, in May, got 14,186 votes. Yesterday’s election gained 532 votes. Tories saw a massive reduction in votes, which if I were them would be worried about, from 11,773 to 4,481-a haemorrhage of 7,292 votes . There was also a significant drop in Lib Dem voters, from 14,083 to 11,160-2,923 votes lost if you want me to do the maths.

Now let’s make a wild, unproven assumption. Let’s assume the votes lost by Tories and Lib-Dems, 10,215, were all floating voters. Of that 10,000, 93 went to other candidates but, worryingly for Labour, only 532 voters came to Labour. 9,590 stayed at home.

What does this tell me? It tells me that the coalition should be very worried. I cannot abide the nonsensical fools saying that more people voted for the coalition than Labour, just as much as I wanted every Labour supporter in May saying that more voted against the Tories to hush up.

These “stats” benefit no-one, muddy the serious debate and portray the person using them as a simpleton. They are the very definition of skewed and biased and distressingly desperate-a sign of someone who has run out of serious points and is too arrogant to admit the truth. I say this to anyone-Labour, Tory or Lib Dem-making this argument.

This face saving technique that isn’t going to work as these “stats” seem to neglect the fact that the coalition lost over 10,000 votes.

This was mass apathy against the coalition. They should be worried by that, especially the Conservatives as their drop is, in my opinion, a clear indicator that their financial plans are not gaining the support of the non-partisan public and a sign that they may be losing the public argument for their policies. Apathy can be just as much a killer as people voting against you and the Conservatives need to take this in to account.

That being said, Labour cannot get carried away. I think Ed Miliband is perfectly correct in saying that this is a vote against the coalition but Labour have more to do. Because Labour didn’t win more than 500 people’s vote they are just as much in danger of suffering from public apathy in a future election. Ed Miliband hasn’t positioned himself as a leader yet, neither have Labour produced enough policies and solutions to do the same. I understand this is because of a full scale review-much like a business’ strategic review-but Labour cannot down tools whilst this happens.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. Labour has strong foundations to build on and to start becoming more confident in debating policy. The party has been too quiet and too timid so far but for a few, Burnham and Balls being two excellent examples. I have faith that Miliband’s review can reap benefits over time, however there may not be the time. If this coalition fails and the rumoured snap election is called, then Labour is in trouble. The argument hasn’t been made and there will be a sudden scramble to get Labour’s faces and policies out there. Whilst I think the public consultation on policy is good for Labour, I wonder if  now is the right time to do it and if the time is there for it to be completed whilst there is no one-party majority.

How Long has Michael Gove Got?

There is a large contingent of people involved in education wondering how long Michael Gove has got left before he resigns or is sacked as the Secretary for Education.

Personally, if I was David Cameron I would let Gove know he’s on his last legs, if not let him know he will be moved in the next reshuffle, tomorrow. The continuous mistakes, corrections and errors that he and his department make are making a mockery of their ability to lead; however for me,  he committed his biggest crime today with this BBC radio interview.

This was, at best, a huge PR disaster. At worst, it was a sign of a minister who has lost the debate with the public and who’s respect and authority has been undermined publicly. He’s lost the parents’ minds but-worst of all-he’s reacted awfully to it.

Gove was smug, patronising and rude. He avoided questions, deflecting them by criticising the parent for interrupting his answers. Hilariously, after so piously denouncing the caller, he later started interrupting the answers presented to him, which was noticed and wonderfully pointed out.

What angered me the most wasn’t this, though, it was the utter contempt shown towards the parent. Gove tried to use the sneaky politician’s (and I say politician’s because this is a cross-party trait) trick of trying to pull out a different story from the one being presented to him-in this case trying to insinuate that the caller did not value science. How he can so arrogantly think that he can spar with a member of the public, his electorate and-more criminally-a member of the public who is so directly affected by Gove’s changes that he was moved to call in.

I’m only grateful that this caller was intelligent and forthright enough to do what few politicians and journalists have the decency to do and to call him out on these tricks and try and have a serious measured debate on the issue. Instead, Gove wanted sound bites, you can almost literally hear the cogs working as Gove tried to get his coup de grace where he can position the parent as a liberal artsy nutter.

To Michael Gove, this wasn’t a debate about policy, this wasn’t a parent passionately explaining their concerns to him, this was sport. Such arrogance should have no place in public service, however our government, hell I’d say our whole parliament is drowning in it. Some MPs are there because they honestly believe in their ideologies and want to help and support the electorate. Many clearly are not.

We were promised an end to Punch and Judy politics yet David Cameron has outright lied with that claim, continuing rising to the bait and slinging mud and insults in opposition and to an even worse extent in power His comment today about the Miliband’s trading places was bile-inducing. It had no relation to the question asked, any issue raised and made no policy point. He couldn’t even make the slightest effort to segue into the insult, just threw it at Ed Miliband desperately.  Prime Ministers Questions has descended in to a poor imitation of a Frankie Boyle show; everyone trying to outdo each other with petty, poorly constructed insults that come across to the public as bad Dad jokes being uttered by petulant 12 year old boys.

We were promised a “new politics” of no broken promises, but we still have the dog and pony show that are parliamentary debates. We still have ministers making promises and breaking them. We still have a political elite, refusing to listen to the objection put forward, even when the public are marching in the streets. Mr Clegg has either lied to us as well or simply been a complete and utter failure at being a politician with any conscience or respect for the electorate.

The fact that this arrogance, contempt and deceit is so prevalent in this parliament is why I cannot see David Cameron taking action against Michael Gove for being such a poor representative of the government. It’s a stereotypical trait of the elite that it’s not what you know, nor your ability to do the job that will get you far, but who you know. Consider the number of mistakes made by Mr Gove in hsis tenure as Secretary of State for Education and then look at the picture below. Noticing how closely knit he and the Prime Minister look, you cannot help but be absolutely certain that this government is a government of the elite, not of the people.

Is Widening Participation Really the University’s Responsibility?

When charging universities with the task of widening participation, are we actually just forcing them to fix the failures of the compulsory education system?

 

This is a question I find myself asking more and more as the subject of widening participation (WP) is discussed more fervently in social and old media. I am an avid supporter of WP and removing the idea of education for the elite, but I cannot help but think that we need a far more radical strategy to tackle it than the rather pathetic and dangerous “let’s force universities to do it as part of the marketisation of the sector” strategy.

 

Today in the Telegraph, Simon Heffer writes about the subject, which prompted me to blog. After he dredges up Simon Hughes’ past (for what reason we need reminding of Hughes’ sexuality and his previous time not being comfortable enough to admit it publicly in this context I do not know. It just strikes to me as being a thoroughly homophobic attack to discredit the target of Heffer’s rant.) Heffer makes the point that capping how many privately educated students enter university is wrong and will see academic standards drop.

 

I’m inclined to say that I agree with the sentiment, but not any of the justification Heffer uses throughout the article. Universities should take the best suited candidates for their courses regardless of which school they come from.

 

I do not, however, agree with statements like:

 

“Why are the best universities the best universities? It is because they take the best students and have the best teachers. Why are so many of the best students from the private sector? Because the teaching in those schools is better.”

 

Without any evidence to back this up, Heffer makes an utterly elitist and insulting claim that all private school teachers are superior to their state school rivals. Ridiculous. There are great teachers in the private sector (I know some myself), but it is a grave, deeply misleading insult to not pay respect and acknowledgement to the many, many excellent teachers in the public system. Having been privately educated for a very short time (on a scholarship, I might add-the reason for which might be clearer later on) I can agree that the private school environment is a far more successful breeding ground for success than the state however the reason comes not from the teaching. It comes, plainly and simply, from the resource.

 

Therein lies the issue I have with forcing universities to carry the WP burden. Private education has the benefit of resource, which can ensure students are better prepared (two very important, key words there.) than their state equivalents. The ability of the student and the ability of the teachers are not, comparatively, better-that is a ridiculous assumption that feels based in elitist claptrap. In order to widen participation, then, the burden needs to be placed far earlier in the system. The issue is that private schools cannot be threatened with state intervention to ensure WP goals are met. The government cannot withdraw or restrict funding and so any WP activities a school makes are, essentially, philanthropic on their part.

 

What’s the solution? Well, Heffer and anyone who backs private schools will dislike it, but one suggestion I would support is the nationalization of private schools. If we want a truly meritocratic level playing field then the private sector at the early stages of educations should not exist. This will destroy hundreds of years of tradition and academic excellence, many will cry. Yes, it will destroy tradition, but will it destroy academic excellence? Perhaps not.

 

A fully nationalized education system, with no private providers, can give all students a fair opportunity to shine. Initiatives like the pupil premium may not be needed because we could (and should) increase funding to ensure schools get the greatest resources possible.

 

I would also suggest we look at assessment. Gove’s ideas of having one exam at the end of 2 years are silly. It means students can be better prepared for the exams, not better educated nor better prepared for university or life. Modular coursework or mixed assessment has shown proven benefits and we should stick with it. They also impart key skills used in the workplace (report writing and project management being two) which exams never can. If anything, the fact that many university courses use a modular system and choose mixed assessment methods-some modules preferring assignment based more than an examination based assessments-further supports the futility of hanging all our assessment hopes on exams.

 

With such a level playing field, presenting the best possible opportunities equally to those with the ability and determination to succeed, rather than those with the deepst pockets, I’m sure we can ease the widening participation burden from universities and create a far more socially mobile society in the future.

 

That said, I am cynical enough to know that none of this will ever happen and our governments will just carry on regardless with the neo-elitist resurrection.

 

On political rhetoric…

I’ve been wondering whether to blog on a few things. I’ve been so busy with life (new move, work & academic deadlines) that this has fallen way down my list of priorities except for big issues.

I think the awful shooting in Arizona has highlighted a big issue.

The general feeling over the shooting is a sense of horror & a bewilderment over how something like this could happen, however there has also been a worrying and frankly sickening undercurrent of gloating and goading towards the Tea Party and the US right from many areas of Twitter and the left. The smug “I told you so”-isms I’m reading from people I usually agree with are starting to grate.

By now, we all know that Sarah Palin produced unwise political campaign material which centred on using rhetoric linked to gun violence to incite people to vote out key opposing politicians. The map used gun sights to target certain districts. There is no denying this wasn’t wrong. It was poor judgement form her & her team and the assertions from Camp Palin that these gun sights were “surveyor’s marks” seem to be nothing more that lies to cover their tracks, insulting the intelligence of the electorate. If that what the case, why couple the image with gun-centric rhetoric? Politically, Palin is digging her own political grave at the moment by not apologising and owning up to making a foolish, regretful mistake.

A bigger mistake, however, is for the political left to jump on this and assert that Palin, Beck & the Tea Party are the reason this atrocity happened. Until I see evidence showing otherwise, I say no, they are not.

Palin, Beck and the Tea Party do use reprehensible rhetoric. They do speak in ways which, out of context (or even, worryingly, in context), could be read as to incite violence. So does the left, though.

The BBC pointed to the quote from Barack Obama’s campaign about bringing a gun to a knife fight to show that both sides are in the wrong. Criticising Palin, Beck & the Tea Party is wrong, the whole debat in the US deserves criticism. Everyone in US politics and political media should step back, look at what they are saying and re-evaluate whether they are sending the correct message.

Now consider the Americanization of our politics and the recent scandalous material produced by Phil Woolas. It’s probably wise that as well as watching and criticising the US political rhetoric, we look closer to home at our own debate. Are we throwing sound bites in order to win issues and arguments or are we genuinely discussing issues at a deep level to provoke deep thought in to the matter?

The reaction to Jack Straw’s comments recently makes me feel we are certainly not discussing enough. On the one hand you have Jack Straw decried a racist for singling out Pakistani men, on the other supporters highlighting his use of the word “some” as if it’s some kind of get out clause.

Very few a genuinely exploring the issue and asking the difficult questions that a serious debate on a very serious subject deserves.

Before Christmas David Cameron criticised Ed Miliband for being a student politician. I can quite happily live with that, because the student politicians I know made some of the best arguments during the tuition fees debate, to a far deeper level than their “adult” counterparts. Student politicians like Aaron Porter, Shane Chowen and Usman Ali to name but a few can, despite having their own personal allegiances, put aside party politics for the sake of political debate and rely on research, not hyperbole to make serious points, in contrast, Nick Clegg and David Cameron merely drew on the the “you’re not listening to us/you don’t understand that actual issues” defence (sadly, a New Labour staple argument during it’s government’s death throes) and Labour just criticised the opposition without actually adding any proposals or solutions to the debate-something the party is still disturbingly doing.

Maybe we should consider why our student politicians are outperforming their parliamentary counterparts.

Is loyalty to our party allegiance meaning that we are restricting the freedom and depth of our debate? I certainly think I have on occasion-especially on this blog-been guilty of this and know others who are the same.

I can’t help feeling that the quality of political debate is declining, being replaced with media-seductive sound bites, hyperbole and rhetoric. We need to arrest this decline and debate, discuss and analyse again.

I agree that this may make political debate a far dryer and duller affair but, to be honest, I’d rather it be that way and we actually got somewhere, progressed and started understanding each other rather than carry on as we are, in hostile adversity. Besides, if I wanted my politics to be entertaining I could always get out my West Wing box set.

My complaint to the BBC regarding Jody McIntyre

I have seen the interview between Ben Brown of the BBC and Jody McIntyre and, for reasons I detail below, I was disgusted at his treatment. I would recommend that if you saw the interview you complain here, but please only complain after seeing the interview.  It is sad to see the BBC using tactics that are generally reserved for Sky and their ilk and I hope this was just poor decision making on Brown’s part, not a general direction that the BBC will be taking in order to “compete”. It would be fair to note that Mr Brown’s previous work has been quite rightly heralded.

 

To whom this may concern:

 

I am appalled that Ben Brown thought it correct to attack so aggressively Jody McIntyre on behalf of the BBC last night.

 
Not only were the questions offensive and poorly conceived (“were you throwing rocks at the police?” to someone who cannot even self-propel their chair is plain ridiculous) but the tone of voice was hostile and clearly antagonistic.
As someone who has had to care for disabled relatives I found the whole event incredibly distasteful and I am ashamed that this happened on the BBC-an institution I have supported openly and ferociously in the face of ridiculous cuts.

 
I hope that this is not a sign to come of your future news output. I hope that Ben Brown is suitable chastised for his vile behaviour. I hope, most of all, that your interviewers and news readers are trained enough to understand when they may be crossing the line from being an investigative devil’s advocate to being deliberately aggressive, hostile & offensive.

 
I’m sure you will receive many complaints of this variety today as I know many are horrified by this interview.

A Pledge is Just That…Regardless

I hear Nick Clegg speak about how the situation is different to when he was campaigning for votes, preventing him from honouring his pledge to the NUS, and I’m reminded of an old Simpsons gag. It’s the one where Homer promised he would pick Bart up from football practice, forgets and imagines Bart alone on the side of the pitch, dead. Just a collection of bones.

You might think I’m being a bit harsh on Nick, comparing a promise between two people to a political pledge, in which case let’s be fairer and look at it from a different perspective; business contract law.

I propose the following: Similar to a business contract, every PPC who signed the NUS pledge signed a political contract with the electorate. I propose that this is completely different to a manifesto promise for one reason and one reason only, the signature.

Why do I think that? Well, like this contract, a business contract goes through a number of stages. First the offer is made-in the case of politics I would say this is comparable to the role the manifesto plays; a party is making an offer to the electorate on how they intend to govern the country. If there is not a counter offer, the original offer is accepted. Next, the contract is drawn up and signed. In this case, the NUS accepted the Liberal Democrat manifesto “offer” surrounding tuition fees & created the pledge. It was simply worded, specific and well-defined, like any good contract would be. PPCs then signed that pledge.

If this were a business deal, the now MP would not be able to get away with his sudden u-turn. Suddenly can’t pay for it? The situation’s changed and you’re not really in charge? Sorry, you’ll have to discuss that with a magistrate. The contract is king.

I fully accept there are some major differences to this pledge and a legitimately enforceable contract; for a start, someone from the NUS also needs to sign the pledge for it to be a contract (perhaps a tip for them next time) but my point really is that signing that this pledge is a completely different matter to another broken manifesto promise and should be treated as such.

Some say that, in the case of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem MPs, they never envisioned being in a coalition to which I say I don’t care. Before you sign a contract you study the terms and consider every eventuality. If you do not believe you can meet them, you re-negotiate the contract before signing. If you cannot meet the terms after the contract is signed, you have obviously either lied or shown incompetence in your analysis. The law then sees that you are sued & punished.

Why should we not hold these MPs accountable for the pledges they signed? Why should they not be punished for breaking a signed pledge with recall, like an individual or business would be punished by the court?

It seems that because we expect political pledges to be broken, it’s OK for them to be broken-an absolutely ignorant, foolish and downright idiotic point of view, in my opinion and no debate will change my mind.

We need to hold every MP who signed that pledge to account, even if you agree with the tuition fees proposals or not because this has far wider political ramifications. Not holding these politicians to account is essentially giving them free reign to do anything they wish without accountability and that, to me, is undemocratic.

This is why I support the students protesting. They are willing to do something many of us have stopped doing through apathy and cynicism. They are holding politicians accountable.

Nadine Dorries is trying to kill a mocking bird

“You can kill all the blue jays you want, but it’s a sin to kill a mocking bird.” Atticus Finch’s words here, and later on in To Kill a Mocking Bird where he extols how one should “walk a mile in [someone's] shoes” before judging them had more influence in my development in to a person than, I am quite sure, anything else did; parents, peers or education. I regularly wish this were the same with many more people. Yesterday I specifically wished it were the same with Nadine Dorries.

Ms Dorries, MP for Mid-Bedfordshie, is the archetypal “nasty piece of work”. There are some days where I wonder if she actually exists or whether she’s some fictional construct of the Conservative Party to make, by comparison, her colleagues look far more moderate, acceptable and even nice! Yesterday, she stood up in Parliament & denounced the NUS, making very serious accusations about the stewards on the march and later blogged accusations alluding to NUS president Aaron Porter purposely lying in police briefings and calling on him to resign.

Ms Dorries, I am afraid it is you who must resign.

You have admitted wilfully lying to your constituents through the medium of your blog, something which I strongly believe should be punished with your expulsion from politics-how dare you have the mendacity to lie to the very voters who give you an opportunity to work within the highest offices of the country.

Based on that fact and the evidence I have seen, the words I have heard from friends who were on the NUS march, I can only believe that yesterday you misled Parliament with blatant disregard for the facts & made serious, unproven accusations against the NUS & Aaron Porter in particular which will never be proven because they simply are not true.

Let’s look at facts: 50,000 people were peaceful on the NUS march on Thursday. Between 1,000 and 5,000, depending on which version of accounts you believe, were engaged in protest at Millbank. A minority of THAT amount were violent and destructive.

One person threw a fire extinguisher off the top of the building.

Before I go further, let me strongly say that those violent and destructive protesters have no support from me. I abhor them. They ruined a very important argument because they wanted to cause anarchy or were victims of immaturity & inability to control the mob thinking and adrenaline flowing through them. I hope the fire extinguisher thrower is found and jailed for attempted murder.

Now that’s aside let me add another fact: the NUS did NOT encourage violence. Far from it, they wanted a peaceful, mature dialogue discussing issues. What does promoting & encouraging violence do? It just makes them look like a bunch of children spitting their dummies out.

There is NO evidence that Aaron Porter purposely briefed the police incorrectly with regards to the protest. There were 25,000 registered attendees, 50,000 turned up on the day. Why would he lie? There is no benefit or motive to it except to promote violence & I explained the unlikeliness of Even an optimistic planner would be surprised at such a turn out when, historically, similar NUS protests have garnered only 10-31,000. Making such an accusation is totally unfair and singling out the NUS & Aaron Porter for condemnation (pardon the pun) is unfair considering this was a joint event with the UCU.

But the UCU aren’t as glamorous targets, are they Ms Dorries? Singling out the NUS will get you attention, but not the UCU.

There are very strong rumours and accusations with far more evidence than Ms Dorries’ that the violence was led by anarchist groups & “professional troublemakers”. Looking at these groups’ websites, it can be seen they intended to use this protest as a gateway to making their own violent protests.

What worries me most about this affair is the seemingly wilful ignorance of Ms Dorries & those of a similar mindset to place all the blame at the door of the NUS & students is that we are ignoring the actual problem. That problem that there is a group or a number of groups who will hijack protests for these means (let’s be clear the group linked to above are only the ones I have seen in reports, I do not accuse or assume they were the leaders of the violence). This means any protests is now at risk of becoming violent. The bigger the protest, the more chance anarchist groups can hide within it before making their attack, which also sadly means the bigger the group, the less likely that a message conveyed by large swathes of our society to government will be listened to.

These anarchists have broken the democratic right to protest, not the protesters but the protesters will suffer because they will subsequently not be listened to.

We need to find and stop these groups and not scapegoat the police, the protesters or anyone else who was caught up in these events because, in a variety of ways, they are all victims of the crimes committed by these groups.

Finally, our government needs to understand what the issues raised actually are and listen to its electorate’s voice, removing the need to protest; removing the opportunity for violence.

We have to stop killing the mocking birds, like Ms Dorries has chosen to, but instead walk a mile in their shoes.

Quick question about Child Benefit

Is scrapping child benefit just unfair on high earning single mothers?

I must admit this is a subject that I’m not overly hot on, but I was reading a fine article on the subject by Iain Martin, when a question came to mind:

Surely this will exacerbate the glass ceiling problems that women have and be a way for employees to-possibly with the consent of the women involved-justify paying women less than men so that they don’t suffer child benefit cuts? Could this be a policy that actually hurts equality and the right of equal pay for women, especially single mothers, quite severely?

Like I said, these are off the hoof thoughts so I really do invite comments below to correct me where I am wrong and discuss these thoughts.

Do Businesses #loveHE? It didnt feel like it today…

David Willetts announced today the phasing out of Humanities funding and, to show how ridiculous an idea this is, I’m going to focus on a meeting I attended where it was quite clear businesses do not seem to understand education.

This meeting had 2 presentations, one from a technology company & one from a respected university about how universities could meet the private sector’s skills employment needs. Erm, excuse me?!

Image courtesy of LeftFootForward

I’m sure that, if you’re reading this, you may have a slight awareness of the Labour initiated STEM programmes which have driven the provision of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics graduates. Reaction to these initiatives are varied. Some believe that they are a curse & not useful at all to the businesses demanding STEM grads, some believe they are helping the country become more competitive, productive & less reliant on highly skilled migrant labour.

My view is probably a compromise of the two camps. Whilst I believe there can be worth in pushing for more STEM grads, I also appreciate the value humanities and arts play in our society. The problem is that businesses refuse to. Whilst the tech firm representative stated that STEM graduates sometimes lack the soft skills to be thrown straight in to business, the HE representative, who worked in the careers department of a renowned university, made what I felt was an important point; one tech company approached her to find classics graduates because they possessed these skills. No-one appeared to pick up on what was being said between the lines which was “Humanities teaches these soft skills”. Instead we got the usual “universities are to blame for not providing the students we need” as if the universities are some sort of supplier for business (a view that I particularly resent & condemn as nothing short as utterly ignorant and stupid).

Universities are not a production line of employees. They were not created to be & are not there to serve business. They are far more complex than that and businesses are far too narrow-minded in their understanding of the role Higher Education plays in society. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there is a value to training specific skills like in the STEM degrees, but I also believe that what STEM graduates lack in “soft skills” humanities & arts graduates have in abundance.

Image courtesy of the excellent PHD comics

The private sector representatives were focused on a checklist of skills that a degree should teach students & any course that doesn’t have that was-in their eyes a failure, the same way it appears Willetts feels about humanities-they are a folly for the workshy that the state is funding. I did an English degree and I’ve carved what I feel is a moderately successful career in business. I would not have been able to do any of this if I didn’t study English. My degree taught me to analyse and look for unique perspectives of situations. I understood how to communicate, how to understand and analyse what stakeholders I work with need from me. Most useful of all, my study has helped me understand how to adapt to and thrive in different situations, working cultures and job roles. In short, all the skills that are apparently missing from STEM graduates we’re found on my humanities course. But, rather than support these courses which produce adaptable, useful members of the workforce, David Willetts wants to fund STEM courses instead, at the request of business.

To me it feels like this government is, essentially, taking the burden of employee training off of the private sector, pushing the responsibility of training towards universities and the cost & debt of this training on to students. Surely a more productive solution would be to ask the private sector, if they insist on acting like clients of universities, to fund the STEM programmes they want and for government to fund areas where the market will not contribute, like humanities?

I know a lot of readers will feel sickened by the idea of private sector funded “training” degrees, I’m not keen on it myself, but it’s far better than cutting off an area of the sector which provides value to the economy, but which many do not understand how.

We saw an excellent campaign to show how vital science is to the economy, which I supported and still do, however science is-relatively-protected now. The same cannot be said for the arts and humanities which have a value to the economy that is far more difficult to quantify. I wonder if we’ll see as much proactive support for their survival? We have to. It’s vital.