University places

Let's get this straight: offering more university places isn't going to help anyone if there aren't the graduate-level jobs for students to feed into after their degree.

There's been a flurry of discussion about increasing university places this year, with Gordon Brown offering an extra 10,000 places, despite proposed cuts in the education budget. This year's improved A-level successes mean that more 18 year olds than ever before are competing for a place at university, thousands are being turned down and universities are calling for an expansion now for semester-based courses starting in the new year.

Professor Les Ebdon, Chair of Million+, has today published an article in the Telegraph insisting that university places be made available for all who want them. He highlights the disappointment of applicants who have been turned down, despite reaching or closely matching the grades required for entry.

The concern shown by schools, universities and politicians for those unable to obtain a place is laudable, but also problematic. The recession has cut the number of graduate places, so that this year's graduates are struggling to find jobs at a level suited to their educational achievements or, frankly, much lower than that level. Many are choosing to increase their already unthinkable debts by studying for a Master's degree in the hope that the world will magically have turned out right by next September, and the old joke about graduates flipping burgers at McDonald's has long ceased to be even wryly amusing for the many who are subsisting on part-time work in catering and call centres.

Let's apply some common sense to the scenario. Begin with the fact that there now aren't enough non-graduate jobs, so more 18 years olds want to go to university. Easy solution: expand university. More happy students, more university teachers (almost undoubtedly employed on short-term, part-time, hourly-based contracts, but that is a different story: for now they at least have some work, if not packages where they can benefit from sick pay, maternity leave, proper pensions and redundancy payments when their services are no longer required). Fewer people on the dole, so more happy policians. Result!

But what then? Even if the recession has ended and the number of graduate positions returned to pre-recession levels by the time this year's already-increased intake of students graduates, there will be even more graduates fighting for graduate-level jobs. Perhaps the number of graduate-level jobs will increase; but perhaps not. Or perhaps non-graduate jobs will also have increased to pre-recession levels by then and fewer 18 year olds will want to go to university: that's another easy solution, isn't it? Decrease the number of places again (and take away jobs from all those short-term, part-time, hourly-based teachers…). Perhaps, however, expectations will have been raised and they will still want to study for a degree. Will the funding be available for a permanent expansion of university places, or will today's 15 year olds be facing disappointment when their A-level results arrive?

The current situation is deeply unpleasant and pretty scary for many people (whatever their age), but pleas and demands for additional university places smack of short-term thinking just as much as the government's own "plans" to aid the economy by creating "soft jobs" and putting off migrant workers. With spending cuts about to come into force in education and elsewhere, how are these additional university places to be funded? If graduates don't find graduate-level jobs, they are unlikely to be earning enough to start repaying their loans (the threshold is currently £15,000 per annum) and thus to put money back into the system.

The point of having a degree is being lost within the debate about recession, unemployment and what to do about this summer's degree applicants. Someone needs to be looking much further ahead and offering clear long-term plans.

Pointless research 3: Zombies would take over and kill everyone - it's official

Philip Munz from Carleton University and the University of Ottawa's Ioan Hudea, Joe Imad and Robert J. Smith? — that question mark isn't a typo, by the way: Smith?'s blog confirms that the question mark is a formal part of his name — have just published a scholarly article called "When Zombies Attack: Mathematical Modelling of an Outbreak of a Zombie Infection", demonstrating that such an outbreak could only be contained by swift and destructive action. Science imitates art.

The writers clearly feel the need to explain that "the scenarios considered are obviously not realistic", but justify their work by continuing: "it is nevertheless instructive to develop mathematical models for an unusual outbreak" (p. 146). Elsewhere, however, the phrasing used rather suggests that they have having difficulty separating real life from the films of George A. Romero, Sam Raimi and Co. The article's final paragraph, for example, eschews the conditional tense in concluding that

a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.

Joe Imad is quoted as saying: "Modelling zombies would be the same as modelling swine flu, with some differences for sure, but it is much more interesting to read." So it's the same, but different.

There's a worrying implication here that some scientists find their subject boring. Perhaps the writers are hoping for a wider audience than scholarly papers usually achieve. Or perhaps they've got their eye on the Zombie Research Society Awards.

No front bottoms?

The Daily Telegraph seems to be suffering from an outbreak of inexplicable coyness in a report on a new surgical technique performed "through the tummy button". The "belly-button" also appears, but not the navel or umbilicus, although there is apparently no bar on reproducing the terms vagina, adenomyosis or hysterectomy.

Students might benefit from working first

The Association of School and College Leaders wants A-Level candidates to be able to apply to university after they have received their results. This is an excellent idea; but only if it leads to students working for a year before starting their degree studies. In addition to giving them a taste of the world outside education, this would provide school-leavers with experience of full-time work — helpful in planning study timetables and working to deadlines at university, which requires greater automony than school, and in understanding the kinds of requirements employers have, such as team-working — and an opportunity to earn, save and practise managing their own money, not to mention items to make their CVs look fuller.

Given rising unemployment levels, however, it's unlikely to happen. After all, hasn't the number of university places been increased to keep students off the unemployment lists?

Short rations

So Alan Duncan thinks MPs are treated like "s**t" and forced to exist on "rations", does he? Parliament's website gives the following data on MPs' salaries:

The current annual salary for an MP is £64,766. In addition, MPs receive allowances to cover the costs of running an office and employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

The list of allowances for 2009 includes the following:

Staffing Maximum of £103,812
Administrative & Office £22,393
Personal Additional Accommodation 24,222
London Costs Allowance £7,500
Winding-up £42,068
Communications Maximum of £10,400

MPs's allowances can reach more than £160,000 in addition to the "basic" salary. The continuing expenses scandal has revealed both politicians' arrogance and the fact that their personal financial experiences bear little resemblance to that of an appreciable number of the voting public.

The Conservatives clearly hope that improving poll results against Labour's recent showing will win them the next General Election. However, Alan Duncan's apparent inability to manage his personal budget (not to mention his appalling lack of professionalism) begs the question of how well equipped the Tories are to manage departmental and national finances.

Social mobility: what is the problem?

Peter Mandelson's increasingly hostile accusations that candidates from poor backgrounds are being deliberately rejected by "elite" universities are now proved beyond doubt to be based on bias, as a new report demonstrates that potential applicants are being influenced by their schools and teachers not to try for top universities, which are perceived to be out of their league. This research has been conducted by the Sutton Trust, a body whose mission coincides with Mandelson's in aiming to '"improve educational opportunities for young people from non-priviledged backgrounds and increase social mobility".

While the perennially biassed are rethinking their stance (always supposing, of course, that they are prepared to accept the evidence), they would be wise to consider the word "elite", which they so often employ pejoratively. The Oxford English Dictionary supplies a succinct definition: "The choice part or flower (of society, or of any body or class of persons)". This certainly supports the idea of a chosen few; yet the same term or concept applied elsewhere, for example in sport, contains no sense of denigration at all, either overt or implicit. Earlier this year, for instance, when Sheffield University's Media Centre headlined a news release "Universities' sporting elite showcase their star potential", these sports specialists were clearly viewed as a good thing. The term was used equally positively in a House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report for 2005-6 entitled "UK Sport: Supporting elite athletes", while in April 2006 an item reporting on increased financial support for UK sportspeople in preparation for the 2012 Olympics proudly announced "£65m funding boost for elite sport".

The application of the term "elite" in sporting contexts explicitly refers to the best; after all, the best are the ones who win sporting events. Those who are not good at sport must learn early on that life is indeed not a level playing field; but many, perhaps most, may find something else at which they excel where their sporting peers do not and cannot.

So, if elitism is embraced and valorised in sport, why is the word "elite" purely negative when applied to academia? Just like sporting selection panels, universities want to select the best applicants, regardless of background. Just as in sport, league tables are paramount and "excellence" in global competition a requirement for winning and maintaining funding; isn't it incumbent upon universities to attract and accept the best candidates then, just as it is for football clubs to identify and select the best tyro players to train for the future? The British Olympic Association was allowed to rewrite its ski-jumping rules to exclude competitors not in the world top 50, in order to avoid successors to Eddie the Eagle. So an elite is in fact a good thing; after all, who wants delicate brain surgery or a complex heart operation to be performed by someone who was accepted for medical training to fulfil a social quota, not because of aptitude and ability?

Now there is unambiguous evidence to the contrary, it's time to ask why Mandelson and Co have so doggedly insisted that their plans for social mobility have been thwarted by "elite" universities? It's an insistence all the more surprising given that many academics lean politically left, as demonstrated by the policies of their union, the UCU, and the stance of their newspaper of choice, the Guardian.

The answer can only be is that it's easier (and cheaper) to demonise universities than to turn around the schools that are failing to supply "the disadvantaged" with the education they need to deal with everyday life, never mind a degree. The schools' failures are, of course, the politicians' own.

Last of the chainstore-free zones?

Good luck to Holmfirth residents who are campaigning against Tesco, and any other superstore, gaining a toehold in their town. Tesco might insist that its proposed new store would offer residents "more choice", but a quick look around Britain's ghost town centres and their boring identikit out-of-centre store-parks demonstrates exactly what that "choice" really means in the long term. Tesco's profits are already bloated beyond comprehension, sense or justice. Let's hope "Keep Holmfirth Special" is successful, and can shows the way forward for other small towns that want to keep or claw back their individuality.

BBC programme plugs

In general, I'm a staunch supporter of the BBC (though dubious about Alan Yentob's insistence that entertainers need on-expenses wining and dining to attract them to the corporation). There are always several programmes a year which justify my compulsory contribution to its coffers — most things involving David Attenborough, for example, or the wonderful Yellowstone — and these days it also pays for the watch-online facility.

What does irritate me is its persistent self-advertising. Particularly annoying are the radio trailers for television programmes with lots of intense dialogue and sound effects that are virtually meaningless without the visuals; these are usually for dramas, such as EastEnders, that surely have a high enough audience already.

Today, Radio Two subjected its late afternoon listeners to the same trailer for the loathesome Alan Carr's radio show twice within the space of thirty minutes. Once seemed too much; the second time had me switching on a CD instead.

Sexism: an unlevel playing field

When is sexism not sexism? When it's by females against males.

Just as some feminists (for example, Luce Irigaray) presume that only females can be victims of rape, sexism is predominantly interpreted as if only females can be targets. Not so. There seems to be an ever-increasing number of females who routinely make the sort of comments to or about males that, were the situation reversed, would have the women demanding the full force of the law be applied.

Perpetrators of female-to-male sexism frequently present or describe themselves as feminists, apparently without perceiving any need to explore the ambiguity between their political stance, itself based on perceptions of sexual inequality and sexed ill-treatment, and their misandrous attitude.

The unqualified assumption that sexism equates to misogyny can appear in sources that initially seem unbiassed. The website Stop Sexist Remarks, for example, launched in November 2008, features female and male contributors. Its name articulates both a need and an intention to eliminate any and all forms of sexist commentary; however, this impression is soon contradicted by the opening words of its mission statement:

Sexist remarks — words designed to belittle, control, embarrass, or hurt. They are used to stop conversations, put women down, and maintain power. We hear them at neighborhood barbecues, work, and family reunions.

This expresses an unqualified assumption that females are the sole victims of sexist remarks; there's no attempt to balance the manifest lack of bias in the site's name with the overt bias in its stated purpose, nor apparently any recognition of the inherent contradition.

The site seems to be based in the USA and thus may reflect a reality very different from the UK's, but given that the UK has a Minister for Women and Equality and the White House a Council on Women and Girls (both titles clearly affirming proclivity), perhaps not. I would estimate, however, that in the last few years more than three quarters of the sexist remarks I have read in published work or heard in a public forum have been made by females about males. The tone is sometimes mock-hostile, à la Jo Brand, but far more often openly contentious. Those making the remarks heatedly (and often with no regard to relevance in the immediate or historical context) declare their feminism, denounce misogyny as if females could do no wrong, and assert their right to make misandrous remarks.

It is depressing to realize that the "battle of the sexes" is alive and well and living all over the world in cultures that pass judgement on the treatment of women in countries whose attitudes are denounced as "backward". An unchecked and increasingly commonplace misandry, apparently supported by political approval, fans its flames, while the voices of genuine victims of sexism (regardless of gender) are too often drowned out by those who assume their gender equates to victimhood.

Return of the Son of the Barbecue Summer

"Barbecue summer could return" runs a cautiously optimistic online Daily Telegraph headline this morning. Since its information comes from a Met. Office report, maybe it's time to get out the thermals…

The Met. Office now seems to be blaming the media for misinterpreting its summer forecast, resulting in public "misconceptions" that the weather was to be largely hot and dry. The media does indeed get things wrong from time to time, but as noted in an earlier post, the Met. Office unambigously stated in its "Summer Forecast 2009" that "Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer". Instead of blaming the media for spreading ill-founded hope, perhaps the Met. Office should make sure its published reports leave no possible room for doubt.

The Naming of Parts

The latest report on the state of primary school education in England, based on Key Stage 2 assessments, states that 40% of primary school pupils are failing to achieve the required level (level 4 or above) in English.

The opposition parties, not surprisingly, are blaming Labour. However, in the Conservatives' case ast least, this is somewhat disingenuous. Ripple fade back to Bristol, 1997, where my friend, S, was working as a supply primary teaching since graduating from a four-year teaching training degree at a post-1992 university.

One afternoon, S rang me in a panic. She had been assigned to a "posh" school where she was expected to teach adjectives and adverbs, and she had no idea what these were, never mind how to teach them. Could I help? Well, yes: I could and I did, rather wondering what her alma mater had been teaching her for four years.

Years later, I am still wondering what is being taught in schools. Students studying literature often arrive at university without an understanding of the basic terminology and use of language. Adjectives and adverbs are employed indiscriminately, and past participles incorrectly (sat for seated is almost ubiquitous); the nomenclature of verb tenses is unknown; students seem unaware that the expression of the English present tense can be simple or continuous, and find it hard to grasp the nuances in meaning between the two; sentences are filled with subclauses and continue for half a page with little punctuation and sometimes no active verb. (Many, however, have been taught more sophisticated expressions; lexis and register are recent buzzwords.) Consulting a dictionary is an alien concept.

Schoolteachers have long complained that grammar is "boring" for students (do they really mean for themselves?) and promoted a more flexible approach to teaching based on "encouraging creativity". Yet the naming of parts is a basic principle in every activity. Children are accustomed to learning specialized terms in a range of hobbies and interests: music has its notes, rhythms and scales, ballet its steps and movements, football its moves and rules. Withholding the specialized terms of language does not encourage creativity, but conflicts with the way all specialist pursuits, creative, sporting or academic, must be learnt.

The government has recently promised a further expansion of higher education, with a focus on science, engineering, mathematics and technology; but undergraduates in these disciplines need effective communication skills to understand their subjects and articulate their knowledge. Language is fundamental to all learning and is the key to self-expression in all degree courses, not just those in languages, linguistics or literature: mathematicians, scientists and information technologists also need an understanding of oral and written language in order to communicate adequately in their academic subjects and in their future jobs.

With more people than ever going on to study degrees, schools need to teach sound English expression and that, just like football and music, includes the naming of parts.