Hello,
I've jumped ship to Wordpress.com.
http://noidontknoweither.wordpress.com/
David
Friday, 1 April 2011
Sunday, 27 March 2011
The Haldane Principle
Hello,
The Observer is reporting today that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will spend a 'significant amount' of its research budget on work into the 'Big Society'. The Government, its correspondent writes, has 'clarified' the Haldane Principle of 1918 which says that researchers should decide on research spending.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/27/academic-study-big-society).
Cue the outrage.
(See a number of entries when you type 'Haldane Principle clarification' into Google).
If this is true, then yes, it is outrageous. The amount that the AHRC has already been almost entirely slashed. To then refocus its priorities for political gain would be a fragrant abuse of Government's powers. However, matters are not as simple as the article first suggests.
For a start The Observer's case is quite hypocritical. This weekend they have also run a piece in their 'Review' section on the Anglo-German socialist intellectual Ernest Schumacher and the influence of his philosophies on the Coalition's 'Big Society' idea.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful)
Even The Observer would admit therefore that there are quite strong philosophical routes to some of the main points that the Government is pursuing.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the initial article is not entirely accurate about the Haldane Principle. The idea that the Principle has been an inviolate part of British academic-scientific life since the 1910s is debatable at best. David Egerton, a British historian who concentrates on technocracy (the bureaucracy of technology), has argued that the Principle only really existed from the 1960s, as part of a Conservative attempt to upset Labour's 'White Heat of Technology' drive under Harold Wilson.
(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-88.html).
Can I also refer you to the following:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/101220-Letter-from-David-Willetts-MP-Haldane.pdf
This is a letter from David Willets to Andrew Mitchell, chair of the Commons Science and Technologies Committee, dated 20th December 2010. In it Willets is responding to a previous letter from Mitchell, which admits that there is some ambiguity over existing Government policy. Willets argues that 'Ministers have a legitimate role' to play in the allocation of funding process. However:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-12-20a.138WS.0 is a written Hansard statement backing up the content of Willets' letter.
So what, you might ask. If a week is a long time in politics, four months must be an eternity. Well, this link is to a table of intended research spending the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) department put out last month:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/m/ministerial-statement-on-the-allocation-of-the-science-and-research-budget-201112-to-201415.pdf
I leave you to make your own judgement there (not least because I'm not very good with figures).
This meanwhile is a link to an article by Professor Peter Mandler, Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society. Though critical of the new version of the Haldane Principle (with good reason for most of the cases he brings up), he notes that the Labour Party were not above 'bribing' Research Councils with extra funds
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150170942349951
As Professor Mandler argues, there are several reasons to be justifiably critical of the new proposals. Nevertheless I'd suggest that there's an argument to be made that in fact the new proposals are at the moment somewhat of an improvement on the older ones. They clarify the existing ambiguity between the Haldane and Excellence Principles, for instance, and move the Government's presence in this field onto a de facto footing.
There's a longer, and considerably more profound, argument that needs to be had about the relative balance of power between the bodies like the AHRC and central government. The one that The Observer is trying to spark off isn't it. It's taken me around an hour to research and write this blog post out in full, with nothing more than a laptop and a Google link as my resources. What appeared in the newspaper today is sensationalist, if for understandable reasons. We need to calm down, take a deep breath, and discuss what needs to be said with that sort of thing.
The Observer is reporting today that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will spend a 'significant amount' of its research budget on work into the 'Big Society'. The Government, its correspondent writes, has 'clarified' the Haldane Principle of 1918 which says that researchers should decide on research spending.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/27/academic-study-big-society).
Cue the outrage.
(See a number of entries when you type 'Haldane Principle clarification' into Google).
If this is true, then yes, it is outrageous. The amount that the AHRC has already been almost entirely slashed. To then refocus its priorities for political gain would be a fragrant abuse of Government's powers. However, matters are not as simple as the article first suggests.
For a start The Observer's case is quite hypocritical. This weekend they have also run a piece in their 'Review' section on the Anglo-German socialist intellectual Ernest Schumacher and the influence of his philosophies on the Coalition's 'Big Society' idea.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful)
Even The Observer would admit therefore that there are quite strong philosophical routes to some of the main points that the Government is pursuing.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the initial article is not entirely accurate about the Haldane Principle. The idea that the Principle has been an inviolate part of British academic-scientific life since the 1910s is debatable at best. David Egerton, a British historian who concentrates on technocracy (the bureaucracy of technology), has argued that the Principle only really existed from the 1960s, as part of a Conservative attempt to upset Labour's 'White Heat of Technology' drive under Harold Wilson.
(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-88.html).
Can I also refer you to the following:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/101220-Letter-from-David-Willetts-MP-Haldane.pdf
This is a letter from David Willets to Andrew Mitchell, chair of the Commons Science and Technologies Committee, dated 20th December 2010. In it Willets is responding to a previous letter from Mitchell, which admits that there is some ambiguity over existing Government policy. Willets argues that 'Ministers have a legitimate role' to play in the allocation of funding process. However:
'it is for the Councils to decide on specific projects and people to fund. In all of these decisions, Ministers should take account of advice from a wide variety of expert sources'.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-12-20a.138WS.0 is a written Hansard statement backing up the content of Willets' letter.
So what, you might ask. If a week is a long time in politics, four months must be an eternity. Well, this link is to a table of intended research spending the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) department put out last month:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/m/ministerial-statement-on-the-allocation-of-the-science-and-research-budget-201112-to-201415.pdf
I leave you to make your own judgement there (not least because I'm not very good with figures).
This meanwhile is a link to an article by Professor Peter Mandler, Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society. Though critical of the new version of the Haldane Principle (with good reason for most of the cases he brings up), he notes that the Labour Party were not above 'bribing' Research Councils with extra funds
'if these bodies responded to the government agenda by themselves reserving some of their research funds for government priorities'.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150170942349951
As Professor Mandler argues, there are several reasons to be justifiably critical of the new proposals. Nevertheless I'd suggest that there's an argument to be made that in fact the new proposals are at the moment somewhat of an improvement on the older ones. They clarify the existing ambiguity between the Haldane and Excellence Principles, for instance, and move the Government's presence in this field onto a de facto footing.
There's a longer, and considerably more profound, argument that needs to be had about the relative balance of power between the bodies like the AHRC and central government. The one that The Observer is trying to spark off isn't it. It's taken me around an hour to research and write this blog post out in full, with nothing more than a laptop and a Google link as my resources. What appeared in the newspaper today is sensationalist, if for understandable reasons. We need to calm down, take a deep breath, and discuss what needs to be said with that sort of thing.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Some thoughts on the Japanese earthquake
Hello,
My prayers and thoughts go out to those there.
I've been wondering what to write about this. It seemed as though I should say something. It's always difficult though to know what exactly to say in the face of such terrifying, destructive nature disaster. When thousands are dead, and thousands others have lost their possessions and their homes, any response seems somewhat trite.
When one is looking, as we are even now, at the immense suffering of others it can also become a great barrier to any sort of religious faith. The great question arises - what sort of loving God could allow this to happen? This can become coupled with the very sensation that any response apart from donation, sympathy and awe is somehow unworthy.
Is now the time to discuss that great question? Perhaps not. We should after all be busy donating our time, energy and resources to helping the Japanese people, rather than debating theology surely? Yet that question strikes at the heart not only of our Christian faith, but also at the heart of why we are attempting to help Japan.
My church leader at home once said something during a service last year that shocked me initially. He asked us to give thanks to God for the Haitian earthquake. Today I still wince in part at the thought of this. How could we, in a sense how dare we give thanks for the suffering of so many? With pictures being beamed into our homes of the great hurt being undergone, what sort of monsters were we to give thanks for this event?
Yet in another sense I can see what he was saying. If we believe that God's purpose lies in all things, then it lay in that earthquake. God's hand was at work.
How? How could a supposedly loving, merciful God want so many of his children dead? The answer I think is that He didn't. But He saw a way to make His world a better place and He took it. As Haiti slowly began recovery last year, many Mainstream Media outlets noted how church attendance in that country rocketed. We in the West meanwhile remembered our wealth in comparison to others. Good came out of the evil of the earthquake itself.
That's what we should consider here. Not so much questions over the fallen nature of Creation, but what God-driven good can come from what is happening to the Japanese, and what it is that we are all, individually, called to do.
My prayers and thoughts go out to those there.
I've been wondering what to write about this. It seemed as though I should say something. It's always difficult though to know what exactly to say in the face of such terrifying, destructive nature disaster. When thousands are dead, and thousands others have lost their possessions and their homes, any response seems somewhat trite.
When one is looking, as we are even now, at the immense suffering of others it can also become a great barrier to any sort of religious faith. The great question arises - what sort of loving God could allow this to happen? This can become coupled with the very sensation that any response apart from donation, sympathy and awe is somehow unworthy.
Is now the time to discuss that great question? Perhaps not. We should after all be busy donating our time, energy and resources to helping the Japanese people, rather than debating theology surely? Yet that question strikes at the heart not only of our Christian faith, but also at the heart of why we are attempting to help Japan.
My church leader at home once said something during a service last year that shocked me initially. He asked us to give thanks to God for the Haitian earthquake. Today I still wince in part at the thought of this. How could we, in a sense how dare we give thanks for the suffering of so many? With pictures being beamed into our homes of the great hurt being undergone, what sort of monsters were we to give thanks for this event?
Yet in another sense I can see what he was saying. If we believe that God's purpose lies in all things, then it lay in that earthquake. God's hand was at work.
How? How could a supposedly loving, merciful God want so many of his children dead? The answer I think is that He didn't. But He saw a way to make His world a better place and He took it. As Haiti slowly began recovery last year, many Mainstream Media outlets noted how church attendance in that country rocketed. We in the West meanwhile remembered our wealth in comparison to others. Good came out of the evil of the earthquake itself.
That's what we should consider here. Not so much questions over the fallen nature of Creation, but what God-driven good can come from what is happening to the Japanese, and what it is that we are all, individually, called to do.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Do artists need to be accurate in order to reflect History?
From the Guardian, some thoughts about artistry, historical accuracy and Ridley Scott's Robin Hood
P.S: The Guardian's dating service advertises itself with 'Find your Soulmate'. Wonder what the paper's official policy on the afterlife actually is?
P.S: The Guardian's dating service advertises itself with 'Find your Soulmate'. Wonder what the paper's official policy on the afterlife actually is?
Friday, 4 March 2011
Defence #7; Tea and Humbug
Hello,
Just a quickie.
A few days ago the Prime Minister announced in the Commons that Britain was 'taking the lead' on the Libyan crisis. This 'lead' included the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone over the country to counter Gaddifi-loyalist forces bombing the rebels.
As the Ink Spots blog points out though, without the US Navy enforcing a no-fly zone would be highly difficult at best. The UK does not have an aircraft carrier active at the moment - HMS Ark Royal is going to be decommissioned a week today. The next carrier, the Queen Elizabeth class supercarrier HMS Prince of Wales will not be ready until 2020. It's interesting to note that on 26th February the conservative Daily Telegraph was calling on the Prime Minister to help economically isolate the Libyan regime.
As Ink Spots argues, we are increasingly facing a simple fact that was first relayed to us in 1956 - the UK can do virtually nothing militarily on the international with the United States. At Suez we needed their approval. Now it seems we need their help.
Just a quickie.
A few days ago the Prime Minister announced in the Commons that Britain was 'taking the lead' on the Libyan crisis. This 'lead' included the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone over the country to counter Gaddifi-loyalist forces bombing the rebels.
As the Ink Spots blog points out though, without the US Navy enforcing a no-fly zone would be highly difficult at best. The UK does not have an aircraft carrier active at the moment - HMS Ark Royal is going to be decommissioned a week today. The next carrier, the Queen Elizabeth class supercarrier HMS Prince of Wales will not be ready until 2020. It's interesting to note that on 26th February the conservative Daily Telegraph was calling on the Prime Minister to help economically isolate the Libyan regime.
As Ink Spots argues, we are increasingly facing a simple fact that was first relayed to us in 1956 - the UK can do virtually nothing militarily on the international with the United States. At Suez we needed their approval. Now it seems we need their help.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
The Browne Review - just how much research was done?
Hello,
Times Higher Education* carried this article about two months ago, which completely went under my radar. They logged an FOI request (presumably with Vince Cable's lot) to ask how much money the Browne Commission had for research, and how much of that they spent.
The results are quite interesting to say the least. According to THE, Browne et al had a research budget of £120,000. Not that much, one might think, considering what was at stake in the research. They spent £68,375 - which if my shaky maths is right works out at around 57% - mostly on a single opinion survey.
Which if a report in today's THE is true, they then mostly ignored. This was a survey in which the majority of respondents reportedly believed that £6,000 was the maximum that should be charged - and where respondents from lower income groups were the most debt averse.
The amount of research that seems to have been done is astonishingly light considering the monumental changes to the Higher Education sector that have resulted from this review.
I leave you with a few thoughts. Firstly, one critical of a university. The Financial Times's education correspondent has reportedly seen an 'internal document [from Cambridge University] preparing for their 2012 submission on fees'. It recommends that the University adjust its current target range for state school entrants from 58% to somewhere between 61-63%. A rise, in other words, of 5% (in their target range, remember) in response to a tripling of fees.
The next two more critical of the Government. Secondly, as I said yesterday, we need to bear in mind the level to which universities are now on their own. David Allen, Exeter's registrar, is quoted here in The Guardian saying that Exeter believes that it will need £7,000 'just to stand still' after the Government withdraws its university funding. The BBC quotes the National Audit Office in saying that the new university funding system leaves increasingly more institutions open to the risk of bankruptcy.
Thirdly that the Government is still unclear over what cap it is going to put on international students' entry into our HE system. Remember that internationals pay a considerably higher fee for their tuition than British students. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe it's no exaggeration to say that they have helped keep the HE sector going.
Pity the poor student, eh? This is beginning to look like a bit of a mess.
David
* They dropped the Supplement from the title a while ago, but I still tend to think of it as the Times Higher Education Supplement. Hence the references to THES in past blog entries.
Times Higher Education* carried this article about two months ago, which completely went under my radar. They logged an FOI request (presumably with Vince Cable's lot) to ask how much money the Browne Commission had for research, and how much of that they spent.
The results are quite interesting to say the least. According to THE, Browne et al had a research budget of £120,000. Not that much, one might think, considering what was at stake in the research. They spent £68,375 - which if my shaky maths is right works out at around 57% - mostly on a single opinion survey.
Which if a report in today's THE is true, they then mostly ignored. This was a survey in which the majority of respondents reportedly believed that £6,000 was the maximum that should be charged - and where respondents from lower income groups were the most debt averse.
The amount of research that seems to have been done is astonishingly light considering the monumental changes to the Higher Education sector that have resulted from this review.
I leave you with a few thoughts. Firstly, one critical of a university. The Financial Times's education correspondent has reportedly seen an 'internal document [from Cambridge University] preparing for their 2012 submission on fees'. It recommends that the University adjust its current target range for state school entrants from 58% to somewhere between 61-63%. A rise, in other words, of 5% (in their target range, remember) in response to a tripling of fees.
The next two more critical of the Government. Secondly, as I said yesterday, we need to bear in mind the level to which universities are now on their own. David Allen, Exeter's registrar, is quoted here in The Guardian saying that Exeter believes that it will need £7,000 'just to stand still' after the Government withdraws its university funding. The BBC quotes the National Audit Office in saying that the new university funding system leaves increasingly more institutions open to the risk of bankruptcy.
Thirdly that the Government is still unclear over what cap it is going to put on international students' entry into our HE system. Remember that internationals pay a considerably higher fee for their tuition than British students. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe it's no exaggeration to say that they have helped keep the HE sector going.
Pity the poor student, eh? This is beginning to look like a bit of a mess.
David
* They dropped the Supplement from the title a while ago, but I still tend to think of it as the Times Higher Education Supplement. Hence the references to THES in past blog entries.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
And the fees go up
Hello,
Well, it's happened. This morning the university announced that it will be charging £9000 a year for degrees as of next year.
I wasn't going to comment on this - largely as I'm employed by the university as a postgraduate seminar tutor. Then I thought 'blow it', and decided to jot some thoughts down. They may not be too radical ideas down here though.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this decision. The first is that it is utterly unjustified. I can see their point.
The university is currently undergoing a massive rebuilding programme as part of the 'Forum Project' (the picture on the left is the Main Library as of a month ago). The building work this afternoon - though they did apologise for it - was particularly loud.
All in all, this has been massively intrusive for those living on campus. Work is carry on right next to some of the halls of residence, and so privacy has been an issue.
(The work is scheduled to finish in 2012, as the new fees system will come in).
There's also the question of cost-effectiveness. The university has been openly looking to challenge Oxbridge, London and the larger, more established (mostly Russell Group) universities for some time. When it's placing on the University League Tables slipped out of the top 10 this year, it was big news on campus. As far as the current university management are concerned, Exeter has the potential to be a first-grade university and they intend to get us there.
The university has already promised that it will be bringing in new procedures for widening access. The question many seem to be putting though is whether we are bringing in the new price rises in order to be seen as being on a level with Oxbridge.
To that all I would add this (and again, I am a paid employee of the university*). Given that the Government is slashing the grant money for STEM subjects considerably, and abolishing funding for the Humanities, what rational choice will universities have than to raise their fees by as much as they think they can get away with?
* So accept my words here with all the necessary salt you see fit.
Well, it's happened. This morning the university announced that it will be charging £9000 a year for degrees as of next year.
I wasn't going to comment on this - largely as I'm employed by the university as a postgraduate seminar tutor. Then I thought 'blow it', and decided to jot some thoughts down. They may not be too radical ideas down here though.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this decision. The first is that it is utterly unjustified. I can see their point.
All in all, this has been massively intrusive for those living on campus. Work is carry on right next to some of the halls of residence, and so privacy has been an issue.
(The work is scheduled to finish in 2012, as the new fees system will come in).
There's also the question of cost-effectiveness. The university has been openly looking to challenge Oxbridge, London and the larger, more established (mostly Russell Group) universities for some time. When it's placing on the University League Tables slipped out of the top 10 this year, it was big news on campus. As far as the current university management are concerned, Exeter has the potential to be a first-grade university and they intend to get us there.
The university has already promised that it will be bringing in new procedures for widening access. The question many seem to be putting though is whether we are bringing in the new price rises in order to be seen as being on a level with Oxbridge.
To that all I would add this (and again, I am a paid employee of the university*). Given that the Government is slashing the grant money for STEM subjects considerably, and abolishing funding for the Humanities, what rational choice will universities have than to raise their fees by as much as they think they can get away with?
* So accept my words here with all the necessary salt you see fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)