Immigration Education

Last year UKBA introduced a new points-based immigration system; this, for the most part, was a success.  When it came to student visas Entry Clearance Officers no longer had the right to reject applications just because they didn’t think that the particular student was suited to studying.  The points-based system let the universities choose which students they wanted based on their qualifications and experience alone.  In terms of visa it was 75% the university confirming they wanted the student and 25% the student being able to afford it.  From universities’ point of view this worked fairly well, they continued to get as many – if not more – students.

Later this month UKBA are adding an extra hoop for universities to jump through: the CAS system.  In short it is a computer database registration system which will seemingly only add an extra amount of data inputting.  It hasn’t been designed for high volume input and will result in administrative duplication across the sector [there will, inevitably, be a few institutions, which have aligned their student records system with the UKBA’s CAS system, but they will – undoubtedly – be in the minority].

The main criticism of the introduction of this whole system is that there is no way to cap the number of visas issued worldwide; if someone meets the criteria they are granted the appropriate visa.  Therefore in yet another change to the system UKBA are attempting to tighten the regulations which will limit the number of visa issued.  I understand how this makes sense for some of the categories of visas (where the applicants are coming to work, for example) or any where the applicants will be taking from and not contributing to the economy.

The restrictions, however, are being targeted at the Tier Four (student visa) category; limiting the number of fee paying students who are coming to the UK.  Tier Four regulations ensure that the applicants have enough funds to pay their fees and support themselves (and any dependants) throughout their course of study.  These are not people who will be coming to the UK to claim benefits, scrounge from the government or steal jobs from the natives.  Providing the systems is policed correctly from UKBA’s end (as it certainly is from the educational intuitions’ end for the other option is simply not worth the risk) then the system will – or rather should – work perfectly.

This proposed idea that international students should have to pay a cash deposit on entry to the UK which will be refunded when they finish their course and leave is a ludicrous idea.  Those who are determined to come to the UK legally and then stay illegally will simply factor in that cash deposit to their plans and write-in off as an entry fee.  In order to make the deposit high enough to stop that from happening with the most determined illegal immigrants it would prohibit the genuine students from getting the education they want, need and can afford.

These new restrictions (not including the ludicrous cash deposit), which will have an effect on all tertiary institutions throughout the UK came in the same week as the government’s announcement of cuts to the education budget.  Universities (especially post-1992 institutions) rely heavily on the income from international students, most will have been looking to make up the deficit caused by the government’s cuts by increased international fees (increasing the number of students not simply the fees of the same number of students as the fees will then become prohibitively expensive thus resulting in an overall loss).

The third piece of higher education news this week was the dramatic increase in the number of student applications through UCAS (this is being touted as some miraculous upturn, in reality the reports are neglecting to note that nursing and midwifery students are applying through UCAS for the first time (they previously had their own application system), obviously this is going to increase the numbers).  The UK has a long held reputation throughout the world as a provider of top quality education.  It doesn’t take one of our highly trained (and yet unemployed) graduates to see that increasing the number of students while simultaneously decreasing the budget to education said students is going to lead to a decrease in quality (not to mention the multiculturalism which makes our students rounded citizens and not just walking, talking textbooks).

I understand that the majority of these regulations are aimed at stopping bogus colleges and English language intuitions but by targeting the sector as a whole the UKBA is tarring us all with the same brush.  Instead of supporting the genuine institutions in times of economic stress they are cranking up the pressure.   It goes without saying that the UK is a popular destination for international students looking to improve their English language skills and there is no shortage of unscrupulous “colleges” willing to relieve naïve and linguistically-floundering students of a few thousand pounds in exchange for a visa letter and paperback picture dictionary.

Instead of instituting more and more layers of bureaucracy which only ends up costing the already budget-stretched universities the UKBA should police the procedures they already have in place.  By ensuring that those colleges and universities on their Trusted Sponsors Lists (the list which allows institutions to have international students) are genuine and providing a genuine service the UKBA would not have to slap everyone with these heavy-handed and over-reactionary measures.

This whole ever-changing visa applications system just seems like the genuine universities are paying the price for UKBA failing to police their policies and procedures.  Instead of getting out there and doing their job they seem too caught up in red-taped paperwork to consider the impact their decision have on great swathes of the country.  Every one of their changes seems to be thought up on the hoof and instead of making a plan which will work now and continue to work over a number of years they’ve gone with the first thing scribbled on the whiteboard during their brainstorming meeting, then when it doesn’t work, instead of fixing it they stuff the holes, cross their fingers and pray.

There is an answer to this, but it won’t come right away from chopping and changing, cutting and folding, stuffing and bending policies.  It will come when everyone sits down to talk like rational grown-ups, stops acting and starts thinking.  We’ve got enough unemployed graduates, let’s put them to use, let’s get them to come up with a workable solution.

They’ll Never Take/Give Our Freedom

The Marmite of Scottish Politics – the SNP – have been trotting out the ol’ faithful controversy Scottish Independence.  They have plans for the Scottish people to make the decision through a referendum, on whether Scotland should remain a part of the United Kingdom or if we should set sail and try and survive on our own as a small country.

You cannot fault the logic behind the referendum, if Scotland is to become an independent nation then the people who need to make the decision are the people who it will effect most of all – the populous.  Politicians cannot – and thankfully will not – make such a decision without the backing of the people.

There are still far too many questions which remain unanswered before anyone even start to think about holding a referendum.

Firstly, who exactly gets to vote on Scottish independence?  The SNP are advocating that Scots should decide, but how exactly do we monitor that?  Would everyone currently resident in Scotland get a vote?  Would everyone born in Scotland get a vote, regardless of their current location?  Would it be limited to Scottish-born current residents of Scotland?  It appears there is no way clear way to define who would even get to vote, never mind the actual issues surrounding the subject matter itself.  If any of the three groups were chosen [or indeed if it was some other pool of voters] there would be complains and objections either regarding those included: “Why should some Englishman living in Edinburgh get to vote?” or excluded “He can’t vote because he was born in Berwick but raised this side of the border?”

There would be riots before voting day even arrived!

If the Scots did vote yes on independence, would the UK even let us leave?  Has anyone asked?  Back in 1707 Scotland was taken by force, would we get to leave without the same amount of force?  How would other countries treat us?  Would some take sides?  Would the UK get America and Germany while we get Canada and France?  Would other countries feel awkward inviting us both over to the same party?  When we did meet would we make awkward but polite chit chat or would it quickly descending into name-calling and fisticuffs?  Would Billy Connelly end up goosing the Queen?  And if so, could we all watch?

Even now we have our own currency [it's those notes that the people in the rest of the UK look at like they are monopoly money, but only slightly more worthless] but currently we have a pretty damn stable exchange rate, it’s one pound to the pound.  Which has always worked out pretty well, it certainly saves on quick mental arithmetic.  However, if we become independent would we just cheat and keep our exchange rate at a pound to the pound?  Or would economics get in the way and one Scottish pound would be worth one British pound, ninety seven pence, a pound and five, twenty three pence, five pound forty?

There seems to be an underlying assumption that we would automatically be granted membership to the EU, NATO, UN and any other international fraternity that we currently get into clinging on the coattails of the UK.  Would that still be the case?  Would we still be welcome at the EU table?  I doubt we can just rock up in Strasbourg with our haggis and bagpipes, a quick how-do-you-do?-nod and then ask everyone to budge up a bit so we can squeeze in between Latvia and Malta.  In fairness we would bring our own chair, but the catering numbers would be all messed up.  Belgium will not be happy if we get its cup of coffee and little triangular cheese and pickle sandwich [and don't even think about getting between Slovenia and its bourbon cream].

If independence did get the “yes” vote, how long would it take before it was implemented?  Would we count the ballots then close the border straight away?  Would we have months of to-ing and fro-ing, while people get more and more irate?  Would we have to wait for every single last thing to get put into place?  Would we all need Scottish passports before we could head as far as Carlisle?  [I bet they would be themed around the Saltire] and how would we let other countries know we are now a real country?  Would we just change our facebook status: “Scotland is now single”?

In all honesty, I don’t think that they have really thought this through properly.  They show facts and figures, but on a purely practical level it just wouldn’t work.

Literacy, Schmiteracy

The National Literacy Trust conducted a survey on the correlation between writing and technology.  At fifty-two pages the writer of the [at times repeatedly repetitive] report is clearly a fan of both writing and technology.  I’ll save you the hassle of reading it, in short: kids who do more writing for pleasure enjoy writing, believe they are better at it and have a more favourable view of writers.

Or, as I would more succinctly put it: “Nae shit Sherlock”.

Most worrying statistic of the whole report:  “77% wrote notes or answers in class or for homework at least once a month”.  What do the other 23% of kids do in school?!

November 9, 1989

In 1994, aged eleven and in my first week at High School, I sat in my Modern Studies classroom engrossed in the out-of-date map which hung on the wall.  It was a simple political map, the thick black lines drawing borders between the white countries.  A few countries, however, were coloured a bright, angry red.  These were the non-democratic countries.  Most of them were far, away and I didn’t give them much thought, but there, in the middle of Europe, was a red blob and even more intriguing was in the middle of the red blob was a tiny little white blob – West Berlin.

I was fascinated by this tiny little circle of democracy adrift in a sea of communism.  The politics were neither here nor there, at that time it wasn’t the politics that drew me in; the politics were simply the catalyst for this strange socio-cultural anomaly.  It was the everyday life that kept me enthralled; this life behind the wall where nothing goes in or out: how did they get supplies in?  Did they ever get bored with the amount of space they had?  Did they ever just stand and stare over the wall?  When the airlifts were in place, did anything ever land on peoples’ heads?

Every time I read something new it drew me further and further in (and it still does); it was exciting.  I know now that it almost certainly wasn’t nearly as exciting as I thought – and to an extent still think – it was, it was certainly a lot more dangerous, a lot more hard work and a far more mundane that I want to believe it was.  I am aware I have probably romanticised the everyday horrors, seeing the escapes as Boys’ Own Adventures as opposed to the fights and fights for life and liberty that they truly were.

It was thirteen years after the fall of The Wall before I made it to Berlin for the first time, and although I don’t believe in love at first sight this city could easily have persuaded me.  There is a feeling in the city, that it knows it has a history, it knows that for years all the world’s eyes were on it, that while the world watched with baited breath the inhabitants had to go about their day-to-day lives and just get on with it.  It knows just how important that history is, but also is clear that life goes on.  It hasn’t forgotten its history, far from it, but neither does it glorify nor demonise it.  There’s a sense in Berlin that the history is there, and you’re more than welcome to go and see it, but the locals remember it, they lived it, they don’t need to commemorate it.  Tourists are more than welcome to come in and have a look at it, but there is no exploitation.  It’s as if, as a whole, the city says, “The history’s over there, where you’re done with it, come and see us and we’ll talk about what we’re up to these days.  We’ve got cutting-edge music, economic masterpieces and a thousand types of Wurst using offal you didn’t even know existed”. That’s what I like about Berlin, it’s very self-aware; it knows where it has been, it knows where it is and it knows where its going, but it doesn’t need to keep reminding us of any of those things, it’s just getting on with it, ploughing through and – as clichéd as it sounds – living in the now.

It’s exactly twenty years since the Berlin Wall was brought down with nothing stronger than words, – some say – accidental words.  It’s an unusual feat for this day in age: to end a conflict peacefully with words and kindness instead of bombs and grenades.  Twenty years seems equally a lifetime and a blink of an eye.  The Wall has been gone twenty years – there are entire generations living in Berlin who never lived through the separation – and yet that’s still a shorter time than The Wall existed.

Two decades have passed and yet the biggest question still remains unanswered: Did David Hasselhoff really bring down The Wall?