Cambridge Slams Government Plans

e Independent Student Newspaper Issue 803 Friday 29th January 2016 Published in Cambridge since 1947 www.varsity.co.uk 4 News: King’s debate rise of ISIS 8 Interview: Stephen Merchant 19 Culture: John Hughes Arts Festival 27 eatre: Product Exclusive Investigation: SEEKING ARRANGEMENT The Cambridge Sugar Babies Special arrangements: Varsity speaks to the Cambridge students who are searching for sugar daddies online Page 5 Cambridge slams government plans ● University report claims proposals for higher education will cause ‘considerable damage’ ● Consultation ‘fails to demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of our universities’ Tom Freeman e report is co-authored by to study. aims”. It also aims to establish an But in his introduction to the con- the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Leszek e document also includes Assocate Edtor Offi ce for Students (OFS) to “promote sultation, Universities and Science Borysiewicz, and was submitted on proposals to increase “access the student interest and ensure value Minister Jo Johnson defended the gov- behalf of the university and its 31 and success” in higher education for money”. e university was highly ernment’s approach. e University of Cambridge has criti- constituent colleges. participation from under-represented critical of this focus. “Higher education should deliver cised the government’s plans for high- It cites “fundamental concern” with groups, and to create a single gateway “ e ‘long-reach’ aim of universities lasting value to graduates,” he wrote. er education, claiming they will cause three aspects of the proposals: the for entry across the sector. is to help students grow into thoughtful “While employers report strong “considerable damage” to the sector complete separation of funding and However, the university “strongly and critical citizens, not just earners demand for graduate talent, they and its “international standing”. regulation of teaching from research; oppose[s] any imposition of admissions and consumers,” it says. continue to raise concerns about the In a strongly critical response to the the “likely [...] counter-productive” targets” as a breach of institutional e university also expressed skills and job readiness of too many in government’s Green Paper ‘Higher mechanisms to implement them; autonomy and academic freedom. concern that the TEF regime would the graduate labour pool.” Education: Teaching Excellence, Social and “the removal of one regulatory Considering imposed admissions pave the way for a system of truly e report cites the “vital role” Mobility and Student Choice’, the body independent of government” targets as a threat to “the fundamental variable fees in higher education. universities have to play in the University claims that the consultation responsible for all university activity. principle of educational standards “We do not support the linkage challenge to increase productivity “fails to demonstrate an understanding Among the government’s fl agship required for entry”, the report also between TEF and fees: it is bound within the wider economy, “the main of the purpose of our universities”. proposals is the establishment of warns that such targets “risk harming to aff ect student decision-making driver of economic growth in the years In the Green Paper, the government a Teaching Excellence Framework the outcomes upon which the national adversely, and in particular it may to come.” lays out plans to “reshape the higher (TEF), which seeks to help students and global reputation of the sector deter students from low income Currently, the Green Paper also education landscape to have students “understand the quality of teaching relies and the prestige and benefi t of families from applying to the best outlines plans to merge HEFCE and at its heart”. off ered at diff erent institutions”, achieving a degree for students”. universities,” its response reads. the Offi ce for Fair Access to create the But the university claims: “ ey risk aiming to “raise teaching standards” e government’s consultation lists Meanwhile, the University of Oxford Offi ce for Students, a more market- undermining the very priorities they in higher education as students make providing “greater focus on graduate expressed concern that a TEF’s costs and student-focused regulatory body. are designed to advance”. “more informed choices” about where employability” as one of its “core “would outweigh its benefi ts”. Continued on page 4 INSIDE: BME ACADEMICS, FIGHTING SEXUAL VIOLENCE, CAMBRIDGE TECH STARS 2 Editorial Friday 29th January 2016 Lost illusions is week we learn that Cambridge stu- tween colleges? It’s why we’re drawn Exhausting though it may be, we have a of Cambridge, we have to view the world dents are engaging in the world of online towards stories such as the discovery certain duty to follow, and form opinions as it really is. Every so often, rose-tinted ‘sugar daddies’ and ‘sugar babies’. While of a 100-year-old gyp room at Selwyn on, the latest controversies – see, for in- spectacles have to be unceremoniously this is perhaps not a revelation for those (page 9), and why we’re bound to have stance, what now seems to be an annual sat on. While that may seem disorientat- of us who have been around in the Cam- a quick virtual snoop around other peo- debate about race and diversity, which is ing at fi rst – who wants to think about bridge student press for longer than one ple’s colleges now that some of them currently hitting the headlines again in what their friends get up to online any- cares to mention – Varsity reported on have opened their doors to the cam- the wake of the Oscars nominations and way? – in the end the truth will out, and this back in 2013 – it is certainly worth- eras of Google Street View (page 4). It’s Charlotte Rampling’s comments (page it will be briskly refreshing. while to remind ourselves every so often all about breaking down the imagined 13). e aura of showbiz glamour which that in among the normal rush of lec- barriers and illusions which perpetuate surrounds her has taken a serious knock, In a way, this is what the press is here tures, essays, and supervisions, there are the many Cambridge ‘myths’. is is, of along with her chances of picking up an to facilitate. e things we read retain other students who are living very diff er- course, a constant source of concern for Oscar. (regardless of their content) a latent po- ent lives. access teams across the university. tential to shock, and this is one of the is duty to rid ourselves of ‘naïve’ illu- reasons why any of us pick up a paper to is probably isn’t cause to start reevalu- Here we fi nd the fundamental problem sions is not just a question of intellectual read the news. We certainly take more ating all of your friends – not everyone with mythbusting – sometimes we end rigour for its own sake, although at a interest in the stories which surprise us, is at it on their laptops when they’re pre- up wishing that we’d remained in blissful university like Cambridge we may often and yet it remains the duty of responsi- tending to write an essay – but it should ignorance. feel that this is all we ever do. ble journalists to strike the right balance; be enough to give pause for thought. hunting for shocks devalues them. If we However, we are frequently told (for bet- Instead, the intellectual bursting of cer- are to avoid descending into unfeeling New realisations about the nature of ter or worse) that blissful ignorance is not tain bubbles is indeed a duty. If we ever and unhelpful cynicism, we have to both life in Cambridge are a constant source an ethical option. How often do we read wish to consider ourselves responsible realise and retain a sense of the value of of interest; why else are we perennially articles which tell us that ‘awareness’ is citizens now or in the years after we illusions, as we both clutch at them and EDITORIAL intrigued by the minute diff erences be- the solution to any number of problems? leave the sheltered courts and corridors wave them goodbye. Trinity and John’s hit back at Tab over May Ball reviews Cambridge] could incentivise remaining Cambridge Balls”. Joe Robnson [its] authors”, and that e Tab e statement argued that e Senor News Edtor Cambridge would not review Tab’s policy “aims to undermine any events besides Trinity and the atmosphere of cooperation St John’s as part of its May Week and solidarity between the re- e presidents of Trinity and St coverage unless the policy is spective Ball committees.” John’s May Balls have released a changed. It then stated that e Tab’s joint statement condemning an e email went on to state that approach “seeks to portray us as email to May Ball and June Event a May Ball review from e Tab rivals”, in contrast to what they presidents from the editors of Cambridge was “of course highly characterise as the May Balls’ e Tab Cambridge, James Wells valuable.” Wells and Bisits claim “common goal” of “providing a and Xavier Bisits. that the current policy breaks a night to remember for all of our In the email, Wells and Bisits convention of issuing tickets to guests.” had encouraged the May Ball reviewers, and insist that e eir comments echo those Presidents’ Committee to drop Tab has been off ered such tickets made by Derek Chan, May Ball its ban on the provision of “free in the past. Presidents’ Committee Chair, or discounted tickets” to student In their response to the email, who called e Tab Cambridge’s reviewers, and made it clear that Julian Derby and Harriet Gordon, actions “particularly irregular” the publication “will not be giv- Trinity May Ball Presidents, and and “heavy-handed”, criticising ing any free publicity to May Tom Zhang, St John’s May Ball them for intending to “block pro Balls this year in the form of President, requested that “ e bono review submissions from reviews”.

Load more