A Home Affairs Select Committee report released yesterday has cautioned the government against recent proposals to tighten up student visa requirements.

The government’s measures are designed to meet Prime Minister David Cameron’s pledge to cut net immigration to below 100,000 a year. The planned new student visa regime also intends to prevent fraud, and avoid the problems of the old system, which was “open to abuse” according to Immigration Minister, Damian Green.

Mr. Green stated, “This government recognises the important contribution that international students make to the U.K. economy, but the old student visa regime neither controlled immigration nor protected legitimate students from being exploited by poor quality colleges”.

However, the chairman of the cross-party committee, Labour MP Keith Vaz, has criticised the proposals. He commented, “Students are not migrants. They come from all over the world to study here, contributing to the economy both through payment of fees and wider spending.

“Whilst we are right to seek to eliminate bogus colleges and bogus students, we need to ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and the best.”

Vaz also criticised the evidence that the government used, “Generating policy based on flawed evidence could cripple the UK education sector. In the case of international students this could mean a significant revenue and reputational loss to the UK”.

22% of the total student body at Oxford, including 41% of postgraduate research students, are from outside the EU. The international student market is estimated to be worth £40 billion to the UK economy, and the UK is the second most popular destination for international students after the USA.

The committee’s report pointed to the past experiences of the USA and Australia, to illustrate the sensitivity of the international student market. Reforming the Australian student visa system is alleged to have contributed at least in part to a fall of 18.9% in applications between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

In particular, the report disagreed with the government proposals to end the Post-Study Work Visa, which allows graduates to stay and work in the UK for two years after they have completed their degree.

Some students do not see abolishing the Post Study Work Visa as problematic. Geoffrey Cheng, a first year engineer from Hong Kong, explained that he would want to apply for a job during his degree anyway, which would allow him to apply for a longer-term visa.

However, he added, “the idea of restricting student visas is really annoying. It is much harder to apply for student visas now than 2 years ago.”

Chung Wei-Chiu, an international student from Taiwan at Lincoln, called the government’s proposals “absolutely pointless”.

He added, “I can understand why some MPs want to cut the number of foreign students in the UK. However, foreign students who get their degree in UK become more employable in their own country, and the UK government receives more income. It seems to me like a win-win situation.”

Whilst the report concludes that a cap on student visas is “unnecessary and undesirable”, it does support proposals to tighten the accreditation of language schools. It also agreed with the government’s intentions to crack down on “bogus colleges and bogus students”.

The National Union of Students has welcomed the Committee’s response. In a statement they said, “the extent to which the committee had to find ‘least worst’ options in the face of overwhelming Government desire to push the plans through demonstrated just how wrong-headed the current proposals were”.

David Barclay, President of OUSU, called the report “timely and much needed”. He also commented, “It is very pleasing to see that the Committee took note of the OUSU submission.

“Oxford students can be proud that their voice has been fully represented to the Government on this crucial issue.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University said that the university is “seriously concerned” about the new visa proposals, which could cause “long-term damage”.

“The government has said the review will focus on abuse of the system by dubious below-degree-level sponsors. Our concern is that the proposals would affect world-class and other institutions alike, with a dramatic negative effect on the UK’s higher education system and research base.”

Christina Yan-Zhang, NUS International Students Officer, said, “As the Home Affairs Select Committee join the chorus of students, lecturers, universities, economists and business-people in criticizing the Government’s plans it is surely time for Theresa May to reconsider her determination to push through these damaging proposals”.

An NUS survey found that of 8000 international students surveyed, nearly 70% said they would not come to the UK without a Post-Study Work option.

Thirst Lodge has had its licence as a venue for sexual entertainment removed, after an Oxford County Council hearing at the beginning of this month.

The lap dancing club, which is described on its website as a \”late night music and cocktail bar\”, had its licence revoked on the grounds that \”a sexual entertainment venue at the premises would be inappropriate, having regard to the character of the relevant locality\”.

Located only 50 yards from St. Ebbes Church in Pennyfarthing Place, there had been a sustained campaign to have the venue closed down. The rector of the Church, the Rev Vaughan Roberts, described how they were \”delighted\” at the Council\’s decision, which they believed, \”should put out a very clear message that this sort of premises is not welcome in our city centres.\”

A student from Wadham commented, \”A lapdancing club isn\’t something that I\’m comfortable imagining in Oxford-St Ebbe\’s is nearby\”.

However, not all students were in favour of the council\’s decision. Emily Mock, a visiting student at St. Catherine\’s, said, \”I think it\’s unneccesary social management, and I think they\’re being irresponsible revoking a license without any substantial evidence of crime in the area.\”

Al Thompson, an owner of The Lodge described claims that lapdancing clubs caused crime in the surrounding areas as \”speculation\” and \”rubbish\”.

\”Most people who walk past don\’t have a clue what it is, there\’s no external advertising, just a couple of doormen after 9.30pm.\”

One Pembroke First Year admitted that \”it was quite saddening to see what some of these girls felt obliged to do just to earn a living.\”

Whilst OUSU Vice President for Women, Katharine Terrell, described the Council\’s decision as \”inevitable, given the religious and local opposition\”, she stated that she was not explicitly against lap dancing \”per se\”.

She added, \”it\’s important to distinguish between being against the objectification and exploitation of women versus judging or condemning the women involved.\”

OUSU had passed a motion condemning lap dancing at The Lodge in February last year.

Under the 2003 Licensing Act, lap dancing was treated as a form of dance, which meant that venues such as The Lodge did not have to apply for a separate licence for sexual entertainment.

Changes to the law in 2009 put lap dancing clubs into the same category as other providers of sexual entertainment, such as sex shops. Whilst Oxford City Council initially granted The Lodge a new licence in December 2009, a resolution passed in April 2010 meant that they had to reapply.

The Council resolution stated, \”sexual entertainment venues are not generally appropriate near…historic buildings or tourist attractions, schools, play areas, nurseries, children\’s centres or similar premises, shopping complexes, residential areas, places of worship\”.

Oxford City Council were keen to emphasise that The Lodge could continue to operate as a normal bar and club. Lap dancing at the club will have to end in June.

 

Durham University said on Wednesday that it intends to charge tuition fees of £9,000 from 2012. Leeds University and the University of Liverpool have also announced their decision to charge the maximum fees.

Professor Chris Higgins, Durham’s Vice-Chancellor, justified the decision by citing his belief in the “life-long rewards” of a degree from Durham University, and the employability of its graduates.

He added, “With our plans for a generous and flexible programme of financial support, we aim to ensure that affordability will not be a barrier to Durham attracting the best and brightest students.”

The decision has been endorsed by the University’s Students’ Union president, Sam Roseveare, who commented, “competition for places in several subjects is the highest in the UK and a Durham degree is worth the investment.

“We will now be looking to the University to fulfil its commitment to providing further enhancements to student services and facilities.”

However, the move has not been greeted warmly by all of Durham’s students, one of whom told Cherwell, “I think it’s an awful decision. £9,000 is too much, and students are going to start thinking twice about coming here.”

A spokeswoman for the University of Liverpool said that the recommendation of £9,000 fees would be put to a university council meeting on the 30th March, as it “will enable the institution to continue to invest in and enhance the student experience, as well as maintain its position as a leading Russell Group institution for widening access.”

Commenting on the decision to the BBC, National Union of Students Vice-President Usman Ali said, “It comes as absolutely no surprise that Liverpool University has joined the ever-growing £9,000 group….The government has completely failed to put any restrictions, or even disincentives, in place to stop universities asking for as much money as possible from students.”

Professor Malcom Povey, a Leeds University lecturer and member of the University and College Union, said, “The logic of setting up this pseudo-market is that everybody is driven towards charging the highest fee….Students will make judgements…if the fee is lower they will think it is inferior.”

Seven universities have now made the decision to charge the maximum fees, including Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and Exeter.

David Willets, the government’s Universities Minister, had previously commented that the £9,000 threshold would be charged only in “exceptional cases”. The government has warned that if too many universities charge the top fees it may have to cut teaching grants further to cover the cost of student loans.

Labour’s Universities spokesman, Gareth Thomas, has calculated that if all universities charge the top rate, the government’s shortfall will reach £777 million.

Other universities, including UCL, Bristol and Southampton, are to make their decisions on tuition fees shortly.

For the first time in six years, Magdalen Bridge will be open to the public during Oxford’s traditional May Day celebrations.

The bridge has been closed each May Day since 2005, when around 100 people jumped off it into shallow areas of the River Cherwell. 40 people were injured on this occasion, which the county council said cost the health service around £50,000.

However, despite precautionary measures taken by police in recent years, people have continued to jump from the 25ft-high bridge on May morning. Local residents have also expressed their desire for the bridge to be kept open on May mornings, as its closure divided the city during one of its most famous and idiosyncratic festivals.

Paramedics have voiced their concern at this decision, due to the severe injuries suffered by some who have jumped from the bridge in the past. They estimate that, on average, each incident costs the ambulance service £257.

The police have said that strict security measures will be in place to ensure the safety of those attending the festivities. Police and event stewards will limit access to the bridge, whilst pavements will be kept clear for emergency services.

James Andrewes, a member of Magdalen College Choir, said, “I think it’s great that they’ve reopened the bridge. Last year its closure did nothing more than to stop those on the far side of the bridge from getting close to the singing and the rest of the crowd.

“It didn’t stop people from jumping. From the top of the tower, I could see them just hopping the barriers and jumping off anyway. The jumping is enough of a tradition for people to find a way to do it no matter how much the council tries to stop them.”

Thousands of people are expected to attend Oxford’s May Day celebrations this year, which will include morris men dancing in Radcliffe Square, Broad Street and Catte Street, and a choir singing hymns at dawn from the tower at Magdalen College. Many bars and restaurants will be open for breakfast across the city, whilst events are being held throughout the day at venues such as the Ashmolean Museum and the Oxford Castle.

Oxford Police Commander Supt Amanda Pearson stated, “I would urge people to recognise this decision is one that has been made to further their enjoyment of this unique celebration, and not to abuse it.”

Juice at Kukui, Varsity Events\’ Tuesday night for Oxford University students, has ended, amongst rumours that Varsity will take over the increasingly popular Tuesday student night at Camera.

Varsity Events recently published an event on their Facebook group informing the Oxford student body that Tuesday of 8th Week Hilary 2011 would be the \”Last ever Juice @ Kukui, after running for 8 years over 3 different venues\”.

Speculation has been high over the reasons behind Varsity\’s decision, and the possibility of a link to Camera nightclub on St. Ebbe\’s street, which opened at the beginning of this academic year. Camera moved its Oxford-student-exclusive \”Blues\” club night from a Monday to a Tuesday evening at the beginning of Hilary term.

After an 8pm meeting on Wednesday 9th March between Varsity bosses and promoters, which took place at Roppongi, George St., rumours began circulating that Varsity events would be taking over the job of promoting the Tuesday night \”Blues\” events at Camera next term. The night is currently promoted by A-List events, a venture which was started by the owners of The Bridge and Camera.

However, an inside source told Cherwell, \”The meeting at Roppongi was very vague – there was no explicit mention that Varsity had made arrangements with the owners of Camera to take over \”Blues\” Tuesdays\”.

When Cherwell spoke to Dom Conte, who runs Varsity Events, he said that he would be happy to have a face-to-face meeting later in the week to discuss the matter, but declined to comment any sooner.

The owner and manager of Camera said that they maintain a no-press-policy at all times.

A Varsity promoter observed that \”any day Camera picked for their night would\’ve been serious competition for Varsity events\”.

One Oxford student added, \”Camera feels more like a classy night out in London, which you don\’t get from Varsity Events\”

A Camera promoter, when asked why they thought \”Juice at Kukui\” had declined in popularity over Hilary term, commented, \”Varsity promoters had taken their position for granted\”.

They added, \”Camera is a clubbing experience which appeals more to the Oxford student body.\”

Camera have increased the numbers through the door on a Tuesday night from under 700 to over 900 over the course of Hilary term, with students being turned away because the club was full.

A student from Teddy Hall said, \”Kukui used to be really fun but became overpriced, and the repetition of drinks deals may have been a reason why students began looking elsewhere for their nights out.\”

‘Juice at Kukui\’ was famous for it\’s ‘£2 Rum Punch All Night with a V-Card\’ deal, whilst Camera have a menu of £3 cocktails and 4-for-£10 Jaegerbombs.

Camera and The Bridge are both owned by the same partners, and Varsity Events currently works closely with The Bridge, promoting Thursday nights to Oxford students. An inside source at Camera said, \”We want to continue to develop a good relationship with Varsity Events in the future\”.

For now though, whether there will be any future Varsity Events\’ involvement with ‘Blues Tuesdays\’ at Camera remains unclear.

 

New rankings for world universities were released last week by The Times Higher Education Supplement, with the University of Cambridge three rungs higher than the University of Oxford in the World Reputation rankings.

Harvard University topped the table, landing an overall reputation score of 100.0, followed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a score of 85.0. Cambridge was awarded a score of 80.7 in third place, whilst Oxford scored 68.6 in sixth place.

A spokesperson for Cambridge commented on their website, “We are pleased that more than 13,000 academics have ranked Cambridge third in the world and the highest ranking institution in the UK, a reflection of the excellence of the world-class teaching and research that takes place and tribute to our staff and students.”

Claiming to be the first to analyse the reputations of world universities, THE used an invitation-only survey, compiled of more than 13,000 academics in 131 countries. The overall reputation of world universities was based on “reputation for teaching” (33.3% of overall score) and “reputation for research” (66.6% of overall score).

There were some significant differences between these rankings and the THE World University Rankings (WUR). For example, the London School of Economics came 87th in the WUR but 37th in the reputation rankings. Unlike the reputation rankings, the WUR takes into account what THE refers to as ‘13 separate performance indicators’.

Milan Thomas, a fourth year Economics student at Cambridge, although elated that his university was ranked higher than rival Oxford, admitted that there could be some bias in the survey.

“These rankings are based solely on reputation data collected from a select sub-sample of experienced academics. These academics may be making picks based on perceptions dating back to their days as students, so that there is a bias in favour of older, established institutions with a wealth of past successes at the expense of younger (but nevertheless prolific in the modern day) centres of research.”

Some commentators have also questioned whether the scores were more a measure of how well known the institutions were, rather than an indicator of perceived quality.

Erica Gilman, an international student at Wadham College, commented on the method used to create the new rankings, “You cannot properly rank US and UK schools on the same list because the two countries offer such differing methods of teaching.

“This survey does not take into account smaller liberal arts colleges that have smaller classes and different teaching methods.”

THE maintains that the World Reputation Rankings “are based on the largest global survey of academic opinion ever undertaken”, and are a clear gauge of world universities’ “reputation for academic excellence.”

Oxford University declined to comment on the new rankings.

Student protestors have won the battle in Cambridge to save student bursaries, with the University giving into their demands after an intense week of petitions, protests camps and rallies.

Proposals to slash bursaries from the current £3,500 a year to £1,625 were made by a University Working Group, with a concession of £3,000 per year fee waivers on £9,000 fees.

However, Cambridge University Student Union, and the campaign group Cambridge Defend Education, claimed that bursaries have a greater positive impact for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and that fee waivers, whilst helpful, would lack concrete benefits for those struggling to fund their university expenditures.

Cambridge academics were due to vote upon the fee proposals yesterday in a referendum called a ‘Grace’. CUSU had put forward an amendment to the motion mandating that, “the University continues to provide maintenance bursaries of at least the present levels”.

Despite the fact that 140 academics, over five times the number needed to assure a vote on the amendment, signed the paper, the Vice Chancellor Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz stated last Wednesday that he deemed the amendment “inadmissible as being in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace.”

By over-ruling the democratic process of the Grace, the Vice Chancellor caused some students and academics to call into question the legitimacy of the referendum. Many of these voiced their anger about the decision by signing petitions against it.

Archy de Berker, Pembroke Junior Parlour President, called it, “reprehensible wherever you stand on the fees, cuts, bursaries debate. This represents a violation of the founding principles of the University, and flies in the face of its stated aim of promoting the interests and views of the academics and students that make this University great.”

Professor Nick Gay, a member of the University Council, the body with the responsibility for setting tuition fees and bursary levels said at the time, “I’m surprised the Vice Chancellor has made this decision. I do not think the grace as it stands offers a real choice.

“The amendments would…send a clear message that high fees are not the way forward for HE and mandate the Council on the balance of fee waivers and bursaries.”

On the other hand, another member of the University Council, Dr. Rachel Padman, stated, “I support the decision…The current Grace does not pre-empt anything.”

After criticisms of the Vice Chancellor’s decision, and prolonged protests, including a two day camp-out of over 40 students on the lawn of Senate House and a demonstration by over 800 people on Thursday, the University announced that they intended to keep the bursaries.

A press release from the University on Monday stated that their decision was, “to enhance the present Cambridge Bursary Scheme which offers support of up to £3,500 each year. The Scheme will offer individual students the choice of taking their Cambridge bursary as a fee waiver or a cash sum.”

“This package will ensure that, for those students from lower income households, it is no more expensive to study at Cambridge than at other UK universities. In particular, it will offer enhanced support to those who need it most, and allow students to assess their own needs and access support from the University in the way which suits their circumstances best.”

Oxford University announced today that they will offer both fee waivers and bursaries to students from lower income backgrounds, alongside a rise to £9,000 fees for all other students.

CUSU President Rahul Mansigani commented, “I am delighted that we have forced the University to throw out its plans to cut maintenance bursaries…Cuts to our bursaries would have been disastrous, preventing thousands of students from fully participating in the Cambridge experience.”

Describing the protests that had taken place, he added, “This is a powerful demonstration of how effective Cambridge students can be when they campaign together. We have saved our bursaries!”

Musab Younis, a postgraduate student at Wadham College, Oxford, and an outspoken participant in many of the student protests last year, said,”I think the Cambridge students are absolutely right to try to retain what they can in terms of access to university based on merit rather than privilege.”

Oxford University is going to increase tuition fees to the maximum £9,000 per year from 2012, a decision which came after a meeting of the University\’s ruling council on Monday.

The new fees system, which will come into operation from 2012/13, will work on a sliding scale with students from the lowest income households having their tuition fees capped at £3,500 for their first year, and £6,000 in the following years. Students on household incomes of higher than £25,000 will be charged the full £9,000.

When the details are finalised on Thursday, this week\’s decision will make Oxford the fourth university to officially decide to increase fees to the new maximum level, along with Cambridge, Imperial and Exeter.

The government\’s Office for Fair Access has declared that any universities that choose to increase fees to the new maximum level must invest up to £900 from every £9,000 fee paid in targeting applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Oxford has pledged that, out of the £10 million of extra income that the changes will bring in, the university will ring-fence £7 million to be spent on increased outreach schemes, bursaries and student support services.

Details of the proposed new bursaries were outlined, which will see around 10% of students receive the highest bursary of £4,300 in their first year of study, and £3,300 thereafter. Bursaries will also extend to students with annual household incomes of up to £42,000, on a sliding scale. The Oxford Opportunity Bursary is currently awarded on a sliding scale to those with household incomes up to £50,020.

Cambridge University made a decision in the last few days to offer students a choice of a bursary or a fee waiver, rather than both as outlined in Oxford\’s decision, after protests from academics and students against a proposal to cut bursaries.

The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Andrew Hamilton, has said, \”These proposals show the strength of our commitment to being accessible for all, and to attracting the very brightest students, whatever their circumstances.\”

In an official statement available on the University website, and emailed to all students, the Vice-Chancellor also said, \”It is deeply regrettable, as the University has made clear, that the Government is reducing drastically direct public investment in university teaching – and that in a country which already spends less in percentage terms than the OECD average on higher education.\”

Many students and tutors have expressed concerns about the University\’s decision. The Oxford University Committee for Higher Education (OUCHE) have been actively campaigning for a complete scrapping of tuition fees and are still working to amend the Council\’s decision.

One of the founding members of OUCHE, and a fellow and tutor in Physiological Sciences at Worcester, John Parrington, commented, \”I know the University is planning bursaries, but I fear that the students most in need of them will have the least information and confidence to apply for them.\”

Univ Politics tutor, Dr Pablo Beramendi, agreed that there were issues with the proposals. He said, \”The current solution hurts everyone because it combines a compromise that means a lot of effort to middle and low income families and extracts far too little from high income families.\”

Beramendi also expressed his view that fees should rise even more for those from higher income backgrounds who were able to afford them, in order \”to avoid this perverse redistribution effect\” and to provide funds \”which fully support talented candidates from middle and low income backgrounds\”.

On the other hand, Jon-Paul Spencer, a first year PPE student at Univ, said, \”As long as the University increase bursaries and advertise the fact that graduates rather than parents pay back the fees then the changes won\’t be as bad as they first seem.\”

Hannah Booker, the JCR Access and Academic Affairs Officer at Lincoln, commented, \”it would have been a powerful message for Oxford to send by not setting fees at the maximum possible level.\”

She added, \”this large raise may put some people off applying who are otherwise very able to get in. I think Oxford need to ensure they publicise the fantastic bursary scheme they have in place to ensure this doesn\’t happen.\”

Corpus Christi JCR President, Jack Evans, said, \”While this package doesn\’t go far enough as I would have liked, I think this does show the impact both JCRs and OUSU can have on policy making decisions within the University.

\”David Barclay and OUSU must be congratulated by students in leading the way on this issue and making sure Oxford remains a institution which is avaliable for everyone, regardless of their financial position.

\”At certain points during this campaign it seemed like the Bursary scheme would be cut, so to get an increase is a massive achievement. Overall this is a day in which, despite the awful situation presented to us by the coalition, Oxford students can be proud.\”

The President of OUSU, David Barclay, told the BBC that he supported the steps the University is taking to lessen the blow to the poorest students and said, \”Oxford has sent out a message that we will not leave a generation of bright young students confused and excluded by the new fees system.\”

The percentage of successful applicants to Oxford who come from state schools has increased by 3% on last year\’s figures, to 58.5% for 2011 entry. If, as many fear, the increased fees discourage students from poorer backgrounds from applying then it will be widely seen as undoing this progress that has been made in widening access to Oxford.

The government has told universities in England that they could be denied the right to charge fees up to the highest level of £9,000 unless they take measures to attract a wider mix of students.