Higher Education: human right or modern privilege?

It was announced today that two teenagers are seeking a judicial review into the Government’s decision to allow university fees to rise.

You read that right. A 16 and 17 year old to be exact. Initially I was impressed at their intelligence; ingenuity and maturity. Rather than urinating on a statue of Churchill, the pair are using the legal process for its true purpose: the pursuit and enforcement of justice.

But then I realised – they are 16 and 17. I don’t mean to sound incredulous, but really? I wonder whether a pushy parent/teacher/politician/lawyer/journalist has initiated this process of inevitably ruining their young lives. Being attacked from the right-wing press and exposed by the rest by damaging scrutiny will hardly help their future prospects if this is the case. Especially if they lose.

And they will lose.

Despite their representatives, Public Interest Lawyers, claiming the Government has breached Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, higher education itself is not a human right.

Education, however, is a human right. Access to clean water, food and shelter are human rights (NB: many of which are sadly not universally available). Access to a university education with top research and teaching facilities just isn’t. It is worth clarifying at this stage that I am not against social mobility in HE. Far from it; increasing access and opportunities for poorer kids to get into university is crucial for our social and economic development as a nation. This is not the same as filling some spurious Whitehall quota for squeezing in lower income teens.

It is a difference that may be small but is crucial in this case. The crux of their case is that the new rules do not comply with current equality legislation. They are right that university access is not a ‘equal’ as it could or should be. But the huge amount of work that is being carried out by universities to widen participation is starting to address the imbalance. The Government’s National Scholarship Scheme; Alan Milburn’s work on social mobility and Simon Hughes’ appointment as ‘Access Tsar’ will all start to reap rewards if carried out correctly.

Running and crying to a lawyer will not address the inequalities in the system. The Government are beginning to realise the painful reality of their decision. Under the new rules the Treasury may be worse off financially with the graduates having a significantly reduced likelihood of paying back the entire ‘cost’ of their degrees.

If teenagers up and down the country truly want to go to university and they work hard to achieve the necessary entry requirements, access only becomes an issue when perception of barriers to HE begin to stop lower income families from even considering let alone encouraging their young into higher education.

Changing Times: a golden political oppportunity?

Over the coming days and weeks the debate surrounding the altering of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) will come to a head. It is widely reported that Rebecca Harris’s Private Members Bill will be acknowledged formally by the updated Tourism Strategy from the DCMS by the end of the week.

For those unfamiliar with the knock-on benefits of changing to “double summertime” these purportedly include reducing the number of people killed or injured on roads; a reduction in energy bills and national carbon emissions; a reduction in crime; over £3.5 billion generated for the economy including the creation of 80,000 jobs and general improvements in health and wellbeing for the country.

The politicians dream! A slight change in our sleeping habits will reportedly leave the voters happier, healthier and richer. Think of all the public services that the Government wouldn’t have to cut if £3.5 billion was brought in simply by changing a clock!

Sounds too good to be true doesn’t it? That’s because sadly it is.

Buried away in point 3.8 of the ‘Daylight Savings Bill 2010-11’ is the section discussing ‘General Wellbeing and Health’. In it the research says that ‘it is difficult to say whether a clock change would lead to health benefits, although some commentators have claimed that it may…’ These words frighten me. May? Could? Some? Where are the doctors, professors, and researchers with as near to concrete data as possible to support or refute the health ramifications?

This isn’t the only area open to damaging scrutiny. Dr Malcolm von Schantz, biochemical expert at the University of Surrey expresses grave misgivings about the nature of the evidence. He notes that the 80,000 new jobs that would bring an extra £3.5-4.5 billion into the domestic tourist economy each year is not supported by any evidence. Lowering electricity bills by maximising the available daylight and flattening the peak in evening demand is a claim that amounts to a modest and insignificant 0.6% saving. The claim that it will improve the quality of life of elderly people or help tackle obesity is similarly a claim not supported by any evidence.

As if this wasn't bad enough, Dr von Schantz goes further:

The human body clock is only sensitive to the effects of light at specific times of day. Light is only able to advance the body clock in the morning. This is crucial, because the set point for our internal body clock is greater than 24 hours. Thus, we are required to constantly advance our clock with the help of morning light. If this does not happen, the result is likely to be a delayed sleep phase. Because we still need to get up in the morning, this will result in less sleep, which may result in more accidents, lower productivity, and an increased risk of winter depression.

The truth is that it’s just not good enough. If, as Dr von Schantz claims, there is cursory evidence to suggest that it may (at worst) harm the health of our citizens then politicians have a right/duty to base their decisions on a broad spectrum of well-funded scientific evidence and not whatever doddery professor you can find to suit your career driven purpose. The Haldane Principle of getting academic experts to advise on areas that require academic expertise is not only necessary, but crucial if we are to progress as a society.

I’m sure Rebecca Harris MP has the best of intentions; but the Daylight Savings Bill needs to be dropped until legitimate scientific evidence can be unearthed.

When our health is at stake we cannot allow the dream political bargain to cloud our rational vision. There lies the total opposite of progressive politics.

Are two heads better than one?

A guest post written for WonkHE discussing the possible side affects of the "collaborative partnership" between the Universities of Birmingham and Nottingham.