That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
As part of a wider shake-up of the immigration system - about time, some might say - the government has acted to tighten controls on potential overseas students coming to British universities.
The new rules, to be introduced in October of next year, will introduce a points system for overseas students and the requirement of a government-vetted college or university to sponsor an individual student. These are on top of financial checks to ensure students are capable of paying a certain amount for their education each year in fees.
These much needed reforms to the way this country deals with overseas students have been a long time in coming. Prior to the new regulations, colleges would be able to offer ‘bogus’ courses, which undoubtedly were no more than a means to low-skilled employment and a dilution of the quality of our education system in the UK. Testament to this assertion is that since 2005, 256 of the 2,000 institutions have been inspected by the government and of those, almost half have been struck off the register completely.
The current system is obscenely open to abuse from students using illegal documentation in order to gain a place to study.
As part of the new rules, a points-based system will be introduced whereby students must gain forty points in order to study in the UK. Thirty of these can be gained when a particular academic institution sponsors an individual, and the other ten are gained on having genuine documentation and the financial ability to support oneself through the first year of study. Only when these points are achieved will a student be granted a full visa to study in the UK. This is in contrast to the current system, which is obscenely open to abuse from students using illegal documentation in order to gain a place to study, often only in order to enter into low-skilled work on achieving qualifications.
Overseas students contribute much to the UK both on a student and national level. The government raises over £2.5bn in tuition fees from overseas students and the expertise they offer the UK economy on graduation is, in the most part, world class. That is why, as part of the new legislation, the government has decided to double the number of years graduates can remain in the UK on graduation from one year to two. The new regulations hold enhanced prospects for overseas students gaining employment in the UK on graduation in the skills sector of work.
What stands out as positive about the new licensing system, is that it does not discriminate against genuine overseas students who come to the UK to study. At the same time, the new rules will ensure that genuine academic institutions are officially recognised and protected by government and not abused by individuals who seek to take advantage of our undoubtedly weak system of border controls and often gain qualification without a full grasp of the native tongue, according to certain academics and students.
Everyone should welcome the news that our government has finally decided to act to protect the status of genuine, hard-working individuals, who choose to come to this country to develop their expertise in our academic institutions. The new legislation will make it tougher for those abusing the current system to do so, and at the same time, enhance the status of the qualifications gained by the majority of overseas students who do not attempt to abuse the system.
There is of course, the (small) matter of implementation. This government is, after all, notoriously useless at sensibly enacting its vast array of new legislation. However for the moment, let’s take this chance to congratulate Her Majesty’s government, dead in the water though it may be, on sensible legislation that addresses a problem that is there for everyone to see.
You can read ISA Welfare Officer George Papadofragakis' views on the new immigration laws here.
The point about Dan is that he's brilliant at arguing and makng a case for something that, on the face of it, so many would be opposed to. Good effort, mate.
Oh dear, who gave Taylor a proverbial Soap Box? Shame on you people at the Yorker...
comment deleted by a moderator spot on taylor.
Perhaps it merely needs more elaboration but the clause about having the financial ability to support oneself through the first year of study is potentially worrying and open to abuse, particularly in being used as a means of discrimination against those from lower-income backgrounds. Were it not for the student loan, myself and many others I know might have been unable to support ourselves through the first year and so would have failed this test if it had existed when we were applying to university and had also been applicable to UK nationals. It is important that we do not have a system in which educational opportunities are denied to people simply because they happen to be poor as well as being from overseas.
Also worrying is the implicit assumption in this article that going into "low-skilled" employment after graduation means that one has somehow abused the system. People, of all nationalities, have the right to choose and apply for whatever employment they wish and are qualified for and if this employment is what some would regard as "low-skilled", so be it. I don't really see how this is relevant. It also shouldn't be considered alongside concerns about illegal documentation unless there is a genuine and verifiable relationship between the two.
Unfortunately Dan, the matter of implementation is by no means small, as I will be explaining in tomorrow's article..
George, the "(small)" was said ironically.
I do not follow your reasoning Dan. It seems that for a great part of your article you focus on these "bogus" institutions. You fail however to explain the connection between these and overseas students. Why can't the government focus in eliminating such institutions, without involving internationals?
A.
comment deleted by the author I agree 100% with Aris.
Sure border control is great, but the real problem here is that legitimate overseas students will have to pay the price (through biometric ID's and monitored attendance) for a problem that they simply did not create.
Unfortunately, you have not even mentioned this; whether that's because you did not know about it or because you did not think it is important enough I can not tell.
George, at least Dan knows the correct Minister for State for the individual responsible for this legslation. If it has changed, surely it's important to mention this rather than offer factual innacuracies that makes the rest of your arguament ridiculous.
Anonymous, your point makes no sense at all. What has changed? What inaccuracies did George include in his article, that made it ridiculous?
And mistaking one minister is not enough to ridicule his article. Its arguments have nothing to do with a simple name. Instead of picking minor holes, you'd better develop your own substantial arguments rather than faithfully following Dan like a puppy (unless you are Dan yourself).
Best,
A.
which he clearly is..
Aris, the post above wasn't me, just for the record.
Regarding your point, the new immigration rules for students are part of a much wider shakeup of this country's immigration policy. Obviously part of that is to address the issue of bogus institutions, but on top of this, one must also address the very real problem of bogus overseas students, in the UK with false documentation, taking advantage of these institutions.
You seem to be advocating an "either/or" policy; addressing the issue of bogus institutions without dealing with overseas students who use these establishments, and indeed people born in the UK. This article happens to be on overseas students, however, so needless to say, that is what it focuses on.
On the subject of biometric ID's, I have my own opinions on this, not necessarily in line with government policy. I happen to think they're a massive waste of money and this money could be better spent on streamlining the immigration system and creating an effective UK border force with power to immediately expel illegal migrants, but that brings us off-topic somewhat.
As I've alluded to in the article, in my opinion, any policy that offers a tightening of immigration controls is positive, as long as it is administratively plausible. Regarding students, any initiative that prevents overseas nationals entering this country with false documentation and abusing our educational institutions is also positive.
"Any policy that offers a tightening of immigration controls is positive, as long as it is administratively plausible."
"Any initiative that prevents overseas nationals entering this country with false documentation and abusing our educational institutions is also positive."
Really? Even if that clearly infringes on the rights of the overwhelming majority of legitimate overseas students?
#11, whoever you are, surely it's better not to mention that the minister in question was recently replaced (in a quote of virtually no importance), than not to mention some of the most important measures that will be introduced throughout the course of an entire article.
What "rights" are these that you are talking about? How is it in any way infringing those rights? If someone is here legitimately and with legal documentation, using the academic institutions in this country, how are their rights being limited? If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.
By having professors spying on them, by treating them all like potential criminals and by making them go through a contemptuous, time-consuming, costly and clearly unnecessary procedure.
Besides, how do we know that the government will not be losing all the personal data of overseas students too? Doesn't it have an infamous tendency to do so after all?
"If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about"
Sure, we may as well install cameras in their houses then, just to be 100% sure.
As I've said, I agree that the student visa requirements should be changing and that the bogus colleges should be stamped out. But the rest of the measures (ID's, monitored attendance) are both hysterical and ineffective.
There are modules that neither me nor Aris have ever even set foot on. Do you think we should be expecting a visit from the UK border agency, or should we be immediately expelled by your "powerful border-force"?
"But the rest of the measures (ID's, monitored attendance) are both hysterical and ineffective."
I'm not entirely sure you can say they are either, considering they haven't yet been implemented. Such ‘phropheticism’ is not constructive in this debate.
"By having professors spying on them, by treating them all like potential criminals."
This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion to make. You accuse the measures of being "hysterical" yet this comment reeks of over-dramatisation. They will not be 'spied on' for goodness sake. It's so easy to make an outrageous comment like this as a proclamation of 'end of debate' but it's simply not true.
I'm sorry, but there are overseas students who take advantage of our system. They are illegal entrants into this country using illegal documentation and are therefore lawbreakers. This new legislation is seeking to address that issue. What is unconstructive is this 'victim mentality' that appears to be at the heart of your opposition. Nothing will change for overseas students who attend institutions that the government has passed as being non-bogus and who have the correct documentation that enables them to study in the UK.
With all respect, whatever I may think of ID cards, the democratically elected British government has decided to introduce them first for overseas students. Without wishing to offend too much, overseas students come to this country to use our academic institutions and must play by the rules as laid out by HM government. There's a simple answer if a majority don't like it: Don't study here. However, I don't think this will ever happen. Overseas students enjoy the benefits of our academic institutions and British employers enjoy the expertise of overseas students who now thanks to the new legislation, can stay here for 2 years on graduation, not 1.
But heh, if they're going to be "spied on" (similar to the Gestapo, I imagine?), then what's the point of them being given that opportunity anyway?
You are absolutely wrong Dan. You want us here, because we boost your economy.
I did not apply to US institutions, because I could not be bothered to sit the SATs. However, if I had to go to some remote centre to have my fingerprints taken, and knew that attendance would be kept for every class, and records would be stored for me, I think the SATs would not seem such an inconvenience after all. And I know these rules would not apply to me as I am european, but I believe all internationals would think like me.
A.
First of all, I am pretty sure you can say that some of those measures are inherently ineffective for reasons I have explained in my own article. As me and Aris said, the target here should be the bogus colleges; this can not possibly include Britain's legitimate and reputed universities that simply have no connection whatsoever to this problem. The solution clearly lies through the identification of those fake colleges and the immediate removal of their licenses. I don't see how this observation qualifies as a "prophecy" in any way.
"They will not be 'spied on' for goodness sake."
That's your own opinion there. In fact, "spying" is the word that academics and student unions have used to voice their opposition to those measures, in the petition that they've handed to the government. In their opinion, monitoring the attendance of overseas students on courses and reporting their absence to the UK border agency is not simply singling them out or treating them in a contemptuous manner, it is nothing more and nothing less than spying.
"I'm sorry, but there are overseas students who take advantage of our system"
There are illegal immigrants abusing student visas to gain entry to the UK through fake colleges. There are huge differences between the two and clarifying this is by no means a "victim mentality".
"thanks to the new legislation, they can stay here for 2 years on graduation, not 1"
Dan, things are not black and white. As I've said more than once, some parts of the new regulations are sensible and positive (e.g. student visa requirements, ministry checks/approvals etc.), while others are not. Adopting an "all or nothing" approach is very counter-productive when discussing solutions to a problem.
What you would have to prove here is why some of the most controversial measures to be introduced would actually contribute towards a more effective border control, without placing an unfair and disproportionate burden on the overwhelming majority of legitimate overseas students.
You have not even tried to do that. In fact, you have not even mentioned those measures. What you have been effectively saying is that the need for border control should just tramp everything else, and that "if you don't like it, leave".
And this is exactly the message that is being sent out. A message that, I believe, most people would not find very positive.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report