But what implications does this tumultuous shake-up of British politics have for students in higher education?

The Conservatives’  manifesto pledges 10,000 more university places for the academic year 2010-11 and encourages the formation of ‘joint university-business research and development institutes’,  slamming the previous Labour government for ‘consigning a generation to  an uncertain future of worklessness and dependency’. The Lib Dems’ manifesto’s figurehead university policy was, on the other hand, the eventual abolition of tuition fees.

However, in failing to receive a majority, both parties have had to sideline many of these ambitious policy ideas, and have diluted them into more vague promises, mostly dependent on the result of Lord Browne’s review on higher education funding.

The two parties have published a document entitled ‘The Coalition: our programme for government’, which in its section regarding ‘Universities and Further Education’ details the government’s very broad intentions to ‘increase social mobility’, ‘take into account the impact on student debt’, ‘ensure a properly funded university sector’, improve the quality of teaching’, ‘advance scholarship’  and ‘attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds’. The document also seems to imply the formation of a more centralised league table system for higher education institutions, pledging to ‘publish more information on the costs, graduate earnings, and student satisfaction of different university courses’.

The ‘programme’  also notes that if the Browne review suggests measures unacceptable to the Liberal Democrat MPs, they have permission to abstain from voting. The review recently proposed that, after 2013 (after most of us will have graduated) tuition fees should rise £1000 per year for several years (specifically at Russell Group and other ‘prestigious’ universities). This is an effective removal of the tuition fees cap established in 2006-7. Interestingly, the Deputy Prime Minister himself, Nick Clegg, and his shadow-chancellor and current Business Secretary Vince Cable, are both opposed to any rise in tuition fees, being signatories on a pre-election pledge to this effect, so the impending votes resulting from this review in Parliament will be divisive to say the least. See Vikki Vile’s article ‘Analysis: The Uncertain Future of Tuition Fees’, for more detail.

The contradictory and currently undecided ideas of the two parties will be the source of great anxiety to all university students, but particularly those who are to enter university this coming academic year. With admissions rising 16.5% on last year, admissions service UCAS stating it is highly likely approximately 200,000 students will not receive a university place this year, tens of thousands of whom will have achieved straight ‘A’ grades (they also state that 40,000 of this year’s applicants are re-applicants, having applied unsuccessfully last year). Professor David Green, vice-chancellor of the University of Worcester, claims the figure could even reach 250,000. This is over double the figure of merely two years ago.

Doing nothing to mitigate this problem, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (responsible for universities) was told by new Chancellor George Osborne on May 25^th that his comprehensive deficit plan’s spending cuts include scrapping the 10,000 university places promised in his original manifesto, saving £200m.

Our new government has certainly got its work cut out.

Related posts:

1. Universities set for major change
2. Universities: We don’t need regulation
3. British Universities lose out to American rivals

And as I stared at the set, a room converted into a film-geek’s paradise, I found myself asking the question: How did we end up doing this? Three film-graduates, who were qualified to work in various sectors of the industry, yet chose to do this in our past time. This was our third Swede in as many years, a concept we had stumbled upon quite by accident.

The object of Sweding, a term coined by Michel Gondry’s Be Kind Rewind, is to remake a movie as accurately as possible with no budget. The idea caught on in the industry and over the months following its release, Sweding competitions surfaced everywhere, including a festival dedicated to the entire concept in Canada.

The three of us were working as runners for MPC at the time and decided to dedicate our weekends to remaking an all-time classic for our first attempt, Jurassic Park. The result was over half a million views on YouTube, a mention in Total Film’s Top 50 YouTube moments in September 08, and the incentive to try out more films. The Dark Knight followed and was nominated in for the best 60 second short for the Empire Movie Awards 2009. That same year we were interviewed by the Toronto Post and appeared on Live on Studio Five on their report on Swedes. This year, we decided, mutually, to expand on the idea of Sweding and to make Star Trek, not as a Swede, but as a parody. The major difference being that we wanted more freedom to express ourselves through comedy by deviating away from the script and inserting our own gags and jokes.

Yet, for all our relative success, there is a satisfaction in the making of these low-budget ventures that differs from contributing to projects with a deeper purse. You consistently ask favours of all the friends you’ve ever had and your relatives, begging them to don a tight red shirt and fill in as Scotty or trying to convince them that filming you in central London dressed up as the Joker on a Friday night is a good idea. And although you spend hours on each set, painstakingly cobbling the Starship Enterprise out of a couple of plates, an empty water bottle and spray-paint, you are doing it with your friends, recreating moments that you will never forget nor be able to replicate anywhere else.

Many of the funniest moments never make it into the final cut. Steve struggled to stay upside down in his backyard to capture the concluding shot to The Dark Knight without dragging me down with him. There is endless footage of us prancing about in our duct-tape raptor costumes from Jurassic Park and somewhere in the rushes, a take of me in full bat-costume, trundling down the main road on the batpod, made out of a trolley, a pair of dustbins and a ridiculous amount of rope, realizing there are no brakes and a car is coming in the opposite direction. In Star Trek, after chucking an avalanche’s worth of talcum powder over the Enterprise in Steve’s living room to achieve the desired dramatic effect, Steve, thinking quickly, opted to pick up a tablecloth and flourish it at the clouds of powder to usher it out the window. He failed miserably, and wafted a kilo of the stuff into my face. Thankfully, this too, is captured on camera.

As we continue to make inroads into the industry, our best to catch the eyes of those in the hot-seats with our enthusiasm and incredible coffee-making skills, we harbour high hopes for the pet-project turned mini-company. Push it Films is more than just a group that churns out Swedes – Music videos, virals, and short films have followed and we know that someday (we hope), the efforts will be noticed, and we shall be granted the chance to fulfill our own ambitions- yet we noticed that each new project has benefited hugely from the group ethic spawned during the shooting of those first Swedes; The lack of budget served us in ways that we hadn’t anticipated, even if the 99p store has profited heavily since we decided to start filming.

No, we don’t have a budget and this may not be the way to do it, but when you have no money, no tools, and a bagful of dreams, it is surprising and satisfying to discover you can make something out of nothing. Did you really notice that Spock’s ears were tailored from first-aid plasters? Was it really obvious that Spock, old Spock, and Christopher Pike were played by the same actor? Is the Acapella music as distracting as it is cringe-worthy? Yes? Well, that’s part of the charm of this gig.

You can find Push It Films ‘Star Trek XI spoof’ and the making of below and on Push it Films You Tube channel.

Related posts:

1. The Raindance Film Festival
2. Hunger: a disturbing and distressing movie
3. Forget Sarah Marshall, it’s all about the men

The debate opened with each of the panellists offering their opinions about the British economy, society and globalisation. Charles Clarke expressed concerns that there had been an “insufficient assessment” of globalisation. His primary focus was the economy, stressing how the finance sector needed to be re-evaluated in light of “utility” versus “casino” banking; he called for “less centralised government” and greater transparency of the tax system. The issue of centralised and local government became a theme throughout his speech, as he elaborated on public services reorienting their focus to the consumer’s needs, or the “patient, pupil and parent”. In response to green issues, he noted that society needs to undergo drastic “changes in behaviour”, in tandem with energy and transport policies. Clarke reflected that “we have to be more dependent on ourselves and our local communities.”

Michael Brown offered a disparaging overview of the Conservative party’s shortcomings, commenting that the Tories are always liable to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”. Just a few months ago Brown was sure that David Cameron would “sleep-walk” his way into parliament; now, however, he does not believe that the Conservatives will be elected with an overall majority. He says that the Conservative’s economic policies are “unclear” and “confused”. Despite this, the Labour party are deeply unpopular amongst the British public, with 72% of the general public indicated in a recent poll that they do not want another Labour government. In Brown’s view, Cameron does not appreciate what being the leader of a country means, he simply fancies himself as the Prime Minister.

In Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s view, Britain should “never again be taken to war on a false premise”, alluding to the Iraq Inquiry currently taking place. Alibhai-Brown offered a characteristically metaphor-laden diatribe against “double standards”, saying that we have all “got to live by the same rules”. She talked about the “imperialist gene”, apparently written into our DNA, which we must get over in order to face the “Muslim question”. Tensions became evident in her speech however, when she followed her previous argument with the idea that the British government had “gone too far” in liberalising society, and that this was the cause of increased fundamentalism.

The final speaker, Chris Huhne, followed Clarke in making the economy the primary focus of his speech. He spoke of the need to reinvent the economy in light of advances in renewable energy, calling for a “green revolution”. This issue, he emphasised, needs to be driven by policy change rather than technology and business demands. Huhne commented that society is still “deeply unfair”, but he was quick to point out that the increase in the gap between rich and poor has not happened as fast as it did under the Conservative government of the 1980s. Huhne was particularly vocal in calling for less of the “lumbering traditional central government”, devolving powers to local authorities and constituencies. He noted that the UK has the most centralised government in the EU, with 94 pence of every £1 going through Whitehall, compared to an EU average of approx. 50%.

After the panellists had given their speeches, the debate was opened out to the floor and audience members invited to ask their own questions. We asked of all the panellists “Why is it that no political party will be drawn into the debate surrounding tuition fees?” The response that we received was a little less than illuminating. Chris Huhne restated the standard Liberal Democrat line that his party is committed to “free education” for all, and that he thought it “basic and sensible” that we should uphold this fundamental principle. He quickly qualified this with the observation that “fiscal constraints” prevent this from being possible. Charles Clarke, who was a key proponent in passing the legislation for top-up fees, reiterated the argument that “nothing in life is free”. Somebody “needs to pay” so it seems fair that the individual user pays for that service, given that they themselves benefit. In Clarke’s view the standard loan should not be means tested, since what a student’s parents earn is irrelevant once you are over 18 years of age. It seems that the choice has been made to prioritise funding for the government’s “Sure Start” policy, rather than higher education.

“The Debt Question” was raised by several people, specifically with regard to what measures the panellists thought would be most effective in solving the UK’s debt problem. Charles Clarke called for an increase in taxes, “not cuts in public spending”; he stressed that we must discourage spending in the domestic sphere, and called for greater “regulations for private lending”. Michael Brown vehemently opposed Clarke’s arguments, remarking that there must be “nasty, vicious cuts…that will hurt the people”, that “there is no way of escaping pain”, and that we had better start now or else the situation will only get worse. Chris Huhne argued that we do not just need to increase taxes and make spending cuts: we need “the third ingredient” growth. He used the metaphor of a “lost generation” to illustrate the danger of plummeting self-esteem in a financially depressed period, as witnessed during the 1980s.

Another theme of considerable concern to members of the general public was a complete ‘disillusionment with politics’: how will MPs engage with their constituencies and the electorate in order to combat the increased apathy that voters feel in the wake of the ongoing expenses scandal and the Chilcot Inquiry? Electoral reform seems particularly pertinent in light of the fact that 40% of all constituencies have never changed hands since WWII. Michael Brown restated his argument that “David Cameron simply wants to be Prime minister” and that the Conservative party are “scared of their own shadow”. In Brown’s view, it is a shame that the Conservatives will not coherently state their views on reform of the financial sector, since all voters have clear – and often united – views about regulating the industry and the bankers.

When polled, the majority at the pre-election debate thought that there would be a hung parliament, and the majority wanted a hung parliament. A hung parliament occurs when there is no clear majority in the House of Commons; the last time there was a hung parliament in the UK was 1974, and before that 1929. Charles Clarke, a staunch anti-Brownite, suggested that a new Labour leader would have a good chance of winning a majority. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown called for a “new kind of party”, adding that a hung parliament was the most preferable outcome of the general election. Chris Huhne rather unsurprisingly remarked that people always underestimate the Liberal Democrats. Brown closed the debate by remarking that the Tories will most likely “stumble into office with a narrow majority.”

Related posts:

1. Holloway welcomes Labour Society
2. Sustainability debate held at Royal Holloway
3. A political forecast

Bounding into Bedford library at 9am with seemingly limitless energy Rachel and I initially began by talking about result night and life around campus since. Still getting used to being recognised around campus Rachel described both the enjoyment and shock of being approached and pointed out to next year’s freshers during last week’s open day.

Despite seemingly limitless enthusiasm for helping and representing the students at Royal Holloway, Rachel was also aware of need to finish her history degree. Admitting that “reading week came at the perfect time” as the rigours of campaigning had a left a lot to do, Rachel talked about how odd it was to return to work after spending so long focussing on the elections. Helped by James Pigeon who has warned next year’s sabbatical team about getting distracted Rachel was fully aware of the importance of concentrating on her degree.

At the same time however Rachel is preparing herself for next year. Soaking up advice from James Pigeon, David Cummins and any previous sabbatical officer willing to give advice it was clear that Rachel is giving next year considerable thought. Following a fairly empty General Meeting on the 23^rd Rachel talked about how she was “kept up for quite a while” that night trying to think of ways to increase turnout to this important event. Though not wishing to “take away a person’s right to be apathetic” Rachel is keen to publicise the event especially to next years freshers.

During both interviews Rachel was brimming with ideas for next year including; holding a fortnightly two hour surgery to improve accessibility, a variety of practical plans to open up more space for students and societies, and holding a “design your own union night competition”. With over 8,000 students to please Rachel identified the need to gain a deeper understanding of what students want as another important aim, achievable through the expansion of “Operation Entertainment”. Recognising space, both for study and extra-curricular activates, as one of the most important issues affecting students, Rachel remained dedicated to helping improve the use of space, publicise the genuine improvements being made and improve awareness and ease of using resources in London.

Pragmatism is an equally important part of Rachel’s approach. Acknowledging that some changes that students want are simply impossible to achieve in just a year or given their financial implications. However Rachel remains committed to lobbying for the big changes along with making the small changes that will improve the student experience at Royal Holloway.

It is important to remember that Rachel’s campaign for the SU presidency has been three years in the making. When asked during an earlier interview for The Founder during polling week what had inspired her to run for the demanding and often thankless role of president, Rachel described how “the seeds were very much sown even before I got here, I knew I wanted to make a big impression” and that by November of her first year she had decided to get involved and eventually run. Involved continually in the union since arriving at Royal Holloway as first year rep for the drama society, president of the drama society, chair of roscars committee, societies federation officer and a volunteer around campus and during freshers week; it is strikingly clear just how much Rachel knows about Royal Holloway and how the lives of its students can be improved.

Related posts:

1. The year in summary, an interview with VPSA Kate Manning
2. Library Hours Extended: Pressure Finally Pays Off
3. We speak to the SU President about Brunel

Cognitive enhancement drugs, such as Ritalin and modafinil, are easily available to buy over the internet and are used to increase the brain’s alertness; however according to Barbara Sahakian, a professor of clinical neuropsychology at Cambridge University’s psychiatry department, this has “enormous implications for universities”.

These types of drugs are usually used in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy by improving brain functions like alertness and attention. Their increased use by students has however prompted calls for an ethical debate on the matter, including how society views the use of such drugs, after concerns that they could give students an unfair advantage.

When asked whether they would consider taking performance enhancing drugs, Royal Holloway students give a mixed response.  Some are in favour of the idea, saying “I don’t care about the long term effects.  If it would get me better exam results then I definitely would” and “there’s nothing wrong with having a pick me up; it’s just a step up from caffeine really”.  There are also concerns over the prospect of random drug testing, with students saying “surely this would raise a whole new set of both practical and ethical issues rather than simply solve the problem?”

However, many are against the prospect, stating “I wouldn’t as it feels like cheating; you should only be tested on your natural ability.  It would give some students an unfair advantage and pressure others into taking them in order to compete”, with another student adding “it’s just the same as an athlete taking steroids to win a race.  I would say it counts as cheating”.

There are also concerns over the health implications, with one student saying ‘I think it’s too risky.  We don’t know the long term affects; no studies have been carried out.  I wouldn’t want to mess around with something that could put my health at risk when it hasn’t even been proved to do any good”.

Related posts:

1. Student arrives at Holloway with TB
2. Rise in University Applications Increases Competition
3. Holloway mourns tragic death of student

The conference aimed to debate “the use of long-term monitoring to understand greenhouse gases in the Earth System.” Claiming that “new scientific advances promise regional audit of emissions, assessment of uptakes, and better understanding of controlling and feedback processes,” the event assessed the implementation of these new techniques in order to build the agenda for the next two decades.

The two day conference took place at the Royal Society in London between the 22^nd and 23^rd of February, and was chaired and partly organised by Professor Euan Nisbet, of the Earth Sciences Department at Royal Holloway. Alongside Dr. Ed Dlugokencky of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder Colorado, Professor Nisbet showed that atmospheric levels of Methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than Carbon Dioxide, have significantly risen over the past three years.

A further aim of the meeting was also to discuss the need to improve the monitoring of greenhouse gases in order to set targets for the future. Although every country is now required to report their emissions, the discrepancy between the amount of pollution reported and the actual level of emissions in the atmosphere is an issue that needs to be addressed.

During his presentation with Dr. Dlugokencky, Professor Nisbet explained how greenhouse gas emissions are monitored by ground-based systems and the improvements that need to be made in order to produce more reliable emission figures in the future.

Green issues remain an extremely contentious contemporary issue however Royal Holloway has recently been involved in a number of activities that aim to minimise the impact of our modern lifestyles on the environment. RHUL Islamic Society presented Ready? We’ll make you steady. GO GREEN on 25^th February, was as a ‘unique event’ designed to “raise awareness of the state of the environment today.” Furthermore a short docudrama, The Age of Stupid, was shown to a large number of students in the Windsor Auditorium last term. Exploring the impact of our current attitude towards the environment on the future, the film is part of the ongoing 10:10 campaign. With a continuing poster campaign informing students how they can help save energy as well as this and next year’s SU sabbaticals dedicated to raising awareness of climate change issues, Royal Holloway is begging to take all important steps towards becoming a much greener university

For more information on the Department of Earth Sciences visit: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Earth-Sciences/, while information on the Royal Society can be found at www.royalsociety.org.

Related posts:

1. Royal Holloway Principal steps down
2. Royal Holloway’s response to the Green League 2007
3. RHUL enjoys success in 2008 Research Assessment Exercise

According to the latest figures from UCAS, applications are up almost a fifth on last year. At the moment more than 570,000 students have applied for a place at university starting this autumn, an increase of over 100,000 on the same time last year. UK applicants are up 22.1%, while overseas applicants are up 28.7%, having risen from 55,245 to 71,105.

Last year, despite 633,000 applications, only around 480,000 people got a place at university. This year, if applications continue to come in at the same rate until the June deadline, over 200,000 school leavers will not gain entry to university, as the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) has confirmed there will be 6,000 fewer places for full-time undergraduates in the next academic year.

Mary Curnock Cook, chief executive of UCAS, has said “this cycle will be very challenging and competitive for applicants”. Coupled with the government placing a cap on places like last year and the fact that universities who broke this cap and over-recruited now face having to pay fines for each extra student, mean places will be scarcer than ever, and inevitably many students will be disappointed.

It is thought that many of the increased number of applications are as a result of the recession, especially as applications from the over-25s rose by 63.4%, while those from the 21 to 24 year old category rose 44.8%. There has also been a 45.5% increase in people reapplying for places.

Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, the group that represents ­vice-chancellors, has said “it’s inevitable that we are going to see even more pressure on places this year and the strong possibility of many well-qualified students missing out.”

However, the higher education minister, David Lammy, simply said: “Getting a place at university has always been, and should be, a competitive process. Not everyone gets the grades, and some decide university is not for them. It’s early days and students haven’t even sat their A-levels yet.”

Related posts:

1. Record intake for UK universities
2. Higher education debate rages on
3. Ministers knew about funding blunder

Both Bedford and Founders Libraries will (for a five week trial period) be opening from 8:30am to 1am on weekdays and from 9am till 9pm on weekdays giving students an extra 24 hours each week for study. The result of continual pressure on the university to extent opening hours this extension marks an important first step towards the availability that so many students crave.

Currently running on a trial period, these extended hours will only become permanent if students use the extra hours however with end of term essay and dissertation deadlines fast approaching these extra hours should help. With Bedford library consistently full by midday each weekday, longer hours should take some of the pressure of study space that is all but stretched to its limits. With talk of plans to open up certain rooms around campus during exam period, genuine and beneficial efforts are being made to combat the problem of too many students and not enough desks.

Many Royal Holloway students have expressed a strong desire for 24-hour opening hours however concerns over student health and the cost of keeping a library staffed through the night have so far kept 24-hour opening from being considered. However with many other universities both above and below Royal Holloway in the league tables already keeping their libraries open through the night, increasing pressure on existing resources and growing student support hopefully it will not be too long before the contentious issue of libraries is opened up for renewed debate.

Related posts:

1. ‘Nothing but dissatisfaction’: Library Debate opens dialogue with College
2. Egham Library re-opens
3. A BIG result for students?

What should the audience expect when they turn up to a performance of How To Disappear Completely & Never Be Found?

Tamsin: I think they’ll be expecting standard Jane Holloway show. You come in, sit down, mumble a bit, then the lights go down and the show begins… that’s not what they’ll be getting at How To Disappear, not in the slightest. The audience should expect to be immersed in the world of the play, for the full two and a half hours – interval included.

So when there are plays floating around Campus like The History Boys, that people know, have seen before and know that they love, why should they go to see How To Disappear…?

[Ben gestures to Tamsin, pointing out something on the inside cover of his How To Disappear edition]

Tamsin: Yeah [they laugh], people should go and see it because it’s ‘An Award Winning Play’. No, they should go and see How To Disappear… because it’s something new – it’s something that they haven’t seen. With The History Boys there’s been a film, a long run at the National, it toured. Everybody knows it and in some ways, people knew what to expect. With How To Disappear it’s new and exciting – and not just a play, It’s going to be a theatrical experience as well, rather than just ‘sit down and consume’.

So is that your aim, to make something that’s different?

Tamsin: Yeah, I wanted to make something that people hadn’t seen before that was new and exciting and make people get excited as soon as they’ve walked in. And when they leave, be reeling from it for a while. I didn’t want them to feel settled and warm inside when they leave.

So why did you choose this instead of something else?

Tamsin: I chose this play purely based on the title, I did a bit of research and offered two titles of plays to a group of friends and the majority chose this one. I’ve realised that advertising on campus is key, so I wanted an interesting play title. Then I ordered the play, read it and loved it and … the rest is history as they say.

So what was it that made you decide that you had to put it on?

Tam: Because it captured my imagination and I saw it onstage in my head after the first reading. And I can’t rest literally until I have put it on stage.

So what are everyone’s chances of having heard of How To Disappear… beforehand?

Tamsin: I have no hope that anyone will have heard of it before, except I think that it was used as an A level text last year… but other than that people won’t know what it is because it was first performed in 2007, so it’s very modern, but I think that’s really good because it’s really up to date and on the pulse and it’s interesting for everyone. It’s like a modern morality tale/fable, and also because it’s about London and Southend – so close to Holloway.

So what’s the difference between this production and the others that you’ve worked on?

Tamsin: It’s a step into new writing, which I haven’t directed before. I’ve directed modern classics and early 20^th Century classics, but this is brand-spanking new which was really exciting for me because it means that my interpretation of the text and my staging wont have been done anywhere else and that’s what I really enjoy, I really love finding new ways of staging things and this play was very easy to stage in a new way.

So Ben, how has it been different for you?

Ben: It’s infinitely more depressing than anything I’ve worked on before… to play, that makes it quite difficult because what you don’t want it to become is too much of one note. A lot of the roles I get in plays are smaller and so you try to spice it up a bit, but with this its very clear how it’s supposed to be done and you’ve got to bring the variation yourself I guess. It’s a very different style of writing to what I’ve encountered before. I done classics, Shakespeare and a 21^st Century classic – The History Boys – which is very sparse writing, this is very heavy.

What about the way that Tamsin’s running the production?

Ben: Personally, I’ve never done something that involves so much character work, I’ve never ever had a director take so much time and attention over characters. It’s always been very much ‘get up, do the words’. Most directors don’t seem to pay much attention to the words and it’s great to see someone who does both.

Do you think that Charlie Hunt is a character that needs that kind of care and attention?

Ben: I do, yes. Obviously the nature of the play means that he has a lot to say and it would be very easy to look at what he says and gloss over it and say ‘Well, the play’s about him, it’s inevitable that there’s going to be a line that gets rid of all the clunk; all the exposition.’ Tamsin made it very clear that nothing is throw-away. He deserves the attention because otherwise he would become the character of one note. If you don’t put in the time and the effort then he’ll lose interest – he’ll get very boring very quickly just because of the amount of things that he has to say. And keeping the variety means that you have to invest your attention in the language.

So what was the hardest part about becoming Charlie?

Ben: The extremity of the performance, what it requires – what it demands – is quite horrible. It’s quite big, and requires a big performance. You can’t hide in this play, quite literally I don’t go offstage. I’ve never done a play where I don’t leave the stage before. It’s terrifying.

And to capture the whole play in a sentence…

Ben: I find this play genuinely quite difficult to describe. What would you say?

Tamsin: The most stressful, but the most exiting thing I’ve done in my life?

Ben: Yeah, I’d say stressful, exciting… Because when I read it, it did jump at me. It was a shock to realise that what goes on in the play is quite common, not just statistics. Ah, you should put this in… [He gets the book out and begins to read out loud] ‘A 2003 study [on missing persons] ‘found that less than one percent are due to abuse or abduction, around a third are thought to have drifted out of touch with family and two thirds of these missing people when traced say that they did it deliberately.’ So it’s shocking, but shocking is too overused a word, it implies that it’s going to be about sex etc., but it’s not it’s about life.

Tamsin: It’s true I guess. It’s really truthful and it’s applicable to people. I think this play will pop the Holloway bubble and will shake people up, make them realise that it’s not all about going to the union and getting drunk and missing your lectures and fannying about… there is a world out there and it’s not very nice.

Related posts:

1. The Habit of Art, The Lyttleton, National Theatre
2. End of the Rainbow – an interview with the director

One such talk was given by PwC’s Laura Cobb in the Windsor building, on the 4^th February, who gave a talk on commercial awareness. Now before you turn the page, hold on – commercial awareness is crucial regardless of which industry you want to work in. She defined commercial awareness as firstly being aware of the economic and commercial pressures that are facing the industry you want to work in. So even if you want to be a journalist armed with only your English degree that taught you nothing about finance (as my bank balance often laments), knowing about and coming up with creative solutions to solve falling sales, and a way to make the most of online news, would be pretty important in your line of work. Even if you wanted to be a chef, you’d need commercial awareness; the credit crunch has made people less likely to eat out, and so to encourage customers you would need to develop deals and discounts to maximise value. Employers are on the look out for commercial awareness, and if you show that you’ve researched and thought about ways to tackle the company’s problems, you will make for an impressive interviewee. It demonstrates your commitment to your chosen industry.

Commercial awareness is also about having a knowledge of business issues (surely the credit crunch didn’t pass you buy?), an ability to form opinions on issues (employers like people who think…) and an appreciation of business stories and their impact on a wider scale (for example, do you ever think Toyota’s reputation can be rebuilt?). All of these topics are potential interview questions (whether for an internship or a graduate position).

So how to develop your commercial awareness? If you have a part-time job, you could think about the problems your manager faces, and what you would do in that position. If you’ve had a previous work experience placement, you could speak about how the company was run from grass roots to Head Office level, how it is perceived in the press, the risks it faces, its unique selling point, its competitors. Consider what you would do if you were Managing Director. Analysing your experience in this way proves that you have made the most of it. If it is a global company (or even if you have been travelling on a gap year and therefore may have seen or interacted with global companies), you could also think of the ways in which the business interacts with people from other organisations of other countries, and how the management structure changes or stays the same from coast to coast. Another suggestion Laura put forward was to learn by example; think about where you have observed strong leadership skills and good management, and what it is that makes that person/group so successful. Consider also the turn-over of staff; a low turn-over might suggest either job satisfaction (Penguin) or stagnation (Toyota), and a high turn-over may suggest either a highly innovative company that wants its employees to have knowledge of several departments (most big law firms), or a company that is run terribly badly, where the employees cannot wait to get away (I will veer on the side of tact in this instance). Keep up to date with business stories, and when it comes to an interview, make sure you can speak fluently about recent stories that have interested you.

If you a truly committed to working in a particular industry or company, you should research and think about that industry as carefully as when you write an end-of-term essay. Regardless of whether or not you want a career in business, the issues Laura raised are useful – particularly in this climate – in whatever area you want to carve a place out for yourself. I expected to spend the hour bored, but instead, was given a wealth of handy hints and tips on a plate, that I would have never got otherwise. So next time you see an advert for a Careers talk that you think isn’t you, don’t use that as a reason not to sign up; it should be the reason why you DO sign up. You’ll be surprised – but hopefully commercially aware. So thanks very much PwC!

No related posts.