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. Mandelson proposes two year degrees

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.

Knowing how precious my language is to me (and how my schools always applauded and encouraged my language acquisition), I was horrified when Sonia, a Chinese-American friend, described her first year at primary school; as a fluent Cantonese speaker, she would sometimes mix Cantonese with English, including when speaking to her teachers. In response, her teachers told her parents to stop speaking Cantonese to her, which they did. As a result, her level of fluency dropped and as an adult, when she moved to Hong Kong for postgraduate study,  she was faced with the task of recovering a language that she shouldn’t have lost in the first place. The saddest thing in this story is that language mixing in bilingual children is actually very common and very normal; as the National Literary Trust explains, “children will not get confused by learning more than one language in the household; up until about the age of 10 or 12, children learn foreign languages almost as if they were one big language.” When a bilingual child speaks, they will therefore use the first word that springs to mind regardless of which language it is from. They will grow out of this – that is, if an adult doesn’t screw it up for them – with both languages intact and fluent. Remembering her story, I wonder if it wasn’t just ignorance that had made her teachers react in that way; I can’t help but think that if she’d been ‘confusing’ English with a European language, she would have been met with more patience. Perhaps she would even have been applauded for having a rare and valued linguistic talent.

Stories of other Asian friends in England and Australia with similar experiences – in which their other language was either repressed or ignored within formal education – have lead me to ask if this is not a wide-spread trend, in which a European language trumps a Non-European one. Muriel Saville-Troike, in her book Introducing Second Language Acquisition, agrees: “Maintenance of indigenous and immigrant languages other than English is not widely encouraged (in the US) and is often actively discouraged.  Indeed, pride in ethnicity along with associated language use can be seen as very threatening to the dominant group, and as a symbol of disunity and separatism.” Liberals like to cheerfully remark that, despite our train-wreck economy, and our PM who sold reserves of gold when the market slumped (perhaps the hint should have been in the name: he’s a reverse Midas – everything he touches turns to Brown), multiculturalism is definitely one thing that Britain does well. So perhaps, Saville-Troike’s comment doesn‘t apply to us…. Sorry kids. No such luck.

When I asked an Indian friend of mine whether his Punjabi skills were ever valued in school, his response was: “Why should they be?” It’s a response that says it all. On further questioning, he admitted that perhaps this was because Punjabi is considered “more primitive” (despite being the product of one of the most ancient civilisations in the world), in contrast to (for example) French, which brings to mind high fashion, depressed poetry, and cups of artistic and/or existentialist coffee. Modern Foreign Languages secondary school teacher I spoke to agreed, although she was also keen to point out that GCSEs in native languages are available at special request (that is, GCSE as a foreign language, resulting in the ludicrous situation of, say, a fluent speaker of Guajarati taking an exam in beginner’s Guajarati).

One argument for their difference in status may be that French is widespread around the world (and therefore more useful), but so are many Asian languages (Sonia’s ‘useless’ Cantonese is spoken in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China, and Chinese is the most spoken language in the world). Besides, you can’t look into a crystal ball and say: “During the course of this child’s entire life, we know for absolute certain that he/she is never going here, here, and there, so he/she doesn’t need to learn that language.” You never know when a language will be useful, or where someone will end up in the future. Furthermore, in terms of brain development, it doesn’t matter which language the child speaks in order to derive a benefit, yet the opportunities (or should I say lack of opportunities) available to speakers of non-European languages in British education doesn’t seem to reflect that.

English Linguist Kit Fields, in her book Issues in Modern Foreign Languages, laments: “Why is it that a child bringing into school a particular skill in music or drama or sport will have that skill nurtured or encouraged, but that a child whose skill lies in being able to speak Turkish or Chinese or Bengali, as well as English, is likely within our education system to have that skill ignored? Why is such a skill not seen as important for the cognitive and emotional development of that child and as a resource which can promote the language and cultural awareness of all pupils? Why do we not value an outstanding performance in a Gujarati examination as highly as a mediocre one in French?” I hate to be the one to say it Kit, but that sounds like a type of intellectual racism to me.

Related posts:

1. A Year in Hong Kong

Macmillan’s chief executive John Sargent explained that it is important that “intellectual property can be widely available digitally at a price that is both fair to the consumer and allows those who create it and publish it to be fairly compensated.” This method of compensation is presumably one that places (and prices) intellectual property above production costs; Macmillan’s suggested top price of 14.99 USD (£9.35) is higher than that of most paperbacks (especially if you know where to look; there are bargain book stores in London and Cambridge where you can get hold of brand new Oxford World Classics for £2). I’d always thought that the basic business model consisted of the following: production costs + profit margin = recommended retail price. Apparently, once e-books have removed the vast majority of production costs, Macmillan has decided that they are not left with savings + profit margin = reduced RRP, but with profit margin + profit margin = pretty much the same RRP. This is hardly fair on consumers.

The Financial Times Online explains the decision as a switch in business model: “[Macmillan] prefers the Apple “agency” model used for selling books by Apple for its forthcoming iPad device – whereby the retailer takes a 30 per cent commission – to the “wholesale” terms for Amazon’s Kindle, the current leader in e-readers. Until now Amazon has been selling e-books just as it sells regular books – buying them for half the list price then naming its own price. The publishing industry says this has artificially devalued books.” I am perhaps lacking in economic understanding, the mistake both Macmillan and Amazon seem to be making here is that they are failing to differentiate between two very different formats. An e-book is not just an electronic book, the same way an email is not just an electronic piece of mail; there are certain expectations that go with computerised information, novelistic or otherwise. One of these expectations is price (that is to say, the price I think I should to pay, compared to the expensive Amazon price, or the extortionate Macmillan price). The e-book especially will of course be devalued; if I have paid for an electronic reading device, I EXPECT for there to be a saving in the books I then buy and read. Otherwise, I will have paid more, twice over (once for the tool with which to read the books, and secondly for the books themselves). After all, the book I’m buying is virtual. It wasn’t actually ‘made’ in the traditional sense. It did not need paper, ink, a factory, factory employees, a lorry and a lorry driver to reach me. Furthermore, its publishers never have to worry about ordering enough or too little from the printer’s, so as well as removing a huge part of the cost of publication, e-books have also removed some of the risk. Apparently, however, these benefits pale in comparison to the publisher’s intellectual property rights; they own it, they distribute it, they overprice it.

Whether or not it is their right to overprice, Macmillan needs to show some foresight. The Financial Times, in a workshop in 2006, questioned: “Are intellectual property rights defensible any more? … If current trends continue on steroids will it simply become impossible to protect intellectual property rights by 2015?” In such a climate, I think the practice of pricing the law, and not the production costs, is a little unrealistic. If people feel cheated by over-priced e-books, piracy will ensue. Furthermore, Macmillan’s comment of compensating those who created and published the work is laughable when we remember how little money the authors themselves actually get. In the context of e-books, the cost and time frame involved in publishing a novel is dramatically reduced for the publisher. Not so for the author. Susan Piver, an author published by Macmillan, writes in the Huffington Post: “the lowest paid of all in this supply chain, [is] the author. Somehow, we’re never considered in this debate. If the publisher’s prices fall, so do our royalties. Which are an urban legend anyway.”

What the e-book calls for, then, is not a petty spat between two companies that are rolling in it anyway, but for an innovation of the entire industry. Whilst Amazon and Macmillan are squabbling, I predict a revolution. Authors and consumers are sick of being the ones who either get paid the least or must pay the most. To publish a book online, all you really need is a computer. In recent years, more and more authors (who at the end of the day, truly have a claim of intellectual property over their work, however undervalued it is in their contracts) have chosen to self-publish by posting their work online. At the moment, this movement is in its toddler stage, but with the advent of the e-book, I believe that in a few years time, a whole generation of authors will be publishing, distributing, and selling, their own work. This new type of publication would completely circumvent the need for companies like Macmillan. Perhaps if Macmillan spent less time being greedy about their 70% (of which about 10% goes to the author), and more time valuing their authors and consumers, they’d realise this. If they were clever, they would then find a way to work it in to their business model. If not… well, that’s capitalism for you.

Related posts:

1. It is time to free the press, not chain it up