14 minute read
Creative Writing
from Palatinate 836
by Palatinate
Politics Education under Covid-19
Swapping libraries for bedrooms
Advertisement
Honor Douglas
The year 2020/21, an academic year like no other…except if you are talking about the year before. University from home is not what students sign up to when applying to Durham, and the length of time that this atrocity has gone on for is disgraceful.
The Government simply does not seem to care about the amount of money we are wasting, both on online tuition and unused accommodation.
Durham should also be doing more if they want to justify us continuing to pay £9,250 for this year’s tuition. The Open University professors are online teaching specialists, trained to teach students through the screen. Their courses cost a third of the price of Durham’s online tuition (£3,096). Durham professors seem to be trying, but it is challenging to get students to engage through a screen.
In tutorials, barely anyone has their cameras or microphones on, and I do not blame them. Being in the first year, we have not met anyone who studies with us, making the thought of contributing an idea a terrifying feat. Surely there should be more on offer to justify the price of tuition staying in place – for example, more tutorials per week, or smaller tutorial groups. A transcript of each lecture and a PowerPoint presentation to engage students should be a must.
Zoning out when looking at a screen for so long each day is inevitable, and there should be action in place to rectify this.
Students are expected to be as motivated as usual, despite the challenges of doing University from home. When the days feel repetitive, and peers are quiet in tutorials, there is less desire to throw oneself into academics.
The fact that students’ mental health has suffered is completely understandable, due to increased screen time, more time to think than ever before and fewer opportunities to let off steam. It would be great if the impact of completing University from home was spoken of more frequently and to a broader audience, in order to help students feel less alone.
I am supposed to be living in college this year, so, fortunately, there has been a scheme in place to refund me for the cost of my unused catered room. I am lucky to have my own space and working WIFI, enabling me to complete my degree at home, but for some students returning to college is a must.
For the majority of students, the first year of University is their first time living away from home, and at such a young age, this can be a daunting experience.
University is supposed to be a time to grow
University is supposed to be a time to grow, try new things, and make mistakes. However, with punishments and threats frequently issued by colleges, making mistakes now puts students’ university careers at risk. This can be really damaging to students’ wellbeing.
The lengthy emails from the University outlining the rules in such great detail is quite intimidating. Palatinate’s short articles are much more simply understood and hopefully lead to fewer people getting in trouble.
(Lilith Foster-Collins) accommodation, their future at the University is not put at risk quite so often. Still, the number of students having to pay for unused rooms is ridiculous: they should be refunded in the same way that those living in college are.
University from home has been challenging. Usually, the motto ’work hard play hard’ aligns with a university student’s lifestyle, but this year that has not been the case. For the sake of academic work and wellbeing, students need to be back in University as soon as possible, to live life and move on.
For students in private
(David Mulder, Creative Commons)
How to solve the problem of schools
Anna Noble
Exams are not the only thing that has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic - education as a whole is at risk.
In England (and many of the devolved nations), students will have completed, at most, a term of in- person education.
Even when pupils were back at school in the Autumn term, a considerable portion of students will have had to take time off to self-isolate. The reality is that students may lose a year of education.
Studies have shown that many pupils are not keeping up with online education. For some students this is due to a lack of resources, support or a space to work. Ofcom estimate that between 1.11.8 million children in the UK (9 per cent) do not have access to a laptop, desktop or tablet. Whilst there have been some efforts by the Government and companies to provide devices and internet options to help facilitate online education, there is a general consensus that these have not significantly addressed the issues. The Government has fallen short of providing concrete policies to mitigate this.
The Government has two major issues: how to safely re-open schools and how to compensate for lost education. Schools need to open as soon as possible. Children are falling further behind every day; some are at risk of not receiving the basic standard of education.
One solution proposed by teaching unions and backed by Labour is for the Government to prioritise the vaccinations of teachers to greatly prevent transmissions. The Government have rejected this strategy, arguing that re-allocating vaccines will extend lockdown.
Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that schools must be a priority: our country cannot afford to leave a generation behind in terms of education. Delaying a return to schools is more likely to disadvantage lower income families and increase the economic divide in pupil attainment. Whilst there is no perfect solution, vaccinating teachers in order to achieve a quicker return to the classroom should not be dismissed.
Re-opening schools is only half the problem. The Government and education chiefs must find a way to mitigate the disruption of the pandemic to education.
One suggestion has been allowing students that have fallen significantly behind to repeat the year. Statistically speaking, the pupils who have fallen furthest behind are those coming from ‘disadvantaged’ or low-income backgrounds; these are the students most likely to need to repeat the year. This could be damaging to students as many are likely to feel they are being punished for circumstances out of their control.
This could also, in the short term, impact the number of ‘disadvantaged’ students applying for higher education. Holding pupils back is also likely to increase class sizes. Such a strategy would also require a significant amount of funding.
Summer school is a potentially better solution. Children would not be held back from their peers, the impact on higher education may be lessened and class sizes would be less affected. It would also provide childcare for working parents who have struggled over the pandemic. However, the psychological impact of forcing selected children to attend school during the summer holidays could be significant. There is also the question of whether you can fit a year’s worth of work into six weeks. This solution would also be costly. A final suggestion is that the Government provides tutoring for pupils who have fallen behind due to the pandemic. Whilst this is potentially the best solution, it is also practically unachievable. Millions of children will have fallen behind due to the pandemic. Are there enough tutors to accommodate this? This would be extremely costly.
Therefore, perhaps the best solution is a combination of all three. Funding for schools to run summer schools to catch pupils up, additional funds for the students who still need it to receive tutoring, and finally as a last resort the opportunity for some pupils to repeat the year. The Government must choose to invest in a generation, or they are going to risk losing one.
What is on Biden’s ‘to-do’ list?
Politics
Jonas Balkus
The days that have followed Joe Biden’s inauguration have seen a considerable shift in the tone of American governance. A recordbreaking flurry of executive orders, an ambitious stimulus bill and a marked shift in foreign policy have all indicated that this administration will be very different from its predecessor. So let’s have a look at these early actions of Joe Biden, and see what they can tell us to expect for the next four years. In foreign policy, Biden has attempted to repair the USA’s position as an international leader. He scrambled to repair relations with NATO allies by returning to agreements that were abandoned under Trump’s isolationist administration. Trump’s cuts to aid are expected to be reversed, along with a review of USA Middle East policy. Relations with Russia have cooled; in a phone call with Putin this week, Biden condemned the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexey Navalny and warned against Russian aggression in Ukraine. New START, a nuclear disarmament deal, was also renewed.
All this appears to be a return to Obama-era policies, but there are key differences. Firstly, it is unlikely that the USA’s tough stance on China will be changing; international opinion of China has decreased dramatically over the past few years due to aggression and human rights abuses in Xinjiang, something Biden has personally condemned.
However, Biden has stressed a multilateral approach to countering China, emphasising his commitment to the restoration of the USA as an international leader. This is another sharp contrast to Trump, whose unilateral trade wars with China were indicative of his isolationist approach.
(Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Flickr)
Biden’s foreign policy looks set to be tougher on authoritarians than Trump was. But just how tough will these stances be? Biden, after all, was Obama’s Vice President, who was criticised for his failures to check Russia and Assad. Biden has also said he favours ‘competition’ over ‘confrontation’ with China, and looks set to be more diplomatic with Iran than Trump. Just how Biden will act when push comes to shove remains to be seen. But, one thing is for certain: the USA will be back in full force on the international stage.
On the domestic front, Biden is focused on addressing the new issues of the age: coronavirus, climate and tech corporations. The former two are set to be addressed by extensive plans: a $1.9 trillion relief package for coronavirus, and a climate plan dubbed the most ambitious of any American President. Rumours are circulating that the latter will be under more scrutiny as Biden appoints an antitrust ‘czar’ (official) with a particular focus on regulating big tech companies (in the past, Biden has even mentioned breaking up their monopolies). This, along with new cybersecurity laws, will be a clear a crackdown on fake news and foreign influence on elections.
Biden seems eager to hold together his voting coalition. His climate policy is far-reaching, but stops short of the ‘Green New Deal’ endorsed by the Democrat left-wing. He has taken steps in the direction of wide criminal justice reform, but stopped short of ‘defunding the police’. He wants to expand Obamacare to allow 97% of Americans the option to be covered by it, but has stopped short of Universal Healthcare. After all, with a 50-50 Senate, he can only be as radical as his most conservative Democrat Senators.
This could also be part of his attempts to prevent further polarisation and foster bipartisanship, early signs of which have been seen in negotiations over the coronavirus relief package. Currently, the Sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of congressional Republicans in the form of a staunchly pro-Trump grassroots threatening primary challenges to whoever breaks from the Trump line. As someone who advocated unity and healing in his inaugural address, and has a long history of reaching across the aisle, it will be Biden’s duty and, most likely, aim to repair relations between the two polarised parties, if possible.
This will have to involve staying a centrist course and not being dragged too far left by his party’s divisive hardliners, so Republicans can once again fear Democrat opponents more than Republican challengers in congressional races. Whether this will continue remains to be seen; however, the first days of the Biden administration seem to have shown a commitment to a more centrist, less divisive form of politics, and a rebuilding of the USA’s global reputation. Let’s hope, for the chance of a return to some sort of normality in the USA, that this continues.
First business, then politics: ‘the Trump trajectory’
Zack Bhalla
With Donald Trump’s term as the 45th President of the United States over, now seems an apt time to reflect upon his business and political careers. Indeed, his time in politics has remarkable overlaps with his business career. The first commonality between Donald Trump’s business and political careers occurred at the start of each period. In both cases, he had a strong starting base.
As the son of a New York property mogul, Donald Trump joined the successful family business in 1968. By the early 1970s, he had become President of the company and was able to capitalise on what is now The Trump Organization’s prior success: utilising its financial, political and credibility capital to create the foundations of his bold diversification strategy. A similar comparison can be made to his political career.
After the Republican Party gained control of the Senate and maintained control of the House in 2014, they were able to impede the remaining years of the Obama Administration. Arguably, this furthered a degree of disaffection amongst American voters, off of which Trump was able to capitalise in the 2016 Presidential Election. When Donald Trump took office, the Republicans still held the House and Senate, offering him a perfect start by allowing the Trump Administration to begin its legislative programme unencumbered by opponents.
However, in spite of his business and political careers starting strong, both were thwarted by the same problem later.
Evidence suggests Donald Trump’s business and political careers were undermined by his ego. Certain Trump Organization projects failed because a desire to be the best did not align with commercial sense. For example, Trump Shuttle started out of the remains of the Eastern Shuttle airline, which operated flights along the East Coast of the USA. Whilst the former airline had endured financial difficulties, their aircraft were perfectly serviceable by the time it morphed into Trump Shuttle. However, Donald Trump’s desire to operate the best planes kicked in, resulting in his airline’s 27 Boeing 727s each receiving a $1 million upgrade.
In doing so, a golden rule of business was broken: never overcapitalise the venture (as discussed on The Symposium Podcast). There was no major competitive advantage derived from these renovations on short hop aircraft, yet $27 million was invested anyway. This commercial misstep, combined with his criticism of other carriers’ safety records before one of his planes suffered a landing gear failure, was arguably fuelled by an egotistical desire to be the best. This contributed to a $125 million loss within 18 months and in 1992, Trump bailed from the venture.
Interestingly, Donald Trump’s political career also appears to have been thwarted by his ego. Indeed, some of his Administration’s noteworthy accomplishments (for example, the Abraham Accords) are being overlooked, because bigger headlines have stolen our attention.
Perhaps the most notable is his refusal to concede the 2020 Presidential Election. His desire to be the best seems incompatible with losing to “sleepy Joe Biden”, which resulted in allegations of fraud and a rhetoric which seemingly contributed to the insurrection against the USA Capitol. In addition to ensuring Donald Trump’s Administration becomes forever tied to a violent mob, possible impeachment could bar him from holding public office again, thus surely ending his political career. Therefore, an egotistical desire to be the best contributed to the downfall of Donald Trump’s business ventures and political career. A final overlap between Donald Trump’s business and political careers is the possibility of them both ending with trials and litigation. These trials might even happen within a similar timeframe, rather than decades apart. On the business side, Donald Trump is accused of tax evasion (by virtue of directing consulting fees to his daughter, Ivanka, in order to lower his taxable income), along with deliberate mis-representation of his assets’ value and bankruptcy fraud. Arguably, the likelihood of ensuing court cases is high, with some prosecutors deliberately waiting until his Presidential immunity is over.
If convicted, Trump’s business credibility would likely be severely affected, which, combined with any potential custodial or financial penalties, could end his business career. Similarly, if his impeachment trial returns a guilty verdict, his political career would likely be over too – and if it doesn’t, can his reputation be sufficiently restored? Irrespective of what happens, the similarities between Donald Trump’s business and political careers are undeniable, thus giving rise to the ‘Trump trajectory’.
