Please read this if you would like your children to attend uni in the UK.

[Rikkitikkitemper]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leaders-of-100-top-uk-universities-warn-of-brexit-risk-to-global-standing-a7092516.html

I second werks's comment about the jollies.

I don't speak for all EU funded projects but a couple I've had dealings with looked suspiciously like navel-gazing, job-creation cobblers and a waste of money. Large collaborative consortia were encouraged, involving some great foreign travel for the academics concerned but must have been cumbersome and costly to manage.

I am not anti blue skies research but academia, like the EU, has its own gravy train, a few carriages of which could be directed to the buffers without much loss.

For you brexit may represent that, and good for you, but I think it represents the an iniquitous attempt to dupe the British people into doing something that will make them far worse off, and far more in the hands of the corporations than ever before.

I don't know which way we go, I'm waiting for you to tell me where these altruistic for the good of the people actions are, for me I think you can call vested interest but in the end you have to also consider how likely it is that those organisations you are discussing would tarnish their reputations for impartiality and high standards before you do so.

I've heard Oxford Economics and the CEP at the LSE, two fine academic institutions accused of tainting the research, the same about the Bank of England etc etc.

Here I'm being told that a group of people who are in charge of looking after the overall well being and future successes of our universities are incorrect to highlight the risks of leaving.

I'm sorry but if we keep playing this game, everyone and every organisation is tainted somehow, then we might as well not bother reading or researching anything but just vote on our gut feelings.

I have seen the statement 'only a few lunatics may want to join the EU now" a few times without its source being quoted so was curious enough to look it up.

For anybody who is interested, it comes from Thomas Minder, a Swiss counsellor, affiliated to the Swiss People's Party (SVP), a national-conservative and right-wing populist party.

The party's programme is aligned with pro-Brexiters' views on foreign policy and immigration.

In addition, it has other gems such as:

• refusing to accept regulations, new laws, rules, regulations which interfere with companies' interests and commercial operations

• backing a return to liberal values, which provides the prerequisites for businesses to operate as freely as possible

• opposing all efforts to reduce bank client confidentiality

• opposing the focus on prevention for healthcare matters

• opposing new directives and regulations in animal, water and

environmental protection

• endorsing road transport rather than investing in public transport...

Here is the programme's party if anybody has any time to waste. I did .

Anyway, I have zero interest in quotes from a man I give no credence to because of his affiliation to a party that wants to remove workers' rights, protect money laundering, endanger the environment, etc.

Oh and yes, there are obviously some jollies or more probably some very nice bonuses to being involved in something quite serious. I worked for a Russell Group uni too and a good chunk of funding came both from the EU, from EU based firms and there was a huge amount of research, correspondence and collaboration going on.

But no, obviously the people in charge of our universities are wrong, its all indulgent bollocks that we could get rid of and be fine.

Seems pretty sensible to ask, "Why are they saying that?". That's all. You can try it with George Soros as well. Science isn't immune from these processes, although individual academics, like car plant assembly workers, are on the straight and narrow, for sure.

Top British academics are concerned about funding and research if we Brexit. It's been well documented that many jobs in higher education will be in danger.

The reaction of MN's dedicated Project Misinformation posters: It's because they will lose their jollies.

This is quite a good thread, because it shows people who are so determined in their orejudice that NOTHING will change their view.

They don't take credible disagreement seriously and take it on and argue their case against it.

They deride it and invent reasons why everyone who says things that don't accord with their worldview are liars and idiots.

The idea that "Oxford has existed since the 11th Century, ho ho ho" is a worthwhile response to the head of that institution's public worries for the outcome of Brexit is not even worthy of a decent secondary school debating team.

Who can imagine that reading "arguments" of that kind does anything but utterly discredit the people making them?

It is just astonishing how the leave campaign are so eager to dismiss every single group of experts and/or stakeholders who don't support their incredibly blinkered point of view.

It really is like they're sticking their fingers in their ears, toddler style, and shouting "I don't care".

I've long been aware of confirmation bias but this is on a whole other level. If it wasn't so disturbing, it would be fascinating to watch.

X post Doin, I couldn't agree more!

I would take this with a pinch of salt - if the universities do get a shake up and even drop down in the world ranking it might not be bad thing for the future.
As an ex-research scientist I would say that the whole way research is funded and success monitored is flawed - it is a worldwide problem.
The people who tend to become the principals etc are the successful academics - successful researchers - but that doesn't mean they are good teachers or even good scientists. It is more likely they have a certain mindset.
(In fact ime good thorough scientists, who are looking at the difficult things, asking the hard questions and being completely honest aren't successful.)
It is knowing how to write good grant applications (which needs a certain approach) and publishing lots of papers - nothing negative and if it later turns out to be wrong (because it was done superficially) not really admitting it.
I have seen a hell of a lot of money wasted to further individual's careers. The more money you have the quicker you can turn out results (which may not be beneficial or indeed accurate) so the more papers you get published, so the more likely you are get more funding...more money to turn out more papers.

And it is an 'old boy's club' - research is peer reviewed but there seems to be a degree of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. (Although possibly once someone gets to be considered successful, reviewers are less likely to look critically at their work.)
Phd students are cheap labour so there aren't really enough Post Doc positions, a post doc research scientist who doesn't become a group leader after 9 yrs is unemployable and they go off to retrain as something else...
Phd positions are easy to fill - especially as undergraduate degrees have been devalued since the drive for 50% of students to get degrees to keep down youth unemployment figures. Which has also resulted in the trend to make vocational jobs need a degree...
All the money we get from the EU for funding is actually our money anyway - we are a net contributor - put more cash into the EU than we get out. (And I have never seen anyone argue that isn't the case.) We would have more control over where it goes.
As to the free movement of EU researchers etc. I worked with people of all nationalities - not just from the EU. University HR depts are used to applying for work visas for non-EU citizens - no reason why EU researchers won't be able to come anyway.
Looking at the US - it is no1 in the rankings for research. They have researchers from all over the world - who all had to apply for visas...it doesn't seem to be detrimental to their research success...

Now there's an argument. :)

I think people misinterpret what it means when some refer to 'vested interests'. They immediately think tin-foil hat conspiracies. In this case, 'vested interests' simply refers to structures set up in certain ways with specific beneficial outcomes. In another example, the corporate business model does not benefit women because the structures are not set up from the perspective of women (so, contrary to what would benefit women's entry into corporates, we have instead long hours, little flexibility, need for continuous employment, little or no maternity leave, etc.). Many organisations invest in these structures because of their predictability but of course, if they are undermined in any way, investments start to look shaky. Ditto with other sectors. This is also true of science as we currently perform it. Should we agitate these structures or accept the status quo as the way things are?

But still doinit its anecdotal against evidence presented by the people who lead the universities. I'm going to believe them over someone on the internet sorry.

Also its yet another example of dismissing the opinions of people in whose interest it is to make clear the interests of their industry in this debate. Quite frankly its bordering on the facetious to suggest that the concerns of the VCs of our Universities shouldn't be taken on board.

" In fact, they are perceived as a bit of a drain because they pay home fees but tend to require more support due to second language issues."

Thats very, very funny i have completed one BA Hons, a MA and MSc. IME European students were better educated, more independent and had better final grades. I have also studied in another European country and have always found what i did at uni in the UK (one of them RG) easier in terms of study effort than anything i did up until my a-levels abroad. None of the EU students i know required much additional support, definitely not more than British students, who were much more likely to require support for dyslexia, get extenuating circumstances for a range of issues etc.

I don't agree with it, but it is at least an argument that seeks to address tge points raised in the letter.

small if you look into what I've said it is true. Some of things (like peer review) are acknowledged problems.
The waste of money - I have seen it first hand. Some things on a daily basis but other spectacular one offs - one of the worst was someone wouldn't wait 12hrs to get confirmation they had the right thing. They used it to set up the next stage - £500+ worth of materials - only to discover it wasn't right and it was all wasted.
Even the issues around the more you publish the more successful you are the more funding you get is acknowledged. (It used to be rare for a Phd student to get a publication - now you are expected to get one or two)
The need to publish has led to a growth in the number of journals who don't have enough content so constantly email you (if you have your email address on a paper) asking for you to submit papers to them. And there are so many that no-one has time to read everything that comes in their subject. Which is were the journal rankings come in, but you can't even trust them.
The lack of accuracy - I have experienced it - several times. In fact I had an interview with someone (a leader in their field, extremely successful) I wanted to work with. They had published an important paper 6 months before (for me it was really exciting stuff). I mentioned it and asked how the work was going to be told oh we told think that is the case, the experiment was flawed, now we are looking at...
All that mattered to them was they had another paper published in a good journal. And nothing (to my knowledge) was ever published to say that - no erratum etc. Someone else could be wasting time and money using that as the basis for research. (I think I shocked them by deciding I didn't want to work for them after all. )
Industry will drop things if they can't see the potential for a profit in the near future. Academia used to work on those things - except now they also drop things if they can't see a positive result they can publish in the near future. (Some of the problem is it is hard to get negative results published - but they can be useful - Ben Goldacre has commented on that)
There is a belief that more money is the answer - I really don't think it is. We need a fundamental change in attitudes to get more 'value for money' useful research. To stop integrity being compromised in order to be successful.
The people at the top of these institutions have played by these rules - for them the system is working - they have successful careers. They want to protect them.

I agree that they may be wastage of money, I can't agree with you that you know better than the leaders of our universities though.

There is a common theme to disagreeing with the "experts" just look at how many different industries/organisations have said that their preference is to stay in the EU. Each and every time their concerns are dismissed by posters who know better yet offer no evidence of their own other than anecdote and to attack those supplying a counter claim.

It doesn't wash.

I'm going to believe them over someone on the internet sorry There are clearly more working academics on this thread than perhaps would be expected by chance, who are all raising important points. These are worth listening to.

I have been an academic though, and I made that clear.

I'm also not just going to dismiss the leaders of the universities judgement because people have said "they like their jollies" or that there is a lot of wastage in academia.

Essentially I think the concerns should be acknowledged and not dismissed.

The people at the top of these institutions have played by these rules - for them the system is working - they have successful careers. They want to protect them. I so agree with this, especially when you take their rather large salaries into consideration.

Small It's not a question of knowing better. It's a question of seeing all that Unlucky refers to, and also wondering why our 'leaders' would argue so vehemently for a specific position (which does not disturb the status quo) when the funds that we receive from the EU are actually on the small side. Combine the latter with the former and we may have an answer. Academia - the last bastion of objectivity and neutrality may actually be subject to the same processes as the corporate world...with interests, partisanship, perspectives, investment and profit.

The people at the top of these institutions have played by these rules - for them the system is working - they have successful careers. They want to protect them

Exactly this.

It's natural, understandable and true of all sectors.

But that is the vested interest.

The point is that most people don't have safe £100k+ jobs in extremely well resourced institutions.

Ah well, I'm not going to agree with you fourmummy so lets leave it at that.

I think this s yet another example of the leave camp dismissing evidence because it doesn't back their position. Lets be honest the overwhelming number of industries in this country have come out saying that their preference is for remain. The institutions of this country have come out overwhelmingly saying that they would prefer to remain. The analysis of the majority of independent organisations says that there are serious risks to the economy of leaving.

Quite frankly its become ridiculous and its only because these organisations, institutions and industries are not backing a leave vote that their judgments are being dismissed.

Yet in the face of all this the exit camp stick doggedly to their point, attacking anyone who goes against them. Its ridiculous really.

Ex academic here.

Academics and students have always been highly internationally mobile. Leaving the EU wouldn't prevent international movement or collaboration. If a leading conference in your field is in say Germany, you're still going to be able to go to the conference. You're still going to be able to make contacts with and collaborate with other researchers in other countries - because what you need for that is the internet, not the EU.

In fact I can't think of any way it would negatively impact my former field in terms of teaching and research.

What I think must be the vcs main concern - but they don't say this because it would sound grubby and commercial - is business development at universities - the kind where academics are encouraged to commercially exploit their research. HE institutions get a huge amount of money from the EU for capital investment designed to support spin off businesses. That would disappear and it would mean they would have to think of other ways to support commercialisation - which is not an uncontroversial thing in itself.

As someone who has seen this kind of EU support for commercial ventures in STEM fields in several institutions, I can honestly say that the money was frequently not well spent and as a consequence there was a poor return for the tax payer in terms of businesses created etc. So what money does come back from Brussels is not well targeted imo. But of course the vcs want the money to keep rolling in so they can point to a shiny new science park as their legacy ...

Interesting Questing