Photo by Karen Rubado

As some of you may know, I’m a bit of a language geek. I studied French at school, dropped it after GCSEs, and two years later picked up Portuguese and Spanish in my own time. Oh, and I gave French another go.

It just seemed to click this time around, something I can’t say happened during my school days. I was an ‘A’ student at French but upon reflection couldn’t describe my ability as anything higher than ‘lower intermediate’ at the time, despite being exposed to French Creole at home.

What’s the point of learning a language at school then? After 11 years of French, from primary through to secondary school, one would expect an ‘A’ student to have the ability to do more across the Channel than buy a “pain au chocolat” at the local boulangerie.

The finger of blame for our linguistic underachievement could be pointed at any number of reasons: the quality of the teaching, the attitude we as a nation have towards foreign language study, or low expectations of pupils when it comes to languages.

Cassim, a computing graduate from London, studied German at school:

“Up to GCSE’s I thought it was a doddle, so naturally I picked it for A-Levels. The step up was just ridiculous. I was completely out of my depth. I like the idea they force you to learn a language, but I think that the standard that they should teach you until at least GCSE should be a lot higher. I couldn’t even hold a conversation after GCSE level.”

Rajdeep, a journalism graduate from south London, has had a similar experience:

“I did seven years of French, I was practically forced to do it for GCSE and then at A-level I failed tremendously.  I still can’t string a sentence together and would be useless in France! Languages here are taught to pass an exam rather than to speak it. I have cousins from Belgium who learn English at school and their level of fluency is so much better than I ever was whilst I was at school learning another language.”

Studies show that children who speak a second language find it easier to pick up other languages later in life, as the certain neurons in the brain are effectively ‘unlocked’. Research even suggests that they do better in school in general. So there’s definitely reason to encourage kids to adopt to adopt a foreign tongue, it’s just a case of getting them to embrace their linguistic skills outside of the classroom.

Emelie, a university staff member from Belgium, had to take mandatory classes in English, French and German at school alongside her native Flemish. She says that it has turned out to be invaluable to her in almost all aspects of life, and that learning another language could encourage us Brits to come out from our anglocentric bubble:

“The more languages you learn, and maintain (which is the difficulty once you leave school or college) the more you are open to understanding other people’s cultures, and as the world becomes more globalised, living and working abroad becomes easier but people need the skills to do so! The willingness of wanting to learn another language has to be instilled in the curriculum. The attitude that ‘everyone speaks English so why should I learn another language?’ needs to change. It has a bit already but people need to understand that it isn’t just that people need to understand each other, it is also about the skill of learning a language, and communicating as a whole.”

Cassim adds:

“There’s a lack of scope on how languages can be applied beyond sitting the exam or using it when you’re going on holiday. I bet most kids don’t even know you could make a career out of perfecting a language besides your own.”

Ylenia, a journalism graduate from Italy, believes that we don’t have it as bad as we think over here. She says that at least we have an adequate supply of native speakers teaching languages:

“In Italy, the quality of foreign language teaching is just shameful, teachers are not qualified and can’t even speak the language themselves. no wonder italians can’t be of much help to tourists. The country lacks native speakers and the few that are around are not in schools but give private lessons (for which they make much more money than if they were in a school). That’s why if Italians really want to learn a second language, they pay for private lessons or go to another country or something.”

But while Europeans may lack native speakers in schools, could our lack of exposure to other languages be preventing our children from taking their language skills home with them? Sumit is a graduate and former French student who visits Paris regularly:

“I think a major factor in learning in a language, and in particular English, is that there are things in different mediums that allow us to access the other language. Many mainstream shows are in English – thus giving an incentive to learn English, but what’s also important is the quality of these shows. America and England bring out a lot more radio and TV shows at a far higher quality, in my opinion. In France, I can think of only maybe a handful of shows I would want watch – and they need to be interesting in order for you to be motivated to sit there and listen attentively so you can pick up things and understand the language better.”

Perhaps, the problem is one a curriculum one. It is no longer compulsory for all students to study a modern foreign language at GCSE level, and reports suggest that children are being discouraged from studying languages in favour of ‘easier’ subjects by schools obsessed with nothing but exam grades and league tables.

When language is taught, on the other hand, it is presented as another academic subject rather than a communicational skill and perhaps even a way to make new friends in our increasingly global society. Paul Noble has the right idea with his language courses, in which all textbooks and notes are banned, and you there’s no talk of the “past imperfect” tense or the “future subjunctive”. There are no long lists of vocabulary but instead students are taught how to communicate right from the start, and isn’t that the point of language?

Such methods could prove popular in the school classrooms, by taking the chore out of language and encouraging children to just chat with each other. It’s just a theory that may or may not work but were someone to initiate a Jamie Oliver-style revolution based on this theory I’d certainly be on board – anyone coming with me?

It’s not a proud moment for British journalism. Between the News International phone hacking scandal and the suspension of the Independent’s Johann Hari, I can understand if the public are a bit wary of those in our trade.

It’s almost cliché that the least trustworthy kind of guy is a politician, followed by a journalist. But it seems that, for today at least, the politicians may be seen in a slightly better light as they join forces in a ceremonious scolding of the Murdoch media. Sitting in the Channel 4 newsroom yesterday, presenter Jon Snow remarked that it’s the first time that all the major parties have stood united on a political cause since the Second World War.

I liken the situation to something out an action film, where rival heroes (or anti-heroes) join forces to defeat a greater evil. The whipping of Met Police in yesterday’s Home Affairs Select Committee meeting was an ample warm-up, and today’s vote (or rather, non-vote) in the Commons will serve as a warning to Murdoch that he and his empire are in for a tough ride.

The gauntlet has already been thrown: Murdoch and son, as well as former NotW editor and current News International chief exec Rebekah Brooks, have been invited to next week’s Home Affairs Select Committee. Whether the two former turn up however, remains to be seen, as Rupert and James Murdoch are not UK nationals and therefore not obliged to attend.

Some say that Labour leader Ed Miliband has been the politician to benefit most from this crisis, but perhaps the one it is none other than the Prime Minister himself. The events (or rather, revelations) of last week left David Cameron a tad red in the face – a kind of double jeopardy for the appointment of former NotW editor Andy Coulson as his press officer, as well his party’s backing of the Murdoch BSkyB takeover. As a recent article suggested (sorry but in the sea of recent “Hackgate” articles I can’t remember which one), perhaps Murdoch was doing Cameron, Hunt and co. a favour by withdrawing his offer to sell of Sky News, thereby forcing the Culture Secretary to forward the case onto media regulators Ofcom. This may just have saved the Conservative party from an embarassing defeat in the Commons vote.

the Americans, and even the American Murdoch press, see this as a very British affair

And while Murdoch and Brooks will share the position of public enemy number one for now, the sheer breadth of Murdoch’s media empire will mean that a lot of journalists (and by proxy, the industry in general) will suffer a knock to it’s reputation. It remains to be seen whether Murdoch media on foreign shores will inherit the toxicity of his British papers. As Channel 4 News‘s Felicity Spector points out, the Americans, and even the American Murdoch press, see this as a very British affair.

And, while I sincerely hope that this is the last of such press atrocities, part of me will take some comfort if it turns to be more than a just a British culture of immorality. My pride for British journalism sure took a beating by Jon Stewart’s exclamation on Daily Show, and the uncomfortable truth that “you people are garbage”.

Such proposals include fee-waivers and bursaries. I’m all for helping out the disadvantaged, and in fact my educational career has been supported by such schemes on more than one occasion, but is this really levelling the playing field or simply setting up a quota for the universities?

Money is not an infinite thing, so the number of students from less financially comfortable backgrounds in our universities is likely to be reflective of the number and extent of concessions that are available, rather than the number of young people from such backgrounds applying for university.

Offa have admitted that it is difficult to predict the number of students who will apply to university when the new fee comes in, so what if demand from less wealthy students exceeds the allocated diversity funds? It would result in those students with the best grades, extra-curricular activity etc getting in, which sounds pretty fair in itself, but could mean a two-tier system where students from well-off families are judged less harshly on academic merit when applying to university.

Offa have said that significantly fewer than 50 per cent students likely to charged the full £9,000 after bursaries, waivers and so-forth. What they have failed to mention, however, is how this 50 per cent will be spread out – is it fairly even across universities, or will we find that certain universities have a less economically diverse student body not through lack of interest from these groups, but instead from how many places are accessible to them?

Far more institutions have adopted the top fee than was originally promised, as a result of market forces (or at least pre-empted market forces) and just as the fee has been somewhat universalised, I hope that measures to encourage disadvantaged young people will be equally as consistent across the universities.

Even News Corp CEO and Chairman Rupert Murdoch has condemned the NotW over the phone hacking scandal. (photo from World Economic Forum)

As if the News of the World hadn’t already drummed up enough bad press after receiving allegations of hacking into the phones of celebrities and MPs, this week Britain’s top selling newspaper was accused of unlawfully accessing the voicemails of murdered children and British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would seem that the only people left for them to hack are you and me, and even then I don’t think I would be as incensed as I was when I heard about the most recent claims. Before this week, the paper was accused of intruding into the private lives of individuals, but now it has been suggested that they also broke one of the most serious sections of the PCC Code – intrusion into grief or shock. What’s more, the actions of the NotW could have prejudiced police investigations in the cases of murdered children Milly Dowler, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Milly’s voicemails were reportedly hacked into and deleted in the days following her disappearance, giving her family false hope that she may still be alive and listening to her messages.

It’s bad enough that former NotW editor and now News Corp chief exec Rebekah Brooks admitted to paying for police information in 2003 – making it even easier to assume culpability on the part of the already tarnished newspaper. Now even head honcho Rupert Murdoch has expressed his disgust at his own paper’s alleged behaviour.

MPs have called for the Government to withhold its approval of the proposed takeover of BSkyB by News International. If Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt does go ahead and give final approval today, as it has been suggested he will, then any public backlash he faces as a consequence would be nothing less than expected. In less than 24 hours, the public may well be demanding Mr Hunt’s head on the figurative guillotine, right next to Messieurs Murdoch and Mrs Brooks.

Exeter Uni has a reputation for posh-types like the character in the popular "Gap Year" viral on Youtube

It doesn’t surprise me that Exeter has become to first UK university outside the top 20 to charge the full £9,000 tuition fee. I’d imagine that their students can afford it more easily than most.

The university has a reputation for having some of the wealthiest students in the country. Student web forums such as The Student Room are full of threads debating whether the university is or isn’t full of posh kids in Jack Wills gilets. Even actress Emma Thompson notably called it “very white and middle class” a couple of years ago.

I have a flat-mate who went to Exeter University, and while she’s a lovely girl, she does fit the above stereotype perfectly (I’ve never seen her in a gilet, but I honestly had never even heard of Jack Wills until our first day living together).

Of course, stereotypes are hardly ever true in their entirety, but there’s usually a smidgen of truth in them.

The Times Good University Guide 2011 shows that Exeter has the 10th highest intake of students considered “middle class”, 4th out of the non-Russell Group universities. They’ve also the 11th lowest state school intake in the UK (3rd non-Russell) and 8th lowest intake of students from areas where few young people go to university (4th non-Russell).

Even more of an indicator that Exeter would have one of the first to charge the new maximum tuition fee, however, was the fact that they were the first university to give their blessing to the introduction of the “top-up fees” system back in 2004.

Of course, I’m not assuming that £9,000 a year is small change for anyone except a very lucky few, I’m just saying that I would have been more shocked to see a university such as Westminster or Greenwich embrace the top fee so quickly.

The unfortunate effect of universities such as Exeter, Cambridge and Imperial, however, is that eventually all – or at least most – universities will be forced to take the full fee from their students, as the price tag on a university education becomes an often false indicator of the quality of any particular institution.

photo by Spencer E Holtaway

Yesterday, we received a bollocking from our TV Journalism tutor. Every Tuesday we produce a half-hour news programme. The complaint was that the ‘journalism’ in our stories was lacking. Many of us had turned up to the pitching session with stories that either sounded like they were devised by some PR person, or stories that looked far too similar to what the local papers were running.

But it wasn’t just our class that was having difficulty finding original journalism. The previous week, I had asked journalists on our student radio station to find some stories for the following week. After receiving a number of blank stares and few fewer ideas, I decided to help them out a bit by posting some leads I had come accross myself to our private Facebook group. The students were quick to take on these stories I’d suggested, but then almost every one of them asked me who they should contact to follow the story up.

It appears to me that the skill of acquiring information through anything more than a simple Google search is dying. Before the Internet era, journalists had to rely on keeping an ear to the ground and making lots and lots (and lots) of phone calls. These days, the bulk of the research is done online, with telephone usage reserved for booking interviews and checking facts retrospectively.

It’s true that the Internet created a demand for rapid news output, and journalists now have to output more stories than they would have in the past, but us trainees have to realise that journalism is all about first-hand information, otherwise we are nothing more than news aggregators.

The Internet has made the process of newsgathering much more productive, but it is no substitute for getting out there and talking to people – because that’s how the most original stories will emerge.

the bonfire outside Tory HQ

Sitting in the London School of Economics Students’ Union watching footage of the tuition fees/EMA demo on Sky News, it occurred to me what we’d just been a part of.

The protest had started off peacefully, perhaps even light-heartedly. As some 50,000 students marched from House Guard Avenue and past the Houses of Parliament, a few chants of “f**k Nick Clegg” were about as aggressive as it got. But on the way, there were murmurs that the march would be passing Tory HQ at 30 Millbank.

the NUS-organised start to the protest was trouble-free

Of course, the plan wasn’t to cause the kind of anarchy that followed – for most, the idea was to make our point in much the same way that we had been doing already, but disrupt a Conservative Party staff along the way.

The “wrong” route

As we neared the area, protest stewards warned us that the gathering of students outside Tory HQ “weren’t part of the official protest” but it was difficult to listen to them, as it was instantly clear that this was where everything was happening.

Students had started a bonfire, and were chanting abuse at the staff looking on from their office windows – things like “light a bonfire, light a bonfire, put the Tories on the dock, put them Lib Dems in the middle and we’ll burn the f***in’ lot” and “Nick Clegg, shame on you, shame on you for turning blue”.

At this point, it felt like just the right amount of action to cause a bit of a stir and get our point across – although admittedly, I had concerns about health and safety in the back of my mind when excess fuel for the fire created a miniature explosion, leaving students to back off from the area for a moment.

Anarchy

As the protest at Millbank gathered momentum, the actions of those at the forefront grew bolder. Some trying to gain access through the building’s front entrance, but security prevented them from doing so. Not willing to accept defeat, they began to kick in the adjacent glass panels.

By this time, it became clear that a few of the people at the heart of it all were not students. Socialist campaigners and other non-students had been around since the start of the march, so they pretty easy to spot by this point.

Likewise, a number of younger students had appeared on the scene, and they seemed to revel in the sense of anarchy regardless of the reason for it – many students were even asking what the significance of the building we had gathered around was.

I was wondering why police hadn’t intervened, after all the helicopters had been circling the area for the past hour or so (though in retrospect, I suppose “police manhandle protesting students” wouldn’t have made a great headline for the Met). Rows of riot police lined the entrance and front windows of the building, but there was no one there to prevent the situation from escalating.

rogue protesters got onto the roof, waving red socialist-style flags

Breaking and entering

Before long, windows had been broken and the front door had been forced open. One or two hundred students stormed in,while the majority decided to hang back, watching the rogue protesters make their way up to the roof of the building. Despite most students choosing not to go in, the ones who did were egged on by constant cheering at every person that appeared on the roof.

For a few minutes, the roof protesters fell out of favour with those on the ground, as one threw a previously emptied fire extinguisher from the top of the 30-floor building. Luckily, no one was hurt (to my knowledge) as the object plummeted to the ground, but it led to the anti-coalition and anti-cuts chants becoming, simply, “stop throwing s**t!”.

This was quickly forgotten, however, as more windows were smashed open and flares lit on ground level. The Conservative Party staff had been evacuated and more students took to the inside of the building, a few of them taking the opportunity to destroy anything in sight, not exclusive of the ceiling and reception furniture.

Onlookers wondered why the police hadn't stepped in sooner

Post-protest

As the thrill of protesters on the roof began to die down, students gradually dispersed, myself being one of them. There was a strange sort of carnival atmosphere, as the younger students danced to Craig David and UK Funky House songs played via a sound system on wheels.

We walked back past Westminster Abbey and Downing Street, and I saw that the streets were teeming with police officers. Rogue protesters were finally being arrested, but why these officers weren’t just a few yards down the road at Millbank when it all kicked off is anyone’s guess.

While it’s clear that the protesters went too far, the day was a success in the sense that it pushed the issue of education spending cuts to the forefront of the political agenda. As Channel 4′s chief news correspondent Alex Thompson noted (and please excuse my shameless linking to a news story that features quotes from myself), the ugly truth is that sometimes violent protest is the most effective way of making the Government sit up and pay attention: “These students are too young to remember… the Trafalgar Square poll tax riot, which was instrumental in ending not just the poll tax but Margaret Thatcher’s time in power altogether.”

(photos courtesy of Natasha Culzac)

City iSoc are the University's biggest and most politically active student community. Here they are protesting against inadequate prayer facilities in March 2010.

Last night, I got into a heated debate with a student who wanted to write for City Offline, City University’s student newspaper. She wanted to do an opinion piece in response to the report in the Daily Mail that a think-tank has found evidence of extremist preaching within the University’s Islamic Society.

My initial response was “what do you have to tell me that I haven’t just read?”. She told me that she wanted to say that the “iSoc” have been getting their way for too long and that the University should shut them down immediately.While it is clear that the words of last year’s iSoc president Saleh Patel were highly questionable (and confirmed my own suspicions based on some previously unreported comments he made during an interview for City Offline), I felt it necessary to defend the other 399 or so members of the Society. Faith is a delicate thing, and it’s those who use that faith to manipulate that should be held to account.

However my problem with both the Daily Mail article and, as a result, this student journalist’s editorial pitch were that they cast a shadow of fear over not just City’s iSoc, but its Islamic students in general. While the iSoc is the largest and most politically active community at City, it certainly doesn’t represent all muslims. The Society consists predominantly of Sunni muslims (those following the Shia faith have their own society called “Ahlul Bayt”). I asked my Shia flatmate how he felt about the article, and he said that he fears that he, along with all other muslims at City (including non-iSoc Sunnis), will be viewed in the same light.

It is also important to note that the Quilliam report concerned the behaviour of its 2009-10 president, and not the current one. As an outsider, it is short-sighted to make assumptions about the content of this year’s prayer sessions (indeed the student journalist I was speaking to did present the suggestion that it will be a mere matter of weeks before the iSoc are up to their old tricks again).

Since the dramas of last year, which included an online hate campaign against some of the University’s more outspoken students and members of staff, the Students’ Union (SU) has stepped in so as to introduce a greater level of supervision over the Society’s behaviour. Their website, for one, was taken down, to be replaced by a site within the main Students’ Union website, allowing the SU to monitor both public and private content. Both the iSoc president and vice president of the 2009-10 academic year have left university and this Autumn sees a new set of officers take the helm, with the direction of the iSoc ultimately in their hands.

The challenge, now, for the new president and vice president will be to reshape the way they are viewed by the rest of the student body. New first-year and postgraduate students will, undoubtedly, be influenced to fear their muslim peers, and those now leading the iSoc will be heavily scrutinised by all.

It is, of course, vital to monitor and prevent any sign of extremist behaviour – and that goes for all religious groups. However this does not always need to be done by specialist officials. Staff take part in the Islamic prayer sessions alongside the students, and I would think it a lecturer’s duty, as a “responsible” figure in the University, to alert the appropriate people if questionable content is being delivered in religious speeches.

[EDIT: you can see the full Quilliam report here]

image taken by sheldon0531

This week Apple patented a device that prevents its users sending or receiving “objectionable” text messages. It works by picking up on a list of words that would, I assume, be “blacklisted” by the user (or the user’s parents, boss etc.)

The patent itself states that the device could be used to stop children sending messages containing “parentally inappropriate” language.

Now there’s a problem. The language of the playground is something that is constantly developing, and it’s highly unlikely that even the mighty Apple – let alone parents – will be able to keep up.

Indeed, were the device to become a popular censorship tool for puritanical parents, then how long would it be before the device itself begins to shape the slang that kids are using? Children are intuitive – if they know that a particular word is blocked, then it won’t be too long before they’re using a new word.

It’s a fact that younger people’s brains are much more efficient at learning a new language, and the same would apply in keeping track of an ever-changing vocabulary. While kids remain naturally up-to-date with the latest word for [insert sexual activity or body part here] through social interaction with their peers, adults will no doubt be subjected to same sort of immersion that is vital for vocabulary building.

What’s more, this sort of “English 2.0″ that would untimately develop is highly unlikely to be present in general adult reading material (by which I mean books and newspapers, not Hustler magazine) – so where would parents learn these words from? That’s right, their own children – the very children who they are trying to prevent using these words in the first place.