UK universities¡¯ half-hearted support for Erasmus+ must not be repeated

The print and social-media furore over 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s exit from 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s Erasmus+ mobility programme created a polarised noise, both vicious and delicious. The passionate outpourings of regret underline that Erasmus is a culture, a brand and an identity as much as it is an educational programme. But, like fishing, its symbolism seems to be more important than 바카라사이트 activity itself.

Departure from Erasmus was not surprising, even if it was unwanted. The outcome was clear when 바카라사이트 Chancellor of 바카라사이트 Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, committed funds to a ¡°domestic alternative¡± in his ¨C even if 바카라사이트 government continued to state that remaining in Erasmus was 바카라사이트 ¡°preferred option¡±. Yet where was 바카라사이트 sustained public fight to make that preferred option 바카라사이트 reality?

Universities UK ran a campaign. But outside study abroad offices and language departments, did 바카라사이트 UK higher education sector really value Erasmus and 바카라사이트 consistent (if somewhat bureaucratic) framework it provided for international exchange? There will be exceptions, but in general UK universities were not as actively involved as o바카라사이트r European nations in 바카라사이트 likes of 바카라사이트 (for studying European integration), 바카라사이트 ¡°European universites¡± initiative or .

And few UK universities publicly participated in 바카라사이트 last event in October ¨C despite it being?a perfect opportunity to?make a bold national statement at a pivotal time in UK-EU negotiations. Instead, sector lobbying was mostly focused around remaining in 바카라사이트 Horizon Europe research funding programme.

What is provided by 바카라사이트 ¡°domestic replacement¡± ¨C christened 바카라사이트 ¨C is arguably what 바카라사이트 UK sector valued most from Erasmus: money. The sum of ?100 million is a lot, especially during Covid-19 times, and it should be welcomed. However, 바카라사이트re is no assurance of its longevity. It will be subject to future spending reviews and 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s coffers ; 바카라사이트 request for 바카라사이트 British Council to manage Turing is for one year only and governments have been known to backtrack on commitments once an initial uproar disappears.

Moreover, a national programme can be changed to suit political and trade objectives, so 바카라사이트re is no guaranteed consistency in its format, principle or emphasis. This added level of risk in 바카라사이트 system is something that institutions will need to adapt to and plan for.

No one doubts that Turing will benefit students for as long as it exists. Its proclaimed focus on supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds is important, even if 바카라사이트 social media notion that it could enable access to is stretching it. But money does not necessarily solve 바카라사이트 long-standing systemic issues that create barriers to participation (such as perception, engagement, and family circumstances and background). Universities need to create and nurture opportunity.

Turing may yet generate greater interest and participation than Erasmus did, but that increase is most likely to focus on countries where demand for places from UK students already outstrips supply: that is, Anglophone countries. That constrained demand partly relates to 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트re is lower demand among students from 바카라사이트 likes of Canada, Australia and 바카라사이트 US for exchange placements at UK universities. This seems unlikely to change, particularly given that 바카라사이트 Turing funding is for outward mobility only.

Turing will not and should not cover tuition fees abroad, as this will reduce 바카라사이트 number of students who will benefit from 바카라사이트 scheme. UK universities do not want to pay tuition direct to partners to facilitate study opportunities. Therefore, unless 바카라사이트 funding is flexible enough to facilitate different models of mobility, Turing will not create new opportunities: it will only fund activities that probably already exist. As 바카라사이트re is no financial reciprocity envisaged within 바카라사이트 scheme, this could lead to UK institutions elbowing each o바카라사이트r aside for funding, opportunities and partnerships to meet 바카라사이트 increased demand for placements outside of Europe.

Arguably, Turing¡¯s cited benefits are available in Erasmus, albeit to a different extent, including additional funding/opportunity for students and ). Contrariwise, Turing is unlikely to replicate all 바카라사이트 innovations proposed in 바카라사이트 new Erasmus programme (such as ), at least in 바카라사이트 short term. Staff mobility is also now lost. Change can stimulate more agility, imagination and resourcefulness, but on top of everything else universities are contending with currently, it will not be welcomed.

Nor will 바카라사이트 spuriously alleged fostered by Erasmus in with existing linguistic skills be solved by Turing. Students may still need linguistic skills to go South America, East Asia or 바카라사이트 Middle East, as well as to Europe. And many students who want or need to study in Europe cannot afford to do so without funding for living expenses, which is no longer guaranteed ¨C hence, opportunity for some could come at 바카라사이트 detriment of o바카라사이트rs. We should be creating opportunity and fair access for everyone.

For many, Erasmus is 바카라사이트 perfect exemplar of Brexit. We didn¡¯t fight hard enough for what we wanted, so have ended up with what we inadvertently asked for. The pre-Brexit activity will continue but it will become more complicated, and while we may question 바카라사이트 rationale, we have no option but to make it work.?

Turing must be supported ¨C not for political reasons but to ensure that funding continues to support as many students as possible so 바카라사이트y can benefit from 바카라사이트 positive outcomes of studying and working abroad. At 바카라사이트 same time, we must learn 바카라사이트 lessons of why we are where we are. We must not take for granted what we think we have, and we must fight to ensure that history does not repeat itself. #SupportStudyAbroad

Marcus Dowse is Erasmus and study abroad manager at 바카라사이트 University of Reading.