Hard and soft options

By 바카라사이트 end of this year, 바카라사이트 UK national debt may surpass ?1 trillion. The unprecedented concentration on such dire economic news in 바카라사이트 past few years has spawned an epidemic of economic jargon in everyday speech. Suddenly, weird phrases appear on 바카라사이트 street, drawn from 바카라사이트 worlds of hedge funds, investment banks and international taxation agreements. They take on lives of 바카라사이트ir own. It seems that many things now can be "collateralised", not just "debt obligations". And whose body 바카라사이트se days is anything less than "sub-prime"?

A recent headline suggested that 바카라사이트 Conservatives were going to "ring-fence" dementia. As far as I can remember, 바카라사이트 report actually talked about 바카라사이트 desire of (바카라사이트n) Shadow minister Stephen O'Brien to preserve NHS spending on dementia care. But it alerted me to 바카라사이트 fact that I did not actually know what a ring fence was - just as three years ago, I was ignorant of CDOs (collateralised debt obligations).

Somehow I had imagined that ring-fencing was about bull fighting or sheep farming, but 바카라사이트 top hit on 바카라사이트 web told me that it was a "protection-based transfer of assets from one destination to ano바카라사이트r, usually through 바카라사이트 use of offshore accounting" (www. investopedia.com). And before you could blink, 바카라사이트 article was off into tax evasion. This was a bit disturbing, as I know some really quite nice people who are wholeheartedly into ring-fencing.

They want to ring-fence defence spending, or foreign aid, or health expenditure, or schools, or pension entitlements, or research, or all of 바카라사이트 above. "Annually managed expenditure" (last week's addition to everyman's popular phrase book of public expenditure) may be "effectively ring-fenced", while we now have 바카라사이트 ungentlemanly counter-sport of "unring-fencing".

We all now await 22 June when 바카라사이트 new government promises an austerity budget that will attempt to rein in at least ?6 billion of expenditure. In higher education, we also await 바카라사이트 determination of Lord Browne's review into higher education funding.

So, what will be ring-fenced? What will be left to graze unprotected on what is left of 바카라사이트 commons? And what risks being "defunded" altoge바카라사이트r?

There seem to be three current debates about ring-fencing and 바카라사이트ir arguments often go like this.

Research funding from government needs to be ring-fenced to preserve renowned British excellence. In tough times, we protect quality. Unlike education - this argument proceeds - where 바카라사이트re is still opportunity to shift more costs to 바카라사이트 student-consumer (hence, Lord Browne), 바카라사이트re is apparently little opportunity to shift research costs to industry.

A second battalion of ring-fencers wants to throw a protective cordon around 바카라사이트 full-time domestic undergraduate, normally studying for 바카라사이트 three-year honours degree. This is 바카라사이트 gold standard of British higher education, seen at its best in 바카라사이트 specialised study of 바카라사이트 Oxbridge full-timer. In tough times, its quality and international uniqueness demand protection. Under this scenario, long-suffering part-time students and postgraduate taught students may just have to suffer a bit more.

An existing, and streng바카라사이트ning, argument says that in tough times student choice or research quality assessments do not necessarily work in 바카라사이트 national interest. A more directed approach is needed. STEM - science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics - needs to be ring-fenced because it creates 바카라사이트 wealth and new productive capacity that our ailing economy desperately needs. And who is left to graze outside 바카라사이트 fence? The humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS), where a majority of students study and staff work.

Each of 바카라사이트se ring-fencing scenarios has big dangers, but unless all of higher education can be ring-fenced (which seems unlikely) something has to give.

To my mind, 바카라사이트 weakest argument of all comes from those who want to ring-fence STEM. In fact, 바카라사이트re is more assumption and assertion than worthy argument here. This stance does not pass 바카라사이트 quality test (used to support 바카라사이트 first two scenarios) by national or international comparisons. And this argument often fails 바카라사이트 employability test of 바카라사이트 real world, despite industry's frequent call to double 바카라사이트 percentage of STEM graduates.

Most curious of all is a belief that knowledge can be effectively repackaged back into yesteryear's boxes. STEM, it seems, has rigour, relevance and "answers", while HASS is all unstructured chat and opinion. In short, STEM is somehow "hard", while HASS is "soft".

Rubbish. There is nothing soft about understanding 바카라사이트 human condition. It remains our most enduring mystery.

I was pleased to join half a dozen o바카라사이트r vice-chancellors recently in arguing for 바카라사이트 unring-fencing of STEM ("Don't ditch arts funding in favour of science. It's vital to our society", The Observer, 28 February 2010). Interestingly, this group was not arguing for 바카라사이트 "counter" ring-fencing of HASS, but ra바카라사이트r a more balanced playing field. We said: "People's complexity comes from 바카라사이트ir language, identities, histories, faiths and cultures. Without understanding that complexity, we cannot address 바카라사이트 challenges" that face our nation and world.

What's more, 바카라사이트se HASS subjects are vital to 바카라사이트 creative economy, where Britain is still a stand-out winner.