I have sent many students on exchange to all these countries, and to about 20 European countries covered by ErasmusPlus. A worthwhile experience for all but the idea of replacing #ErasmusPlus exchanges with Aus/NZ/Canada comes with problems: /1
First, an 'exchange' is reciprocal. So you need approx same numbers of students coming in coming as you do in going out. NZ/Canada/Aus all smaller than UK: so for this to work, all those students interested in an exchange must want to come to the UK over anywhere else. /2
Likely? Not so much. Many will want to go to non-English speaking destinations, including in Europe and Asia. UK often seen as too 'obvious' a choice in my experience. So the UK is going to be limited in scope for partnerships. /3
Second, cannot expect a Uni in Australia/NZ to partner with more than 2-3 UK universities. So going to be very difficult for many UK institutions to even find willing partners elsewhere. Not the case for Erasmus with Unis across Europe (and many offering classes in English). /4
Third, the bureaucracy involved in setting up links beyond Erasmus is very heavy. I know - I've done it. All kinds of issues come up (insurance, curriculum, reciprocity etc) which simply do not exist for Erasmus because of the agreement on common standards via the Charter. /5
Fourthly, costs for the students can be enormous. Living costs, travel (to NZ especially) be can high and unless govts provide financial support, then it will be the preserve of the rich. Again, none of this applies for Erasmus. /6
Fifth, studying abroad always beneficial. But how can Europe be 'narrow'? There are still language, cultural and educational differences. Plus a stay in Europe is great preparation for going beyond afterwards (in my case, to get a scholarship to do my Master's in Japan). /7
The loss of Erasmus is only 'narrow' in the sense of the loss of opportunity for young people in the UK. And that is before we talk about the reduction in the UK's soft power... /8
As young Europeans are prevented from coming to the UK, and then either staying (thus contributing their skills and tax-paying to the UK) or returning as unofficial ambassadors for the UK and its higher education system, then it will be - surprise - the UK that loses out most. /9
Finally, studying abroad is of academic benefit. I've publicised my research on this before, but since #Erasmus is once again in the news, I am going to do so again. /END 'Does studying abroad help academic achievement?' srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Short thread need. To be clear - getting agreements, even continuity ones, is good news for the UK and an achievement for those who have worked on them in such a short, pressured period of time.
But to claim, as Steve Baker does, that this is a UK strength is false. /1
First, it hardly needs to be said that a continuity agreement is not the same as a new agreement from scratch. The current EU agreements were negotiated with the UK as a Member State, so the UK's interests were already built in. /2
The proof of this can be seen by comparing agreements (eg. the new Japan-UK and EU-Japan) side by side. The differences are often due to the lack of need of details such as what the equivalent of 'lawyer' is in 24 official EU languages. /3
Amongst the noise about what the UK govt now says are great opportunities in an 'Australian-style deal' (i.e. no deal), bear in mind that the gov't in 2012 already looked at what the costs and benefits of being in the EU were. Anyone remember the Balance of Competences review? /1
The BoC ran 2012-14 and looked at 32 areas of EU activity, inviting evidence from politicians, thinktanks, businesses, academics, NGOs, EU institutions etc on how close EU/UK interests are, and the relative costs and benefits of EU membership. /2 gov.uk/guidance/revie…
It did not consider impact of leaving the EU (not on the cards at the time) but was supposed to answer the question of whether EU membership was worth it. All reports concluded that on balance, the UK gets more than enough out of membership to offset the costs. /3
Since we are discussing academic achievement and Brexit today, time to consider that the loss of #Erasmus and its funding will mean a lack of opportunity for students with limited financial means to gain valuable experience abroad. /1
The UK govt has not committed to seeking to remain in the programme (as non-EU Norway, Turkey etc are) but claim that an alternative will be developed. This will be very challenging and will likely be a complex and underwhelming solution. /2 timeshighereducation.com/blog/plan-stud…
More to the point, it is difficult to see how the UK government will match the funding to individual students that was previously available under Erasmus. The House of Lords EU Committee has outlined the problems with a UK-only approach. /3 publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ld…
I'm overwhelmed by the response to my previous thread on Brexit, so thank you to all. As requested, some thoughts on the (mostly legal) way to join/rejoin the EU. This is not an argument that the UK should but an attempt to inform the debate about how it *might* happen. /1
First, Art 50 no longer applies. The UK left on 31.1.2020 and there is no 'reversing' of this process: the UK is now a third country, even though it is still in a transition period until the end of 2020. /2
So, the process of joining follows Article 49 TEU, which looks like this. There is no special procedure for ex-members to rejoin provided for in either Article 49 or Article 50 TEU. /3
A short thread about Brexit and why I am so critical of it: not so much the idea, but the process by which it has happened, which betrays both those who voted remain *and* leave. I do not think Brexit will make the UK better off, but that is not the focus here. /1
The winner-takes-all approach of first past the post has infused Brexit in a way which ignores (a) almost half the electorate (b) Scotland and NI (c) the different shades of what 'leave' means. The present situation bears little resemblance to what was promised in the ref. /2
For a state to *join* the EU takes 10+ years, even if they already have a democratic system, market-based economy and level of integration with the EU. The efforts taken over a long period of time are huge: regular checking, national consultations, parliament scrutiny etc. /3
Of course he is playing to the crowd, and blaming Brussels always works, even after leaving the EU. But this is an assertion without evidence. /1 reuters.com/article/uk-bri…
The UK became so used to seeking exceptions that it almost felt that whenever a treaty negotiation came up, the UK would have to object to something otherwise be accused of selling out. /2
The UK was the only country that was granted opt-outs to things it didn’t want (Schengen, euro etc) and had these written into the Treaty. /3