Some comments on @AlistairJarvis's response to @AtheneDonald's letter. See embedded tweet for Jarvis's response. See my comments in the thread below.
"19 Oxbridge colleges responded to the UUK survey from the 116 total responses."
UUK has already said that 1/3rd of the 42% were Oxbridge colleges. 1/3rd of 42% of 116 is c. 16. So we can now establish that c. 16 Oxbridge Colleges called for lower risk, whereas... 1/
UUK has already said that 1/3rd of the 42% were Oxbridge colleges. 1/3rd of 42% of 116 is c. 16. So we can now establish that c. 16 Oxbridge Colleges called for lower risk, whereas... 1/
c. 3 Oxbridge Colleges either said they accepted the level of risk that was proposed in the September valuation, called for a higher level, or did not respond to this question. 2/
Let's assume that all 3 responded that they accepted the proposed level of risk. If we remove the 19 Oxbridge Colleges from the UUK survey, we get the following results: 3/
Rather than 42% calling for a lower level of risk, only 34% of respondents called for a lower level of risk. Note that the two Universities -- Oxford and Cambridge -- are still counted. Only their constituent Colleges have been removed from the survey. 4/
Even after we remove the maximum of 3 Oxbridge Colleges that could have accepted the September level of risk, we're still left with 60% who accepted that level of risk, in a tabulation that isn't distorted by the inclusion of the constituent Oxbridge Colleges. 5/
On the above assumptions, the percentage of respondents who called for a higher level of risk remains roughly the same: 6% rather than 5%. 6/
We can see, now, that the double-counting of the constituent Oxbridge Colleges (on top of counting the Universities to which they belong) significantly distorted the headline percentages which figured fairly prominently in USS's website response to the UUK consultation. 7/
On a non-distorted survey, 34% called for a lower level of risk, as compared with 66% that either accepted the trustee's level of risk or called for an even higher level of risk (as compared with 42% versus 58% when Oxbridge Colleges are counted). 8/
In his letter, @AlistairJarvis says that "In forming our overall response, we also considered the different sizes of USS employers." That is true. But Jarvis fails to mention the disingenuous manner in which such consideration was presented. 9/
This is what UUK said in their formal response to the consultation: "UUK’s overall view on the proposed technical provisions is based on the assessment that a small majority of employers (53%) have a preference to accept the level of risk proposed,..." 10/
"...with many qualifying that the proposals are at the very edge of what would be acceptable. However, it must be added that a significant minority (42%) of survey respondents want less risk to be taken – including some of the very largest employers." 11/
I cannot provide a link to UUK's formal response, since they have not publicly posted it. In this respect, UUK is behaving in much less transparent fashion than they did in 2014, when they publicly posted their response to the consultation a few days after it closed. 12/
UUK have not publicly posted their response this time, as compared with last time, presumably because they have concluded that such transparency and openness is contrary to their interests. 13/
UUK probably would rather that attention not be drawn to the misleading manner in which they referred to the different sizes of employers. This is UUK's only reference in their consultation response to the size of employers: 14/
"However, it should be noted that a large minority of employers (42%) want to take less risk – including some of the very largest employers." 15/
So UUK drew attention to the fact that some of the largest employers were among the 42% without drawing attention to the fact that 16 of the smallest employers, relative to the overall pool of actual survey respondents, were also among the 42%. 16/
They also failed to draw attention to the fact that these 16 relatively small employers (the Oxbridge Colleges) were already represented via the Universities of which they are constituent Colleges. 17/
As an example of the dog that didn't bark, it's rather telling that @AlistairJarvis does not mention the actual percentage of scheme members represented by the employers who called for a lower level of risk. Any such tally should not count any scheme member twice. 18/
Hence, in such a tally, the scheme members of the Oxbridge Colleges should not be double-counted in addition to the scheme members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. 19/
Here are some questions to which I hope @UniversitiesUK will provide an answer: Once one removes the Oxbridge Colleges, for the reason mentioned directly above, what percentage of scheme members are employed by institutions that called for a lower level of risk? 20/
What percentage are employed by institutions that accepted the proposed level of risk? And What percentage are employed by institutions that called for a higher level of risk? 21/
The VC of @Cambridge_Uni is reported to have claimed that "the vast majority" - 80%! - of people with a stake in USS were represented by institutions calling for a lower level of risk. See embedded tweets. 22/
Since a prominent member of @UniversitiesUK (which consists of the VCs) has made this claim, it is essential that UUK clarify the accuracy of this statement, given its prima facie implausibility. 23/
Since I fear that @AlistairJarvis will not break his habit of refraining from responding to hoi polloi academics such as me, I must, with great hesitation, given how overworked she is as the result of UUK's policy of responding only via her twitter feed, once again call on... 24/
...the magnificent @JosephineCumbo to ask @AlistairJarvis and @UniversitiesUK the questions contained in tweets '20/' and '21/' above. 25/
