FEATURE: Higher education... what for?

Source: PA

Higher education is meant to be the way to access better jobs. That is, at least, what we have been constantly told. But to what extent is this true? Higher education is, indeed, a via crucis somebody has to follow in order to get to the top positions but this does not mean that everybody that follows a university degree (be it a BA, MA, MSC, MBA or a PHD) will land a good job. Not anymore at least.

Decades ago going to the university was the way to gather all that knowledge that earned you the respect of companies and employers. Since most of the people didn't have the chance to go to university, graduates were scarce and, therefore, in high demand. Now, instead, almost everybody chooses to study a BA at a university. Those who don't take a university course don't actually take it because they don't want to, not because they can't, as it used to be the case. Hence the standarisation and democratisation of higher education (a logical step forward in the educational system, on the other hand) has also brought in its devaluation.

Some time ago those who only had a BA would find a well paid and well regarded job. Now nobody of those do. You are better off working as a shop assistant or as a plumber.

Let's explain it graphically: John and Mark attended the same high school. John decided not to pursue higher education, as he wanted to earn fresh cash as soon as possible, so he started working as a plumber. Mark, instead, thought that his job prospects would be enhanced by pursuing further education, so he decided to enrol on a BA in Journalism. John worked hard, but earned a slightly lower salary than the average. Mark, on the other hand, had to find a part-time job in order to fund his studies at the university, so he worked as hard as John while he studied, during five years. In those five years John bought a car and a house, whereas Mark earned a part-time salary which allowed him to pay for his course fees every year. But it was fine, he thought, as after graduation he would land a good job.

When he graduated, after 5 years, he was already 22. A good age to start his first job. But he soon realised that all he could find were unpaid internships. They told him that it was the price to pay in order to find a place in the industry. A sort of a sacrifice he had to do if he wanted to access to the prestigious and well paid jobs. So he went through two or three internships. In the meantime nothing had changed for John. He kept working hard and earning a fair salary.

After a few unpaid internships Mark could actually land an entry-level job, perceiving the minimum legal wage. It was tough, he had to do many extra hours for free, he had few holidays and a lot of work. But they told him that it was the way to get to better positions. So he worked there. For a year. For two. When he realised that nothing was changing he decided to take a Masters. They told him that an MA in his CV would definitely make the difference. So he took a Masters while he was working fulltime. He even studied a different, more economic-oriented masters, to open up more doors, to make him more appealing for companies. So he gathered all his savings, he spent an awful lot of money, and he struggled for one year combining work and study again. But he managed. And he got the certificate, brand new, that he added to his CV. But nothing changed. So after another year working at the same place and earning exactly the same wage as he was earning three years before (the minimum wage with which he could only pay the basics), he decided to take the big step. In order to boost his job opportunities he decided to study a second Masters abroad, in one of the most prestigious universities in the country. Once again he had to gather the money by combining two jobs, given that the salary he perceived from his main job was too low. So there he was, working from Monday to Friday, nine hours a day, in one job, and from Friday to Monday, six hours a day, in another job. Eventually he gathered the money, he paid the fees and off he went to his new destination.

After another year he had a sparkling CV. 5-year BA taken in two different countries, MA taken in another country. Another MA taken in another country. Four years of work experience in the field. Fluency in four languages.... and still he was unable to find a good job.

In the meantime John still kept working as a plumber and perceiving a better salary than Mark, already 28, would ever get.

And there we have John, 28, working as a plumber for the last ten years, and earning a stable and fair income; and Mark, 28 as well, unemployed, having worked in different low-skilled jobs, some high-skilled ones, having taken three university degrees (two of them while working), and having spent thousands of pounds on an education that did not deliver any result.

The question is obvious: How is it possible that John, basic education and a rather easy life, is getting more money and is living a more stable life than Mark, with different university degrees, languages and different work experience?

Something somewhere went obviously wrong.

Source: Daily Mail

The first reason is that higher education is not a luxury anymore. The democratisation of universities has devalued them. Since everybody can access to university courses, having a BA is the normal thing. It is not something special anymore.

There are of course some exceptions: A degree in a prestigious school or university will probably help you land a good job. But, again, these courses are created by the elite for the elite, and therefore too expensive for a mortal. A Warwick/Oxbridge/Eton... graduate + LSE/London School of Business...MA will land those top jobs. A normal student who can't afford a pricey university is more likely to end up holding a BA and one or two MAs in different universities and, even though in many cases these graduates will be definitely much more skilled and prepared to work than some of those who graduated from top level schools and universities (but who got the money to pay for the course), they won't find a good job. They will land an average-poorly-paid-job.

The second reason is that theoretical knowledge does not prepare you for developing tasks in a practical job. Theoretical knowledge is theoretical knowledge. Decades ago theoretical knowledge was perceived as something extremely prestigious. Those who had this theoretical knowledge would therefore land the best jobs because they were wise and they had been learning in a scholar background not available to everybody.

The third reason is that, even though you can actually find almost a university degree for every single academic field, 90% of them are useless. It is interesting to learn ancient Greek, but you will not be able to compete with someone who can actually manage a business, design a building or simply fix a flooded sewer.

The fourth reason is that many of the tasks needed in a day-to-day basis in a job can be actually done by people who don't necessarily have any theoretical knowledge on the issue. Only an architect is able or even allowed to design a building. Everybody can work as a journalist as long as he is good at it. Everybody can work as a translator if he's good enough in the required language. The journalist who took his degree in Journalism or the Doctor in Philosophy who graduated from a MSC in German Philosophy can't design a building nor fix a flooded sewer. Therefore they won't find a job easily. John the plumber will find a job more easily than them, and will certainly get paid more than them.

The fifth reason is that nowadays companies want people who can develop many different tasks, so rather than hiring three skilled people who will carry out their different skilled work, they want to reduce costs and hire one person who can do the work of the three of them, maybe not as efficiently as they would, but which will definitely be cheaper.

The sixth reason is that in many countries the higher degree you own, the more you should be paid by law. These are called "professional categories" in some countries, and it means that if you hold an MA, you must earn more than someone who just has a BA, even if you are developing the same tasks. Companies don't like that, because this implies that they have to pay more for the same task that some other less skilled worker can do. That is why they either obviate this soft law, or they opt for hiring someone less skilled. This is particularly current in low-skilled jobs that students look for to fund their higher education. The result is clear: some BA students tend to hide to potential employers that they hold a BA in order to land a low-skilled job that will allow them to pay their even further education.

The conclusion, hence, is obvious: if you want to land a good job you need money. An awful lot of money. Save money enough to pay a BA at Oxford University and be good enough to get into Oxford University. Afterward, once you have graduated, save even more money to pay even more money to get into the LSE or the MIT. And after that you're done.

If you don't have the means to do that, the best you can do is spotting the career opportunities before actually choosing a BA. Try to get into the best "normal" universities, cross your fingers, work hard, be one of the best if not the best of the whole university, and maybe you will be able to, at some point, find something not very bad.

If not you can always forget about all this fuss and focus on sewers and waterpipes and keep working since you are 17 as a plumber, earning more (and more stable) money than your scholar counterparts.

By CDR with No comments

COMMENT: Metropolis vs. Ex-colonies. Roles reversed?

Source: Daily Mail

PIGS' economic situation is not new. Greece's economy is preparing for its second bailout, after the first one, worth €110bn, failed to boost it. In 2010 its sovereign crisis peaked at a 120% of its GDP (€216bn) and over €20bn were thought to be evaded every year from the Greek tax system. Ireland and Portugal are going through a bailout process, Italy recently announced the biggest spending cuts in decades in an effort to tackle the financial crisis in the country and Spain's economy keeps sinking, with the highest unemployment rate of the whole European Union (almost a 21%), with the collapse of its main industry (building industry) and with financial problems that forced small banks to merge in big entities capable of resisting the crisis.

What is rather new, however, is the situation of some of their former colonies. European powers created a vast network of supplying colonies all around the world, that they exploited for centuries. After lengthy struggles (most of them violent), almost all of these colonies became sovereign states, but in most cases what remained after European colonialism were lawless territories with rivalries that led to bloody civil wars, unexisting economies, and a massive dependence from the ex Metropolis.

Now, tables have turned in some cases. In 2011 Portugal and Spain have become some of the most badly hit economies of the whole European Union. But some of its ex colonies, such as Angola, Paraguay or Brazil are experiencing an economic boom despite the financial crisis.

Public debt in 2010 (% of the GDP)

The difficult situation in Portugal has forced many Portuguese to leave their country, some of them transferring to the ex colonies, trying to find a new life. Exactly the same that people from the ex colonies did until recently, but all the way round.

According to The Economist, in 2007-08 there were 45,000 Portuguese registered in Angola. Only one year later, they were 92,000. Also Angolan banks have started buying stakes in Portuguese banks, as Banco BIC has just done with Banco Português de Negócios. The IMF has forecasted a growth of a 7.8% of Angolan GDP in 2011 and a 10.5% in 2012.

The same can be applied to Brazil, where its two economic giant hubs, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, fight to be considered the most appealing centre where to invest in the country.

Rio has been designed to host the 2016 Olympics, which will bring millions in cash and investments to Brazil's Treasury. Also, in 2010 foreign direct investment peaked at $7.27bn in Rio and $2.73bn in Sao Paulo. The cost of living in both cities has increased in the last year. In 2011 Rio was the 12th most expensive city where to live in the world (it had been the 29th in 2010). Sao Paulo fared even better, entering the top 10 most expensive cities in the world this year (from the 21st position in 2010).

Spain, formerly regarded as one of the most powerful economies of the world (its GDP grew an average of a 3.5% before the crisis and it was the fourth biggest economy of the European Union), is now surpassed by some of its former colonies. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2009 Spain entered recession, growing a -3.7%. Last year its GDP still grew a -0.1%. On the other hand, in 2010 Paraguay's GDP grew a 15.3%, Argentina's a 9.2%, Peru's an 8.8% and Uruguay an 8.5%.

On the other hand, it is said that the financial crisis is a worldwide crisis affecting every country, but figures show that the hardest-hit economies are those of the so-called developed countries, such as in Western Europe, US, Canada and Japan. South America, Southern Africa, China and even Eastern Europe are doing relatively well (see map above).

Seeing these figures it is easy to understand why foreign investment is shifting to new markets, and why migration trends might have changed.

By CDR with No comments

NEW PROJECT: The World in Black and White (365 days of B/W)

The World in Black and White (365 days of b/w) is a project launched in August 18 by Carlos del Romero/Worldindepth. It aims to present 365 photographs in black and white, one for each day of the year, from different places around the world, taken in the last ten years. The photographs are then presented as visual poetry, embedded with brief comments that tell the story behind the picture.

In the next 365 days we will see pictures from places in Spain, England, Scotland, Wales, Canada, the U.S., Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, France, Turkey, Hungary...

Although every photograph will show a feature of a different country, these won't be arranged in a geographical order. The focus of the visual story will be one element in the photograph, regardless of the location.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: A paradise lost

Between 1968 and 1973 the inhabitants of a British Overseas Territory known as Chagos Archipelago were forcibly removed from their homeland. In a very controversial decision, the Government of the UK decided to allow the installation of a US military base in the biggest of the islands of the Archipelago, Diego García.

The removal of the islanders was slow but carefully planned. Months before the complete removal of the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, their pets were poisoned and their families were threatened .

Then the evicted Chagossians were confined in small communities in the neighbouring Mauritius and in London. They were also stripped of their British nationality, as the government retired their UK passports. In a matter of weeks the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their land and lost their British nationality, becoming a nation with no land and an invisible community spread all over the world.


The roots of the conflict go back to 1965, when the UK dettached the territory from the colony of Mauritius and Diego García was ceded to the US for, at least, the next 50 years. The island would be used for military purposes only, and the inhabitants had to be removed from Chagos. In exchange, the UK received $14 million and closed an important deal to purchase American nuclear submarines .

Given the insistence of the Chagossians, the UK approved an Immigration Ordinance in 1971, whereby any person wasn't allowed to even enter the whole territory. The situation of the islanders was therefore made unlawful. Secret conversations in the British administration lead to the resolution that the UK had to find the way to remove the islanders at any cost, "providing legal power to deport people who will not leave voluntarily, preventing people from entering, and maintaining the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population" .

During the 80s the UK Government tried to settle down the dispute by giving economic compensations which reached £4m to the surviving islanders, and the case was closed and forgotten.

However, in 1998 some of the chagossians who lived in Mauritius took the case to the British High Court, claiming that their removal was made by illegal means. In November 2000, a historical resolution gave the illois their right to return home, as the Court found that their removal was unlawful. It was then seen as the end of the conflict, but the UK Government was not going to give up the islands so easily.

An article on the Chicago Tribune in October 2001 showed the ongoing conflict and the importance of preserving the US military base in Chagos at any cost. As an expert quoted at the article put it, "the US would be seriously affected if we had to leave the island. It is extraordinarily important to us; it allows us to keep a lot of ammunition and ground equipment near the Persian Gulf".

The decision of the High Court evidenced that the UK administration back in the 70s had acted in an illegal way. But, what is the current situation of the conflict? Are the Chagossians in a better situation than ten years ago?


The situation of the Chagossians hasn't improved much in the last decade, and the conflict has reached a stalemate difficult to break. After the Court ruled in favour of the Chagossians, allowing them to return home after more than 30 years, the UK government decided to act quickly in order to prevent the islanders to go back to Diego García, something that could threaten the military base and would put at risk the good relationship between the UK and the US administrations.

In 2004 the UK Government enacted the so-called Constitution and Immigration Orders, whereby the islanders were again refused their resettlement because it would be too expensive and environmentally unsustainable. But again, the High Court ruled in favour of the illois, stating that the 2004 Orders were unlawful. However, the UK Government appealed in 2007 before the Court of Appeal. As John Howell, QC for the Foreign Secretary stated, "this appeal raises issues of constitutional law of great importance. If the approach of the High Court was correct, it represented a revolutionary change in the constitutional law involved, which will affect all British Overseas Territories".

On May 23rd the High Court ruled in favour of the islanders for the third time, dismissing the UK Government's claims. However, the Court also ruled that the UK Government could appeal to the House of Lords directly. Only one month later, the UK administration appealed to the Law Lords and after one year of deliberation they ruled in Goverment's favour by a margin of only three to two votes.

In a public speech, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary at that time, expressed his satisfaction after knowing the ruling. "Our appeal to the House of Lords was not about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. It was about decisions taken in the international context of 2004. This required us to take into account issues of defence and security of the archipelago and the fact that an independent study had come down heavily against the feasibility of lasting resettlement of the outer islands of BIOT", stated.

The ruling of the Law Lords proved controversial when one of the experts that had been commissioned to carry out an environmental study about the feasibility of the resettlement of the illois was forced to remove his opinion, which was favourable to the return of the Chagossians, from the document .

After the ruling of the Law Lords the Chagossians, throughout the Chagos Refugee Group, took the case to the last instance, the European Court of Human Rights, which is still deliberating.


In April 2010, the UK Government, in a maneouvre apparently not related to the case, decided to set up a marine reserve in the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Government claimed that this decision showed the commitment of the UK with the environment. Several conservation groups backed the decision. "The MPA will cover some quarter of a million square miles and its establishment will double the global coverage of the world's oceans under protection. Its creation is a major step forward for protecting the oceans, not just around BIOT itself, but also throughout the world. This measure is a further demonstration of how the UK takes its international environmental responsibilities seriously", said Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

The decision was criticised by the Chagossians, who argued that the decision of setting up a Marine Protected Area in the Archipelago was taken to avoid the resettlement of the islanders, if the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled in favour of them.

The suspicions of the Chagossians were later confirmed by whistle-blower website Wikileaks, which leaked 500,000 top secret documents from US diplomatic outposts all around the world to four big newspapers in the UK, Spain, Germany and the US. In one of the embassy cables published by Wikileaks, the Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that "establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents" .

"We do not regret the removal of the population, since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose", reads the leaked document .

The decision of setting up a marine reserve also aroused ignited discussions in the neighbouring Mauritius, which has been claiming sovereignty over Chagos Archipelago since 1965, and is currently holding a dispute with the UK administration .

With the creation of the marine reserve, the last hope for the Chagossians is almost gone. The Marine Protected Area forbids any human settlement in the whole Archipelago. Even if the European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of the islanders, it is unlikely that they will be allowed to return to their homeland.

On May 19, 2011, different Chagossians' support groups held a conference in London on the future of the Archipelago. The new situation forced the islanders to change strategy. The support groups presented a new project, based on the settlement of small eco-villages in the outer islands of the Archipelago, where some of the Chagossians who are still willing to return would be allowed to live in short-term periods.

Currently there are only around 4,000 Chagossians still alive. Some of them have given up any hope. Some others don't want to fight anymore. As for the rest, those who want to return, time is running against them. They have been fighting for over 40 years and now, in their eighties, they still hope that one day, before they die, they will be allowed to recover their lost paradise.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: Manning's uncertain fate

For the past ten months he has been held in a tiny obstructive jail of only a few feet wide, first in an army prison in Kuwait, and later in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia. He is held in what the US goverment calls 'maximum security conditions'. Bradley Manning, the american private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of top-secret documents to whistleblower website Wikileaks, languishes in inhuman conditions, waiting for a trial that could end up with the application of the death penalty.

In the last months Manning has spent 23 hours every day closed in a windowness 6,7 square metre cell. His only companions there are a bed, a sink and a toilet. He is allowed to leave the cell only for one hour a day. He is also prevented from practising any type of exercise while being in the cell. Only in the scarce hour that he is allowed to walk outside his solitary prison, he is taken to a slightly bigger cell, where he can walk in figures of eight and is not allowed to run or practise any physical activity.

He is held awake between 5am and 8pm. If he falls asleep, guards awaken him. During the day, he remains under 'Prevention of injury' regime to prevent any temptative of suicide, whereby he has to respond 'yes' every five minutes to the two guards that stand beside his cell. For two months he was held in 'full suicide watch', another perverse euphemism that involved stripping him to his underwear and having his glasses confiscated in order to prevent any self-injury. He is also allowed to have either a book or a magazine at a time. If he has any visitors, he is shackled by hand and foot, and two guards monitor every movement he does and listen to every word he pronounces.

The inhuman conditions of his confinement have been described in an 11-page letter that Manning wrote to his lawyer, David Coombs, and later confirmed by the few friends that were allowed to visit Manning at Quantico. The situation has also been denounced by different lawyers and campaign groups such as Amnesty International. Several protests around the world have pleaded for Manning to be held in better conditions.

Manning, an ex-US private, was born in Oklahoma in 1987, and when his parents divorced he flew with his mother to Wales, where he lived for four years. Since 2000 to 2004 he attended the Tasker Milward school in Harverdfordwest, Pembrokeshire. Now, protesters all over the UK rely on the fact that, according to the 1981 British Nationality Act, any person born after 1983 to a UK citizen, even if not living in the UK, obtains immediately the British nationality. However, according to Amnesty International the UK government has failed to visit Manning and demand better confinement conditions for him.

Protests were also held in front of the US embassy in London, were around 100 people demanded better conditions for Manning’s imprisonement and a fair trial. Welsh campaigners also joined the protests.

Plaid Cymru’s MP Ann Clwyd, who is also member of the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, raised Manning's case in Parliament and asked for a debate. “Manning's confinement situation serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade him. Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn't even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime. I regard myself as a great friend and admirer of the United States, but this treatment of one of their own soldiers ill-becomes that otherwise great nation. I do not say this lightly, but Bradley Manning's treatment has uncomfortable echos of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. I implore the US Administration to treat Bradley Manning humanely whilst he is detained. There is increasing concern about Bradley Manning's case in the UK, and in particular in Wales, so I will continue to raise te case of Bradley Manning with the UK Government. I do not think it is acceptable for the UK Government to refuse to engage with the case and I call upon the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to officially raise Bradley Manning's case with his US counterpart", said.

Amnesty International also launched a worldwide campaign to support Bradley Manning in which the organisation asked people to get involved by sending petitions to the US authorities in order to improve Manning’s confinement conditions. Susan Lee, Amnesty International’s Americas Programme Director expressed her concern about the situation of private Manning. “We are concerned that the conditions inflicted on Bradley Manning are unnecesarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment by the US authorities. Such repressive conditions breach the US’s obligations to treat detainees with humanity and dignity. We are also concerned that isolation and prolonged celular confinement may undermine Manning’s ability to defend himself. We urge the US authorities to review Bradley Manning’s situation. Under international standards, prisoners who have not yet stood trial should be treated in accordance with their right to the pressumption of innocence. Our concerns regarding his treatment are further heightened by the fact that military pshychiatrists have repeatedly recommended that Bradley Manning be removed from ‘Prevention of injury’ status”, explained Lee.

The secret files

When in late 2010 Bradley Manning leaked more than 250,000 documents to different international newspapers, nobody had a grasp of the consequences of one of the biggest leaks in the history of the United States. The cables showed dispatches from 250 US embassies and consulates around the world, which pictured an in-depth image of the US diplomacy. The files, which are top-secret documents that could only be accessed by US intelligence officers, included political analysis, detailed accounts and embassy officer’s impressions about the different countries intended to be read by the US authorities in Washington.

Before becoming a US private Manning used to be a high-skilled hacker. When he joined the US army he was assigned to a support battalion at the Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq. From his position he could access to a SIPRNet, a digital platform that the US Government used to transmit classified information.

According to the published chatlog of the conversation that Manning had with a friend, Manning came to the base with a CD labelled ‘Lady Gaga’, he erased the music, wrote a compressed file with all the documents. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga'. No one suspected a thing. I listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratin possibly the largest data spillage in American history. I have unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day seven days a week for eight months", he said in the conversation.

The chatlog register also shows that Manning knew that the leaking of these documents would have a massive impact in the US international relations. "Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public. Everywhere there is a US post, there is a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. It's beautiful, and horrifying. Information should be free. It belongs in the public domain", said Manning to his fellow hacker-activist.

After saving all the documents in the CD, he uploaded them to whistleblower website Wikileaks, but Julian Assange, the man in charge of the page, decided not to publish them immediately. The Wikileaks activists went through all the documents and disclosed the most important information. Early in April the website published the footage of an Apache helicopter shooting at the crowds in Iraq. Finally, the disclosed cables were leaked to four main international newspapers. A few days later, Assange was accused with having carried sexual assaults to two women in Sweden, and Manning was arrested and imprisoned. The friend whom he spoke with at the chatlog, Adrian Lamo, was the one who turned him to the FBI.

Manning's situation

The future of Bradley Manning is hard to predict. Last month the US Army added 22 new charges against the ex private, among them 'aiding the enemy'. If found guilty, this charge could carry death penalty. Manning faces, at least, life-long condemns for 34 charges such as high treason, leaking classified documents, theft of public property or records, transmitting defence information and computer fraud. Manning was also recently accused of attacking his stepmother with a knife before joining the army in 2007.

Manning's imprisonement conditions have already caused some reactions among the US politics. Early in March, US department spokesman PJ Crowley quitted, arguing that the treatment of Manning was being counterproductive for the american interests. Crowley said that the prosecution started against Manning is well grounded, but the fact that he is being held in such inhumane conditions has eclipsed the whole case.

In the meantime Bradley Manning still languishes in the same tiny cell where he has been held since June 2010, waiting for a trial that, it seems, never comes.

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments