London Metropolitan University has visa licence revoked

Scroll to see replies

typical british insularity. brits are only concerned with selves and not the well being of others. typical behavior from a racist body. pathetic if you ask me :colonhash:

British insularity seems rather appropriate.

Reply 61

Fires

Original post by Mellete

British insularity seems rather appropriate.

This move isn't primarily an example of British insularity, although it is an example of pandering - the Tories are seeking easy reductions in the headline figures for immigration to pander to the Daily Mail vote - student intake is an easy target for that. They did the same in Australia and then had to reverse the policy once it became clear that it threatened the existence of universities and damaged the economy.

Until this gets sorted though, London Met may need to urgently update some of their web marketing!

"We are in the top 10 most popular universities in England for international students. We welcome students from all nations and have one of the highest numbers of international students in the UK, from more than 150 countries."

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/international/international-students.cfm

Reply 62

Good bloke

Original post by Fires

"We are in the top 10 most popular universities in England for international students. We welcome students from all nations and have one of the highest numbers of international students in the UK, from more than 150 countries."

That claim comes very firmly from the Eat **** - 400 billion flies cannot be wrong! school of marketing.

Reply 63

iLikeCupcakes

We are aware London Met has its fair share of problems but I cant help but feel this is bad timing esp. for those with a genuine interest to earn a degree. Why could they not have done this at the begining of the year instead of just a few weeks to go untill the new academic year starts.

Reply 64

dgeorge

Original post by nulli tertius

The problems with London Met haven't developed overnight and have been well reported.

15 years ago a cry of ignorance from someone overseas would be more understandable. The internet has changed that. Google: London Met scandal and you will see the previous news stories. Do the same for any university you are interested in and see what is picked up. Clearly if the scandal is the price of a cheese sandwich in the refectory three years ago, that isn't a reason for changing universities.

There's a difference between knowing that there are problems and these problems causing such a response.

The action taken by the UKBA was unprecedented, and it would be unfair to suggest that students, especially international ones, would somehow "know" that the rumours circulating would end up in such a manner.

I'm not necessarily saying that the UKBA was wrong, I think it could have been handled better though for the majority of students who actually DO want a genuine education.

Reply 65

Elderon

It is totally wrong that the UKBA decided just weeks before term this decision when it was suspended awhile ago. So the university has its issues fair enough. They could have just investigated it this year, but stopped it from recruiting any more after September, then made a decision say next April-June and then the student would have more time to find alternative universities, not having to rush and feel like they are going to be booted out halfway through a degree. It is really sad for those students who do work at university and a shame that the few whom exploited the situation have ruined it for many, and the corruption of the university to turn a blind eye. What a let down. Government yet again screwing over anyone it can to make it seem like they are being tough on immigration.

Reply 66

Tnetinbum

Anyone who thinks this was some reactionary knee-jerk decision made overnight by the Tories to appear being 'tough' on immigration is kidding themselves. London Met were warned months in advance about this problem, and they have form for this on many occasions in the past. All the UKBA have done is act within existing laws. LMU have been allowing overseas students to stay here well after their visas have expired. They broke the law, and have been slapped down hard. Simple as that. Yes it's unfortunate that current students there will be affected, but responsibility lies solely with the university and their failure to comply with basic regulation.

Reply 67

Mellete

Original post by Elderon

It is totally wrong that the UKBA decided just weeks before term this decision when it was suspended awhile ago.

Original post by iLikeCupcakes

I cant help but feel this is bad timing esp. for those with a genuine interest to earn a degree. Why could they not have done this at the begining of the year instead of just a few weeks to go untill the new academic year starts.

I really don't understand the furore over timing. It just seems a very silly thing to say.

Leaving aside the discussion on whether the decision should have been taken, why would anyone prefer it to be taken during the academic year, when people are actively studying their course, or indeed preparing to take examinations?

Reply 68

Elderon

Original post by Mellete

Because people now have effectively 2 weeks to either find a new university before the new year begins or wait 6 months and leave halfway through the year and be deported because their visas expire. Not a great situation to be in, either way better for them to have an additional year of study and be told next June to find a new uni or go home than in September with 2 weeks to go.

Reply 69

Mellete

Original post by Elderon

That wouldn't work, as the main conclusion is that record-keeping at London Met is lax. They are incapable of checking which people are attending their courses on campus and which aren't.

Thus a significant minority with illicit motives might well spend the year roaming some obscure part of the country never to be seen again. If we take the results of the investigation seriously, I can't really see a feasible alternative.

Reply 70

F1's Finest

Original post by I JUST HAD SEX

Feel sorry for those overseas students affected. My thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families :frown:

I still can't comprehend why you got negged 6 times.

Reply 71

Elderon

Original post by Mellete

I see your point, though it is a shame on those who do genuinely study and work hard, as it makes all international students there seem like exploiters, which I doubt is the case. It is just an unfortunate case I suppose, the minority always spoil it for the majority though.

Reply 72

Fires

Original post by Tnetinbum

Are you a UKBA spokesperson?

Reply 73

Fires

Original post by Elderon

It's some sort of political point-scoring and the choice of London Met is probably arbitrary, or just because they are in London and therefore (a) easier to deal with for the UKBA staff at the Home Office and (b) handy for showing that Cameron is more active than Boris. All current policy decisions in the UK rotate around the Dave - vs- Boris war.

Reply 74

iLikeCupcakes

Original post by Mellete

Yes but do you not start applying for your course at the begining (not end) of the academic year? Im not talking about those already on the course but those who were anticipating to start the course who have now have no choice but defer the year or to try apply elsewhere (bar those who had other intentions apart from studying of course).

Reply 75

nulli tertius

Original post by dgeorge

There's a difference between knowing that there are problems and these problems causing such a response.

I am with you on that.

The action taken by the UKBA was unprecedented, and it would be unfair to suggest that students, especially international ones, would somehow "know" that the rumours circulating would end up in such a manner.

Gillies the VC seems to have had breathtaking complacency.

The action is unprecedented in that no public institution had lost this status before. However several had been suspended and quite a lot of private ones had lost it.

I don't think an overseas student could realistically have realised that this would be the catalyst for crisis but the university has gone from one administrative scandal to another. If not this, then something else.

I'm not necessarily saying that the UKBA was wrong, I think it could have been handled better though for the majority of students who actually DO want a genuine education.

This comes back to Gillies' complacency. They were suspended because of systemic failures. That was supposed to be the wake up call. I suspect that if London Met had appeared pro-active following the suspension none of this would have happened. London Met were outsourcing a lot of other back office functions. Staff and unions could hardly have complained if Gillies had drafted in a hit squad of private contractors to lick the records into shape. If ATOS or Capita or G4S were going through the files and putting them in order, May and Green would have had to give them time to do the work. As it was, what choices were left to UKBA?

Reply 76

Maker

Original post by nulli tertius

I am with you on that.

Gillies the VC seems to have had breathtaking complacency.

The action is unprecedented in that no public institution had lost this status before. However several had been suspended and quite a lot of private ones had lost it.

I don't think an overseas student could realistically have realised that this would be the catalyst for crisis but the university has gone from one administrative scandal to another. If not this, then something else.

This comes back to Gillies' complacency. They were suspended because of systemic failures. That was supposed to be the wake up call. I suspect that if London Met had appeared pro-active following the suspension none of this would have happened. London Met were outsourcing a lot of other back office functions. Staff and unions could hardly have complained if Gillies had drafted in a hit squad of private contractors to lick the records into shape. If ATOS or Capita or G4S were going through the files and putting them in order, May and Green would have had to give them time to do the work. As it was, what choices were left to UKBA?

What the UKBA should have done was identify the students who were abusing the visa system and deport them leaving the bona fide students to carry on until their degrees were complete.

The UKBA could have stopped the uni from recruiting more overseas students for next year unless it had got better systems in place to make sure students complied with immigration regulations.

What is going to happen now is the students who have lost their places will end up suing the uni for their lost fees and costs which, if they win could cost the uni millions that will eventually have to be paid by the taxpayer because the uni is a public institution.

Reply 77

Taimmi

It's the students facing deportation that I feel sorry for.

Reply 78

nulli tertius

Original post by Maker

This doesn't get to the heart of the problem as UKBA sees it. London Met is sponsoring these students and is taking responsibility for monitoring their eligibility to be in the UK. Furthermore London Met is saying it can be trusted to operate the immigration system properly. It has failed to do this. The issue is not whether London Met has bogus students but whether London Met has the record keeping capability to know whether it has bogus students.

UKBA will be revoking the visas of those it has on its books as being sponsored by London Met but what about the 25% of non-EU students about whom London Met has no immgration information? They may be people who London Met has sponsored but for whom it has not recorded the issuance of a visa; or they may be people who have an independent right to be in the UK e.g. they are British citizens living abroad or are dependents of someone with a tier 2 working visa; or they may be people with no right to be in the UK.

What is going to happen now is the students who have lost their places will end up suing the uni for their lost fees and costs which, if they win could cost the uni millions that will eventually have to be paid by the taxpayer because the uni is a public institution.

I think that it is unlikely that there will be many substantial claims. Clearly London Met will have to return the fees of new students (if already paid). In the case of those part-way through a course, students would have to show that they have attempted to mitigate their loss. They would then only have a claim if they could not transfer elsewhere at no greater cost. For existing students, I don't see London Met having to compensate those with dodgy immigration status or poor attendence but they probably will have to compensate those whom other universities won't admit because their English is not good enough or those who cannot meet increased course costs. For new students, there may be incidental costs, lost airfares, accommodation deposits.

London Met is not a public body. It is a private charitible institution that receives public funding. The government doesn't stand behind its debts. It would go bust, the same as any other charity would go bust, and the students would be a long way down the list of creditors. However, the government through HEFCE, as holder of the purse strings, might persuade it to enter a shotgun marriage if someone could be found to take it on, or might advance money for an orderly wind-down. Usually the problem for charities is that they have large redundancy/pensions liabilities. As soon as the charity knows it can't continue indefinitely, the accountants say those liabilities crystalise and that is when the liquidators have to be called in.

Reply 79

GenialGermanGent

Original post by T. Hereford

This situation just shows that all low-ranking rubbish unid need to close.

The degrees from these type of unis are not worth the paper they're written on.

You'd surely count LSBU into that group as well.

How do you explain then that I - with my worthless postgrad degree from LSBU - got a top job as a management consultant
at one of the world's leading investment banks right after graduation, earning more than you probably ever will in your life?

Rankings mean nothing. Every university has courses that punch well above their weight and provide a good education, often
for a bargain price compared to 'top' institutions. (at least at PG level)

I did consider LMU for my Masters, applied, was offered a place, went there, spoke to current and past students as well as faculty,
got an extensive tour of the campus and walked away with a pretty positive impression. I am confident to say that my life wouldn't
be different now if I ended up going there for my Masters. 95% of people talking crap about low-ranking schools have never been
there and don't know anyone who went there. They need to STFU.