This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Chartered Engineer status ?
- Bus service timetable changes as from 07th Jan 2024
- Can't get a job
- Legal advice on employment law issues
- Gmail e-mail help!
- A levels needed for engineering?
- £2 Bus fare extended yet again.
- MSc Finance, Accounting and Management | Waleed's student blog
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 2 (H443/02) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Cost of resitting chemistry
- Anyone Else On A Low Snapchat score? 😭😂
- How can I transfer from one location to another in the Big 4?
- Marketing/global marketing/ Digital Marketing
- Student finance processing two time my course applications wrongly
- Affordable way to Commute to Herts from London
- UCAS mistake
- Leaving big 4 before qualifying - what job now?
- Will my student finance be affected if I pay for a level 5 OBS course privately
- Bristol Dentistry interviews
- What happens if you fail 3rd year of a Masters?
ADMIN: UNO clauses to be added to charter
This poll is closed
Which of the following represent your preferences?
I support addition of the UNO representation clause to our charter50%
I do not support addition of the clause to our charter0%
I support dual representation in the MUN (under special circumstances)17%
I do not support dual representation in the MUN33%
Total votes: 12
This thread is designated for the fine tuning of our UN organisation representing initiatives. wackysparkle and Elements are our two specific representatives in this area, but as a function of the MUN, the input and agreement of the whole body is necessary.
While we have come a long way since we pioneered the idea, it is time to lay some clear boundaries which we can include in the charter so that anybody who wishes to become involved in this aspect can have a clear understanding of their role, their duties and their freedom, and so that responsibility and involvement is spread out equally among those who take part.
This thread will catch people up to speed with where we are now in the process.
Discuss:
While we have come a long way since we pioneered the idea, it is time to lay some clear boundaries which we can include in the charter so that anybody who wishes to become involved in this aspect can have a clear understanding of their role, their duties and their freedom, and so that responsibility and involvement is spread out equally among those who take part.
This thread will catch people up to speed with where we are now in the process.
Discuss:
Scroll to see replies
Firstly, it seems to me that certain delegates within the MUN are incapable of logical extension when it comes to dealing with rules. Therefore, I offer my opinion on this matter in the sure and certain expectation that it will be disagreed with, shot down, griped about and I will be told it simply cannot be so.
I refer the delegates to the thread containing the list of unrepresented countries where it says (emphasis added)
Clearly, the invitation to choose a country or a group is framed in the singular, therefore, it is not open to someone to choose more than one. Ergo, by logical extension a person can not legitimately request the right to represent both a country and a group.
Secondly, I refer the delegates firstly to the MUN Charter. The first bullet point states cleary
Admittedly the organizations are not countries but the legislative intent must be considered here. We act, in the MUN, as though we represent someone else. In order for a representative to be seen to be espousing the diplomatic stance of their country/group it is imperative the other representatives know whom they are representing. It is, therefore, a matter of logistical logic that a member only represent one thing at a time.
Thirdly, and arguably more important is the possibility of a conflict of interest. It would simply be ridiculous to allow a situation to occur where a member has to post in opposition to themselves.
That said, this situation can be easily remedied by the simple addition of a clause which limites a member to representing only 1 thing.
I refer the delegates to the thread containing the list of unrepresented countries where it says (emphasis added)
the list of unrepresented countries
Below is a list of unrepresented countries at the Model United Nations. All prospective members are kindly requested to choose a country/group that they wish to represent from the list below and send their choice to Craghyrax, the Secretary General.
Clearly, the invitation to choose a country or a group is framed in the singular, therefore, it is not open to someone to choose more than one. Ergo, by logical extension a person can not legitimately request the right to represent both a country and a group.
Secondly, I refer the delegates firstly to the MUN Charter. The first bullet point states cleary
1 MUN Charter at point
Each delegate has a duty to stick to the diplomatic stance of their appointed country, we cannot have China preaching capitalism for example. Remember that the opinions expressed here are the stance of a members country and will quite often be very different to their own views.
Admittedly the organizations are not countries but the legislative intent must be considered here. We act, in the MUN, as though we represent someone else. In order for a representative to be seen to be espousing the diplomatic stance of their country/group it is imperative the other representatives know whom they are representing. It is, therefore, a matter of logistical logic that a member only represent one thing at a time.
Thirdly, and arguably more important is the possibility of a conflict of interest. It would simply be ridiculous to allow a situation to occur where a member has to post in opposition to themselves.
That said, this situation can be easily remedied by the simple addition of a clause which limites a member to representing only 1 thing.
Ethereal
Clearly, the invitation to choose a country or a group is framed in the singular, therefore, it is not open to someone to choose more than one. Ergo, by logical extension a person can not legitimately request the right to represent both a country and a group.
Admittedly the organizations are not countries but the legislative intent must be considered here. We act, in the MUN, as though we represent someone else. In order for a representative to be seen to be espousing the diplomatic stance of their country/group it is imperative the other representatives know whom they are representing. It is, therefore, a matter of logistical logic that a member only represent one thing at a time.
Thirdly, and arguably more important is the possibility of a conflict of interest. It would simply be ridiculous to allow a situation to occur where a member has to post in opposition to themselves.
Admittedly the organizations are not countries but the legislative intent must be considered here. We act, in the MUN, as though we represent someone else. In order for a representative to be seen to be espousing the diplomatic stance of their country/group it is imperative the other representatives know whom they are representing. It is, therefore, a matter of logistical logic that a member only represent one thing at a time.
Thirdly, and arguably more important is the possibility of a conflict of interest. It would simply be ridiculous to allow a situation to occur where a member has to post in opposition to themselves.
1. Perfectly reasonable, although rules can be changed.
2. By use of a different colour, sufficient differences can be shown between the viewpoints I believe.
3. Not really. It would be rather fun in its way.
wackysparkle
a) you are an NGO.. you can't vote
b) you're a country... you can vote
c) you are a country AND an NGO... you can vote when you're a country, but not when you are an NGO.. which means that if you held a really strong opinion on something but couldn't say anything as you have to remain neutral.. you can switch rules and become a country -- technically not staying true to what the MUN is all about .. check the discussion thread.. Ethereal has posted a more clearer response there with references.
b) you're a country... you can vote
c) you are a country AND an NGO... you can vote when you're a country, but not when you are an NGO.. which means that if you held a really strong opinion on something but couldn't say anything as you have to remain neutral.. you can switch rules and become a country -- technically not staying true to what the MUN is all about .. check the discussion thread.. Ethereal has posted a more clearer response there with references.
Ah, I see.
If there was a vote that you felt strongly about, you would have to post IC as your country, otherwise you'd be breaching the charter. In a discussion you would have to provide viewpoints from the country and the NGO when relevant, although an NGO will not take part in every discussion. We could work that in to the charter. Rules are nopt set in stone.
The main point I need to stress is that the NGO's are NOT a side-thing.. it is constant, just like representing a country and shouldn't just be looked as something that is not as valuable.
To be an NGO, you are entrusted with the job of providing relevant and accurate information from reputed sources (the UN website, the Media) - to think that this job can be handled as well as representing a country seems quite unreasonable. And, as you have already mentioned elsewhere Ukebert - you are working full-time, when are you going to put FULL effort into both representations? - You can't just post once in a while as an NGO, you have to read every resolution that is posted and intervene when necessary.
I feel that at this moment in time, especially since the NGO representation at the MUN is new, it shouldn't be classed as a side job, and should be considered equally as important as representing a country. Hence - and I speak through experience and trial-and-error - I believe that a dual role between country and NGO should be restricted.
To be an NGO, you are entrusted with the job of providing relevant and accurate information from reputed sources (the UN website, the Media) - to think that this job can be handled as well as representing a country seems quite unreasonable. And, as you have already mentioned elsewhere Ukebert - you are working full-time, when are you going to put FULL effort into both representations? - You can't just post once in a while as an NGO, you have to read every resolution that is posted and intervene when necessary.
I feel that at this moment in time, especially since the NGO representation at the MUN is new, it shouldn't be classed as a side job, and should be considered equally as important as representing a country. Hence - and I speak through experience and trial-and-error - I believe that a dual role between country and NGO should be restricted.
wackysparkle
The main point I need to stress is that the NGO's are NOT a side-thing.. it is constant, just like representing a country and shouldn't just be looked as something that is not as valuable.
To be an NGO, you are entrusted with the job of providing relevant and accurate information from reputed sources (the UN website, the Media) - to think that this job can be handled as well as representing a country seems quite unreasonable. And, as you have already mentioned elsewhere Ukebert - you are working full-time, when are you going to put FULL effort into both representations? - You can't just post once in a while as an NGO, you have to read every resolution that is posted and intervene when necessary.
I feel that at this moment in time, especially since the NGO representation at the MUN is new, it shouldn't be classed as a side job, and should be considered equally as important as representing a country. Hence - and I speak through experience and trial-and-error - I believe that a dual role between country and NGO should be restricted.
To be an NGO, you are entrusted with the job of providing relevant and accurate information from reputed sources (the UN website, the Media) - to think that this job can be handled as well as representing a country seems quite unreasonable. And, as you have already mentioned elsewhere Ukebert - you are working full-time, when are you going to put FULL effort into both representations? - You can't just post once in a while as an NGO, you have to read every resolution that is posted and intervene when necessary.
I feel that at this moment in time, especially since the NGO representation at the MUN is new, it shouldn't be classed as a side job, and should be considered equally as important as representing a country. Hence - and I speak through experience and trial-and-error - I believe that a dual role between country and NGO should be restricted.
Those are all just and fair points. However:
I read every resolution anyway, and post on just about all of them (I missed out a few when I was having computer problems). From that aspect it wouldn't take any extra effort. If you know the observers stance as well as i do Liechtensteins, then it shouldn't be difficult to know when to comment and what to say, no different than representing a country.
Although representing an NGO can be more important than representing a fringe country, for instance the WHO, World Bank, EU or Red Cross, it can also be less important. Some of them are relatively specialist, like the International Hydrographic Organization, which I woudl be interested in having a go at. It would be immediately obvious whether a resolution needed comment for starters.
The only extra work would be posting in the NGO thread(s). What I would do is have Google as one of my home page tabs, with a specialist news box(es) for keywords relevant to the NGO. Alternatively I could get email updates. That would save time in looking for issues. I'm fairly speedy at writing up stuff anyway.
In conclusion, I think you were wise to drop Sri Lanka in favour of the WHO, however some NGOs aren't nearly as demanding
What I fail to understand is why it cannot be suggested that since the NGOs are still attempting to sort out what it 'procedure' right now that we just stick to this one rule to see how the MUN functions. If it is felt that the representative can handle having more than one responsibility fair enough, this rule is change to 'performance of a duel role is not recommended but can be done'.
However, you mentioned that some NGOs are not as demanding - that's just it - I want them to be. I want the NGOs to perform an active role in the MUN, if they are minor in nature and only pop up once in a while there is no point to them. We need to assign the major NGOs as they will be needed all the time for resolutions. If you were to represent something quite unnecessary surely there is no point to its presence in the MUN.
To understand the full role of an NGO representative, it is necessary that we take extreme measures. Represent all major NGOs - one per person. No dual representation.
That way we have a better understanding on how the NGOs will interject and work with the country members.
However, you mentioned that some NGOs are not as demanding - that's just it - I want them to be. I want the NGOs to perform an active role in the MUN, if they are minor in nature and only pop up once in a while there is no point to them. We need to assign the major NGOs as they will be needed all the time for resolutions. If you were to represent something quite unnecessary surely there is no point to its presence in the MUN.
To understand the full role of an NGO representative, it is necessary that we take extreme measures. Represent all major NGOs - one per person. No dual representation.
That way we have a better understanding on how the NGOs will interject and work with the country members.
The issue is double edged. In my judgement ukebert would be more than capable and very good at taking on and representing another role in the MUN. However, even if this is the case for him.. if we were to make this option available in the charter, then all members would be allowed to claim this as a right where in fact most people would not represent a single role in the MUN with as much dedication and quality as ukebert, nevermind two!!!
And wackysparkle, while I agree that ideally each organisation that is represented needs to be faithfully displayed, if people aren't representing countries in the MUN with regularity and enough research, then you're asking for a level of quality and commitment in the representation of the organisations that is not being asked, or enforced in the representation of nations. So we have to ask what can we do about this? Can we find ways to raise the expectation for all of the MUN roles? If we do this, how does one enforce it? Can we have the ideal without finding enough members who are keen to do such a job? All of this must be taken into account, and at the moment, with the limited size and broad diversity of our memberships we're not really in a position to set such a high standard for one area of representation when we're not asking it across the board.
Also, the organisations all have a place in compliment to and alongside the activity of different countries. If that area of debate is not very active or fast paced, then generating too much organisation representation will have the effect of drowning the national reps with more content than they can easily respond to and engage with.
Oh and ukebert.. if you do represent an org, for crying out buckets do not let it be the Hydrographic Organization!!!
You won't ever get a relevent resolution or thread in the MUN.
And wackysparkle, while I agree that ideally each organisation that is represented needs to be faithfully displayed, if people aren't representing countries in the MUN with regularity and enough research, then you're asking for a level of quality and commitment in the representation of the organisations that is not being asked, or enforced in the representation of nations. So we have to ask what can we do about this? Can we find ways to raise the expectation for all of the MUN roles? If we do this, how does one enforce it? Can we have the ideal without finding enough members who are keen to do such a job? All of this must be taken into account, and at the moment, with the limited size and broad diversity of our memberships we're not really in a position to set such a high standard for one area of representation when we're not asking it across the board.
Also, the organisations all have a place in compliment to and alongside the activity of different countries. If that area of debate is not very active or fast paced, then generating too much organisation representation will have the effect of drowning the national reps with more content than they can easily respond to and engage with.
Oh and ukebert.. if you do represent an org, for crying out buckets do not let it be the Hydrographic Organization!!!
You won't ever get a relevent resolution or thread in the MUN.point taken.
I only meant that the UN organizations should have the same treatment as the countries have - in that we represent the organization to the best of our ability, research the issue properly and interject when necessary.
Hopefully, since I've sorted out specific threads for the NGOs we shouldn't have the MUN littered with too much information and content.
I think that the issue that Ayaz put forward concerning his idea in that other thread sounds really good - it will encourage both nations and NGOs to response productively, which is what we are aiming for right now, rather than a simple 'yes, no' situation that seems to be happening for all the resolutions being put up.
I realise that the NGOs shouldn't be SO prominent right now as they are still new. But, if I were to relax and say that it is alright to represent both roles, I am saying that it's okay to have 2 viewpoints on the same issue that could come up - I just think that if we were to at least 'try' to have a single role right now we can see what the NGOs are capable of before we hurl ourselves in the deep end and integrate ourselves with country representaiton.
I think, one step at a time would work well now.
And yes... I agree... Ukebert, if you want to represent an organization couldn't it be something that is worth something? - that's what I meant when I said that the main organizations should be represented, so that you can at least have the opportunity to post and help out - hence we're back to same argument in that to tackle a major organization is like representing an nation *refers to ukebert's post concerning how he believed it was a good decision that wackysparkle dropped Sri Lanka representation*
so all in all.. I reckon we should take things slow for now, and if we can do the dual role fair enough, but let that be a decision we make in the future when the NGOs have a proper ground in the MUN.
I only meant that the UN organizations should have the same treatment as the countries have - in that we represent the organization to the best of our ability, research the issue properly and interject when necessary.
Hopefully, since I've sorted out specific threads for the NGOs we shouldn't have the MUN littered with too much information and content.
I think that the issue that Ayaz put forward concerning his idea in that other thread sounds really good - it will encourage both nations and NGOs to response productively, which is what we are aiming for right now, rather than a simple 'yes, no' situation that seems to be happening for all the resolutions being put up.
I realise that the NGOs shouldn't be SO prominent right now as they are still new. But, if I were to relax and say that it is alright to represent both roles, I am saying that it's okay to have 2 viewpoints on the same issue that could come up - I just think that if we were to at least 'try' to have a single role right now we can see what the NGOs are capable of before we hurl ourselves in the deep end and integrate ourselves with country representaiton.
I think, one step at a time would work well now.
And yes... I agree... Ukebert, if you want to represent an organization couldn't it be something that is worth something? - that's what I meant when I said that the main organizations should be represented, so that you can at least have the opportunity to post and help out - hence we're back to same argument in that to tackle a major organization is like representing an nation *refers to ukebert's post concerning how he believed it was a good decision that wackysparkle dropped Sri Lanka representation*
so all in all.. I reckon we should take things slow for now, and if we can do the dual role fair enough, but let that be a decision we make in the future when the NGOs have a proper ground in the MUN.
wackysparkle
I think that the issue that Ayaz put forward concerning his idea in that other thread sounds really good - it will encourage both nations and NGOs to response productively, which is what we are aiming for right now, rather than a simple 'yes, no' situation that seems to be happening for all the resolutions being put up.
Yep
Craghyrax
The issue is double edged. In my judgement ukebert would be more than capable and very good at taking on and representing another role in the MUN. However, even if this is the case for him.. if we were to make this option available in the charter, then all members would be allowed to claim this as a right where in fact most people would not represent a single role in the MUN with as much dedication and quality as ukebert, nevermind two!!!
Cragyrax
And wackysparkle, while I agree that ideally each organisation that is represented needs to be faithfully displayed, if people aren't representing countries in the MUN with regularity and enough research, then you're asking for a level of quality and commitment in the representation of the organisations that is not being asked, or enforced in the representation of nations. So we have to ask what can we do about this? Can we find ways to raise the expectation for all of the MUN roles? If we do this, how does one enforce it? Can we have the ideal without finding enough members who are keen to do such a job? All of this must be taken into account, and at the moment, with the limited size and broad diversity of our memberships we're not really in a position to set such a high standard for one area of representation when we're not asking it across the board.
Also, the organisations all have a place in compliment to and alongside the activity of different countries. If that area of debate is not very active or fast paced, then generating too much organisation representation will have the effect of drowning the national reps with more content than they can easily respond to and engage with.
Oh and ukebert.. if you do represent an org, for crying out buckets do not let it be the Hydrographic Organization!!! You won't ever get a relevent resolution or thread in the MUN.
Also, the organisations all have a place in compliment to and alongside the activity of different countries. If that area of debate is not very active or fast paced, then generating too much organisation representation will have the effect of drowning the national reps with more content than they can easily respond to and engage with.
Oh and ukebert.. if you do represent an org, for crying out buckets do not let it be the Hydrographic Organization!!!
You won't ever get a relevent resolution or thread in the MUN.It's interesting
wackysparkle
point taken.
I only meant that the UN organizations should have the same treatment as the countries have - in that we represent the organization to the best of our ability, research the issue properly and interject when necessary.
Hopefully, since I've sorted out specific threads for the NGOs we shouldn't have the MUN littered with too much information and content.
I think that the issue that Ayaz put forward concerning his idea in that other thread sounds really good - it will encourage both nations and NGOs to response productively, which is what we are aiming for right now, rather than a simple 'yes, no' situation that seems to be happening for all the resolutions being put up.
I realise that the NGOs shouldn't be SO prominent right now as they are still new. But, if I were to relax and say that it is alright to represent both roles, I am saying that it's okay to have 2 viewpoints on the same issue that could come up - I just think that if we were to at least 'try' to have a single role right now we can see what the NGOs are capable of before we hurl ourselves in the deep end and integrate ourselves with country representaiton.
I think, one step at a time would work well now.
And yes... I agree... Ukebert, if you want to represent an organization couldn't it be something that is worth something? - that's what I meant when I said that the main organizations should be represented, so that you can at least have the opportunity to post and help out - hence we're back to same argument in that to tackle a major organization is like representing an nation *refers to ukebert's post concerning how he believed it was a good decision that wackysparkle dropped Sri Lanka representation*
so all in all.. I reckon we should take things slow for now, and if we can do the dual role fair enough, but let that be a decision we make in the future when the NGOs have a proper ground in the MUN.
I only meant that the UN organizations should have the same treatment as the countries have - in that we represent the organization to the best of our ability, research the issue properly and interject when necessary.
Hopefully, since I've sorted out specific threads for the NGOs we shouldn't have the MUN littered with too much information and content.
I think that the issue that Ayaz put forward concerning his idea in that other thread sounds really good - it will encourage both nations and NGOs to response productively, which is what we are aiming for right now, rather than a simple 'yes, no' situation that seems to be happening for all the resolutions being put up.
I realise that the NGOs shouldn't be SO prominent right now as they are still new. But, if I were to relax and say that it is alright to represent both roles, I am saying that it's okay to have 2 viewpoints on the same issue that could come up - I just think that if we were to at least 'try' to have a single role right now we can see what the NGOs are capable of before we hurl ourselves in the deep end and integrate ourselves with country representaiton.
I think, one step at a time would work well now.
And yes... I agree... Ukebert, if you want to represent an organization couldn't it be something that is worth something? - that's what I meant when I said that the main organizations should be represented, so that you can at least have the opportunity to post and help out - hence we're back to same argument in that to tackle a major organization is like representing an nation *refers to ukebert's post concerning how he believed it was a good decision that wackysparkle dropped Sri Lanka representation*
so all in all.. I reckon we should take things slow for now, and if we can do the dual role fair enough, but let that be a decision we make in the future when the NGOs have a proper ground in the MUN.
My stance on this, is that it would be quite fun to represent a little observer that doesn't come into too many things, but I could still post some stuff in my NGO, and comment on a resolution or two. I agree that representing a country (espeially a non-perm or perm SC like Liechtenstein
) as well as an important NGO is a bit much.
Ethereal
If we say someone can represent an Organization and a country, what is to stop someone asking to represent 2 countries
Exactly.
ukebert
My stance on this, is that it would be quite fun to represent a little observer that doesn't come into too many things, but I could still post some stuff in my NGO, and comment on a resolution or two. I agree that representing a country (espeially a non-perm or perm SC like Liechtenstein) as well as an important NGO is a bit much.
) as well as an important NGO is a bit much.What's the point in representing a mere observer when we are trying to see exactly how the NGOs will integrate themselves with the MUN? we may as well go head on with the important organizations and then expand into the lesser groups.
This way we know that the relevant NGOs are available for a wide range of resolutions.
If you were the hydrographic organization you will post so little and be of no need in the MUN, when you could be the Red Cross and help a lot!
and yes.. glad you agree that taking on an important nation AND an NGO is hard work - and just not feasible.
It's not up to any specific individual to decide what the fate is for that particular rule. That will need to be decided by the whole of the MUN through a voting procedure.
I guess I'd still say that I don't agree - we are trying to introduce something new here, and to blunder it by trying to do too much at the same time we will not get an accurate result - so we wouldn't know what is going on really.
And like Ethereal has already stated quite clearly - what happens if a member asks to represent more than one country? - only reason they don't is because it's written in the charter that they can't - for reasons that are very accurate and right.
I guess I'd still say that I don't agree - we are trying to introduce something new here, and to blunder it by trying to do too much at the same time we will not get an accurate result - so we wouldn't know what is going on really.
And like Ethereal has already stated quite clearly - what happens if a member asks to represent more than one country? - only reason they don't is because it's written in the charter that they can't - for reasons that are very accurate and right.
Then right it into the charter that you cannot represent a 'major' NGO/Observer and a country, but you can, subject to approval by x y or z represent a country and a minor NGO/Observer or 2/3 minors.
My main point is that I'm not about to give up my country, I'd like to take on a minor Observer, and surely having one represented is better than none?
My main point is that I'm not about to give up my country, I'd like to take on a minor Observer, and surely having one represented is better than none?
no. I would say that it isn't, you're better off sticking to your country than representing something so minor that it couldn't even play a role in the MUN regularly.
And like I said, no approval is made by a single individual for the NGOs - it is done through voting.
And like I said, no approval is made by a single individual for the NGOs - it is done through voting.
Related discussions
- Chartered Engineer status ?
- Bus service timetable changes as from 07th Jan 2024
- Can't get a job
- Legal advice on employment law issues
- Gmail e-mail help!
- A levels needed for engineering?
- £2 Bus fare extended yet again.
- MSc Finance, Accounting and Management | Waleed's student blog
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 2 (H443/02) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Cost of resitting chemistry
- Anyone Else On A Low Snapchat score? 😭😂
- How can I transfer from one location to another in the Big 4?
- Marketing/global marketing/ Digital Marketing
- Student finance processing two time my course applications wrongly
- Affordable way to Commute to Herts from London
- UCAS mistake
- Leaving big 4 before qualifying - what job now?
- Will my student finance be affected if I pay for a level 5 OBS course privately
- Bristol Dentistry interviews
- What happens if you fail 3rd year of a Masters?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
