Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cambridge Uni Students Burn Money in Front of Homeless Person Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lopterton)
    The University's principal regulator is the HEFCE; the colleges' is the Charity Commission, although until recently they didn't have one.
    HEFCE isn't a regulator it is a funding body - it only regulates issues directly related to the details of what it funds (teaching and research).

    The regulator for universities is currently made up of http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en, https://www.offa.org.uk/ and http://www.oiahe.org.uk/ (plus CMA, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ and a bunch of other bodies) <= the last is the body that would have jurisdiction over this matter.

    This will be slimmed down soon with the introduction of https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-business-case

    However universities are independent bodies and set their own regulations which can include rules about the conduct of staff and students beyond their work/studies.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I realised that you meant to be ironic, I was attempting a 'witty' riposte. :five:
    Haha, true, thanks for underplaying my density. :five:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    HEFCE isn't a regulator it is a funding body - it only regulates issues directly related to the details of what it funds (teaching and research).

    The regulator for universities is currently made up of http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en, https://www.offa.org.uk/ and http://www.oiahe.org.uk/ (plus CMA, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ and a bunch of other bodies) <= the last is the body that would have jurisdiction over this matter.

    This will be slimmed down soon with the introduction of https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-business-case

    However universities are independent bodies and set their own regulations which can include rules about the conduct of staff and students beyond their work/studies.
    I don't know why you posted this, starting with directly contradicting my statement that the HEFCE regulates Cambridge University.

    All registered and exempt charities have a "principal regulator". As I said, for Cambridge University (which is exempt) this is the HEFCE and for its colleges (which are registered) it's the Charity Commission. The HEFCE's role in regulating Cambridge University is broader than covering only what its payments are for. A charity's principal regulator oversees the charity's compliance with its obligations as a charity.

    The ECU is not a regulator, and says so. I don't think the OIAHE is a regulator either. A charity only has one principal regulator.

    In practice, I am sure Cambridge University and even one of its glorified halls of residence called a "college" could tell any of these bodies to eff off if they tried to give it orders in respect of a view they reached of a matter such as this.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Extracts from an excellent article by Joe Goodman in the Independent, December 2015 (originally in the Huffington Post):

    "If you can't afford a ticket for the May Ball, you can work there instead - while a student who sat two seats away from you in an exam last week can now demand of you to 'come straight to me when the next tray of sushi arrives'"

    "While by no means the majority of students enter Oxford and Cambridge as entitled little brats, the dominant culture normalises a particular attitude which means many of them may leave changed."

    "At its root it is a form of socialisation. For the Old Etonians this is all already well within their stride. May Balls are simply a continuation of any 16th birthday party they've ever been to. While that May Ball may not have been as good as their cousin's 21st bash in Dubai, it was fun nevertheless. The troubling part is what it does to the rest of us, those who came from a background where that level of decadence and debauchery isn't normal, even on very, very, very special occasions. Those of us for whom throwing rubbish on the floor and expecting someone to pick it up is reserved for toddlers, and spending £160 on a night out the result of having your card stolen."

    "At St John's May Ball this year, some half-on half-off workers paid £80 for the privilege of picking up guests' litter for 5 hours. In a gesture of excess, the committee had adopted a 'no bins policy', encouraging guests to drop their litter on the floor rather than renting bins for the night."

    "The Marie-Antoinette prize went to one sensitive guest who took the time to ask one lucky litter-picker, 'Don't you find this work demeaning, why didn't you just buy a ticket?'"

    "Dance of the Knights - the score synonymous with the capitalist TV saga The Apprentice - blared out over a thousand golden fireworks built by a hundred crying children as Peregrine and Cornelius cracked open another bottle of Bollinger and discussed what their third MPhils should be in."

    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"

    I reckon someone will reply to this saying it's all lies and even if it's not then if you're really clever you'd know that while a "no bins" policy may encourage chucking litter on the ground, and although workers were employed to pick up said litter from the ground, actually the policy is all about the service of the common good - as anyone other than a filthy oik, a lefty social worker, or a person weighed down with chips on both their shoulders wouldn't even question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lopterton)
    I don't know why you posted this, starting with directly contradicting my statement that the HEFCE regulates Cambridge University.

    All registered and exempt charities have a "principal regulator". As I said, for Cambridge University (which is exempt) this is the HEFCE and for its colleges (which are registered) it's the Charity Commission. The HEFCE's role in regulating Cambridge University is broader than covering only what its payments are for. A charity's principal regulator oversees the charity's compliance with its obligations as a charity.

    The ECU is not a regulator, and says so. I don't think the OIAHE is a regulator either. A charity only has one principal regulator.

    In practice, I am sure Cambridge University and even one of its glorified halls of residence called a "college" could tell any of these bodies to eff off if they tried to give it orders in respect of a view they reached of a matter such as this.
    I am sorry, you misunderstand the position.

    The responsibility of a Principal Regulator are to enforce those bits of charity law that apply to an exempt charity. Charity law in this context is a very narrowly defined term. It doesn't mean all the law that applies to a charity. Principal Regulators for exempt charities were selected precisely because they were regulators for the purpose of other legislation. It does not mean that they have any overarching regulatory role in relation to the exempt charity. The Principal Regulator only has its core regulatory role under its primary legislation plus its regulatory role in respect of that part of charity law that applies to an exempt charity. It has no responsibility in relation to other regulatory functions. Other regulators have a direct relationship with the exempt charity in which the Principal Regulator cannot interfere.

    Furthermore, the powers of a Principal Regulator under charity law are limited to asking the Charity Commission to investigate. The assumption is that the core regulatory powers of the Principal Regulator will be sufficient to compel compliance with those parts of charity law that apply to exempt charities (which mostly relate to the fitness for office of those people who are legally charity trustees and protection of charitable funds) without the need to use powers under charity law.

    The position is explained here.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...empt-charities

    In practical terms the regulatory oversight of the HEFCE is very light unless the defaults are so serious as to warrant the threat of cutting off funding. For most purposes it is the courts who act as regulators either by way of judicial review or under specific legislation. The regulatory function of the HEFCE is set out here

    http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2...FCE2016_12.pdf
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    Extracts from an excellent article by Joe Goodman in the Independent, December 2015 (originally in the Huffington Post):

    "If you can't afford a ticket for the May Ball, you can work there instead - while a student who sat two seats away from you in an exam last week can now demand of you to 'come straight to me when the next tray of sushi arrives'"

    "While by no means the majority of students enter Oxford and Cambridge as entitled little brats, the dominant culture normalises a particular attitude which means many of them may leave changed."

    "At its root it is a form of socialisation. For the Old Etonians this is all already well within their stride. May Balls are simply a continuation of any 16th birthday party they've ever been to. While that May Ball may not have been as good as their cousin's 21st bash in Dubai, it was fun nevertheless. The troubling part is what it does to the rest of us, those who came from a background where that level of decadence and debauchery isn't normal, even on very, very, very special occasions. Those of us for whom throwing rubbish on the floor and expecting someone to pick it up is reserved for toddlers, and spending £160 on a night out the result of having your card stolen."

    "At St John's May Ball this year, some half-on half-off workers paid £80 for the privilege of picking up guests' litter for 5 hours. In a gesture of excess, the committee had adopted a 'no bins policy', encouraging guests to drop their litter on the floor rather than renting bins for the night."

    "The Marie-Antoinette prize went to one sensitive guest who took the time to ask one lucky litter-picker, 'Don't you find this work demeaning, why didn't you just buy a ticket?'"

    "Dance of the Knights - the score synonymous with the capitalist TV saga The Apprentice - blared out over a thousand golden fireworks built by a hundred crying children as Peregrine and Cornelius cracked open another bottle of Bollinger and discussed what their third MPhils should be in."

    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"

    I reckon someone will reply to this saying it's all lies and even if it's not then if you're really clever you'd know that while a "no bins" policy may encourage chucking litter on the ground, and although workers were employed to pick up said litter from the ground, actually the policy is all about the service of the common good - as anyone other than a filthy oik, a lefty social worker, or a person weighed down with chips on both their shoulders wouldn't even question.
    As someone who many years ago worked for an Oxford Commem Ball, the reason was very simple; I didn't have a girl to take and I wasn't sufficient of a saddo to split a ticket with a male pal. I could well have afforded it.

    I am afraid this is the sort of article written by young right-on wannabe journalists down the ages. According to his blog, he currently lives in Okayama, Japan. The ability to take oneself off as a writer to Japan shows he is as disconnected from the mainstream of society as the toffs he criticises in his article. The youth of Grimsby or Skelmersdale in fact might find it easier to identify with young people getting rat-arsed in their finery having a good time, because that is what they do in the pubs and clubs on a Friday and Saturday night rather than being able to swan off to the far east like some latterday Somerset Maugham.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    As someone who many years ago worked for an Oxford Commem Ball, the reason was very simple; I didn't have a girl to take and I wasn't sufficient of a saddo to split a ticket with a male pal. I could well have afforded it.

    I am afraid this is the sort of article written by young right-on wannabe journalists down the ages. According to his blog, he currently lives in Okayama, Japan. The ability to take oneself off as a writer to Japan shows he is as disconnected from the mainstream of society as the toffs he criticises in his article. The youth of Grimsby or Skelmersdale in fact might find it easier to identify with young people getting rat-arsed in their finery having a good time, because that is what they do in the pubs and clubs on a Friday and Saturday night rather than being able to swan off to the far east like some latterday Somerset Maugham.
    His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently. I thought he overdid the humble servants toiling in the trash angle in that article, but heh, that's journalism.

    There's often criticism of excess around various balls and some of it is justified, they don't exactly set a role model for moving towards a better and more compassionate society. On the other hand, they can be a lot of fun. :teehee:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"
    Yeah having long-planned events once a year where you dress slightly more fancily than usual and party all night is 'sociopathic'.

    The Independent is complete trash.

    Btw nobody works at their own college's may ball (except the committee I guess). People who work at may balls are those who try to do one every night without really being able to afford it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yeah having long-planned events once a year where you dress slightly more fancily than usual and party all night is 'sociopathic'.

    The Independent is complete trash
    Calm down "Slightly more fancily than usual". Lol! Who cares whether they are long-planned? That wasn't part of the author's argument for the sociopathy.


    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Btw nobody works at their own college's may ball (except the committee I guess).
    I'm sure the committee members slog like navvies, but are you sure this statement is correct? It would imply that if a student who can't afford to buy a full ticket to their college's May Ball applies to get in by the work route, by doing some paid skivvying, they're told "No, sorry, we'll employ students from other colleges but not members of this one".

    As a result, a student who couldn't afford to buy a full ticket but could pay a proportion of the price, and who only wanted to go to ONE May Ball, would have no option but to apply to work at a ball another college.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    People who work at may balls are those who try to do one every night without really being able to afford it.
    How common of them. I knew there was something that distinguished them from those who try to do one every night who can afford it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently. I thought he overdid the humble servants toiling in the trash angle in that article, but heh, that's journalism.

    There's often criticism of excess around various balls and some of it is justified, they don't exactly set a role model for moving towards a better and more compassionate society. On the other hand, they can be a lot of fun. :teehee:
    Practically all colleges write to their student members at that time of year to say don't damage the university and college brands by abusing alcohol until you vomit in the street, and don't otherwise behave as if you and your mates own the world where commoners can see you - because a journo might put you in the papers if you do.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    Calm down "Slightly more fancily than usual". Lol! Who cares whether they are long-planned? That wasn't part of the author's argument for the sociopathy.



    I'm sure the committee members slog like navvies, but are you sure this statement is correct? It would imply that if a student who can't afford to buy a full ticket to their college's May Ball applies to get in by the work route, by doing some paid skivvying, they're told "No, sorry, we'll employ students from other colleges but not members of this one".


    How common of them. I knew there was something that distinguished them from those who try to do one every night who can afford it.
    The difference is that everyone can budget for may balls in advance. If there were a culture in which you were expected to go out and spend £200 in a night without warning I'd understand the complaint, but there isn't.

    They're permitted to, it just doesn't really happen in my experience, partly because of the above factor.

    It's not a criticism, it's just a choice. I didn't do five may balls on the trot because I couldn't justify the expenditure. Others decided to work to reduce it. That's fine. There's nothing oppressive about being given the option to pick up rubbish for a few hours to save a few pounds.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The difference is that everyone can budget for may balls in advance.
    For example they could eat cheaper food, buy fewer books, write their notes in smaller handwriting, or buy their clothes at jumble sales, to save up £200 over the course of the academic year. And although Cambridge students aren't allowed to do paid work during termtime without special dispensation (unlike most undergraduates elsewhere in Britain, some of whom work in supermarkets), I don't think there is a University regulation that forbids them from begging on the streets either. So the message to poorer students is this. You want to go to a May Ball with the posh kids? And you've got some kind of problem with skivvying for them, picking up the rubbish they chuck on the ground? Then plan ahead, eat less, and save up!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    For example they could eat cheaper food, buy fewer books, write their notes in smaller handwriting, or buy their clothes at jumble sales, to save up £200 over the course of the academic year. And although Cambridge students aren't allowed to do paid work during termtime without special dispensation (unlike most undergraduates elsewhere in Britain, some of whom work in supermarkets), I don't think there is a University regulation that forbids them from begging on the streets either. So the message to poorer students is this. You want to go to a May Ball with the posh kids? And you've got some kind of problem with skivvying for them, picking up the rubbish they chuck on the ground? Then plan ahead, eat less, and save up!
    You're describing a world that doesn't exist (in quite silly terms, too). With student loans and (importantly) the Cambridge bursaries people manage to find the money. For those who actually come from poorer backgrounds, with the extra loans and chunk of bursary they'll have they really shouldn't have any problems in setting aside a couple of weeks worth of rent over the course of a year. I'm sure there is the odd exception to this, but I'd wager that most would come from the Squeezed Middle.

    Besides, I'm not really sure what your point is. Yes, in the real world, most people don't have infinite money and have to prioritise their spending and choose some things to forgo. I'm sorry that economic scarcity upsets you but you're going to have to live with it for some years to come yet.

    Apparently people can find reasons to whine about anything. Having a big party at the end of a long period of very stressful exam prep? Very 'problematic'!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently
    An earth where it is possible to live with one's rent exceeding one's salary (if any).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    Practically all colleges write to their student members at that time of year to say don't damage the university and college brands by abusing alcohol until you vomit in the street, and don't otherwise behave as if you and your mates own the world where commoners can see you - because a journo might put you in the papers if you do.
    Yes, the critiques seemed to focus on lavishness rather than drunken / arrogant behaviour more in my experience, but perhaps these things change from year to year and ball to ball. It's not like there's a whole army of hard bitten tabloid reptiles hiding in the grass waiting to write up the "toffs behave like toffs" story. Usually the one that hits the national press is the ridiculous Cambridge thing involving drunken acts of nakedness.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    An earth where it is possible to live with one's rent exceeding one's salary (if any).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol, welcome to London. Other cities may be available.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Out of interest are the Uni or more likely the college taking disciplinary action against the person concerned? I gathered there were people at Pembroke posting on the thread. I only asked as someone bumped it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Out of interest are the Uni or more likely the college taking disciplinary action against the person concerned? I gathered there were people at Pembroke posting on the thread. I only asked as someone bumped it.
    The College. Cambridge University's disciplinary processes are very cumbersome and tend to be invoked only if there is no alternative.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The College. Cambridge University's disciplinary processes are very cumbersome and tend to be invoked only if there is no alternative.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Usually I'd agree but I think given the adverse publicity this has had against the university rather than the college (which in the general public's mind are one and the same thing) I think the Proctors might show a little more interest than usual.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The College. Cambridge University's disciplinary processes are very cumbersome and tend to be invoked only if there is no alternative.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you know if they have been invoked or are they making their minds up? It cant be doing his studies any good.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.