British police have arrested a 19-year-old that they believe is involved with LulzSec’s recent wave of “AntiSec” digital attacks—though the group seems to be denying it. Investigators found the teen with help from the FBI, and have charged him under the Computer Misuse Act and the Fraud Act, ZDNet…
Continue reading …
Company also plans to increase its own student intake tenfold by undercutting fees at public universities from next year A private, run-for-profit university has launched an aggressive expansion plan to jointly run at least 10 of its publicly funded counterparts, the Guardian can reveal. BPP, which offers undergraduate and postgraduate business and law degrees at 14 UK study centres, said it was in talks about managing the business side of the universities’ campuses. Talks with three are at a “serious stage”, but commercial negotiations are yet to begin. Under the model, universities would control all academic decisions, while BPP would be responsible for managing the campus estate, IT support, the buying of goods and services and other “back office” roles. BPP would not hold equity in the universities. Chief executive Carl Lygo said his firm stood to make tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds from working with each institution, but that it would be “too radical at the moment” to bid to take over a university. “The partnership model is more palatable in the UK … we have a long tradition of higher education being publicly funded, rather than run for profit.” BPP also plans to increase the number of its own undergraduates tenfold by undercutting publicly funded universities next year, when they will be able to charge up to £9,000 a year. At the moment, BPP has just over 1,000 undergraduates. “We want to offer a radical, high-quality alternative, with classroom-hours contact which is in small groups,” Lygo said. BPP’s disclosure comes ahead of an imminent white paper expected to signal the government’s intention to encourage the expansion of private institutions in higher education in England. Ministers believe they will encourage competition and improve the quality of degree courses. In an interview with the Guardian last year, David Willetts , the universities minister, said there would be “greater diversity” in the higher education sector in future and that “the crucial thing is for the existing providers to rise to the competitive challenge they will face”. The government hopes private firms will drive down tuition fees, which could save the Treasury millions of pounds. Many more universities than the government expected intend to charge the maximum of £9,000 a year from autumn 2012. The government pays students’ tuition fees in the first instance, and graduates pay them back when they are earning more than £21,000. Higher fees mean the government will have to pay more up front, which may not be sustainable. BPP would not disclose the names of the universities it is in talks with. Lygo said, however, that they were a “mixed bag” and “not necessarily those who were in financial difficulty”. Universities could save a quarter of their costs if they agreed to BPP running the commercial side of their operation, money they could invest in the academic side, he said. “We have got a lot of universities in the UK and not all are in a strong financial position … There is an opportunity for the private sector to help the higher education sector to achieve its goals. By working in partnership, the private provider would add expertise in the back office functions. “Most universities are running at high costs and don’t properly utilise their buildings. The private sector is better at procurement because they are keener at negotiating better prices.” Barclays Corporate, which lends money or provides banking services to 60% of the country’s universities, said other large private providers were looking at the UK. “I think what BPP is doing is very indicative of what is happening in the market and indicates the changing environment that universities are operating in,” said head of education Chris Hearn. He added, however, that private firms may be put off by “relatively thin” margins and “heavy regulation”. Others may be dissuaded if, unlike BPP, they do not have a base and reputation in the UK. Roger Brown, professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University, said BPP’s plans could make universities more efficient, but ultimately the company’s shareholders would be its top priority. “The problem with partnerships is that they blur accountability,” he said. “It is unclear who will benefit and who will pay for these partnerships and to whom they are accountable.” Earlier this month, it was announced that the philosopher AC Grayling had set up a private college, staffed by celebrity professors, which would offer degrees in the humanities, economics and law from 2012 at the cost of £18,000 a year. Other private companies already provide services to universities. The University Partnerships Programme manages student accommodation, while INTO runs courses at UK universities for overseas students who need extra preparation to get onto degree programmes. Last July, BPP was given degree-awarding powers , which meant it was allowed to call itself a university college. It was the first new private university in the UK for more than 30 years. Willetts said it was “healthy to have a vibrant private sector working alongside our more traditional universities”. This would create a “dynamic and flexible” degree system and could encourage online degrees, he said. BPP is part of the Apollo Group, a market-listed US company that owns the University of Phoenix, a private institution offering degrees through distance learning. In 2004, Phoenix was fined $9.8m (£6m) for unethical practices in recruiting students. Higher education University administration Tuition fees Students Education policy Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There are so many kind of creepy things about the marriage of Doug Hutchison and Courtney Alexis Stodden, it’s difficult to know where to begin. There’s the fact that Hutchison, a character actor with roles in The Green Mile and Lost , is 51 while Stodden is 16. There’s the fact…
Continue reading …And another Republican is officially in: Former US ambassador to China/Utah governor Jon Huntsman today announced that he is running for president. Huntsman joined the race “with a campaign premised on a somewhat radical idea: being nice,” write Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake for the Washington Post in advance of…
Continue reading …The new cigarette package labels are out, and they’re not pretty. Federal health officials today released the nine warning labels that will cover the top half of all cigarette packages manufactured after September 2012, and they include graphic photographs of damaged teeth and lungs and an autopsied body as well…
Continue reading …Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou faces a critical vote of confidence tonight that will determine both his political future and that of Greece—and in some ways, that’s the easy part. If Papandreou survives the midnight vote (5pm ET) he’ll be able to pass austerity measures that will in turn…
Continue reading …
US president set to reject military advice by withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election. The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013. The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives. “This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with,” a Whitehall official told the Guardian. Obama’s nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops. The White House confirmed that the withdrawal will be “significant”. Obama’s decision is aimed at placating an American public tired of a 10-year war that has cost 1,522 US lives. The killing of Osama bin Laden added impetus to calls to pull out. Nato commanders led by General David Petraeus have set out the risks of withdrawing too many troops too soon, and warned Obama there has been no noticeable dividend from the death of the al-Qaida leader. They had urged him to keep in place the bulk of the extra 30,000 troops he committed to the “surge” until the end of 2012, so a drawdown can begin in 2013. That would give the military another full “fighting season” to attack Taliban strongholds and target insurgent leaders. “They say they need another full year of this,” one official told the Guardian. “They want as much as possible for as long as possible.” This year’s fighting season, which is now underway, has shown that the Taliban is still strong, despite the pounding given to them over the winter by ISAF forces. In the first week of June, there were 701 security incidents across Afghanistan. The withdrawal has created deep divisions in Washington. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued for a modest reduction – at one point as low as 2,000 – citing the advice of US commanders in Afghanistan that they need to protect gains made during the winter against the Taliban. But senior White House staff, conscious that the president has an election to fight next year, argued in favour of a reduction that would send a signal to the US public that an end to the war is in sight. The Associated Press reported that Obama could announce 10,000 troops to be brought home by the end of the year, and a further 20,000 next year – all of the 30,000 extra troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of the “surge” in 2009. That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over. The US military could fill some of the gaps by keeping combat troops in place and pulling out mainly support staff. The US drawdown is a compromise that will not satisfy Democratic party doves seeking a quick end to US involvement. When Obama first became president, he lost out in his first major battle with the Pentagon. But, as he has grown in confidence, he has been more willing to take them on, ignoring Gates’s advice to avoid US military involvement in Libya and now again on Afghanistan. Gates, who, along with secretary of state Hillary Clinton, was scheduled to meet Obama at the White House to finalise the details, acknowledged on Tuesday that US political considerations as well as conditions on the ground in Afghanistan contributed to the decision. He said the war’s unpopularity in the US and with Congress had to play a significant part in the president’s thinking. David Cameron was told in advance about the scale of Obama’s withdrawal of US forces, but the prime minister is not intending to make an immediate corresponding announcement on the scale of the British military drawdown that will start later this year. He is expected to delay his own announcement until next week. The timeframe may reflect continuing tensions between Cameron and the military over the scale of troop reductions. Until recently, the Ministry of Defence was expecting the White House to take a cautious approach. The likelihood of a substantial drawdown was described as being “miles off” what US officials were telling their counterparts in Whitehall. In a BBC2 documentary, Afghanistan: War Without End?, to be shown on Wednesday night, General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British army, appeared to challenge Cameron’s intention to pull out of Afghanistan in 2015 regardless of the political or security position in the country. Wall said that while the British army is “committed to deliver against that timeline … Whether or not it turns out to be an absolute timeline or a more conditions-based approach nearer the time, we shall find out.” In an interview for the programme, Cameron said he will withdraw troops from combat in 2015 irrespective of whether Afghanistan has been hardened against the return of al-Qaida by then: “No, the deadline is a deadline and it won’t slip, because I’m very clear that the British people deserve to have a clear endpoint.” Cameron’s determination to withdraw without conditions is expected to be fiercely criticised in a report from the Commons defence select committee, due to be published in the next fortnight. The Conservative chairman of the committee, James Arbuthnot, has been a strong advocate of a conditions-based timetable for withdrawal. Afghanistan Barack Obama United States US military Global terrorism Taliban al-Qaida Military Defence policy Ewen MacAskill Patrick Wintour Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …File under: Why didn’t I think of this first? Editor-slash-humorist Michael Solomon has pored over Sarah Palin’s email trove searching not for salacious details but for inspired verse. What he’s come up with is a collection of 50 poems written by the former governor herself. And Solomon isn’t wasting any…
Continue reading …