Had a listen to The Pod Delusion and want to get involved yourself? We’re always looking for new people to add to our roster of reporters – after all, the show is a collaborative effort and it is the wide range of contributions that make it what it is.
Perhaps the best way of describing the ‘philosophy’ behind the show, if you’ll excuse the pretentiousness, is by taking a look at the original pitch I wrote on my blog describing what I’d like the podcast to do. Cast your mind back to September 2009…
I’ve got an idea for a podcast in my head, but I need your help to turn it into something slightly more tangible!
The idea in my head is in a podcast that’s broadly lefty/liberal/skeptic/atheistic/geeky – essentially Guardianista in philosophy, or maybe sharing values with Little Atoms if it were produced by someone infinitely less educated. The remit of the podcast would simply be “things that are interesting”, and I’d hope the tone would be somewhere between satirical, sarcastic and light hearted – I struggle at the best of times to sound sincere, so attempting to do anything 100% “worthy” is perhaps beyond my abilities.
Obviously, like everyone I have limited time, and I’d like to do it with the help of a team of people who are better qualified and more knowledgeable on “interesting” topics than myself, so the format for the podcast I envisage is as follows:
- An introductory monologue by myself, where I introduce what is coming up and talk about something vaguely topical
- Then packages submitted by contributors of between 3 and 7 minutes long each.
- The podcast will last approximately 15-20 minutes, at least initially. And will be a weekly affair.
I’d like to have a pool of contributors large enough to not have to try and coerce people in submitting something new every week – like how the news has different reporters and they’re not necessarily all on TV every day.
To give an example on the sort of topics contributors could cover, things like maybe something about the BCA and Simon Singh, the BNP being twats about something, exposing why Littlejohn is being a hypocrite this week, that sort of thing. Pitch me anything, basically. Vaguely topical, but it doesn’t have to be amazingly topical.
Editorially, I have no concerns about bias. As much as we deride Fox News, and the American networks, the fact they have people passionately arguing for a point of view makes them infinitely more compulsive viewing than the dull BBC. So if contributors want to really go after something or someone, I’m all for it, as long as I won’t get sued.
Contributors could submit their reports in any style they wish – an “essay” (a la From Our Own Correspondent), a debate, a stand-up routine, an interview with someone relevant, hell, even in the form of song would be amazing. All that you’ll need to be able to do to contribute is have some means of getting audio on to the internet and to me. So you’ll need a microphone – or if you’ve got an iPhone or Smartphone, download the ipadio app from the appstore and use that!
If this gets going I think I’d set up a mailing list for contributors so that at the start of the editorial cycle contributors could e-mail in and pitch ideas for stories and they can be discussed to make sure there’s no duplicates – and I could perhaps suggest stories it could be interesting to cover – and then as the week goes on and reports are sent in, I’ll compile them into the final podcast, before uploading it on whatever day we decide to publish it on.
Does this idea interest you? Would you like to be a contributor? No need to commit at the moment – I just want to collect the details of people who would be interested! If you’re trying to get into journalism, are a blogger, or just want an excuse to listen to the sound of your own voice (like I do), then this could be another string to add to your bow.
So drop me an e-mail on james (at) jamesomalley (dot) co (dot) uk and let me know who you are, and maybe what sort of thing you’d like to do if you can think that far ahead! Contact details (e-mail, Twitter, etc) would be useful too.
I reserve the right to abandon this with no shame if nobody is interested and/or I’m too busy to produce this.
Dear All,
Can I ask you to sign this petition (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PBSReview/ ) as, if not, it could mean my job is on the line and that of my colleagues here at the Leicester ISC! I know it will also affect some of you it terms of some current plans!
Essentially following the announcement made by Gordon Brown concerning the Government’s discussions regarding possible changes to the points based system for tier 4 student visas, ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8356226.stm ) plans are afoot to stop visas for students wishing to enter the UK to undertake courses of study at NQF level 3. This would mean no students studying for GCSE, A level or foundation pre-undergraduate programmes. This has implications for the UK in financial terms is catastrophic! Within this section of the education industry, the following are under threat:
10,000 teaching and administrative jobs at risk.
£5.3bn universities receive from international students annually.
£2.3bn off campus expenditure by international students.
25,000 international students who enter UK universities via A-level or foundation courses based in UK.
£32bn – the education sector is one of Britain’s top export sectors – conservatively estimated to be worth £32bn annually to the economy
The raising of the entry requirements from NQF Level 3 to NQF Level 4 would have a devastating, negative effect on both the university and college business in the UK. In the organisation that I work for, we teach some 1,400 international A-Level and Foundation Course students annually (validated by Liverpool John Moor’s University), and 800 Foundation Course students annually in our International Study Centres (ISC’s). If the entry requirements are raised in the manner suggested, these students would be unable to obtain student visas. This would further damage our international GCSE student business (100 international students annually coming in on child visas), as they would have nowhere to go after passing their GCSE exams, other than home or to one of our global competitors.
Our total tuition turnover in calendar year 2009 will be circa £36 million; our accommodation turnover (residential and host family) some £9 million, and other turnover (books, exam fees, insurance etc. etc.) circa £5 million. Outside our Colleges our students spend some £12 million annually to the wider benefit of the national economy (UKBA requires students to have £600 per month for living costs – up to £800 in London).
If we cannot teach A-level and foundation students, then the supply, annually, of some 1,850 (figure from 2009) students from our Colleges and ISC’s to over 50 UK Universities, including mine, would dry up. 90% of of our students go on to UK Universities. As each student would pay circa £8,200 (average – Universities UK) per annum for three years to their University, this would represent a cumulative total loss of some £46 million income on an annual basis (for a three year course) to UK Universities. Given the squeeze on public funds, a loss of this magnitude across the whole sector is probably one that UK Universities can ill-afford.
Additionally, it is estimated that international university students spend privately some £7k (based on UKBA subsistence requirements) each annually, losing a further £13 million a year to the British economy should such students be unable to take their NQF Level 3 course in the UK and progress to University.
Based on an estimate that ISC partnerships have a market share of this sector around 5%, we can project that the impact of the proposals would result in the loss of at least some 25,000 international students (who would go and study in US or Australia and progress to their universities) and ultimately put some 10,000 high quality jobs in the educational sector at severe risk.
I cannot believe that the Government has been properly informed as to the likely economic consequences of raising the entry requirements in this way and believe that broad consultation is necessary to avoid a hasty decision on this and a number of other areas which could have devastating impacts on us all.
A personal view on this matter is that it is a knee-jerk reaction to concerns about rogue colleges using the system for illegal immigration and trafficking and it is one which will result in the University of Leicester ISC not being able to operate or indeed colleagues at other partner university ISCs! Such an association with discredited establishments is a slur on the good name of legitimate operators such as the University of Leicester and Study Group who operate this venture for and on behalf of the university!
If you can pass this onto friends family and colleagues who it may affect or who might wish to support this venture, I would be very pleased.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PBSReview/
Many thanks
Gwynne
Dr. David Gwynne Harries. MA MIITT
Head – University of Leicester
International Study Centre
Prospect House
2nd Floor
94, Regent Road
Leicester
LE1 7DA
Tel: 0116 229 7800
Fax: 0116 229 7801
email 1: dgh7@le.ac.uk
email 2: gharries@studygroup.com
http://www.le.ac.uk/isc