Therefore, such a large salary increase, especially in the midst of a recession and spiralling graduate debt, appears excessive. And while final-year students like myself are faced with a shrinking employment market, there are probably many of us who think we could do a better job of management than our current academic-in-chief.

However, despite his prestigious position and strong academic reputation, Cantor’s pay packet in 2006-07 was only slightly above the national average for university chiefs, which also rose by 8%. Meanwhile, academics have also enjoyed a growing slice of the pie, with recent annual wage increases of 6%.

This seems somewhat at odds with repeated claims made by universities of a lack of funding and resources; political pressure that led to the introduction of top-up fees in 2006. Here at York, despite the wage rises and significant capital investment – noisy construction work, to you and me – total income rose by 16% last year, while the operating surplus increased four-fold.

Reading these figures, one would think the University, its campus, and even its students were positively glowing with wealth. Yet, although money has been spent on improving facilities like the library, the sports centre and a certain campus bar, the overwhelming sense is of a tired and dreary campus occupied by students lacking cash in their wallets. 

Gym and sport-club membership fees have skyrocketed and library fines continue to rise unabated. Meanwhile, essential maintenance and replacement of footpaths and bridges has been painfully slow in coming.

York remains a prestigious university for both teaching and research, and the Heslington East development should ensure the survival of this reputation. Only then will the financial rewards offered to senior management be justified.

Just two years ago, the Square was populated by a wide variety of businesses, from holiday and insurance companies to a low-cost computer sales and repair shop. Since then, though, high rents and low takings have driven out all but the mainstay outlets Costcutter, Your:Shop and Blackwells. And, given the current economic climate, this state of affairs appears unlikely to change anytime soon.

However, the Square is in desperate need of reinvigorating, and with over 30,000 restaurants worldwide including 1000 in the UK, Subway is just the sort of company that can afford to absorb the university’s prohibitive rent rates and gamble on the lucrative student market. With 13,000 students, York does not exactly boast the largest concentration of young people, but setting up on a largely untapped campus remains an attractive commercial proposition.

After all, students will continue to need sandwiches, recession or no recession. And the current offerings of Costcutter and Your:Shop are largely uninspiring and (especially in the case of the former) often overpriced. Yet these shops continue to rake it in because they are all that we have, and although the latter is an important revenue source for YUSU, a bit of competition would be no bad thing.

Those in charge need to think fresh.

The proposal to open a Subway in the Market Square seems to me to be a flawed idea. Part of going to university is about experiencing new things. While where you eat your lunch might seem insignificant, it is an ideal opportunity to spread your horizons and not remain limited to the mass chain stores that are widespread in every town and city.

Whatever the company claims, Subway is a fast food chain. The image that Subway presents is very different to the truth; it is an aggressive, multi-national, consumer based company that is driven by profit margins. This is highlighted by the company’s target to open 2010 stores in the UK and Ireland by 2010. 

Subway is an expensive alternative for lunch. Aside from their £1.99 Sub of the Day deal, their 6” subs can cost up to £3.50. If combined with a drink and a snack, it could easily cost up to £5 for lunch. Not something that the average student could afford. It is after all something which we could all make at home for a fraction of the cost.

Subway market their food as a healthier alternative to the food offered in other fast food chains. While to a certain extent this is true, it would be wrong to call Subway food healthy. Using the nutritional information available on the Subway website, only the Veggie Delite sub contains fewer calories than a McDonald’s hamburger. Moreover, at 520 calories per serving, a 6” Meatball Marinara contains more calories than a Big Mac. 

I am not against Subway, but I am against the aggressive commercialisation of campus.

The study, which conveniently doubled as a marketing exercise for NatWest, told us that 40% of “hardworking York students” supplement their study with part-time work, averaging 12 hours per week, collectively earning £10 million, which is slightly less than is spent on alcohol. As if this wasn’t meaningless enough, we were also informed that we collectively spend £46 million on rent and £7 million on groceries.

The irony is that the lack of understanding of what these figures actually mean reflects the lack of close attention paid by many students towards their finances.There is no doubt that there will be thousands of freshers, with hard-earned zeroes on the bank balance and gratefully received student loan money being extracted from cash machines on a more than daily basis, who have no concept, at all, of the extent of their excess, or more importantly, of its long-term implications.

Financial problems, are not to be taken lightly, and a harsh wake-up call, even in this week of weeks, may not be so unwelcome. However, with the media currently saturated with scare stories of economic turmoil and personal financial ruin, there is a grave possibility that such warnings will go unheeded by an audience suffering from what can be described as a kind of ‘information fatigue’.

And vague, confusing reports, like this one are the most likely casualties. It talks about the “cost-effectiveness” of studying in York yet, fundamentally, it fails to evaluate the short-term or long-term benefits of a university education. In addition to this, it is not clear whether the report refers only to this institution, or the city’s two universities combined. The £7 million spent on groceries appears to ignore what is spent on food in cafes and bars. The nationwide survey of 26 towns involved 26,000 students – an average of just 1000 per town. And the figures – which are crudely calculated aggregates of all York students – has no apparent context.

So lets give the situation the vital context it needs. Assuming the report refers to both universities in the city, the combined £18 million we supposedly spend on groceries and alcohol amounts to £40 per student per week, in term time only – this is approximately equivalent to an average maintenance loan. Meanwhile, the figures for earnings from part-time work suggest that the average working student earns at or slightly above the minimum wage for 18-21-year-olds.

Given this context it seems that it’s hardly the kind of warning needed to send us all running to the experts at MoneySense.

The matter has come to light following the release of an audio tape in which a lecturer at Kingston University is heard telling students that portraying the institution in a bad light in the survey will have negative effects on the prestige of their degrees.

The five-minute clip encourages students to confine negative comments solely to internal channels of complaint.

YUSU President, Anne-Marie Canning emphasised the significance of the survey saying: “The NSS is the most important way for students to give feedback about their university experience, so it is vital that the institutions do not try to affect the honesty of students’ responses.” Canning described the actions of other universities as “totally out of order”.
The results of the government-funded and widely respected survey which is taken by final-year students before graduation, are used in the calculation of highly influential league tables, including those by the Times and the Guardian.

Students at York are not forced to complete the survey, and Canning supports this approach: “York has a high response rate – 71% last year – which we achieved by emphasizing the benefits of completing the survey.”

The revelation that a disproportionate number of international students involved in academic tribunals should not come as any real surprise. The difficulties involved in studying for an academic degree in an unfamiliar country using a foreign language are such that it is perhaps inevitable that many overseas students will struggle to progress in the way in which they may be expected to.

But that is not an excuse for students to resort to illegitimate means, nor does it mean that the University can afford to be complacent about the issue, especially given the sheer scale of the disparity between home and international students going through what Anne-Marie Canning rightly describes as “a frightening experience”.

As a proportion of the size of each student group, 2.5 times as many overseas students as home students are referred to academic tribunals. At a university that is often criticised for its relative lack of ethnic and cultural diversity, the number of minority students facing expulsion is particularly striking – and worrying.

It is worrying not only because it reduces the size of the foreign student community, but also because it damages that community’s reputation within the University, and acts as a potential deterrent to future overseas students, who may feel intimidated by the high incidence of current foreign students who see their academic ambitions left in tatters.

This situation simply cannot be allowed to persist, but with increasing reliance of many students – and course lecturers – upon the internet and the wealth of material it provides, the danger is that the number of those caught neglecting proper procedures will continue to rise, and it is international students who are most at risk.

After all, although it is impossible and inappropriate to speculate about the nature of the cases referred to tribunal, Leeds University’s QAA report and the statement from the NUS both clearly identify plagiarism as the issue that is of most concern. At Leeds over the past two years, around 60% of plagiarism cases have involved students from overseas.

Indeed, it must be stressed that the issue is not specific to York, but appears to be a general trend across the country, in which the same obstacles of language and culture are confronting international students from the same diversity of backgrounds. Nor is there evidence that the problem is growing; the numbers of international students in tribunals is growing, but so is the overseas-student population in British universities.

In York’s case, the criticism of the University in the light of the exam fraud case last year was a little wide of the mark. Instead, the consensus is that provisions are in place to help both home and international students, but that not enough is done to make students aware of the help that is available to them.

The OSA is taking steps to advise its members about where they can seek assistance, but concedes that it is the responsibility of the students themselves to be sufficiently active in responding to accusations of misconduct, before it is too late. YUSU is also getting involved, with a plagiarism campaign scheduled for later this term that will aim to raise widespread awareness about the issue.

However, YUSU must be careful not to overwhelm students with pessimistic propaganda at what is an already daunting time for many new students, particularly given that school leavers should already be well aware of the penalties that academic misconduct carries. Already, some home students that I know are actually fed up with what they perceive to be a bombardment of warnings about the p-word.

Nevertheless, the OSA, YUSU and the NUS have all made the point that it is preventative action that is needed, because punitive measures are not a satisfactory way of addressing the problem. Therefore, it is at least promising that the University is aware of the problem, and is attempting to tackle it in a direct and meaningful way.

Demolition work will commence on the morning of Good Friday, 21st March, and is expected to be completed by the afternoon of Easter Monday, according to the Director of Facilities Management, Keith Lilley.

The work will result in the closure of University Road for the duration of the weekend, which would appear to explain the timing of the bridge’s removal, in an effort to minimise disruption.

The bridge, which provided a link to both Alcuin and the Library for students, has been closed since the beginning of this term due to structural concerns expressed in an inspection report.

Earlier in the term, the decision was taken not to replace the bridge as access to it did not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act, and to adapt it to such needs would be “prohibitively expensive” according to Lilley, especially following the refurbishment of the Derwent-Chemistry bridge last year. The possibility of providing steps on the Alcuin side of the road has previously been mooted, but appears to have been shelved.

A similar fate is set to befall the other closed campus bridge, between Goodricke and Vanbrugh, with plans already underway for demolition and replacement – as well as possible relocation, closer to Central Hall – although it is not yet clear if or when this will take place.

In the last issue, Nouse reported Brian Cantor’s public denial that the construction of the new Heslington East campus is having a detrimental impact on the original site. But it seems that financial restrictions are influencing the decisions of those in charge of university facilities, with the effect of undermining one of the core features of the original campus design.

Baroness Professor Haleh Afshar, in an interview with Nouse, sympathised with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on Sharia law in the UK last week, saying she thought “he feels that he is saying nothing controversial.”

Professor Afshar, a cross-bench peer to the House of Lords and a highly respected authority on Islamic issues, added that “all he is asking for is the equality of conscience, and if that is what he believes then why can’t he say it?”.

When asked if the Archbishop of Canterbury was right to argue that incorporating aspects of Sharia law into the British legal system would improve social integration, she comments that this was not what he intended at all.

“As far as I understand, all he said was that many people are choosing to go to the Sharia councils and these should be considered a matter of conscience and treated the same as similar courts for Jews and Christian. I cannot see anything controversial in this.”

The suggestion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, two weeks ago that aspects of Islamic Sharia law will inevitably be incorporated into the British constitution prompted an almost unprecedented backlash against the leader of the Church of England. However, after a weekend-long media frenzy, a realisation gradually emerged that what the Archbishop was suggesting was not a wholly different to the institutions and practices already in place.

Afshar passionately believes in equality for all before the law, and thinks the Archbishop is merely seeking to advocate similar values. Christians and Jews already have the opportunity to seek guidance from institutions within their respective faith. She said: “The reality is that Muslims also have that choice. But in all of these cases – whether you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim – you also have the right to take [the dispute] to court, and that right remains non-negotiable.”

However, the suggestion that the Archbishop was merely highlighting a state of affairs that already exists seems suspicious, given the extraordinary criticism the Archbishop has received from all quarters, including his predecessor, Dr George Carey, who claimed that Dr Williams had “overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes”.

Dr Williams claims that greater legal recognition of the practices of individual faiths such as Islam might increase the willingness of Muslims to integrate into British society, since they would feel less alienated or marginalised. Professor Afshar seemed unconvinced by this, and expressed concerns about the effects of forcibly imposing Sharia practices on Muslims, many of whom may prefer to settle disputes through formal legal methods. “We must have the right, as citizens of this country, to have recourse to the laws of the land,” she said.

But the most significant difficulty with the Archbishop’s proposal is the inevitable conflict between what is permitted by religion and what is allowed under secular law. Examples of potential clashes between state and religion include stamp duty and the practice of polygamy, which is permitted within the Islamic faith, but is not recognised under Western law.

In Afshar’s view, the issue of marriage, as well as the rights afforded to Muslim women in general, represents one of many common misconceptions about Islam which are largely driven by the media. She bemoaned the sense of anxiety surrounding issues relating to Islam: “As soon as you mention the word ‘Muslim’, it suddenly becomes explosive.” She believes that the Archbishop had only “chosen a different avenue” for discussion.

However, for those unlucky souls who have to endure the expense and unreliability of the cumbersome purple monstrosities that represent the bus company’s inane view of the future (or ‘ftr’, if you’re twelve), it was a kick in the teeth from an organisation that has failed to keep its promises.

Buses constantly arrive late, the mobile bus information system is vastly under-used and often wrong, and the malfunctioning ticket machines have been replaced by moody and impolite conductors, who take a huff at the idea of having to give change.

But enough of the truth; here is the economics: the introduction of the Ftr was an ambitious and expensive project for the bus company and the council. From the alteration of York’s twisty streets to the actual purchase of the fleet. And with the ticket machines replaced by revenue protection agents, the company has twice the original wage bill.

What is more, First has a near-monopoly of bus services in York. So as long as similar numbers of people continue to use their buses, First will have no incentive to change their greedy, profit-seeking ways. This is why last week’s boycott organised on Facebook – though not a bad idea in theory – was too limited in scope and duration to have any impact.

Last Friday’s meeting between First and YUSU was a step in the right direction. It alerted the bus company to the concerns of so many of its most lucrative customers. But it would be naive to expect any knee-jerk response.

In the meantime, it is important to point out the alternatives. To get from uni to town, try the Veolia 28 that circles campus. Or there’s the 746 East Yorkshire service, every 90 minutes from the library stop.

If you’re in a group, a taxi ride can be a snip, or if you have the time, and it’s not pouring down with rain, you can always walk, or cycle along the city’s many bike-friendly routes.

And if you’re unlucky enough to live in Acomb and need to use the bus to get to campus every day try the student term card. Just four return journeys per week later, you will have got your money’s worth, even at last year’s prices.

The fact is, First will not change their monopolistic ways because of a short-term boycott. Only a sustained, systematic refusal by Ftr’s most lucrative customers to use the below-par service will make them take any notice, by hitting them where it hurts the most – their ‘pkts’.

Heslington East, the massive expansion of our university that gained approval from the Government in May following a protracted planning application process, has been debated in this publication and elsewhere far too much for it to be worthwhile for me to add my two penn’orth.

However, it struck me that this huge and extremely expensive construction project was just the tip of the iceberg. When I returned to York at the beginning of October, I found a campus that in places better resembled a building site than an esteemed educational establishment.

This has caused some significant inconvenience to many freshers (as Nouse reported in the previous issue) – hardly an impressive start to their university career. But what about those who haven’t already committed themselves to coming here?

It may have escaped the attention of many of you, but the Friday before Freshers’ Week saw the annual October Open Day, when thousands of starry-eyed secondary school kids wandered along the concrete banks of our beloved artificial lake, parents in tow, to get a taste of what life is like at one of Britain’s best universities.

What they saw surely could not have impressed them much. New accommodation blocks still in the state of a building site, an ugly chipboard wall lining the Vanbrugh bank of the lake, several ‘automatic’ doors that need a bit of encouragement, and countless areas in need of a good lick of paint.

Let’s hope none of them got as far as Derwent, where that big green sign (still) proudly predicts completion of work by the end of September. As for the accommodation blocks, is it really any surprise that tours were largely restricted to James and Alcuin?

Because of course, when one ascends that twisting walkway, crosses the University road (maybe catching a glimpse of one of those beautiful buses as you go) and sets eyes upon the striking library and its neighbouring buildings, one’s impression of the University becomes quite different.

And that’s exactly my point about Heslington East. The new campus, when – if – it’s eventually finished, will undoubtedly be a learning and living environment to be proud of, and the University will rightly be proud to advertise it to prospective students, but one fears for the future of the original buildings – once-impressive concrete structures, some of which must surely be reaching the end of their shelf life.

The next few years, in particular, is likely to see a serious dearth of investment in the maintenance of what is after all the nucleus of the University, as money is pumped into giving some nearby green-belt fields a spectacular new look. Not to mention the on-campus construction of the new buildings at Vanbrugh, which will only stick out like a particularly ugly opposable digit in the midst of structures from a different age.

But so long as the website and prospectus can continue to carry pictures of shiny white buildings and smiling students (with the odd picturesque shot of Heslington Hall thrown in for good measure), those dreamy teenagers will continue to set their hearts on this place. It’s a shame they will experience the kind of nasty surprise that has greeted so many freshers upon their arrival at York and its campus of contrasts.