One of the bright ideas the Union came up with in recent years in its quest to get more students to stand for election is to liken sabbatical office to a graduate scheme – a “sabb scheme”.
We think that the Union’s characterisation of the role as “the most challenging and rewarding grad scheme there is” fails to properly convey the serious demands of elected, public office. Indeed, if was any question as to why it is the Union is packed with mediocre careerists posing as student leaders at this election, one need look no further than its approach to student-facing comms.
The problem with comparing sabbatical office to a grad scheme is that you attract a particular group of people who are in it to shine up their CV. Whilst no doubt an added benefit of the role, we think candidates should have a genuine interest in public service beyond their career prospects. Indeed, the idea that this is even comparable to a grad scheme undermines the importance of sabbatical office, which are – let’s be clear – elected positions of public office, and should be treated as such.
We think the Union should take public perception more seriously, specifically how its sabbatical officers are perceived by the wider student body. Sabbatical officers are positions of real responsibility, and what attitude one takes about the role has direct and serious consequences for student life at UCL and beyond. No corporate grad scheme can hope to have anywhere near the same level of influence.
We once put it to the current sabb team that it was a mistake in communications to invalidate their own offices as a grad scheme. At the time, they suggested that the characterisation helped engaging international students, who may not even be aware of what the Students’ Union is.
There is no question that international students should be involved in Union politics. Internationals account for over half of UCL’s undergraduates and over 60% of its postgraduate population. In turn, the University ensures their participation is possible by providing a visa sponsorship for successful candidates. Indeed, many on the current and last sabbatical leadership were international students themselves.
Yet, isn’t it a worrying thought that some candidates are elected into office without knowing what the Union is, let alone what it does, or how it works? Looking at the offering from this year’s election, there’s absolutely no shortage of candidates who, quite clearly, did not realise the Union and the University were separate legal entities.
We think that if the only way to convince students to take on leadership positions at the Union is to compare it as a grad scheme, then those students aren’t fit to run.
This is not to say we expect every candidate to have a perfect understanding of the Union. Even the most seasoned democracy reporter will have made mistakes in covering the confusing bureaucratic mess that is the Union’s democratic structures – we know we certainly have. But the future leaders of the Union shouldn’t need their roles dumbed down through a grad scheme comparison to feel involved.
If, after having spent a few years at UCL, students are still drawn to the a leadership position because of its characterisation as a grad scheme, then it suggests the level of public awareness about the Union and its functions are not up to standard for any student, regardless of citizenship.
Fundamentally, the Union must only ask themselves this simple question: what sort of sabbs are we trying to attract? We fear that selling the role as a graduate opportunity paves the way for the growing army of LinkedIn warriors who are in the job to boost their CV for a corporate law firm internship, rather than real student leaders with an actual vision for positive and lasting change in their communities.
Being a sabbatical officer of a multi-million pound charitable organisation is no doubt an incredible addition to your CV, but that should not be the main reason why students are running for the role.
This, at its core, is a debate about the point of a Students’ Union. Is it still the body it once was, that stands up for the interests and rights of students, or has it become another collateral of neoliberal hyperindividualism to serve as a springboard for corporate jobs?
