Label is the publication of Loughborough Students’ Union. The opinions contained are those of individual contributors, not of Loughborough Students’ Union, the editorial team, or any other officer of the Union unless otherwise stated.
With just one Bubble Debate acting as the pinnacle of the Postgraduate Election, Label was glued to the LSUTV live stream as events unfolded. How did each candidate do, and who won? Read on to find out!
Otavio’s High Point
Understanding the importance of the relationship between postgrads (and undergrads) and their course providers is really important and came across in in Otavio’s response to the first question about PGRs what they need.
Otavio’s Low Point
There is perhaps a lack of understanding or knowledge on Otavio’s part regarding the advertisement of Union events and services to postgrads – this is done. Again, it’s a question of HOW it can be improved? These candidates never explain HOW?!
Otavio’s Debate Score: 7/10
Ore’s High Point
There is no shadow of a doubt that Ore’s experiences as course rep in both her undergraduate university, Liverpool John Moore’s, and her Erasmus university in France, will enable her to communicate with people from all backgrounds. She admitted that it is hard to get a variety of international students to be open with you initially, and recognition of these weaknesses can go far in Exec Elections… Especially when you move on to say you’ve grown into a listener, a vital skill when taking on an Executive role, especially when it’s so closely linked to education.
Ore’s Low Point
A disappointingly lacklustre attempt at expanding on her manifesto, the opportunity wasn’t taken to grow on or even suggest any solid ideas for how she would develop this role or the postgraduate experience (despite her regular use of the word). Plus she didn’t really know what the Graduate School is. In fact, she didn’t know what a lot was, or did…
Ore’s Debate Score: 5/10
Who won? Otavio? Ore? The Panel?
It was a lacklustre debate. No sass, no real debate. Although we’ve ranked Otavio slightly higher, it was a very average debate overall and I don’t feel there were any real “winners” here.
When the candidates mentioned the Nursery, I think I saw my life flash before my eyes (don’t take us back to EE2016, pleaseeeeee). This was probably the most exciting moment of the Debate though, and that’s just an in-joke from where I’m sitting. These candidates display a certain level of passion for education, and specifically postgraduate education, but they relied upon boring, traditional arguments far too often (“we need more RAG/Action etc. in London/for postgrads”). A favourite go-to mission statement for most Exec candidates, but there is always a lack of understanding of what postgrads want and, more to the point, don’t want.
There was also far too much ‘don’t knowing’, and as a postgraduate student myself I am about fed up of ‘don’t knowing’. These candidates don’t know what the Grad School is or when PGR’s join Loughborough – how can they work with these groups of people if this is the case?
By all means use your right to vote in this Election, but really consider which candidate, if you are thinking about or doing postgraduate study, is right for you.