Front and Back Covers,Volume 27, Number 1. February 2011

Front and back cover caption, volume 27 issue 1 Front cover 25th South East Asian Games The 2009 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games in Vientiane, the first to be hosted by Laos in the event's 50‐year history, was widely experienced by Laotians as an unprecedented moment of national success, reinforcing national symbols and materializing national memory and ideology. In this picture two fans play giant khene, a bamboo free‐reed musical instrument distinctive to Laos and the ethnically Lao areas of northeast Thailand. Traditionally played to accompany courtship and folk songs, the khene is today considered the national instrument, and at the Games it complemented an array of other national symbols on display. Scenes such as these typify the ways in which the SEA Games engendered collective sentiments that were popular, participatory and joyous, particularly among Lao youth. The Games had also bolstered power and authority of the regime. The shared joy of the Games that momentarily united Lao people from across the country soon faded into the everyday realities of one‐party authoritarian politics in Laos, where the state's resource‐extraction policies often set ‘national interests’ against those of existing resource users. These two sides of the SEA Games reflect the contested nature of collective sentiments and, in particular, emphasize how these are aroused through public symbols and assembly. In a rather different display of collective feeling on the back cover, students in London protest government policies that threaten to turn tertiary education into an elite activity affordable mainly by the rich. Back cover UNIVERSITY FUNDING CUTS: AUSTERITY FOR ANTHROPOLOGY The UK faces austerity in public spending to a degree not seen in a generation. The back‐cover image shows students in London demonstrating in October 2007 against the top‐up fees introduced in September 2006, which allowed universities to charge variable fees. Demonstrations intensified in the closing months of 2010, when it was announced that fees would increase by up to three times because of the government's withdrawal of the teaching block grant from the arts, humanities and social sciences in England. In protest, students occupied dozens of universities. What are the implications for higher education and, in particular, for anthropology? In this issue, Hugh Gusterson casts a withering eye over the American precedent, arguing that high fees degrade the educational experience, cause grade inflation, and force indebted students to seek the highest paying rather than the most worthwhile careers. Similar policies applied in England may result in a brain drain of both staff and students. Richard Fardon argues that the proposed changes combine the worst of American and British models: indebted students and over‐regulated, under‐funded universities. It is not even clear that this policy will save money. Like other small disciplines, anthropology will struggle to retain a critical mass of departments, and it will be vulnerable to rises in fees as postgraduate study costs come into line with those for undergraduate study. What might tertiary‐level anthropology look like a decade from now? The number of departments is likely to have been reduced, and with it, academic job opportunities. Student populations will tend to represent the extremes of wealth and poverty, for whom fee remission is being touted as a gesture to fairness. Up to 30 years of debt will act as a deterrent to students between these extremes. As budgets are squeezed, and working conditions deteriorate, the best staff may choose to work elsewhere. Rather than putting UK higher education on a firmer footing, current policy may be a nail in the coffin of one of the few remaining areas of UK excellence internationally.