“Most of the poor are people with very small farms who barely grow enough to feed their families. In tough years, they are extremely malnourished,” said Gates.

“So health ties very closely to agriculture. The reason why kids die of diarrhoea and pneumonia is because their bodies aren’t very strong. If they had proper nutrition, the death rate would be dramatically lower.

Gates said that scientific investigation into better understanding plant genes may help lower crop blight, as well as aid the discovery of new methods of tackling human diseases. In particular, he highlighted the importance of working on a scientific innovation to protect cassava, a major staple food in the developing world, from brown streak disease.

Turning to the issue of health, Gates spoke at length about the successes of the campaign to eradicate polio, which was launched in 1987. Today there are only ten nations worldwide left with polio, though Gates accepted that they will be the “toughest countries,” to eradicate the disease in. However, India, which Gates considered to be the greatest challenge, has now gone a year without a single case.

Gates ended his address with a warning that despite the tough economic times, it is important that the developed nations do not neglect the developing: “There are many things going on in terms of the Eurozone crisis and budget cutbacks that would make it easy to turn inward and reduce financing.”

It is important that “we keep doing what we’re doing” to eradicate poverty, and that people are reminded that donations and aid have a significant impact on the lives overseas,” Gates added. He praised Great Britain’s commitment to poverty reduction as “actually quite exemplary.”

In his lecture, Rosling provided an overview of population growth over the past several centuries and offered his prognosis for future trends. In an audience-engagingtalkthat involved animated graphs and interactive models, Rosling said we need to accept that world population will level out at between nine and ten billion by 2050 and begin planning accordingly. He stressed that “today, improving health precedes economic growth” in importance.

Rosling said while poverty is actually “quite easy” to understand — he defined it as “lack of food, lack of clothes, lack of shelter, and lack of school”- social scientists must invest more time and effort into researching poverty as “it’s not intuitive what is the best thing to invest in, you really have to analyse” the data.

Audience members and people watching the live webcast of the event were given an opportunity to ask both Gates and Rosling questions following their speeches. One audience member asked the speakers what climate change will mean for agriculture and projects aimed at combating poverty.

Gates acknowledged that “climate change will reduce crop productivity” and as such is “a very serious problem,” but added “the good news is that it’s not a problem that happens overnight.” He urged scientists to spend more time and money researching the issue, which he described as “under-researched.”The event, held by the Global Poverty Project, marked the launch of the Global Poverty Ambassadors Initiative. Over one hundred individuals were named as Ambassadors in 2012. They will be trained by experts from the LSE and the University of Edinburgh in order to become “leading voices in the campaign against extreme poverty, informing and inspiring their own communities to take meaningful action on behalf of the poor.”

Gates said he felt the message of his annual letter is reflected in the mission of the Global Poverty Project: “The message of my fourth annual letter is identical to what the Global Poverty Project is all about – that is, that it’s very easy to lose sight of the conditions of the very poorest.”On Wednesday 25th, Gates reiterated many of the central tenets of his speech while speaking at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, where he again stressed the importance of continued investment in the developing world. He underscored his case by announcing that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had pledged $750 million to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Gates’ visit to the LSE was met by widespread student enthusiasm, with students – some with cameras and video recorders – gathering outside the Old Building in hopes of catching a glimpse of the famous entrepreneur and philanthropist as he made his way to his car.

Three years ago, Janet Hartley, the Pro-Director of Teaching and Learning, instituted the Teaching Task Force in an attempt to address this issue. Despite this effort, large class sizes remains one of the most pressing issues regarding the teaching quality at the LSE.

Figures reveal the problem affects many departments at the LSE. As it transpires, more evident cases are observed in bigger departments, such as the Department of Economics and the Department of Geography and Environment.

There is also a significant number of over subscribed classes in many second and third year modules.

Data indicated that all five “Management Accounting, Financial Management and Organisational Control” and “Economics in Public Policy” classes have at least seventeen students each, with the largest one having 21.

Furthermore, at least half of the classes for Further Mathematical Methods (Calculus), Research Techniques (Spatial, Social and Environmental), Social Science Research Methods of Management, Jurisprudence, and many other courses currently exceed the designated maximum limit.

As the LSE has publicly declared, improving student contact time has always been one of the administration’s top priorities. An article published in the July 2008 issue of the Times Higher Education Supplement detailed that “after consultation with staff and students, the task force recommended that £1.5 million a year should be spent on new lecturers, to reduce class sizes.”

At the Students’ Union’s first Education Assembly in 2009, Hartley reiterated these objectives, stating that “the big priority for the Teaching Task Force was to improve contact time and reduce class sizes to 15 or fewer.”

Many students feel that the large class sizes are affecting the learning process in the class.

Alex Haigh, a second year Environmental Policy with Economics student said: “Oversized classes mean the class teacher is far less able to interact with students personally during the class and it is much more likely that teachers miss students who are failing or are not working hard enough.”

Haigh, who had two oversized classes – in GY222 and EC201 – last term, believes that fifteen people per class is “already too many,” and the number should be “treated as a strict upper limit instead of an average.”

“It’s unacceptable that classes are still oversized even after a campaign by the Beaver last year, which highlighted the institution-wide problem,” he added.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that students who fail to turn up to a class can choose to attend another class in the same week.

Justin, a first year actuarial science student, expressed exasperation over the crowding of his afternoon economics class by students with classes in the early morning or late evening.

“We constantly have somebody from outside the class. Considering that there are already 17 students, their inclusion just makes the class impossibly big. There are barely enough chairs to sit on, and we have to make room just so everyone has enough table space.”

Technion has been at the centre of recent criticism for its involvement in the creation and design of military technology. Thursday’s meeting raised the issue of their connection with Israeli military research. Technion has conducted distinguished research in the field of robotic weapons systems, and in recent years has developed the latest innovations in unmanned aerial drones and unmanned combat vehicles.

Clifton, along with Layla Auer, member of the LSE’s Students’ Union Palestine Society and Michael Deas, a member of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, provided a “platform for discussion” on LSE’s research collaboration with Technion.

Clifton, argued that Technion is “implicitly implicated in Israel’s occupation of Palestine” and the LSE’s links with the Institute “normalises Technion’s actions.” The Environment and Ethics Officer outlined a range of projects Technion has been actively involved in and expressed concern over its relationship with the Israeli government.

Technion has developed a remote-controlled “D9” bulldozer used by the Israeli army in the demolition of Palestinian homes. This has been heavily condemned by the United Nations (UN).

Similarly, the Institute for Technology has been heavily involved in developing tunnel detecting equipment for the Israeli government. In her article published in the Beaver last week, Clifton suggests that Technion has been both “directly and indirectly” involved in the creation of military surveillance and security equipment in conjunction with Elbit Systems, an Israeli company known for providing the monitoring systems for the 760km separation wall. Auer further emphasised this point in the general meeting on Thursday, saying there has been a “close relationship” between Technion and Elbit since a research agreement was signed in 2008.

News of the LSE’s close ties with the Israeli Institute comes in light of recent events in New York. In December 2011, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City announced that Cornell University and Technion won the bid to create a two billion dollar research campus on Roosevelt Island. A similar reaction to boycott the scheme has also been encouraged by students at Cornell University.

However, Thursday’s meeting generated a strong reaction by those who disagree with the proposals at the LSE. One attendant described the event as  a “xenophobic meeting,” adding that a boycott of Technion would further isolate Jewish students on campus.

Many of those attending the discussion also highlighted the positive aspects of Technion’s research, such as its involvement in the creation of drugs for Parkinson’s disease and the three Nobel Prize winners which are affiliated with Institute.

Clifton’s meeting also came under criticism for targeting an institution solely because it is Israeli. While a broader ethics campaign exists – The Only Way is Ethics – some may see the proposals to boycott a university counterproductive as many Israeli academics are the most sympathetic members of society who advocate and encourage an end to the tensions in the region.

Thursday’s meeting was the start of an ongoing discussion into the LSE’s ties with the Israeli Institute of Technology and Robin Burrett, Postgraduate officer called for a “platform for dialogue, with a broad campaign involving the whole of the LSE student body.”

The second motion, entitled “No to racism – No to Islamaphobia,” was raised in response to increasing tensions on campus between various LSE student societies. Many Muslim students were offended by the LSE Students’ Union Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist (ASH) Society’s publication of a “Jesus and Mo” cartoon, in which the two are portrayed “having a pint.” The cartoon was originally posted on the ASH Society’s Facebook page in solidarity with a similar society at the University College of London (UCL) which was asked to take the cartoon down by the UCL Students’ Union.

The motion affirms that the Students’ Union believes in “the right to freedom of speech and thought” and “the right to criticise religion,” but also reiterates its “responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech.” Presented by Anneessa Mahmood, LSE Students’ Union Trustee, the motion defined Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred.” All comments or incidents that can be categorised under this definition should be “publicly opposed” and “dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School.” Moreover, the implementation of the motion would ensure the “promotion and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts.”

Marshall Palmer and Jack Curtis, members of the ASH Society, opposed the motion on the grounds that it was an “unnecessary curtailment of free speech.” They firmly stated that “the motion conflated ideas with people. People deserve respect, their ideas and their religion do not.” Palmer argued that he, and other members of the ASH Society, firmly denounced all forms of religious oppression, including “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

“We did not so much as oppose the motion as much as we wished to amend it. Unfortunately, by the time the motions became publicly available they were too late to amend,” Palmer said. “Voting down the motion, reforming it, and resubmitting it was the only possible way to amend it. Our proposed amendments would replace the word ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ and would strike out the prohibition towards ‘hatred or fear of Islam’ and ‘attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred.’”

The audience was divided in its stance and obdurate debate ensued as both those who proposed the motion and those who opposed it were questioned by LSE students. The motion passed with a total of 542 votes, 63 per cent for and 33 per cent against, with four per cent of voters undecided.

The final motion, entitled “UGM-Centre of our Union” was proposed by Lukas Slothuus, LSE Students’ Union Community and Welfare Officer. The motion sought to amend the Students’ Union’s Bye-Laws in response to dwindling UGM attendance this year. The motion stated that “the present system of online voting, rendering attendance at the UGM immaterial, is a strong contributing factor to low turnout at the UGM.” Under the new motion, voting will take place at the UGM, unless attendants vote to put the motion to an online vote.

A few audience members were concerned that the motion would not solve the problem of attendance at UGM, claiming it did not address the “root of the problem with attendance.” Others were concerned that privacy would be curtailed, further arguing that a “mob-mentality” effect might alter the outcome of controversial issues. Slothuus responded by pointing out that the motion had a “secret ballot” clause to preclude this, at the discretion of the Chair or by procedural vote. In addition, the motion includes a Bye-Law under which “a vote may be ‘taken online’” if “one third of members present at a quorate General Meeting” vote in favour.

The motion passed with a total of 317 votes, 64 per cent for and 23 per cent against, with sixteen per cent of voters undecided.

Under the new motion, the requisite “quorum for a General Meeting vote” has been lowered to 150 members. Additionally, members of the Union may now submit amendments to a motion while they are being deliberated at the UGM. The new Bye-Law 2.10 states: “voting at all General Meetings shall ordinarily take place at the General Meeting itself, by a show of hands or, by procedural motion or the discretion of the UGM Chair, by a count of Student ID cards and/or secret ballot.”

“I’m overjoyed, bringing voting back into the UGM is so essential to Union democracy,” said Slothuus on the motion’s passing. “Online voting killed the UGM but we have revived it. Students now have a real, physical space to discuss the direction of our Students’ Union. Being exposed to both sides of an argument and then making a voting decision is infinitely much better and more democratic than being sent to the voting website by a friend.”

The Department of Economics registered an average of just two students from Scotland per year, between 2008 and 2011, out of a total of over 650 students enrolled in the department. Northern Ireland was marginally better represented with an average of four students per year. In contrast there was only one student from Wales throughout the entire period. Wales was better represented in the Department of Philosophy, with a 140 students hailing from the country. There was little statistical difference between the different years considered, suggesting that the LSE has now reached a stable and diverse student mixture.

The Department of Statistics tops the list of overseas student proportions, with 50.5 per cent of its entire undergraduate population hailing from outside of the EU, while the Department of Social Policy fell below the national average, at 6.8 per cent. These disparities come despite all departments charging the same fees, and do not correlate with relative competition for places – measured by the ratio of applicants to places.

The Department of Economics has the most international student population with students representing 64 different nations. The Department of Law follows closely behind with 63 countries represented, despite the department’s need to cover UK law in great depth to satisfy the requirements of the LLB qualification, perhaps suggesting that many of LSE’s international students intend to stay in the UK, or view a Law degree at the LSE as a basis for further study.

The School’s least varied department- also one of its smallest in terms of undergraduate numbers- was the Department of Social Policy, which can still claim twenty different countries to its name.
This student body’s diversity is reflected in the activities and societies available within the Students’ Union, with over sixty different cultural and nationality based societies, including the Northern and Global societies, which all run a wide variety of events. This figure suggests that the Students’ Union comes close to having a society for each nationality represented in the undergraduate student body.

The School has developed a reputation for its particularly international feel for quite some time, as acknowledged by Students’ Union International Officer Hannah Geis: “the fact that such a high proportion of our student body comes from outside the UK, and that such a wide variety of countries are represented on our campus is indubitably one of the most exciting aspects of our university. This great diversity not only enhances academic discussions but also creates a vibrant and colourful cultural life on campus.”

As recently as the 1990s, “two thirds of economic growth was supplied by advanced economies,” and “only one third by emerging economies.”  In contrast, “it was the other way round in the run up to the crisis, and it’s been reinforced since the crisis.”  Initial optimism following the recession was short-lived.  In 2011, global growth tailed off,  “particularly in the case of advanced economies.” Trade began flattening out: “even China struggled in late 2011 to maintain growth.”

Smith commented on how “emerging economies tend to be more commodity hungry, more energy hungry.”  Whilst there was an initial fall in commodity prices at the beginning of the financial crisis, they quickly rose again. In contrast, in advanced economies, the recession led to spare capacity and high unemployment, “bringing down the inflationary pressure.”  Smith believes this to be a “big factor in explaining… the weakness of growth in a lot of advanced economies, including the UK.” In addition, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami harmed the recovery, affecting the interlinked nature of global manufacturing.

Smith commented on how the recession had exposed the serious weaknesses within the Eurozone. Some members of the Eurozone were motivated to join in order to “buy into the credibility of strong northern countries, in particular Germany.” This allowed for lower bond yields. Italy arguably saw the greatest gains from joining, temporarily reducing its debt interest and gaining a primary surplus. However, Italian bond yields increase as the recession hit.

A gap between Germany’s bonds and those of the other countries within the Eurozone was expected, but never as large as they have become.  Smith stated that the “widening out of bond yields showed the system really wasn’t working, because of course it reflected fears that certain member countries can default, maybe they will leave and so on.”

Smith drew attention to Mandel’s conditions for an optimal currency area, which places importance on a fiscal union where “everybody has to obey structural discipline.” However, this was never a part of the Eurozone, claimed Smith.  He also made the point that, if national objections could be overcome, “pooling of deficits” would make “quite a lot of sense.” Smith most fears an “unplanned disintegration” of the Eurozone, as it is uncertain what would replace it.

Smith then went on to describe the effect of the faltering advanced economies on the emerging economies. In the past, the developing countries were dependent on the advanced, and “when the advanced world had a mild recession, the developing world would have a serious recession.” However, growth rates tell a different story, Smith says.  “The growth gap between emerging economies and the advanced economies actually increased as the recession hit, so they weren’t necessarily dependent on advanced economy growth.” Smith sees this as evidence of a real decoupling, and he went on to say that “all advanced economies saw their GDP shrink,” but “emerging economies, overall, continued to grow, albeit at a slower rate.” A strong change in the world has been that the proportion of trade that emerging economies have with advanced economies has gradually reduced.

Smith then discussed why the advanced world had been held back, whilst the emerging surged forward. Prior to the crisis, the advanced economies’ debt was about seventy percent of GDP, but “by the time that a lot of this has come through, it will be well over one hundred percent.”  In contrast, in the emerging world, “most of them have relatively healthy fiscal positions,” and debt is “projected to fall as a percentage of GDP. He also commented on how the earlier stages of growth are easier than the latter stages. Smith believes that “essentially, the story of the twenty-first century I think is the rise of emerging markets.”

Putting the emerging economies into the context of the past two-thousand years, the rise of the West has been relatively recent.  Smith said how in year one, India produced a third of world economic output, and China a quarter.  About two hundred years ago, China and India accounted for “between fifty and sixty per cent of the global economy.”  The European and American industrial revolutions reshaped the economic landscape, and by 1970 China and India represented only five or six per cent of the global economy.

Smith feels the “central question” is the “availability of resources.”  He also foresees the possibility of “political backlash” from the advanced world.  There could be protectionism, and because of the financial linkages, Smith identified the greatest risk to the emerging world to be a second financial crisis in the advanced world.  Overall, Smith believes the shift of economic powers towards emerging economies “was there before the crisis, but has been accelerated by the financial crisis.”

With the majority of the Arab world as aid recipients – Egypt receiving $3.6 billion in the past thirty years and Jordan collecting $2.5 billion – Almezaini draws attention to the “linked interests” aid donors share with the developing countries.  The research fellow outlined the injustice of aid not reaching the people who need it with the profound image of “pouring water into a packet which leaks and drains away.” Almezaini highlights “geographic proximity, culture and language similarities” as the main considerations for Arab aid donors.  In particular, “Arabism” acts as the “significant ideology,” as in Saudi Arabia’s funding of religious schools in Yemen.

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait gained diplomatic credibility in supporting the “least recognised countries of the United Nations.”  On the other hand, moral motivations to give aid, or as Almezaini terms the “constructivist approach,” are undermined by the tendency of countries to “define morality for themselves.”

In the case of the UAE, Almezaini emphasises the problematic “lack of transparency” in monitoring aid.  From his recent visit to the UAE Office for the Coordination of Foreign Aid (OCFA), Almezaini concludes that the data on aid was “unreliable” and “still missing many years.”  He suggests that the data gap was intentional, due to its controversial recipient, the Taliban.

Furthermore, Almezaini disappointingly admits that foreign aid in the Arab Spring was exploited to “enhance the security and stability of regimes,” namely Mubarak in Egypt and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen.

Libyan rebels were supported by Qatar and the UAE, who trained soldiers and equipped them with “weapons, cash, and literally everything they needed for war.”  Aid was mainly driven by two factors – “prestige and visibility.”  This has proved effective, as Qatar is now “feared by other regimes,” especially with rumours that the nation will “soon get in contact with the Syrian opposition.”

In reply to a question of why aid was still ineffective in Palestine, Almezaini pinpoints the “corruption of Palestinian governments, aid agencies, and objections of Israel.”  He predicts that aid to Palestine will “remain ineffective, as long as Israel’s policy of expansion continues.”

Tahira Nizari, a postgraduate MSc NGOs and Development student, described the lecture as “a very eye-opening talk in terms of the vested interest of the UAE in foreign aid, from the perspective of someone who has grown up in Dubai.”

“The most interesting aspect,” according to Neil Patrick, a freelance Middle East consultant, “is what aid does to recipient countries, corruption of politics in development, and how it has been used to calm situations, yet with limited success.”