Thread by @felicitycallard

2. #JEP has a lot to say about Test 1. Its sentence 'The view of the Panel is that Test 1 is not well understood outside of USS' is ... well ... certainly marvellously diplomatic.

Cf.

https://twitter.com/Sam_Marsh101/status/1035452332165804033

and

https://twitter.com/etymologic/status/1035442625829122048

6/

3. #JEP's discussion of #USS's & #UUK's 'differing perspectives' on the shift from Sept to Nov valuation shows just how murky the deliberations that resulted in this shift still are.

This remains a big issue, given #JEP proposal to reassess employers' atttude to risk (p. 45) 7/

4. #JEP agrees w many of us that UUK's 'framing' of questions around risk in their consultations has serious consequences.

How can we be confident that any future assessment of employers' risk appetite by UUK shows an improvement in their use of social scientific methods? 🧐 8/

5. We don't know exactly how much data/info from #USS was given to #JEP – even as there are clear references (** 'strength of feeling' klaxon **) to concerns from @ForPension & others about #JEP access to #USS modelling and data (p.49) (#USSbriefs26 medium.com/ussbriefs/open…) 9/

6. We should really push on #JEP's raising of the possibility of developing mechanism for involving Scheme members – *US* – in valuation process or in assessing *our* appetite for risk (cf. point 10 of our #USSbriefs44 manifesto): medium.com/ussbriefs/a-ma… 10/

7. The #JEP reads as a document written in the midst of significant debate & deliberation over the valuation (e.g. see p. 54)

If @USSbriefs & @OpenUPP2018 (ussbriefs.com/openupp2018/) have played a part – alongside other actors – in keeping the pressure up, then I'm happy. 11/

8. #JEP tells us it received 55 'unique submissions' – 12 from institutions.

Several of us at @USSbriefs have sweated all summer to track down, edit & publish 18 of them (see all the b&w @OpenUPP2018 briefs at medium.com/ussbriefs)

12/

We've published 18.
We know of 3 more.
34 remain – 12 from institutions; 22 from Scheme members/other interested parties.

📢 We'd love to track these down: get in touch if you can help.

Not least since we don't know if #JEP plans to make evidence public at some point 13/

9. PwC appendix 6 (slides from August 2018 report) draws on, I'm guessing, the PwC covenant review mentioned in UUK's July briefing paper to employers academicfreedom.watch/sites/default/…

Some of them (particularly key covenant metrics) are illegible. Can #USS or @USSEmployers help out? 14/

10. Last (for now) – and very much not least:

I had assumed there was an implicit Oxford comma in the JEP ToR ucu.org.uk/media/9341/USS…

i.e. that 'intergenerational fairness' was distinct from 'equality considerations'. 15/

But #JEP report 1 appears to assume that 'fairness and equality' refers specifically to *intergenerational* issues (p.20)

I haven't seen other 'equality' considerations – including around ethnicity, race, disability, gender etc. – addressed in #JEP report 1. 16/

(Though I'm wondering if there's an implicit assumption of cis heterosexuality built into female mortality assumptions: 'the partners of females are assumed to be 3 years older than their partner on death' (Annex 10)) 17/

So I'm ending w a plea that #JEP report 2 assumes an Oxford comma & addresses: 'the unique nature of the HE sector, intergenerational fairness, AND equality considerations'

#JEP report 2 is crucial. If it doesn't adequately address equality considerations, we're in trouble 18/18