NJSS Report Final

8/3/2019 NJSS Report Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/njss-report-final 1/70

Home and away:

Jewish journeys towards independence

Key fndings rom the 2011 National Jewish Student Survey

David Graham and Jonathan Boyd

Institute or Jewish Policy Research October 2011

jpr / report



The Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) is a London-based independent research

organization, consultancy and think-tank. It aims to advance the prospects o Jewish

communities in Britain and across Europe by conducting research and developing policy in

partnership with those best placed to inuence Jewish lie.

Authors

Dr David Graham is Director o Social and Demographic Research at JPR. He completed

his DPhil at the University o Oxord and is an expert in the demography o Jews in Britain.

He was previously Senior Research Ofcer at the Board o Deputies o British Jews. His

publications include: Jews in Britain: a snapshot from the 2001 Census (JPR, 2007, with

Marlena Schmool and Stanley Waterman), Synagogue Membership in the United Kingdom

in 2010 (JPR/Board o Deputies, 2010, with Daniel Vulkan), and Committed, Concerned and

Conciliatory: The attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel (JPR, 2010, with Jonathan Boyd).

Jonathan Boyd is Executive Director o JPR. A specialist in the study o contemporary Jewry,

he is a ormer Jerusalem Fellow at the Mandel Institute in Israel, and has held proessional

positions in research and policy at the JDC International Centre or Community Development,

the Jewish Agency or Israel, the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Holocaust Educational

Trust. The editor o The Sovereign and the Situated Self: Jewish Identity and Community in

the 21st Century (Profle Books, 2003), his most recent reports are Committed, Concerned

and Conciliatory: The attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel (JPR, 2010, co-authored

with David Graham) and Child Poverty and Deprivation in the British Jewish community

(JPR, 2011).

Research Fellow

Dr Sarah Abramson is Research Fellow at JPR. She holds an undergraduate degree in

religious studies rom Wesleyan University in the United States, a Masters in Gender and

Social Policy and a PhD in Sociology, both rom the London School o Economics. Alongside

her work at JPR, she also serves as Senior Policy Researcher or the Board o Deputies o

British Jews. She is the author o “You know a Jewish woman experiencing domestic abuse”:

Domestic abuse in the Jewish community (Jewish Women’s Aid, 2011)

The National Jewish Student Survey was conducted by JPR and commissioned by Pears

Foundation and UJS. JPR is particularly indebted to Pears Foundation, as well as the UJIA,

Rothschild Foundation (Hanadiv) Europe and the Maurice Wohl Charitable Foundation or their

generous fnancial support or this project.



JPR Report October 2011 Key fndings rom the 2011 National Jewish Student Survey 1

Contents

Foreword 3

Executive summary 7

1 Jewish journeys 11

Jewish upbringing and current identity 11

Schooling history 13

Other orms o Jewish education 14

Youth movement involvement 16

Youth programme participation 17

A virtuous cycle o Jewish educational experiences 19

2 Making decisions about university 21

What are Jewish students studying? 21

Jewish Studies and Israel 22

Where are Jewish students studying? 23

Infuences on university choice 24

Student accommodation 27

Choosing who to live with 28

Student fnance 29

3 Jewish student lie 31

Jewish identity and Jewish practice 31

Activism and social justice 32

Volunteering and charitable giving 33

Social lie 34

Modes o communication 36

Relationships 36

JSoc involvement and other student providers 40

Other Jewish student organizations 43

Openness o Jewish students on campus 44

Experiences o and eelings towards Israel 46

Israel on campus 48

Experiences o antisemitism on campus 50






Foreword

This is the rst national study o Jewish studentidentity in Britain. It oers a perspective that hasnever previously existed – it includes the views o 925 Jewish students rom multiple dierent Jewishbackgrounds, based at 95 dierent academicinstitutions, and studying a plethora o dierentcourses. It investigates them at a time whennational, communal and educational nances aremore stretched than they have been or several

decades, and when concerns about Jewish identity,Israel’s security and an increase in antisemiticincidents dominate communal discourse.Furthermore, its ocus is on the upbringingand lives o a cohort o Jewish students that hasseen more communal investment in its Jewishdevelopment than any group that preceded it.

Our report, Home and away: Jewish journeystowards independence, looks at this group whilstthey are undertaking a pivotal, transitional

journey in their lives. On the one hand, they

are moving, in the literal sense, back and orth,between the security o the parental home inwhich they grew up, and the simultaneouslydaunting and exciting new world away atuniversity. But they are also journeying in ametaphorical sense. They are taking the Jewishideas and practices they have accumulated duringtheir upbringings and reassembling them away,at university, whilst also bringing back home the new experiences they have had through theirencounters and studies at university. It is a timein which they are answering, or the rst time,

questions about how they wish to live, both asadults and Jews.

For Britain’s Jewish community, a key questionarises: how should it support and nurture thesestudents, the uture o communal lie in Britain, atthis critical juncture in their lives? JPR, togetherwith the sponsors o this report, believe that thedata in this report should be used to help inormthe answers to this question.

In examining the data, it is important to

remember who today’s undergraduate Jewishstudents are. Born in the late 1980s and early1990s, most started primary school in the mid-1990s and secondary school in the early 2000s.They were born around the time o the collapseo communism, into a world that had only one

superpower, the United States. They have nopersonal recollections o apartheid South Arica,the war in Yugoslavia or the Rwandan genocide.Relatively recent major events in the Middle East –the Gul War, the Oslo Accords, the assassinationo Yitzhak Rabin – happened beore they wereborn or when they were very young.

Thus the social and political consciousness o

the current generation o students is likely tohave been shaped by ar more recent events: 9/11,the 7/7 bombings in London, the Boxing Daytsunami, the global nancial crisis and the electiono Barack Obama. The issues that have dominatedtheir political landscape have been ‘the war onterror,’ climate change, economic instabilityand political corruption in Britain. In terms o Israel, their ormative memories are likely to havebeen the unilateral disengagement rom Gaza,Operation Cast Lead and the fotilla aair; thedominant wider discourse rom their teenage years

onwards has been about boycotts, divestment andsanctions, Israel’s legitimacy and moral conduct,and a continual lack o progress towards peace.

Furthermore, or these Jewish students, thereis nothing new about the ‘new antisemitism.’The notion that antagonism towards Jews maybe expressed in some way through antagonismtowards the State o Israel has been a constanttheme o recent Jewish discourse. Whetheror not they have witnessed or experienced it,

Jewish students will almost certainly recognize

the concept, and be alive to the possibility thatantisemitism may surace in the guise o criticismo Israel.

Today’s students are also living in a very dierentsociety rom the one in which their parentsgrew up. Britain is more multicultural, bothreligiously and ethnically, and its student bodyis more international and diverse. Furthermore,the actual number o students in higher educationincreased every year throughout the rst decadeo this century; indeed, by the end o the decade

there were over hal a million more students thanthere were at the beginning.1 The economy o tertiary education has also changed – the student

1 See: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1897/239/



4 JPR Report October 2011 Home and away: Jewish journeys towards independence

grants that were a norm until the early 1990s werereplaced by student loans, and university tuitionees or undergraduates have increased romvery low levels to substantial sums equal to (andsometimes exceeding) the economic cost o thetuition itsel.

In addition, students have become an importanttarget population or a wide range o economicinterests – in an increasingly commercializedworld many businesses now recognize that

attracting customers during their student yearsmay be critical to their long-term interests.Student provision on campus itsel has hadto compete on a more commercial basis too;the pressure on academics and universitydepartments to demonstrate their nancialsustainability, and the need or basic studentservices, such as housing and ood, to beprotable, have all altered the nature o thestudent experience.

For students themselves, the notion that a

university degree will serve as a ticket toprotable employment is no longer assumed.At the same time, changes to tertiaryeducation that took place during the 1990s– the introduction o semesters, continuousassessment and winter examinations – have allaected the amount o time students have todedicate to extra-curricular activities. This hasadded a layer o pressure to the decisions takenabout how students should best utilize theirleisure time. In the Jewish community, whichhas long relied on the voluntary contribution

o this age group to provide a wide range o youth activities during the university holidays,these changes may yet necessitate a majorrethink about the resourcing o our inormaleducational inrastructure. In act, i, as somepredict, increased university ees lead to areduction in participation levels in gap yearschemes in Israel, such a rethink may already bea pressing item on the agenda.

Lie or Jews in Britain generally has changedin recent decades too. Indeed, in terms o

developments in the British Jewish community,the current crop o students is a particularlyinteresting cohort to analyze and understand.The ‘Continuity’ agenda – prompted globally bythe alarmingly high intermarriage rate recordedin the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey

in America, and in Britain by the publicationo Chie Rabbi Lord Sacks’s book Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren? – shaped the Jewish educational world in which they grewup. Between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s,enrolment in Jewish day schools increased byalmost 30% in the mainstream community.Participation in short-term Israel Experienceprogrammes has been a communal normthroughout their lives. The renaissance that wehave witnessed on the Jewish cultural scene –

Jewish Book Week, the Jewish Film Festival,Limmud, the JCC or London – has been parto the community’s inrastructure or as longas many o them can remember. In short, the

Jewish community they have experienced isquite dierent rom the one that infuencedtheir parents and grandparents, and these dataoer us a rst insight into the types o Jews thatenvironment has helped to shape.

Finally, these students were ‘born digital’ – theyare part o the ‘iGeneration’ that experienced

digital technology and the Internet as a normrather than a novelty. They have grown upwith personal computers, Internet access,mobile phones and iPods; Google searches,social networking, twitter eeds and onlinemusic, lm and television are all central to howthey encounter and experience the world. Thesociological literature is divided over whetherthese infuences should be regarded as largelypositive or negative, but it is agreed on one point:new technologies will have – indeed are alreadyhaving – a proound eect on the behaviours and

identities o this generation.

In short, whilst many readers o this reportwill have personal memories o their universityyears, it is important to look at these data withan appreciation o the context in which today’s

Jewish students have grown up. The world haschanged in multiple ways, and the studentsportrayed in this report are the products o thosechanges. Whether the attitudes and behavioursthey exhibit give us cause or optimism orconcern should orm part o the discussion that is

generated by the ndings.

About this surveyThe background to this survey begins in America.In 2007, Hillel in the United States publisheda groundbreaking report Hillel’s Journey:




Distinctively Jewish, Universally Human.2 It was based, in part, on the largest ever surveyo randomly selected Jewish undergraduate andgraduate students in the US, and the data thatwere procured were subsequently used to inorman extensive strategic planning process or theorganization, which was written up in the Hillel’s Journey document. Inspired by this, the Union o Jewish Students (UJS), the UK’s main umbrellabody serving the interests o Jewish students inBritain, was eager to replicate the process in the

UK, and approached JPR to discuss researchpossibilities. 3 Its goal was to understand theidentity o Jewish students in order to inorm itsuture strategy and programme.

At the same time, Pears Foundation – a amilyoundation concerned with positive identityand citizenship – was eager to understand moreabout the nature o Jewish student identity, andapproached JPR to undertake some researchwork in this area. As a result o their sharedinterests, the two organizations came together

to commission this study. Funding cameprimarily rom Pears Foundation, with additionalsupport rom UJIA, Rothschild Foundation(Hanadiv) Europe, and the Maurice WohlCharitable Foundation.

In preparation or the work, a projectSteering Group was established comprisedo representatives o UJS, Pears Foundation,UJIA and the JPR research team. A ull-daypreliminary consultation was held, involvingmembers o the Steering Group, representatives

o UJS and several Jewish students themselves,in order to outline the contours o the projectand help develop the research methodology. Inthe course o the consultation, it became clearthat the primary purpose o the research wasto examine the nature o contemporary Jewishstudent identity: who Jewish students are, theirconcerns and aspirations, the actors that may

2 Beth Cousens (2007). Hillel’s Journey: Distinctively Jewish, Universally Human. Washington DC: Hillel:The Foundation or Jewish Campus Lie. Hillel is

the largest Jewish campus organization in the world,and serves students at more than 550 colleges andcommunities throughout North America and globally,including thirty communities in the ormer SovietUnion, nine in Israel, and ve in South America (see:www.hillel.org).

3 See: www.ujs.org.uk.

have contributed to their Jewish development,and how they understand the meaning o being

Jewish. An examination o students’ relationshipwith Israel and experiences o antisemitism wasincluded in the brie, but there was a strongsense that these areas should not overwhelm theresearch; they should simply be included withinit and situated in a way that refected the results.Importantly, it was acknowledged rom the veryoutset that this would not be an evaluation o thework o UJS nor any other Jewish provider on

campus; it would rather be ocused on the studentsthemselves and how they understand, experienceand explore their Jewishness.

The preliminary consultation was also inormativein terms o how to market the survey. Dr SarahAbramson, Research Fellow at JPR, managedmuch o this process, recruiting individualstudents based throughout the country in orderto access social networks as a means o developingthe sample. Their contribution was vital to thesuccess o the project. In addition, Elliot Cowan,

a reelance marketing consultant and ounder o Br&Nu, designed the emails to invite people toparticipate in the survey, the posters to advertise it,and set up the Facebook group to help publicize it.

During the course o the research itsel, JPRwas assisted by the sta at Ipsos MORI, one o the UK’s leading research agencies, who workedclosely with us to construct the questionnaire.They also managed the online data collectionexercise, run between 15 February and 15 March2011, with considerable proessionalism and

attention to detail, and conducted a parallelbenchmark survey o the general studentpopulation in Britain in order to provideadditional baseline data (reerred to as theNational Student Benchmark Survey, or NSBS).We are especially grateul to Pamela Bremner andTom Frere-Smith or all o their hard work; itis, however, important to note that Ipsos MORIplayed no role in analyzing the NJSS dataset norin writing this report; JPR was solely responsibleor those elements o the project.

Following the completion o the online survey,a qualitative phase was initiated in the orm o aseries o ve ocus groups, which took place in

June and July 2011. Dr Sarah Abramson managedthis process: recruiting the participants, runningthe ocus groups themselves and ensuring that




the proceedings were transcribed in preparationor analysis.

In the months leading up to the eldwork,students eatured quite prominently in the nationalmedia. There were protests in central Londonagainst government proposals to signicantlyraise student tuition ees, and the demonstrationsturned violent and resulted in numerous arrestsand considerable damage to property. Theeconomic downturn continued to be a major

news item, and as the new British governmentbegan to take tough measures to reduce spendingin a number o areas, graduate unemploymentreached a ten-year high. In contrast, duringthe eldwork phase, the situation in Israel wasrelatively quiet, although there were continuingrepercussions rom the Gaza fotilla aair in May2010. However, the “Arab Spring,” which beganin Tunisia in December 2010, was at its peak – therevolution in Egypt began just a ew days beoreeldwork began.

We are particularly grateul to the members o theSteering Group – Daniel Marcus, Amy Philip andDr Helena Miller – all o whom gave a great dealo time to this project and were pivotal in shapingit. Any credit JPR receives or this work should,in part, be theirs; any criticism is JPR’s alone. Weare also extremely grateul to out partners in thisresearch, and, in particular, Pears Foundation.Trevor Pears, together with Amy Philip, workedwith us to develop the research brie, and theirsupport throughout the project has been o huge importance. Thanks too are due to UJIA,

Rothschild Foundation (Hanadiv) Europe and the

Maurice Wohl Charitable Foundation, not onlyor their nancial contributions, but also or allthe support and advice we received rom the UJIAmarketing department and the sta at the UJIA’sInormal Education Department, as well as romSally Berkovic and Kate Goldberg.

Our nal thanks are extended to JPR’s layleadership and proessional sta. In particular,Harold Paisner, JPR’s Chairman, who has beena constant source o encouragement and support

throughout the project, and Judith Russell,together with Catriona Sinclair and LenaStanley-Clamp, who assisted with the project atvarious stages o its development, and helped usto complete the report.

In undertaking this study, JPR’s primaryinterest throughout has been to ull the roleit holds within the Jewish community: toprovide reliable and objective data to inormconstructive policy debate. Certainly, thequestions about how the Jewish community

gives students and young people the tools withwhich they will be able to generate Jewishlie, and how it empowers them to becomeentrepreneurs o Jewish culture, are ones thatshould lie at the very heart o our contemporarydeliberations. The data in this report alonecannot answer these questions, but they shouldhelp to inorm the discussion and provide somevaluable reerence points and indicators as weplan or the uture.

Jonathan Boyd

Executive Director




Executive summary“Yes, at the end o the day, I’m Jewish because I like being Jewish, and I’m going

to get on with being happy Jewish, not talk about being a suppressed, struggling,

beaten Jew, because I’m not. I’m just doing my Jewish thing.” (Joel)

The National Jewish Students Survey (NJSS) was carried out in February andMarch 2011. The sample contained 925 valid responses covering 95 dierentinstitutions and 43 students also took part in ocus groups. A parallel study amongthe general student population elicited 761 valid responses.

Jewish upbringing and Jewish journeysJewish identity and practice • Justoverhalfthesample(52%)considerthemselvestobe‘Religious’or

‘Somewhat religious’; two out o ve (41%) describe themselves as ‘Secular’ or‘Somewhat secular’; 7% are unsure.

• Outsideuniversity,74%attendFridaynightmealsmostoreveryweek,50%eat only kosher meat at home, and 27% are shomrei Shabbat, i.e. they ‘do notswitch on lights on the Sabbath’.

Schooling • 57%haveattendedaJewishdayschoolforatleastonestageoftheireducation.

One third (32%) have only attended Jewish day schools, a quarter (25%)experienced a mixture o both Jewish and non-Jewish schooling, and 43% havenever attended a Jewish day school.

• Respondentsfrom‘Orthodox’homesaremorethantwiceaslikelytohaveattended a Jewish day school at all stages as those rom ‘Traditional’ homes(64% compared with 30% respectively).

Youth movements and Israel Experience programmes • Mostrespondents(88%)havebeeninvolvedwithaJewishyouthmovementat

least ‘Occasionally’. Whilst 59% o those rom ‘Orthodox’ homes have beenyouth movement leaders, only 38% o those rom ‘Just Jewish’ homes have been

leaders.• Mostrespondents(82%)haveparticipatedinanIsraelExperiencesummer

programme (‘tour’). Two out o ve (40%) went on a gap programme year inIsrael, o these, one in ve (22%) studied at a yeshiva/seminary.

University challenge

Topics studied • Themostpopularcoursesaremedicine(9%),politics(6%),and‘business

and nance’ (5%). Jewish students are three times less likely to be studying‘education’ (3% v 10%) than students in general.

• 19%ofJewishrespondentsreportthatJewishStudiesand/orIsraelforma‘small part’ o their course. Just 4% report that either o these topics constitutes‘at least hal’ o their course.




Institutions attended • Halfthesampleattendsjusteight(outof113)institutions:Leeds(10%),

Birmingham (9%), Nottingham (7%), Manchester (7%), Cambridge (6%), UCL(5%), Oxord (5%), and King’s College (3%). By contrast, less than ten percento the national student population attend these institutions.

• Whenchoosingauniversity,45%ofrespondentschoseitprimarilyforthe ‘course’, 23% chose it or ‘reputation’. Just 10% considered its ‘Jewishpopulation size’, though 19% put this as a secondary consideration.

• 29%ofrespondentsattenduniversitiesthathavebeenconsistentlyrankedinthe top 10 (out o 113) since 2008.

• StudentsatuniversitieswithlargerJewishpopulationshavelargerJewishsocialcircles than those at universities with smaller Jewish populations.

Accommodation and fnance

• Mostrespondents(82%)liveawayfromhomeduringterm-time.18%liveathome with their amilies, the majority (58%) o whom are ‘Orthodox’.

• Excludingthosewholiveathome,theproportionthatlivesonlywithother Jews almost doubles between the 1st year (22%) and the 3rd year (42%).

• Amajority(56%)ofrespondentshavetakenouta‘Governmentloan’tohelp pay or their studies. Just over hal (51%) receive nancial help rom

their parents, in contrast to less than a third (30%) o students in thegeneral population.

Jewish belies and behaviours

Ethnic and religious attitudes • Virtuallyall(94%)respondentsagree/stronglyagreethatbeingJewishis

about ‘Feeling part o the Jewish People’ and ‘Sharing Jewish estivals with myamily’ (91%).

• Whereas72%‘regularly’attendaFridaynightmealathome,60%dosooncampus; similarly, 47% observe kashrut at home while 41% do so on campus.

• Whilstfouroutofve(79%)agree/stronglyagreethatbeingJewishisabout‘Having a religious identity’, ar ewer agree it is about ‘Observing the Sabbath’(65%), ‘Believing in God’ (56%), or ‘Prayer’ (54%).

Ethical Jewish behaviour • Although85%ofrespondentsagree/stronglyagreethatbeingJewishisabout

‘Strongmoralandethicalbehaviour’,only65%agreeitisabout‘Volunteeringto support a charity’ or ‘Supporting social justice causes’ (64%).

• 62%ofrespondentscurrentlydosomevoluntaryworkbutonly16%dosomore requently than once a month. ‘Religious’ respondents are more likelyto do voluntary work or both Jewish and non-Jewish causes than ‘Secular’respondents.

• 84%of‘Religious’respondentsagree/stronglyagreethatbeingJewishisaboutdonating unds to charity (Jewish causes or otherwise), compared with 50% o ‘Secular’ respondents.




Jewish social lie

Friends and socializing • 34%ofrespondentsagree/stronglyagreethatbeingJewishisabout‘Socializing

in predominantly Jewish circles’, yet 59% report that more than hal theirclosest riends are Jewish. Religious respondents have more close Jewish riendsthan secular respondents.

• Afarhigherproportionattend‘Jewishsocialeventsmostweeks’(suchas‘Booze or Jews’) during term-time (59%) than during vacation time (31%).

• Respondents’primarymethodsofcommunicatingwiththeirclosestfriendsareby mobile phone (voice calls) (27%) and text messaging (26%). Their secondary

preerred method is via social networking sites (32%) such as Facebook.

Relationships and attitudes to intermarriage • Themajority(65%)ofthesampleis‘currentlysingle’,althoughmost(85%)

have experienced at least one relationship in the past.

• Twooutofve(40%)haveonlyeverhadJewishpartners,29%havehadJewishand non-Jewish partners, and one in ten (10%) has only ever had non-Jewishpartners.

• 72%agreethatitisimportantfor‘aJewtomarryanotherJew’,although50%o those who have been in a relationship have had a non-Jewish partner.

UJS and other student organizations • Three-quartersofrespondents(75%)aremembersofUJS.

• Halfthesample(49%)‘regularly’attendsJSoc‘meetingsandevents’andaurther third (32%) attends ‘occasionally’.

• 70%of‘Orthodox’and67%of‘Traditional’respondentsareregularlyinvolvedwith a JSoc, compared with 33% o ‘Reorm/Progressive’ respondents.

• Overhalf(53%)thesamplereportsbeingconnectedtotheir‘homesynagogue’.A third (34%) is connected to University Jewish Chaplaincy.

Jewish openness on campus

• Amajority(59%)ofrespondentssaysthattheyare‘Alwaysopen’abouttheir Jewish identity on campus; 35% say that they are ‘Sometimes open’ about it.

Student worries compared • Jewishstudentsaremore worried (very/airly) than students in general about

passing exams (76% compared with 68%) and living up to their parents’expectations (41% compared with 32%).

• Jewishstudentsareless worried (very/airly) than students in general aboutnding a job (76% compared with 68%) and paying o nancial debts (39%compared with 60%).

• Jewishstudentsaremore likely to have relationship issues than students ingeneral (47% compared with 23%), eel lonely (34% compared with 23%), andhave personal health concerns (28% compared with 18%).




Israel

Attitudes towards Israel • Themajority(92%)ofrespondentshavevisitedIsrael;ofthe8%thathavenever

visited (a proportion in line with other surveys), most hope to do so one day.

• Half(51%)have‘verypositive’feelingstowardsIsraelandafurther38%have ‘Fairly positive’ eelings; only 11% have either negative or ambivalenteelings. Most students in the general population have ‘no eelings either way’(63%) about Israel. O the remainder, hal have positive and hal have negativeeelings. 4% o the general student population has ‘very negative’ eelingsabout Israel.

Israel on campus • 44%ofrespondentssaythatthetopicofIsraelarises‘regularly’or

‘occasionally’ in their Students Union. By contrast, just 11% o the generalstudent population said this is the case. On the other hand, a quarter (24%) o

Jewish students do not know how oten the topic arises.

• 38%feelthatIsraelistreatedunfairlyintheirStudentsUnionbut37%donotknow. Most (58%) think Israel is dealt with airly in lectures and classes.

• Relativelyfewrespondentssaytheyare‘veryworried’(8%)or‘fairlyworried’(30%) about ‘Anti-Israel sentiment’ at their university. By contrast, 32%are‘very worried’ and 44% are ‘airly worried’ about passing exams.

• Focusgrouprespondentsmaintainedthatanover-emphasisonanti-Israelsentiment at university in the Jewish media distorts the reality o theirexperience. At the same time, they noted that it is dicult to hold evenapolitical events, such as ‘Israel Awareness Weeks’, without drawing “grie”.

Experiences o antisemitism

• Justovertwooutofve(42%)respondentshaveexperiencedanantisemiticincident since the beginning o the academic year, which is similar to resultsobtained by JPR in 2010 or Jews in general aged under 30.

• Despitethishighincidence,just4%saytheyare‘veryworried’about

antisemitism at university.• Respondentswhoare‘verypositive’aboutIsraelaremorelikelytohave

experienced antisemitism than those who are ‘airly positive’ (48% comparedwith 37% respectively).

• RespondentsinScotlandaremostlikelytohaveexperiencedantisemitism;those in London are least likely (52% compared with 33% respectively).Students in the North-west are the most concerned about it.

Views on Britain’s Jewish community

• FocusgroupsrespondentsexpressednegativeviewsaboutBritain’sJewish

community. They do not eel that their voices are being heard, they arerustrated about inter-denominational tensions, they eel that alternative viewsare marginalized and they express pessimism about the community’s uture.






out o ve (41%) describe themselves as ‘Secular’or ‘Somewhat secular’, and 7% are unsure wherethey stand in terms o their outlook (Figure3). Thus, the overall makeup o the sample ismore religious than secular, which comparesavourably with ndings rom other surveys.5 However, the term ‘religious’ is used loosely

5 For example, JPR’s 2010 Israel Survey ound thatamong respondents under 30 years old 52% werereligious, 44% secular and 4% were not sure (see:Graham D. and Boyd J. (2010) Committed, concernedand conciliatory: The attitudes o Jews in Britaintowards Israel . London: JPR/Institute or JewishPolicy Research.)

here; or most respondents it does not meanstrictly observant, since only a quarter o respondents (27%) place themselves in thatcategory i it is dened as shomrei Shabbat (i.e.they ‘do not switch on lights on the Sabbath’(see Figure 5)).

Yet another way o understanding Jewishidentity is to ocus on how conscious a person iso being Jewish. Figure 4 shows the majority o the sample is either ‘Extremely conscious’ (41%)or ‘Quite strongly’ conscious (51%) o being

0

10

20

30

40Current (N=908)Upbringing (N=908)

Other / NoneMixed

(Jewish & other

religious influences)

Just JewishReform /

Progressive

TraditionalOrthodox /

Haredi

22

26

36

29

19 18

Figure 2: Jewish practice; upbringing compared with current position (%)§

16

21

7

1 1

5

§ Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Don’tknow

7%

Secular17%

Somewhat

secular24%

Somewhatreligious

30%

Religious

22%

Figure 3: ‘When it comes to your current outlook, howwould you personally describe yourself?’ (N=925)

None of these

2%I am aware of beingJewish but I do not

think about itvery often

6%

I feel quitestrongly Jewish

but I am equally

conscious of

other aspectsof my life

51%

I feel extremely

conscious ofbeing Jewish

and it is very

important to

me at all times41%

Figure 4: ‘How conscious you are of being Jewish?’ (N=925)




Jewish. Again, these results are consistent withthose o other community surveys.6

Finally, the sample’s Jewish identity was assessedon the purely practical level o ritual observance.As Figure 5 shows, rituals that are the leastdemanding and most amily-oriented are mostcommonly observed. Thus, almost all respondents(92%) attend a Passover Seder meal ‘Most years’ or‘Every year’ but only hal (50%) observe kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) and just over a quarter (27%)are shomrei Shabbat. Again these ndings areconsistent with previous studies.7

Together, these various indicators o Jewishidentity paint a picture o a sample that is both

Jewishly conscious and Jewishly engaged. Justover one hal is, at least nominally, Orthodoxand hal o these are Sabbath observant; a urtherquarter is religiously unaligned and this broad

6 JPR’s 2002 survey o Jews in London and the South-east ound that 31% o under 30s were ‘extremely’and 51% ‘quite strongly’ conscious o being Jewish(N=122, based on the authors’ calculations). Note theage proles are not strictly comparable (see: BecherH., Waterman S., Kosmin B. and Thomson K. (2002),

A Portrait o Jews in London and the South-east: Acommunity study. London: JPR/Institute or JewishPolicy Research.)

7 For example, JPR’s 2010 Israel survey ound that 92%o under 30s attend an annual Passover seder and 24%observe the Sabbath (N=474 per item; based on theauthors’ calculations). Graham and Boyd (2010).

picture is airly typical o the one ound inBritain’s wider Jewish community (see Appendix).

Although young, this cohort’s Jewish identityprole is very amiliar.

Schooling historyThis young Jewish sample grew up during aperiod in which Jewish day schooling experiencedconsiderable growth in Britain.8 Between 1995(approximately the time when NJSS respondentswere starting school) and 2005, Jewish day schoolattendance grew by 29% in ‘mainstream’ (non-haredi) Jewish schools.9

8 This has been well documented by JPR, the Boardo Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council. See:ValinsO,KosminBandGoldbergJ(2002),The utureo Jewish schooling in the United Kingdom , London: JPR / Institute or Jewish Policy Research; Hart R,Schmool M, and Cohen F (2007) “Jewish Day Schoolsin Britain 1992/3 to 2003/4” in Contemporary Jewry,27 (1) 137-156; and The Future o Jewish Schools: TheCommission on Jewish Schools, Jewish LeadershipCouncil, 2008.

9 Calculations based on data rom the Board o Deputies. The NJSS sample thereore provides an earlyopportunity to explore how this growth might haveimpacted on Jewish identity. However, the relationship

between current Jewish identity and Jewish day school(JDS) attendance is complex. Many statistical studiescontrolling or home background and other infuentialactors have cast doubt on the assumption that JDSattendance alone can inculcate strong Jewish identity.This relationship will be examined in detail in aorthcoming JPR publication using NJSS data.

0

20

40

60

80

100

None ofthese

Do not switchon lights on

the Sabbath

Attend asynagogue

service most

weeks or

more often

Only eatkosher meat

Attend aFriday night

(Sabbath)

dinner most

weeks orevery week

Fast on YomKippur most

years or

every year

AttendPassover

Seder most

or all years

9287

74

50

38

27

4

Figure 5: Jewish practice at home outside of term-time (%) (N=925 for each column)




For those respondents educated in Britain (whichis the vast majority), over hal (57%) attendeda Jewish day school or at least part o theirormal education, whereas two out o ve (43%)never attended one (Figure 6). A third (32%) o

respondents attended a Jewish day school ortheir entire schooling career, and o the 25% thatexperienced a mixture o both Jewish and non-

Jewish schooling, the most common path taken was Jewish schooling at primary stage ollowed by non- Jewish schooling at the secondary stages (15%).

Regardless o whether the schooling was Jewish ornon-Jewish, 42% o British-educated respondentsexperienced state education at all stages, 25%experienced private education at all stagesand 33% experienced a mixture o private andstate education.

The type o schooling respondents received isrelated to the type o Jewish upbringing theyexperienced. A majority o those brought up‘Orthodox’ attended Jewish schools at all stages

(64%), whereas this was the case or 30% o thosewho experienced a ‘Traditional’ Jewish upbringing(Figure 7). Indeed, two out o ve (41%) o thosewith a ‘Traditional’ upbringing experienced no

Jewish schooling at all; this was the case or 65%o those brought up in ‘Reorm/ Progressive’households. (Note the majority o Jewish schoolsin Britain are ormally ‘Orthodox’, so some non-Orthodox children would not have been acceptedto most Jewish day schools i they had wishedto attend.10)

Other orms o Jewish educationSince Jewish education extends well beyond the

realms o ormal schooling, the sample was askedabout other orms o Jewish education they mighthave experienced growing up. The vast majority o (British-born) respondents (97%) had experiencedat least one orm o (non-day school) Jewisheducation. As Figure 8 shows, a bar/bat mitzvah (84%) was the most common type experienced,ollowed by ‘Part-time classes in synagogue/cheder

10 Two recent important developments are likely toimpact on this situation in the uture. First, JCoSS,

the UK’s only inter-denominational secondary school,opened in 2010, and second, the legal challenge aga instthe entry criteria operated by JFS (Britain’s largest Jewish school) which resulted in the UK SupremeCourt ruling that tests o ethnicity or admissionpurposes constitute a contravention o the RaceRelations Act 1976.

Other combination

3%

Jewish schooling

at secondarylevel only*

7%

Jewish

schooling at

primary

level only15%

Jewish

schooling at

all stages

32%

No Jewish

schooling

43%

Figure 6: Type of school attended (Jewish v non-Jewish)

by school stage (primary and secondary)§, (British-educated respondents only), N=888

* Includes ‘secondary only’ and ‘secondary and sixth form’§ The three stages presented to respondents were: ‘Primary school

(ages 4 to 11)’, ‘Secondary school (from age 11/12 to 16)’, ‘SixthForm (from age 16)’

“Basically, my sister went to Jewish school

but I went to [a non-Jewish school] which is a

mixed school with loads o dierent religions

going, and my parents were always [saying]

you aren’t going to have a very good Jewish

circle o riends, but my sister will …, so you

need to somehow get a good Jewish circle.

So I went to [a Jewish youth movement] when

I was 15, which was basically where I got my

riends, and now I actually think that my circle

o Jewish riends is actually stronger and she

went to her Jewish school. […It] has helped to

root, strengthen my Jewish circle o riends.”

(Tammy)

“[…] I went to a Jewish primary school and a

non-Jewish secondary school so I came to my

secondary school and everyone asked, why do

you do this, why do you do that, and I thought,

why do I do this, and I had to start to defne

mysel and then when you go to university

you start to defne yoursel again. […]’ (Shana)




etc.’11 (70%). The third most common orm wasGCSE-level education in Jewish Studies (JS) and/or Hebrew, etc (63%).

11 Jewish boys become bar mitzvah (literally, ‘son o thecommandment’) at age 13, and according to Jewishlaw, are then able to participate ully in all areas o Jewish communal li e and become responsible or theiractions. The moment is typically marked by beingcalled up to read rom the Torah in synagogue,

As with Jewish day school experience, the extentto which respondents experienced these orms o

Jewish education was closely related to the type

and a amily celebration oten takes place. Many girlsalso go through a similar ceremony and celebrationwhen they become bat mitzvah (‘daughter o thecommandment’), usually at age 12. Cheder (lit. ‘room’)reers to additional Jewish and Hebrew studies classeswhich take place outside ormal schooling.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% No Jewish

schooling

Other combination

Jewish schooling

at secondary only

Jewish schooling

at primary only

Jewish schoolingat all stages

Mixed(Jewish + other


55

Just Jewish

135

Reform / Progressive

164

Traditional

321

Orthodox / Haredi

196

12

41

65

48

76

64

21

3

9

17

30 29

10

8

7

10

13

5

5

44

7

9

Figure 7: Type of Jewish upbringing by school history§


0

20

40

60

80

100

None ofthese

OtherJewishTeenage

Centre

A Level (orequivalent)

in JS, Hebrew,

etc.

Attended aLimmud

event

Yeshivah / seminary

Jewishlessons from

parent,

relative

GCSE (orequivalent)

in JS,

Hebrew, etc.

Part-timeclasses in

synagogue /

cheder etc.

Bar / Bat

Mitzvah

84

70

63

45

23

12 10

3

20

14

Figure 8: Have you ever experienced any of the following forms of Jewish education? (%) (N=830* per item)

* This question was only asked of those who had grown up in the UK




o Jewish upbringing they had received. Figure9 shows that 71% o respondents who had anOrthodox Jewish upbringing had experiencedat least our o the items listed, whereas this wasthe case or 49% o those with a ‘Traditional’upbringing and 26% or those who described theirupbringing as ‘Just Jewish’.

Youth movement involvement In addition to the more ormal varieties o

Jewish education, many would argue that

involvement in a Jewish youth movement is alsoa undamental part o Jewish education. Two-thirds (67%) o respondents (who grew up inBritain) have ‘regularly’ been involved with a

Jewish youth movement (Figure 10). Indeed, 45%o respondents have had some orm o leadershipexperience through Jewish youth movements.12 Several ocus group participants also noted howimpactul Jewish youth movements had been inhelping them develop Jewish social circles andtheir Jewish identities.

12 It is possible that the oversampling o the Jewishlyengaged student population (see Appendix) may meanthat these gures overstate the actual proportion in the Jewish student population.

“I would say despite having gone to a Jewish

day school, I wasn’t really brought up to beactive Jewish, it was more Jewish by deault.

So, or me, my connection came when I got

involved with a Jewish youth movement.

And that was when I really became a lot more

actively Jewish, I think.” (Elliot)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None or 1 only

2 items

3 items

4 items

5 or more

Just Jewish

119

Reform /

Progressive155

Traditional

305

Orthodox / Haredi

193

94

1018

34

19

14

32

26

2419

29

26

15

29

26

18

8

1

37

Figure 9: Type of Jewish upbringing by number of (non-school) Jewish educational items experienced§

§ Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding

No

12%

Yes, as an

occasional

participant

21%

Yes, as a

regular

participant

22%

Yes, as both

a participant

and/or a leader

45%

Figure 10: ‘Are you currently or have you ever been

involved with a Jewish youth movement?’ N=830*

* This question was only asked of those who had grown up in

the UK




The patterns noted above linking a respondent’stype o Jewish upbringing to their Jewisheducational experiences are also seen in terms o

Jewish youth movement involvement. As Figure11 shows, 79% o those who had experiencedan ‘Orthodox’ upbringing have previously beeninvolved with a Jewish youth movement either‘regularly’ and/or ‘as a leader’, which compareswith 65% o ‘Reorm/Progressive’ respondents and59% o those brought up ‘Just Jewish’. A similarpattern is evident in terms o (current) secular-

religious outlook and Jewish consciousness.

Youth programme involvement “I had a very good positive Jewish experience bothat home and 14 years o school and also when I went to Israel, but I actually ound that or me,my most pivotal Jewish experience in makingme who I am was through my youth movementas in ... it’s interesting to note that I could spend 300 ... I don’t know, whatever, 150 days a year,200 days a year in school in a very good Jewish

school and it wouldn’t aect me as much as the twoweeks I then spent on summer camp or on Shabbat [Sabbath] aternoon in my youth movement. I ound that somehow the inormal education didsomething which was dierent to what ormal education or home environment did.” (Richard)

Jewish youth movements oer Jewish teenagersthe opportunity to take part in various immersionprogrammes and activities outside the regularconnes o weekly meetings. Respondents wereasked to what extent they had taken part in a

Jewish youth camp, an organized visit to Israel ora gap year programme in Israel.

Most respondents (82%) had been on an IsraelExperience programme, colloquially reerred toas ‘tour’; or many, such an experience is as mucha social rite o passage as a Zionist educational

experience.13 Two out o ve respondents (40%

13 Our calculations using alternative data suggest thatabout 67% o Jewish teenagers who go on to universitywent on an organized Israel tour, which suggests NJSSoversampled Jewishly engaged students (see Appendixon page 63 or details).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Never been

involved with a

Jewish youth

movement

Yes, as an

occasionalparticipant

Yes, as a

regular participant

Yes, as a regular

participant and/or

a leader

Just Jewish

119


155

Traditional

305

Orthodox / Haredi

193

6 8 1217

20

15

23

22

48

23

43

23

24

21

38

59

Figure 11: Type of Jewish upbringing by extent of participation in a Jewish youth movement*§

* Data refer only to respondents who grew up in the UK§ Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding

“[…] my peers at [Jewish day school] were not

at the same religious level as me, but then i t

really got to me when I took my gap year with

Bnei Akiva, when I started to make riends

who had the same religious standards as me,

and that’s when I started becoming more

observant and also being more proud o my

religion.” (Rob)




o the British-born subsample) had spent agap year in Israel on an organized programme(N=334). O these, 23% went under the auspiceso the Federation o Zionist Youth (FZY), 20%under Bnei Akiva and 22% attended a yeshiva/seminary.14

Figure 12 summarizes the various combinations o programming respondents have experienced. Just12% o the sample had not been on any o theseprogrammes (although this is probably lower than

the actual proportion among all Jewish students(see Appendix)).

Once again, the importance o Jewish upbringingis evident: Figure 13 shows that those whoexperienced a more religious upbringing aremore likely to have experienced more o theseprogrammes. For example, 60% o those broughtup in Orthodox households took part in all threetypes o programme (summer camp, Israel tour,and Israel gap year programme), by contrast,less than a third (32%) o those who experienced

a ‘Traditional’ upbringing had participated tothis extent.

14 As noted, the sample over-represents the more Jewishly engaged students and so these are probably

higher proportions than actua lly occur, especially withrespect to the Israel gap year data (see Appendix).

None

12%

Gap year only 1%

Camp & gap year 1%

Camp only 3%

Tour & gap year 4%

Tour only

16%

Camp & tour

29%

Camp, tour &

gap year34%

Figure 12: “Have you been on … ‘A Jewish youth summer

camp in the UK’, or ‘An Israel tour’ or ‘A gap year

programme in Israel’?”* N=830

* Data refer only to those who were born in the UK

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% None of these

programmes

Other combination

Just tour

Camp & tour

Camp & tour &gap year

Mixed

(Jewish & other


44

Just Jewish

119

Reform /

Progressive

155

Traditional

305

Orthodox /

Haredi

193

6 814 15

41

60

15

12

15

33

32

15

26

24

20

38

34

6 8

11

23

11

14

11

8

Figure 13: Type of Jewish upbringing by whether respondents participated in summer camp, Israel tour, and/or Israel gap year§





A ‘virtuous cycle’ o Jewisheducational experiences

Jewish upbringing has been highlighted as akey indicator o the likelihood o experiencingdierent orms o Jewish education throughout

childhood. However, it is not, o course, the onlyactor infuencing the educational paths takenby members o the sample. For example, thereis evidence that something o a ‘virtuous socio-educational cycle’ is operating, that can be summed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Never been involved

with a Jewish youth

movement

Yes, as an occasionalparticipant

Yes, as a regular

participant

Yes, as both a

participant & leader

None or only 1

76

2 items

134

3 items

222

4 items

212

5 or more

186

8 1118

42

56

31

17

21

54

34

45

26

26

22

18

32

9

17

11

Figure 14: Relationship between number of Jewish educational items* experienced and Jewish youth movement participation

* See Figure 8 for list of items. Data refer only to those who were born in the UK

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None or very few

Less than half

About half

More than half

All or nearly all

None of these

103

Camp & tour

229

Just tour

134

Camp & tour &

gap year

277

312

3

34

37

11

22

13

25

25

33

17

24

18

8

48

1621

28

Figure 15: Whether respondents participated in summer camp, Israel tour, and/or Israel gap year by the proportion of closefriends who are Jewish§





up as ‘the more you do, the more you do.’ Inother words, experiencing certain orms o Jewisheducation may well increase the likelihood thatother orms will also be experienced. As Figure14 indicates, the more Jewish learning experiencesrespondents have had, the greater the likelihoodthey participated in a Jewish youth movement.

Perhaps the most important aspect o this‘virtuous cycle’ is shown in Figure 15. This shows

that participation in Jewish youth programmesis related to a greater likelihood o having a highproportion o close Jewish riends. Whilst causeand eect have not been statistically proven inthese graphs and, o course, other actors, not leasto all Jewish upbringing, are playing an importantrole as well, there does appear to be a type o chainreaction occurring whereby experiences lead tourther experiences which, it appears, inevitablyresults in more intensive Jewish socialization.




2

Although by no means all Jewish people go touniversity ater nishing school (we estimate thatabout three quarters will have done so in 2011(see Table 3 on page 67)), it is nevertheless the case

that the proportion is much higher among Jewsthan is average or the UK population (though thedierence is negligible when groups with similarsocio-economic backgrounds are compared). The2001 Census showed that 56% o Jews aged 25 to34 had degree level qualications, compared with29% in the general population.15 We estimate that

Jewish students make up about 0.5% o the 1.6million students in ull-time higher education inthe UK.16

What are Jewish students studying?

National Jewish Student Survey (NJSS)respondents are more likely to be ollowing

15 Source: ONS Table S158 Age and Highest Levelo Qualication by Religion as well as Samples o Anonymised Records (SARs). Data rom the 2011census were not available at the time o writing.

16 HESA, 2009/10 http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=1897andItemid=239

traditional degree paths than students in thegeneral population. The majority o NJSSrespondents (82%) are completing undergraduatecourses, compared with 61% in the control group

in the National Student Benchmark Survey(NSBS)17 sample (Figure 16). Jewish students arealso more likely to be enrolled on postgraduatecourses than the general student population. Lessthan 3% o the NJSS sample is studying at college,the majority o these being at law school.

In terms o disciplines, the most common is‘Social Studies’18 which one in ve (20%) NJSSrespondents are studying, ollowed by ‘Medicine& dentistry’ (13%). However, as Figure 17shows, the disciplines that NJSS respondents are

studying dier rom those chosen by the generalstudent population. Higher Education Statistics

17 This parallel survey was undertaken by Ipsos MORIon behal o JPR in order to provide some baseline dataor the NJSS study (see Appendix on page 63).

18 ‘Social studies’ includes: economics, politics,sociology, social policy, social work, anthropology,human and social geography and similar elds.

Making decisions about university

“… I think when you do go to university as well it’s a big thing. It’s really scary and you do get drawn to people

who are similar to you and it [being Jewish] is a huge thing to be similar about. I had to stop pretending it

wasn’t important to eel comortable, and that being around Jews makes me eel comortable, and I wanted

some sort o Jewish, I don’t know, bubble I guess.” (Emily)

0

20

40

60

80

100

General students

sample (NSBS, N=761)

Jewish students sample

(NJSS, N=925)

OtherPostgraduate

Certificate of

Education (PGCE)

A-Levels / NVQ /

BTEC / HNC /

HND

Other degree

level qualification

Higher degree

(e.g. MA, PhD)

Degree (e.g. BA,

BSc, LLb)

82

61

127

27

1

19

0.6 2 2 3

Figure 16: Type of qualification being pursued: NJSS compared with the national benchmark survey (%)




Agency (HESA) data indicate that the mostcommon discipline being studied in the generalstudent population is ‘business & administration’(15%). Thus, Jewish students are considerablyoverrepresented in ‘social studies’, ‘medicine anddentistry’, ‘historical and philosophical studies’

and ‘mathematical sciences’ and underrepresented in ‘business and administrative studies’,‘subjects allied to medicine’,19 ‘engineering andtechnology’, education, biological sciences and‘other’ single honours disciplines. Note, almost10% o the general student population studyeducation compared with just 3% o the Jewishstudent sample.

The majority (79%) o NJSS respondentsare studying single honours/subject courses,whereas 21% are studying joint/combined

honours courses. The sample is studying a very

19 ‘Subjects allied to medicine’ include: anatomy,physiology and pathology, pharmacology, toxicologyand pharmacy, complementary medicine, nutrition,ophthalmics, aural and oral sciences, nursing, medicaltechnology and similar elds.

wide variety o topics with the most popularcourse being medicine (9% o the entiresample) (Figure 18).

It is thereore evident that compared with thegeneral student population, Jewish students

tend to ollow a narrower higher educationalpath. Compared with students in general,NJSS respondents are more likely to take the‘traditional’ degree paths rather than alternativequalications; they tend to be ocused on arelatively small number o disciplines and theportolio o topics they are studying is alsorelatively narrow.

Jewish Studies and Israel Although 63% o respondents have taken‘GCSE/Standard Grade (or equivalent) in

Jewish Studies, Hebrew, etc.’, and 40% havebeen to a Jewish day school at secondary level,less than a quarter (23%) report that JewishStudies and/or Israel orm even a ‘small part’o their courses at university. Eighteen percentreport that Israel orms at least a ‘small part’

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Students in general

(HESA 2009/10 N=2.3m)

Jewish students

(NJSS sample N=730)

O t h e r

§

B i o l o g

i c a l s c

i e n c e s

E d u c a

t i o n

M a t h e

m a t i c a

l s c i e n

c e s

E n g i n

e e r i n g

& t e c

h n o l o

g y

P h y s i

c a l s c i e n

c e s

S u b j e

c t s a l l i e d

t o m e d i c i n

e L a w

H i s t o r

i c a l &

p h i l o

s o p h i c

a l s t u d

i e s

C r e a t i v e

a r t s &

d e s i g

n

L a n g u

a g e s

B u s i n

e s s & a d

m i n i s

t r a t i v

e s t u d

i e s

M e d i c i n e

& d e

n t i s t r y

S o c i a l s t

u d i e s

Figure 17: Discipline: NJSS compared with national data* (%)

Source: National data are from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1973/239/

(Students by subject of study, first year indicator, mode of study and level of study 2009/10)* Data are only for students studying single honours courses§ ‘Other’ refers to Computer science; Mass communications & documentation; Architecture, Building & planning; Veterinary science;

Agriculture & related subjects




o their course and 12% said that JewishStudies orms at least a ‘small part’ (Figure 19).Veryfewrespondents(4%)reportthateithero these topics constitutes hal o moreo their course.

Where are Jewish studentsstudying?There are various ways in which the data canbe geographically disaggregated. One commonmethod taken by a number o Jewish student

bodies is the regional approach. On this basisthe largest Jewish student region is ‘Central’(39%) which includes two o the ‘big our’universities by Jewish population size (theUniversity o Birmingham and the Universityo Nottingham) (Figure 20).

The NJSS contains responses rom Jewishstudents attending 95 dierent UK institutions.However, most students are based in a relativelysmall number o places and this is redolent o patterns o Jewish residential location more

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C o m b i

n e d h

o n o u

r s

O t h e

r s i n

g l e

h o n o

u r s d

i s c i p

l i n e

E n g l i s h

l i t e r a

t u r e

E n g i

n e e r i n

g

M a t h e

m a t i c a

l

S c i e n

c e s

E c o n

o m i c s

N u r s i n

g / O T /

C a r i n

g e t c

P s y c h o

l o g y

L a n g

u a g e

s,

M o d

e r n

A r t s,

V i s u

a l

H i s t o

r y L a

w

B u s i n

e s s /

F i n a n

c e e t c

P o l i t

i c s

M e d

i c i n e

/

D e n t i s t

r y

9.2

5.7 5.1 4.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4

27

21

Figure 18: Courses being studied (%) N=925

0

4

8

12

16

More than a small

part of my course

A small part of my

course (e.g. an essay,a unit or a dissertation)

Jewish Studies925

Israel925

14.7

2.8

9.3

2.8

Figure 19: ‘Do the topics of Israel or Jewish Studies form

part your course in any way at all?’ (%)

Wales

1%

Southern

3%

Scotland

6%

North West

10%

North East16%

London25%

Central

39%

Figure 20: Sample distribution by UJS region (N=925)




generally, where dense clustering in a smallnumber o areas is common.20 Indeed, 50% o the sample attended just eight universities: TheUniversity o Leeds (N=86); The Universityo Birmingham (N=81); The Universityo Nottingham (N=62); The Universityo Manchester (N=58); The University o Cambridge (N=56); UCL (University CollegeLondon) (N=43); The University o Oxord(N=41); and King’s College London (N=28). Bycontrast, these eight institutions accounted or9.3% o the national student population.21

It is also noticeable that students cluster notonly in particular institutions, but also inparticular ‘Jewish university towns’. For example,Manchester hosts Jewish students attendingManchester Metropolitan University and theUniversity o Salord, as well as the Universityo Manchester. This phenomenon also occursin Leeds, Nottingham, Oxord and Cambridgeamongst others, including, o course, London(though this is complicated by the act that

20 See: Graham D., Schmool M. and Waterman S (2007), Jews in Britain: A snapshot rom the 2001 Census,London: JPR / Institute or Jewish Policy Research.

21 Source: HESA Table 1 - All students by HEinstitution, level o study, mode o study and domicile2009/10 http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1973/239/

London contains an especially large number o institutions and is also home to a large proportiono Britain’s Jewish population).

Infuences on university choice Given the extent o this ‘Jewish clustering’ (interms o both courses and institutions) it isinteresting to examine the extent to which thismight be the result o conscious decision-makingon the part o students. An idea o student thoughtprocesses can be gained rom the ollowingquotations:

“Although, obviously, academic reputation sawa lot o it, well, I think, I know I actually chosea university that wasn’t Jewish [...]. I’d been to

a Jewish day school. I’d been to a secular school that was, basically, 40% Jewish. I’d had a gap year in Israel, had a very Jewish upbringing, andI wanted to go somewhere where it wasn’t just North London transported urther north. I could get out the bubble a little bit […]. And I also elt I

0

2

4

6

8

10

1223%

Figure 21: Institutions at tended by NJSS respondents (%)

O t h e r

O x f o r d B r o o k e s U n i v e r s i t y

Q u e e n M a r y , U n i v e r s i t y

o f L o n d o n

U n i v e r s i t y

o f S o u t h a m p t o n

L e e d s M e t r o p o l i t a n U n i v e r s i t y

D u r h a m

U n i v e r s i t y

B i r m i n g h a m C i t y

U n i v e r s i t y

M a n c h e s t e r M e t r o p o l i t a n U n i v e r s i t y

I m p e r i a l C o l l e g e L o n d o n

U n i v e r s i t y

o f Y o r k

U n i v e r s i t y

o f W a r w i c k

C i t y U n i v e r s i t y

L o n d o n

U n i v e r s i t y

o f S t A n d r e w s L S

E

N o t t i n g h a m T r e n t U n i v e r s i t y

U n i v e r s i t y

o f B r i s t o l

K i n g ' s C o l l e g e L o n d o n

U n i v e r s i t y

o f O x f o r d

U C L

U n i v e r s i t y

o f C a m b r i d g e

U n i v e r s i t y

o f M a n c h e s t e r

U n i v e r s i t y

o f N o t t i n g h a m

U n i v e r s i t y

o f B i r m i n g h a m

U n i v e r s i t y

o f L e e d s

“I don’t think I would have gone somewhere

where I needed to live on campus where

there were no Jews. […] Because I need to be

connected to my Judaism, and not just on a

personal level, but in a group. The community

atmosphere.” (Michelle)




wanted to go somewhere where there was a bit o an onus or burden to make a dierence and to getinvolved, not just to go somewhere where i youdidn’t get involved, someone else would do it or you.” (Elliot)

“I was more ocused on how my university could get me into research ater university. I didn’tactually know anything about the Jewish Societyat [my university], but actually only ater going, I realised there wasn’t one, […] but I was

more ocused on my course than my Judaism.”(Tammy)

“I chose [my university], because I wantedsomewhere where there was a Jewish community,but where you could escape the bubble i youwanted to. I think [my university]… becausei you want to be in the bubble, you can easilybe within it, or i you want to be alone, whichI think I did. And also as well or the course.”(Richard)

The survey specically asked respondents whattheir primary and secondary considerationswere when choosing a university. As Figure22 shows, o the primary considerations, thepractical issue, ‘It runs the course I wantedto study’ (45%), is the most popular responseollowed by matters relating to quality/prestige,‘It has an excellent reputation’ (23%). Despitethe Jewish clustering noted above, the size o the Jewish student population is only a primaryconsideration or 10% o respondents and a

secondary consideration or a urther 19% o respondents—i.e. the size o the institution’s Jewish population is an important considerationor 29% o NJSS respondents.

The ocus on quality is refected in the act thatNJSS respondents are almost our times as likelyto attend Britain’s elite universities as students ingeneral.22 Almost 17% o NJSS respondents attendinstitutions that have been consistently rankedin the top ve since 2008/09,23 and almost 29%attend those consistently ranked in the top ten

over the same period.24

The decision-making processes that result inthe sample’s university choices inevitably ‘lter’

Jewish students into particular disciplines,institutions and locations, and this results in aconsiderable amount o ‘Jewish clustering’. Oneway o exploring this urther is to divide thesample into our equal groups (or ‘quartiles’).This is done by placing the 95 institutionsrecorded by the survey in order o Jewishpopulation size and splitting the resultant

list into our groups o equal size. Thus, eachquartile consists o approximately 25% o the sample but, as Table 1 indicates, the 1stquartile contains relatively ew (just three)institutions, whereas the 4th quartile contains 73institutions. This dramatic dierence is a urtherillustration o skewed distribution o the Jewishstudent population.

22 27% o NJSS respondents attend universitiesconsistently ranked in the top ten ‘Complete universityguide’ league tables compared with 7% in general.

23 http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?y=2010

24 School type (i.e. private v state) continues to infuencethe likelihood o students entering the very topinstitutions in Britain. The data relating to this issuewill be examined in a uture JPR report based on theNJSS dataset.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Something else

My friends were there / applied there

It’s close to my

parents / family

It has a large Jewish

population

It has excellent league

table results (for mycourse / institution)

It has an excellent

reputation / prestige

It runs the course I

wanted to study

2nd

most

important

factor

Most

important

factor

314

5

23

45

11

19

1

14

7

23

8

17

10

Figure 22: ‘What were the two most important factors inhelping you to decide to study a your institution?’




Quartiles can be used to examine patterns in thedata that relate to clustering. For example, Figure

23 shows the relationship between the size o auniversity’s Jewish population and the likelihoodo respondents having a high proportion o closeriends who are Jewish. It is apparent that thebigger ‘Jewish universities’ contain students withlarger Jewish social circles than those universities

with small Jewish populations. Whether this isa result o larger university Jewish populations

leading to greater opportunities to meet other Jews,or alternatively, respondents with large Jewishsocial circles tending to preer institutions withlarger Jewish populations, cannot be determined.However the answer is likely to be a combinationo both these actors working together.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None or very few

Less than half

About half

More than half

All or nearly all

Fourth quartile

(least Jewishly populous)

214

Third quartile

220

Second quartile

225

First quartile (most

Jewishly populous)

229

74

15 18

39

13

20

12

32

3228

23

20

14

23

13

25

22

3

38

Figure 23: Size of institution’s Jewish population by proportion of closest friends who are Jewish§


1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile

Most Jewishly

populous(3 institutions,

N=229)

Second most

Jewishlypopulous

(5 institutions,

N=226)

Third most

Jewishlypopulous

(14 institutions,

N=221)

Least Jewishly populous

(73 institutions, N=217)

Universityo Leeds,

University o

Birmingham,University o

Nottingham

University oManchester,

University o

Cambridge,UCL, University

o Oxord,

King’s CollegeLondon

U. o Bristol,Nottingham Trent

U., LSE, U. o St

Andrews, CityU. London, U. o

Warwick, U. o

York, ImperialCollege London,

Manchester

MetropolitanU., Birmingham

City U., Durham

U., LeedsMetropolitan

U., U. oSouthampton,

Queen Mary U. o

London

Oxord Brookes U., Middlesex U., U. o Shefeld, U. o Aberdeen, Brunel U., U.o Edinburgh, U. o Hertordshire, Newcastle U., St George’s U. o London, U.

o Glasgow, U. o London, U. o Reading, U. o Westminster, Lancaster U., U.

o Liverpool, Aston U., U. o Bath, Birkbeck, U. o London, Canterbury ChristChurch U., Cardi U., U. o Exeter, Goldsmiths U. o London, U. o Strathclyde,

U. o Sussex, Edinburgh Napier U., Kingston U., Liverpool John Moores U.,

Loughborough U., U. o Salord, U. o Stirling, U. o the West o England, U.o the West o Scotland, U. o Abertay Dundee, Aberystwyth U., U. College

Birmingham, Bournemouth U., De Montort U., U. o East London, Heythrop

College, Keele U., U. o the Arts London, Open U., Royal Holloway U. o London,Royal Welsh College o Music and Drama, Shefeld Hallam U., Thames Valley

U., Anglia Ruskin U., Arts U. College at Bournemouth, U. o Bradord, U. o

Brighton, U. o Central Lancashire, U. o Chichester, The Courtauld Institute oArt, Coventry U., Cranfeld U., U. o Essex, Glasgow Caledonian U., Guildhall

School o Music & Drama, U. o Huddersfeld, U. o Wales Lampeter, LiverpoolHope U., London Metropolitan U., London South Bank U., Northumbria U., U. o

Plymouth, Robert Gordon U., Roehampton U., Royal Agricultural College, Royal

College o Music, School o Oriental and Arican Studies, School o Pharmacy,U. o London, Swansea U., York St John U.

Table 1: Sample split into quartiles based on the size o the Jewish population at each institution




Thus, the size o a Jewish population at auniversity/university town is arguably botha cause and an eect o multiple processes. Inother words, the mere presence o a relativelylarge Jewish student population may, in itsel, beattractive but its existence is also a by-product o other decision-making processes (course quality,institutional reputation, etc.) that are takingplace which, no doubt, are themselves infuencedby Jewish educational and social experiencesduring upbringing.

Student accommodation

“I’d say that just going to uni [...] makes you moreindependent and I’m very glad I let home to go to uni [...] you get to make a lot more o your own decisions at uni and as well as your Judaismdecisions about that or your uture. Otherwise, i you’re just living at home with your parents I think you make less [decisions]... you don’t make thatmany choices o your own and you may just ollowon rom what your parents are doing.” (Mike)

Although about one in ve respondents (18%) livesat home during term-time, the majority (82%)lives away rom home. This means that most areaced with yet more decisions about the type o accommodation in which they wish to live, withwhom they wish to live and how they wish to run

their nascent households. Figure 24 shows that thetype o accommodation students live in relates totheir year o study. For example, most rst years(61%) live in university halls o residence and aurther 8% live in Hillel House25 which provideskosher acilities and increased opportunitiesor Jewish socialization. Ater the rst year, aresidual 13% to 16% remain in university halls butmost move into shared accommodation such as astudent house or fat.

Year o study is not the only infuence onaccommodation choice. Jewish practice is also aactor in the decision, especially or more Orthodox

students. Almost two in ve (38%) Orthodox

25 There are ten university towns (including London)in the UK which contain a residential Hillel Houseor a kosher halls o residence operated in conjunctionwith Hillel.

“I didn’t live with Jews. Well, I’m notparticularly bothered about kashrut , as I say,

but I just wanted to live with Jewish people I

got on with. It was more that they were people

I was riendly with rather than necessarily …

They just happened to be Jews rather than

being Jewish. I wasn’t bothered about fnding

a Jewish house par ticularly.” (Steve)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Other

Hillel House

Family home (e.g.

with parents)

A shared flat / house with friends

Universityaccommodation

(e.g. halls)

4th year or more

108

3rd year

239

2nd year

261

1st year

265

8

7 711

5

19

15

65

13 16

15

61

21

21

52

15

7

61

Figure 24: Current year of study by term-time accommodation*§

* This question was only asked of those whose course is fully UK-based.§ Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding.




respondents live at home with their amily,compared with 10% or Traditional respondentsand 6% or Reorm/Progressive respondents.

Choosing who to live withUniversity provides an opportunity or studentsto experiment, oten or the rst time, with whomthey wish to live. Not all choose to take theopportunity (as noted, 18% o respondents live athome with their amily) and or others, universityis not their rst taste o independent living, having

previously lived away rom home during a gapyear abroad—52% o the UK-born group.

Setting aside those who live at home with theiramilies (58% o whom are Orthodox), Figure 25shows that just under a third (32%) o the samplelives only with other Jews. Thereore, the majorityo respondents live in accommodation with both

Jews and non-Jews (14%) or in accommodationin which they are the only Jewish person (44%).O those who live with no other Jewish people,

just over hal (52%) live in a fat-share and 43%

live in university accommodation (such as hallso residence).

Ater their rst year, students tend to move outo university halls and thereore have a greaterchoice about who to live with. Excluding thosewho live at home, the proportion that lives only

with other Jews almost doubles between the rstyear (22%) and the third year (42%) (N=718). Theoverall picture (including those who live at home)is shown in Figure 26.

Current Jewish practice is closely related towhom students choose to live with. Figure 27

N/A (I livealone)

10%

No Jewish

people

44%Some, but

not all, are

Jewish

14%

Hillel House4%

Only Jewish

people28%

Figure 25: ‘In your current term-time accommodation, do

you live with other Jewish people?’* N=718§

* Respondents were given the following instruction: ‘If you live in a

communal building (e.g. halls) please only comment on the peopleyou share a room/self-contained flat with.’§ Not including those living at home with their family

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% I live at home with

my family

Not applicable, I

do not live with

other people

None of the

people I live with

are Jewish

Some of the

people I live with

are Jewish

I live in Hillel

House

All of the people

I live with are

Jewish

4th year or

more

106

3rd year

237

2nd year

261

1st year

263

19 15 1522

41

10

36

6

11

35

10

5

14

33

1212

18

34318

9

2

Figure 26: Year of study by whether respondents live with other Jewish people§





shows that over 70% o Orthodox respondentseither live at home or only live with other Jewishpeople, whereas this is the case or just underhal (46%) o Traditional respondents. However,or non-Orthodox respondents the situationis reversed, with almost two in three Reorm/Progressive respondents choosing to live solelywith non-Jews and over hal (53%) o ‘Just

Jewish’ respondents doing so.

Student fnanceThe issue o student nance, and especially

government plans or increasing tuition ees,was a major topical debate at the time NJSS wascarried out (though the plans will not directlyaect any o the students surveyed).

Respondents were asked about how they areunding their studies. Most (59%) are usingmore than one source o nance and over athird (35%) is using three or more sources.Figure 28 shows that the single most commonsource is a ‘Government loan’ which more thanhal (56%) have accessed. Just over hal (51%)

are beneting rom parental/amily nancialhelp. This contrasts sharply with students inthe general population group o whom lessthan a third (30%) are beneting rom thissource (National Student Benchmark Survey(NSBS) data).

It is also noticeable that NJSS respondents aremore likely than the benchmark group to beusing ‘personal savings’ as a unding source (25%compared with 17% respectively). Furthermore,NJSS respondents are also less likely to be inreceipt o ‘Government grants’ or ‘Scholarships/bursaries’ (17% compared with 28% respectivelyin each case).

There is a considerable dierence in debt burdenbetween students who live at home and thosewho live away rom home. As Figure 29 shows,

respondents living at home are less likely to beusing each o the unding sources examined.In particular, they are almost hal as likely asthose living away rom home to be in receipto a government loan (34% compared with62% respectively), ar less likely to receivetheir parent’s nancial support (36% comparedwith 53% respectively—though presumablythey are in receipt o indirect help such as reeaccommodation etc.) and more than hal as likelyto be spending personal savings (12% comparedwith 28% respectively).

Finance is a cause o stress or students, butthe extent o this concern is, unsurprisingly,related to how they are unding their studies.Two actors are important—the number o sources they access and the nature o the

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Not applicable, Ido not live with

other people

I live at home

with my family

I live in Hillel

House

None of the

people I live with

are Jewish

Some of the

people I live withare Jewish

All of the people

I live with areJewish

Just Jewish

179


155

Traditional

245

Orthodox / Haredi

229

9 7 8 8

7

38

31

11

13

64

6 11

53

17

9

108

35

5

3312

3

Figure 27: Current Jewish practice by whether respondent lives with other Jewish people§





source. The ewer nancial sources usedthe less worried students are, and the ewerstrings attached to the source, again, the less

concerned they are. Thus, students dependingsolely on their parents or nancial supportare ar less likely to have ‘money worries’

than those dependent on multiple sources,especially when those sources are in the ormo loans or personal savings. Thereore, the

data in Figure 28 suggest Jewish students arelikely to have ewer nancial stresses thanstudents in general.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Living at home (N=149 per column)Not living at home (N=724 per column)

Loan from my

parents/family

Current paid

employment

Past paid

employment

Scholarship /

bursary

Government

grant

Personal

savings

Financed by my

parents / family

Government

loan

62

34

53

36

28

12

1817

15 14

4

1513

5

12

6

Figure 29: Ways in which NJSS respondents are funding their studies; those living at home compared with those living away

from home (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Students in general

(NSBS sample N=761 per item)

Jewish students

(NJSS sample N=925 per item)

Prefer notto say

OtherLoan fromparents /

family

Currentpaid

employment

Past paidemployment

Scholarship / bursary

Governmentgrant

Personalsavings

Financedby parents /

family

Governmentloan

56

51 51

30

25

17 17

28 28

13

22

11

15

118

17

25 5

10

Figure 28: Ways in which respondents are funding their studies; NJSS compared with NSBS data (%)




Jewish identity and Jewishpractice

Jewish students who choose to live away romhome, which is the majority (82%), must decideon the extent to which they will continue to

strengthen, maintain or reject the Jewish customsand practices with which they were brought up.For most, this is the rst time, but by no meansthe last, that they will be aced with makingsuch decisions.

In terms o Jewish ritual practice, the overall trendis clear; without exception respondents observe ewer rituals when they are at university than athome (Figure 30). For example, 72% regularlyattend a Friday night meal at home but duringterm-time this alls to 60%. Similarly, 47%

observe kashrut at home but only 41% duringterm-time. This picture o reduced levels o observance on campus may be as much a resulto practicality as o principle. It is very dicultto eat kosher meat or go to synagogue in an areawhere Jewish acilities and services are unavailableor expensive.

To gain a deeper understanding o how thestudents view religious/ritualistic aspects o theiridentity, respondents were presented with a numbero statements and asked the extent to which thesecorresponded with their personal eelings about

being Jewish. Almost our out o ve (79%)agree or strongly agree that being Jewish is about‘Having a religious identity’. However, as Figure31 indicates, acceptance o the abstract propositionthat being Jewish is about religion, does notdirectly translate into a blanket acceptance o ritualpractice. As the graph shows, ar ewer respondentseel that being Jewish is about ‘Observing theSabbath’ (65%), ‘Believing in God’ (56%), or‘Prayer’ (54%) than it is about having a ‘religiousidentity’. This rather contradictory outcome givesthe impression o dissonance between, on the one

hand, theoretical, abstract notions o Jewishnessand on the other, more practical, behaviouralaspects o Jewishness or this sample.

Another undamental aspect o being Jewish isa sense o ethnic and cultural identity. On thisdimension, the sample presents a stronger, more

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

At universityAt home

Do not switchon lights on

the Sabbath

Attend asynagogue

service most weeks

or more often

I only eatkosher meat

Attend a Fridaynight (Sabbath)

dinner most weeks or

every week

Fast on YomKippur most

years or

every year

AttendPassover Seder

most years or

every year

91

63

85

74 72

60

47

33

27

21

41

20

Figure 30: Jewish ritual practice; term-time compared with vacation time. (For all respondents not living at home during

term-time) (%) (N=724 for each bar)

Jewish student lie

“[…] it’s not intentional that a lot o what I do has a Jewish content to it, but it’s who I seem to gravitate

to. Automatically you have something in common with that […] You are Jewish whether you’re secular or

religious, there’s something there which is a mutual, common bond.” (Mark)




coherent and united sense o its Jewish identity.Virtuallyallrespondents(94%)agreeorstronglyagree that being Jewish is about ‘Feeling part o the

Jewish People’ (Figure 32). Similarly, 91% agree thatit is also about ‘Sharing Jewish estivals with myamily’. Sociologists describe the notion o ethnic

unity as ‘peoplehood’, and it is clear that this is apowerully uniting concept among the sample. It isalso noticeable how the various notions o Jewishcultural anity garner ar broader agreement thanthe more religious notions described in Figure 31.This is despite the nding that the same proportion

o respondents agree that being Jewish is about‘Having an ethnic identity’ (79%) as they do about‘Having a religious identity’ (80%).

Activism and social justiceRespondents were asked the extent to which

certain causes and issues orm part o their Jewish identity. Most (83%) agree or stronglyagree that being Jewish is about ‘Rememberingthe Holocaust’ (Figure 33), which is a higherproportion than those who eel that being

Jewish is about ‘Combating antisemitism’ (75%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don’t know

Strongly disagree /

Tend to disagreeStrongly agree / Tend to agree

Studying Jewish religious

texts

Prayer

Keeping kosher

Believing in God

Observing (some aspects

of) Shabbat

Having a religious identity 79

65

19 2

32 3

2

56 37

4156

7

5047

54 42

4

4

Figure 31: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is about…?’ (Religious practice)§

§ Rows may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don’t knowStrongly disagree /

Tend to disagreeStrongly agree /

Tend to agree

Jewish culture (Jewishmusic, literature etc.)

Having an ethnic identity

Sharing Jewish festivals

with my family

Feeling part of the Jewish

People95 4 1

5

91 7

1680

2

2669 5

Figure 32: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is about…?’ (Ethnic and cultural identity)§





or ‘Supporting Israel’ (72%), though clearlymost respondents do consider these items to be

important aspects o their Jewish identity.

Fully 85% o the sample also agrees that being Jewish is about ‘Strong moral and ethicalbehaviour’. However, despite the unambiguousendorsement o this statement, only relativelysmall proportions o respondents actually agreewith statements which put ‘moral and ethical ’behaviour into practice. For example, only 65%o respondents agree or strongly agree that being Jewishisabout‘Volunteeringtosupportacharity’and just 64% agree that ‘Supporting social justice

causes’ is what being Jewish is about—indeed, onein ten does not know whether they agree or notwith the proposition. Once again, there is evidenceo dissonance between what respondents believebeing Jewish ought to be about (the theory) andwhat they say it actually is about (the practice).

It should be noted that with respect to agreementwith ‘Supporting social justice causes’, relatively

little dierence is evident between respondentsbased on their current Jewish practice. However,‘Reorm/Progressive’ respondents are most likelyto agree with the statement (71%).

Volunteering and charitable giving The survey also explored the extent to whichstudents give up their time or others. O thoserespondents who took a gap year ater nishingschool (55% o the sample), ew took theopportunity to do any voluntary work duringthat year, either in Britain (5%) or abroad (mostly

Israel) (17%).

Respondents were also asked to what extent theycurrently give time to Jewish and non-Jewishvoluntary causes. Figure 35 shows that 62% doat least some voluntary work (similar to the 65%

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tend to disagree

Strongly agree /

Tend to agree

Supporting Israel

Combating antisemitism

Remembering the Holocaust 83 15 3

42175

2572 4

%

Figure 33: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is about…?’ (High profile Jewish issues)§


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tend to disagree

Strongly agree /

Tend to agree

Supporting social justice

causes

Volunteering to support

a charity

Donating funds to charity

Strong moral and ethicalbehaviour

85 12 3

8

68 26

2765

7

2764 9

Figure 34: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is about…?’ (Ethical behaviour)§





noted in Figure 34), although only 16% do so morerequently than once a month (Figure 36). O thosewho do volunteer, about hal volunteer or both

Jewish and non-Jewish causes, with the remainderdivided evenly between either only Jewish causesor only non-Jewish causes (Figure 35).

Figure 37 indicates that the propensity tovolunteer is related to secular-religious outlook.Overall, religious respondents do morevolunteering than secular respondents—79% o

‘Religious’ respondents volunteer, compared with52% o ‘Secular’ respondents. Although religiousrespondents are more likely to volunteer or

Jewish causes than secular respondents, they arealso more likely than secular respondents to domore volunteering overall, regardless o the cause.

Similarly, religious respondents are ar more likelyto agree that being Jewish is about ‘donating undsto charity’ than secular respondents (Figure 38).

Social lieAlthough the primary reason people go touniversity is or education (as demonstrated byFigure 22, page 25), it is also true that universityis an extremely important social experience.Campus lie, in particular, presents opportunities

Prefer

notto say

7%

None at all

31%

Both Jewish &

non-Jewish causes

31%

Non-Jewish

causes only

15%

Jewish

causes

only

16%

Figure 35: ‘Since the beginning of this academic year please

say how often, if at all, you have done any voluntary work’

0

10

20

30

40

50

Non-Jewish causes (N=925)Jewish causes (N=925)

Prefer not

to say

NeverOnce a month

or less

Several times

a month

Once a week

or more

8 7 8 7

32 33

46 47

5 6

Figure 36: ‘Since the beginning of this academic year please say how often, if at all, you have done voluntary work’ (%)§


“Yes, everyone should volunteer. Do I have thetime to volunteer? No, not always and that’s

a shame but people ... but I still think that

that’s something that’s a virtue that people

should try and do and I think that’s all it is

especially when you’re at university and i t’s a

very modern liestyle and whatever and it can

be quite difcult when you get drowned with

the work and then you’re getting to the social

scene and it ’s like, Mondays we’ll go here,

Wednesday night we go here and Friday this,

and then it’s like, where do I fnd the time?”

(Nathan)




to meet a wide range o people rom a varietyo backgrounds to an extent that most will nothave experienced beore and many may notexperience again.

When asked i being Jewish is about ‘Socialisingin predominantly Jewish circles’ just 34% o the sample agree or strongly agree. Yet here liesanother contradiction. Whilst respondents rejectthis theoretical notion o segregative socialization,in practice, this is precisely what actually happens

among the majority o the sample. As noted inTable 1 (page 26), respondents exhibit a strongtendency to cluster in a relatively small numbero institutions and ollow a relatively limitedvariety o disciplines and courses. Further, most

respondents (59%) report that more than hal o their closest riends are Jewish (Figure 39).

The extent to which respondents socialize in Jewish circles is very closely related to the type o Jewish upbringing they experienced (Figure 40).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None at all

Both Jewish &

non-Jewish causes

Non-Jewish

causes only

Jewish causes

only

Secular

151

Somewhat

secular

209

Somewhat

religious

262

Religious

182

2131

35

48

5

45

16

39

15

19

14

32

17

24

11

29

Figure 37: Extent of volunteering by secular-religious outlook

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Secular

160

Somewhat

secular

217

Somewhat

religious

279

Religious

205

84

73

62

50

Figure 38: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is

about donating funds to charity?’ (percentage who'Strongly agree' or 'Tend to agree')

None orvery few

10%

Less than

half13%

About half

17%More than

half

29%

All or

nearly all31%

Figure 39: ‘Thinking about your closest friends, what

proportion, if any, would you say is Jewish?’ (N=920)




For example, 88% o those with Orthodoxbackgrounds report that more than hal o theirclosest riends are Jewish, compared with 66% o those with ‘Traditional’ upbringings and 40% o those with ‘Reorm/Progressive’ backgrounds.

However, campus lie is also an important actorin developing a Jewish social circle and one o the key pieces o data highlighting this is the actthat during term-time, 59% o respondents attend‘Jewish social events most weeks’, whereas during

vacation time the equivalent proportion is just31%.26 This nding is especially important i weconsider the results shown in Figure 30 (page 31)indicating a general all in Jewish ritual practiceon campus. Thus, there is to a certain extent asubstitution taking place o Jewish socialization or

26 Data reer only to those who live away rom homeduring term-time (N=724)

Jewish practice when students are away rom theconnes o home lie.

Modes o communicationRespondents were also asked how they preerto communicate with their closest riends and itis in this context that the label ‘iGeneration’ ismost apt. The primary modes o communicationare by mobile phone (voice calls) (27%) andtext messaging (26%). However, the preerredsecondary mode o communication is via social

networking sites (i.e. Facebook). Interestingly,email barely registers as a preerred mode o communicating with close riends. Indeed,three modes dominate: mobile voice calls, textmessaging and Facebook. There are also slightdierences by gender. The most common wayemale respondents choose to communicate withtheir closest riends is by text messaging (29%);or male respondents the most common method ismobile voice calls (27%). Males are also ar morelikely to use Facebook as their most commonmethod than emales (20% compared with

12% respectively).

Relationships Focus groups participants were asked or theirthoughts about dating non-Jews. A variety o comments were elicited, such as:

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% None or very few/

other

Less than half

About half

More than half

All or nearly all

Mixed (Jewish &other influences) /

Not raised Jewish

72


162

Just Jewish

132

Traditional

315

Orthodox/ Haredi

195

4 410

17

36

59

28

11

19

33

33

1320

23

18

27

33

19

20

25

21

11

7

8

Figure 40: Type of Jewish upbringing by proportion of closest friends who are Jewish§


“I guess I just drew a list o good unis, but

really trying to make sure there was a JSoc

basically. […] I wanted to be around… I guess,

mainly to make riends because there weren’t

any where I grew up, so it was to meet other

Jews, basically. I saw uni as an opportunity

to get more involved with the Jewish

community.” (Simon)




“[…] I decided that I like my Jewish identityand I like Israel and all that, but I don’tthink it’s the most important thing in my lie […] really, i I fnd someone that I want tospend the rest o my lie with, it’s not going tomatter hugely to me i they’re Jewish or not.But it will matter to my dad […]” (Anna)

“[…] my university is basically non-Jewish, so I can’t … it’s either I don’t date or I date a non- Jew, and right now, I’m dating someone who is [not Jewish], and he doesn’t particularly have a

view on Judaism. We have only been dating or a ew months, but i I were to marry him, I wouldbring up … I do want to give my children theright … I want to bring them up as Jewish until they’re 13, and then let them decide, because I enjoyed my upbringing so much as a Jew, thatI want to give that to them as well.” (Rachel)

“It would never even enter my mind [to datea non-Jewish girl]. I think especially or men,it’s very important even more so, to have only Jewish relationships, because obviously you

want your kids to be Jewish […] Yes, it’s … like,it would never enter my head to ever, … I’ve got plenty o non-Jewish riends, but it would just not even enter my head to have anythingmore than just riendship with them, becausethat’s just not the way it works.” (Jeremy)

Respondents were also asked to what extent theyeel that being Jewish is about ‘Marrying another Jew’. Almost three in our (72%) agree or stronglyagree; however, as Figure 42 shows, responses wereclosely related to current Jewish identity. Whilst86% o ‘Traditional’ respondents agree with thenotion, this is the case or just 45% o ‘Reorm/Progressive’ respondents.

O course, or most students cohabitation andmarriage (whether to a Jew or otherwise) liesseveral years o in the uture. Nevertheless, the

survey did ask respondents about their currentrelationship status. Although the majority (65%)said they are ‘currently single’, most respondents(85%) are either currently in or have experiencedat least one relationship in the past. As is the norm,being in a relationship is closely related to age; orexample, 81% o 18 year-old respondents said theyare ‘currently single’, compared with 59% o 22year-olds.

Respondents’ relationship history is summarizedin Figure 43 and shows that in addition to those

who have never been in a relationship (14%),two out o ve (40%) have only ever had Jewishpartners, 29% have had Jewish and non-Jewishpartners, and one in ten (10%) has only everhad non-Jewish partners. Exactly 50% o thosewho are either currently, or have ever been, in a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Second most common (N=925)Most common (N=925)

OtherEmailVOIP(e.g. Skype)

Instantmessaging

Social networksites (e.g.

Facebook)

Face-to-faceinteraction

Textmessaging

Mobile phone

27

20

26

23

21

8

15

5 54

7

32

2

4

1 1

Figure 41: ‘In general, how do you tend to communicate with your closest friends?’* (%)

* The question was accompanied by the following note: ‘If you live with them, think about how you communicate when you or they are

not at home.’




relationship have only ever had Jewish partners;conversely hal (50%) either currently has, or hashad, a non-Jewish partner (N=726). Once again,it is worth pointing out the dissonance between

the theoretical and the practical: 72% agree it isimportant to marry another Jew but only 50%o those who have ever been in a relationshiphave exclusively dated Jews. Needless to say, arelationship with a non-Jewish partner in yourlate teens and early twenties is not the same

as marriage but, arguably, this is indicative o possible uture trends.

The likelihood o relationships with non-Jewsis closely related to Jewish upbringing (Figure44). The majority (70%) o those with Orthodoxupbringings has only ever had Jewish partners,whereas this was the case or just under aquarter (24%) o those with Reorm/Progressiveupbringings. O those with Traditionalupbringings over a third (36%) either currently hasor has had a non-Jewish partner.

Just as striking is the relationship betweenpartnership history and riendship circles.Respondents with the greatest proportion o

Jewish riends are the least likely to have hadnon-Jewish partners. As Figure 45 shows, 63%o respondents whose closest riends are ‘Allor nearly all’ Jewish have only ever had Jewishpartners, compared with just 29% o those whoreport that about ‘hal’ o their closest riendsare Jewish.

Since relationships can be a source o stress,respondents were also asked to what extent theyare concerned about ‘Relationship issues (ndinga partner, maintaining or ending a relationshipetc.)’. Those who currently have, or have only everhad, Jewish partners are the least worried (26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Don’t Know

Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Strongly agree

Just Jewish

194


168

Traditional

263

Orthodox / Haredi

238

2 4 6 6

26

2

82

35

30

35

19 15

22

35

71

22

10

51

Figure 42: ‘Do you personally feel that being Jewish is about … Marrying another Jew?’ by current Jewish position§


Other /

non-

response

7%Non-Jewishpartners only

11%

Mixed history(Jewish &

non-Jewishpartners)

29%

Jewish partners

only39%

Never beenin a

relationship

14%

Figure 43: Partnership history by identity of partners(N=925)




are ‘very’ or ‘airly worried’ N=355) whereas those

who currently have, or have only ever had, non- Jewish partners are more worried (39% are ‘very’or ‘airly worried’ N=97). However, respondentswho are the most concerned about relationshipsare those who have never been in a relationship(49% are ‘very’ or ‘airly worried’ N=122).

Finally, it is clear that Jewish students are more

concerned about relationship issues than studentsin general. Whereas 47% o Jewish respondentssaidthattheyare‘Veryworried’or‘Fairlyworried’ about ‘Relationship issues’, this isthe case or just 23% o students in the generalpopulation (see Figure 68, page 56).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Non-Jewish partnersonly

Mixed history

(Jewish & non-

Jewish partners)

Jewish partners only

Never been in a

relationship

Mixed

(Jewish & other

influences)

57

Just Jewish

139

Reform /

Progressive

160

Traditional

298

Orthodox /

Haredi

179

7

19 1728

70

11

29

49

15 1314

4043

3024

47

14

1118

Figure 44: Type of Jewish upbringing by partnership history§

§ Columns ma not add u to 100% due to roundin .

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Other/non-response

Never been in a

relationship

Mixed history(Jewish & non-

Jewish partners)

Non-Jewish

partners only

Jewish partnersonly

None or very few

90

Less than half

124

About half

161

More than half

264

All or nearly all

281

9 8 96 3

63

10

10

31

4

47

8

29

47

46

27

4

1213 17

50

11

3

18

1

Figure 45: Proportion of closest friends that is Jewish by partnership history§





JSoc involvement and otherstudent providers

“I wanted to get involved with JSoc, but myaim was to go to JSoc and have Jewish riends aswell, and I just ound that by being on the [JSoc] committee, or example, it was a way in, so alreadywhen you’re on a committee, you go on a trainingweekend, so you make riends that way […]”(Andy)

The Union o Jewish Students (UJS) is by arthe single largest Jewish organization workingwith Jewish university students. Most studentsinteract with UJS through their Jewish Society(or ‘JSoc’), assuming their institution has one.Three quarters o NJSS respondents (75%) saidthat they were currently (February/March 2011)members o UJS and a urther 9% were lapsedmembers. Only 10% said they were not, nor hadever been previously, members, and 6% were notsure whether they were currently members (buthad not been members in the past) (N=925 or

all percentages).27

To better understand the extent to which studentsactually engage with their local JSoc, whethermembers or otherwise, respondents were askedi they ever attended JSoc meetings and events.Figure 46 shows that hal the sample (49%)regularly attends and a urther third (32%) attend

27 Note: Since UJS membership lists were a major sourceo contact inormation or building the sample, it mustbe assumed that data in the ollowing section relatingto overall sample proportions overstate the opinions o UJS members (current or ormer) compared with non-members (see Appendix).

‘Occasionally’. A high proportion (32%) said theyare, or have been, on a JSoc committee.28

One o the benets o the NJSS dataset is thatit allows us to examine what dierentiatesthose who are highly engaged with their JSoc(assuming their university has one) and thosewho are less engaged or not at all engaged. Figure47 shows that the most engaged generally attendinstitutions with larger Jewish populations (rstand second quartiles). (The anomaly in the rstbar, which shows a relatively small proportion(28%) o rst quartile JSoc committee members,is most likely due to there being just threeinstitutions in the rst quartile (Table 1 page 26)

and thereore relatively limited opportunities toserve on committees.)

28 Focus group participants noted that some o the larger JSocs rotate oce holders on a termly basis.

“[…] But stu like the ‘Booze or Jews’ I think

they’re always going to be successul. People

like getting drunk. People like doing it or

relatively cheap and people like seeing their

riends at other universities where oten you

don’t have an opportunity to do that during

the year. […] So it’s a one stop shop. I get to

see everyone and likewise when they come

to [my university] and I think that ’s why

something like ‘Booze or Jews’ will always

be successul and why it disproportionately is

more successul than every other [JSoc] event

because every other event is like it’s nothing

special. […]” (Nathan)

N/A /

Don’t

know

7%I never go

11%

I gooccasionally

32% I goregularly

18%

I am / have

been on

my JSoc

committee32%

Figure 46: Frequency of attendance at ‘JSoc meetings or

events’ (N=925)

“… so I think I went to uni mainly or the

course and i there was Jewish stu that

ftted, then that was great , and over the three

years, I’ve ound there hasn’t been that much

that the JSoc does that particularly fts with

what I particularly look or in a JSoc, so I’ve

dipped in and out, [...] the JSoc, as ar as

I’ve ound has been generally slightly more

synagogue. I don’t know i that’s a massive

stereotype, and I hesitate to put that label onit, but it’s elt…it’s just not the direction o

Judaism I’ve grown up with […]” (Nick)




Figure 48 indicates that current Jewish identity

is strongly related to the likelihood o JSocinvolvement. ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Traditional’respondents are twice as likely to regularlyattend JSoc meetings and events or be on JSoccommittees as ‘Reorm/Progressive’ respondentsand those who are ‘Just Jewish’. More than two in

“[…] JSoc is to some extent what you make o

it. I ound JSoc this year not very supportiveor me just because all the events were ‘Booze

or Jews’ type events, clubbing, getting drunk

which I don’t go clubbing so it was very hard

to participate in JSoc, that doesn’t ft with my

understanding o being Jewish.” (Shelly)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 4th quartile (Least

Jewishly populous)

3rd quartile

2nd quartile

1st quartile (Most

Jewishly populous)

I never go to JSoc

103

I occasionally go

to JSoc291

I regularly go

to JSoc160

I am/have been

on a JSoc committee288

15 14

24

37

35

22

22

24

41

23

24

29

34

17

13

28

Figure 47: Frequency of attendance at ‘JSoc meetings or events’ by size of institution’s Jewish population (arranged in quartiles)§


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%I never go to JSoc

I occasionally goto JSoc

I regularly go / I'm on a JSoc

committee

Just Jewish

172


158

Traditional

250

Orthodox

200

24

7

29

4

67

46

33

22 17

45

37

70

Figure 48: Current Jewish position by frequency of attendance at ‘JSoc meetings or events’§





ve ‘Reorm/ Progressive’ students ‘Never’ go to JSocs. Linked to this is the nding that those whoare more heavily involved in a JSoc are also morelikely to have a higher proportion o close Jewishriends (not shown in the graph).

Figure 49 shows a close relationship betweencurrent involvement in JSocs and previousinvolvement in Jewish youth movements. Overhal (51%) o those who were on JSoc committeeshave previously been leaders in Jewish youth

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% I never went to a

Jewish YM

As an occasional

YM participant

As a regular YM

participant

As both a

participant and a

YM leader

I never go to JSoc

92

I occasionally go

to JSoc249

I regularly go

to JSoc145

I am/have been

on a JSoc committee281

8 8 12

23

27

15

23

25

43

20

44

24

26

13

38

51

Figure 49: Attendance at JSoc meetings and events by participation in Jewish youth movements (YM)*§

* UK born only§ Columns may not add up to 100 due to rounding

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% None of these

programmes

Just tour

Camp & tour

Camp & tour &

gap year

I never go to JSoc

84

I occasionally go

to JSoc

230

I regularly go

to JSoc

126

I am/have been

on a JSoc committee

254

715 18 17

29

15

33

21

32

32

33

17 19

33

31

49

Figure 50: Attendance at JSoc meetings and events by participation in Jewish youth programmes*§

* UK born only§ Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding.




movements. Conversely, hal (49%) o those who‘Never’ go to JSoc were either ‘Never’ involvedor only ‘Occasionally’ involved in a Jewish youthmovement. Similarly, involvement with Jewishyouth programmes is also associated with higherlevels o JSoc involvement (Figure 50), as arerequency o visits to Israel.

Other Jewish student organizations UJS is not, o course, the only Jewish

organization with which Jewish students areinvolved. Figure 51 shows that o all the Jewishorganizations students are associated with,‘home synagogue’ is the most prominent—overhal the sample (53%) reports being connectedwith one ‘in any way’. Although this does notnecessarily mean that students are members o synagogues (in their own right), it does highlightthe importance o the home synagogue to many

Jewish students.

Over a third o respondents (34%) said they areconnected to University Jewish Chaplaincy.However, it is clear that Jewish identity is animportant actor in determining the likelihoodo connection with the organization’s chaplains.For example, almost all (94%) o ‘Orthodox’respondents have a connection, and this wasthe case or 78% o ‘Traditional’ respondents.In contrast, just 29% o ‘Reorm/Progressive’respondents are connected and 24% o ‘Just Jewish.’

Figure 51 also shows that almost one in verespondents (19%) is not connected to any o these Jewish organizations at all. However, o these 174 people, 58% are currently memberso UJS and 21% have served on a JSoccommittee.

The more religious respondents are, the moreorganizations they are likely to be associatedwith. Thus, 52% o ‘Religious’ respondentsare connected to three or more organizations,

compared with 19% o ‘Secular’ respondents.However, perhaps the most important ndingis shown in Figure 52, which indicates thatinvolvement with a JSoc and involvement withother Jewish organizations is not a zero-sumgame. In other words, it does not seem to bethe case that involvement with other Jewishorganizations diminishes the likelihood o students’ involvement with UJS. On thecontrary, the opposite is the case.

“Our JSoc is really, it’s one o the most

Orthodox. The committee is really Orthodox

and everyone is quite Orthodox there. I never

go to Friday night anyway, because girlsaren’t allowed to sing in the service, and stu

like that, so it’s just not what I want to do, so

we Reorm people decided to start our own

egalitarian service, […] and we are made to

eel like intruders, and so no one, no one stays

or Friday night dinner, because everyone

eels unwelcome […]” (Nicole)

N o n e

O t h e

r

M a c

c a b i

M a r o m

J e n e

r a t i o

n

C S T ( C

o m m u n i t y

S e c u

r i t y T

r u s t )

J L E ( J

e w i s h

L e a r n i n g

E x c h a

n g e )

C h a b

a d

A i s h

H a T

o r a h

U J I A

( U n i t e

d J e

w i s h

I s r a e l

A p p

e a l ) T r

i b e

U n i v

e r s i t

y J e w

i s h

C h a p l a i n

c y

Y o u r

h o m

e

s y n a

g o g u

e

0

20

40

6053

34

19 18 17 1715

139

64

12

19

Figure 51: ‘Are you currently connected, in any way, with any of the following Jewish organizations?’ (%) (N=925 for each column)




Openness o Jewish students oncampus Jewish students make up about 0.5% o the 1.6million students in ull-time higher education inthe UK (see ootnote 21, page 24). Thereore, theyare very thinly distributed in the world o highereducation. However, as has been noted, Jewishstudents tend to cluster in certain universities anduniversity towns, which gives the impression thatthey are more numerous than they actually are.In act, many do nd that they are oten, to quoteone o our ocus group participants, ‘the only Jew

in the room’, which results in them eeling a degreeo responsibility to represent Judaism and Jews ina positive light. For those who have spent most o their education in Jewish day schools, universityis the rst time they have been placed in sucha situation.

The ollowing selection o comments romthe ocus groups provides a favour o suchexperiences.

“In my university, there were a lot o people rom

very rural areas who had never met Jewish peoplebeore and they were genuinely interested. They genuinely wanted to know more about the aith,the culture and stu, and I liked that because I was happy to do them a avour by telling them,as you say, we are normal people, we just have

a dierent aith, that’s all. Dispel some o theserandom myths and rumours and stu.” (Elliot)

“I do eel that I’m capable [o answeringquestions about Judaism rom non-Jewishstudents]. Not to the highest level, and it’sactually a lot harder to simpliy what we’retrying to say and make it sound normal. I fndthat’s more o a challenge than getting acrossthe inormation, making yoursel not soundlike a complete and utter lunatic.” (Michelle)

“I’d actually say, beore I went, when I came touniversity, because there are so many Jews whereI live, I actually took it [being Jewish] or grantedand didn’t think much about it, and now I’mmuch more keen to learn [about Judaism] andexcited to learn because people ask questions andI want to be able to answer them […]” (Adrian)

“At [my university], there aren’t enough Jews tobe able to create a [Jewish] Society. […] so I’m theonly Jew amongst my riends, and I’m the only Jew in my course and the only Jew, I think that I

know in the whole o [my university’s town]. […] and it’s weird because most o my riends havenever actually met a Jew beore, and so they’reoten…what? You can’t eat bacon? You can’t eatshellfsh, and even now, ater my frst year, theystill ask me loads o questions, and they are also

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None

1 organization

2 organizations

3 organizations

4 or more

organizations

I never go to JSoc

105

I occasionally go

to JSoc

295

I regularly go

to JSoc

164

I am/have been

on a JSoc committee

293

12 9

21

43

18

13

18

22

22

21

14

36

29

19

6

39

47

29

18

Figure 52: Attendance at JSoc meetings and events by number of other Jewish organizations to which students are connected§





a bit worried. They say, sorry i I’m asking toomuch, or i I’m being racist or anything, becausethey literally have no idea about Judaism.”(Rachel)

“I think it was just comort knowing other Jews.Or, well, or me, I wanted to make new riends. […] But I went to uni knowing that all o my riends went to dierent unis just to seek new Jewish riends. […] Because they [Jewish students] understand, like, sometimes, or example, when

you tell people at university that you’re Jewish,it’s, like, you’ve just popped out o space. Like you’re someone else. I’m normal and I’m like you, but it was like a whole new thing to them.”(Keren)

Moderator: “Pride, what do you mean bythat? Being proud o your religion?”Respondent: “Because, i I went out on aSunday, when I was at school, all my riendswouldn’t be wearing a kippah [skullcap], so I would be the sore thumb and people would be

looking at me, so I just went with the crowd anddidn’t wear it or took it o. But because ater my gap year [on a religious-Zionist programmein Israel], I started mingling with the peoplewho were at the same level as me, then I didn’tsee it as such as problem, in a way.” (Rob)

“[…] not Israel specifcally, but a representativeo the whole o Judaism, the whole time. Atthe beginning o last year, basically I missedevery single one o my lectures or the frst threeweeks, because o dierent [Jewish] estivalsor whatever, […] I had a group presentation at fve o’clock on a Friday aternoon, and I hadto explain to them that we’re probably goingto have to organize another time, because I wasn’t going to be there, so honestly, withinthe frst three months, it became blatantly

obvious that I was the one wearing skirtsevery day. I was the one who bunked every Friday aternoon. It’s like, it became obviousand then or a while, people were, why? And,asked questions, so when we go to lunch,lunchtimes are the hardest…” (Michelle)

The survey asked respondents to what extent theyeel able to be open about their Jewishness oncampus. Despite evidence (discussed below) romsome respondents that they sometimes eel pigeon-holed into a politically ‘right wing’ position on

Israel simply because they are Jewish, as wellas other evidence o a relatively high prevalenceo antisemitic experiences, the vast majority o respondents are Jewishly open. A majority (59%)o respondents said that they are ‘Always’ open,and a urther 35% said that they are ‘Sometimes’

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%I am hardly ever/

never open

I am sometimes

open

I am always open

Just Jewish194

Reform / Progressive168

Traditional263

Orthodox / Haredi

236

4 3 7 11

23

42

54 56

38

39

50

73

Figure 53: Current Jewish practice by how open respondent is about his/her Jewish identity on campus*§

* The following explanatory note accompanied this question: “By ‘open’ we mean visibly displaying your Jewish identity or speaking openly about it

in front of strangers.” § Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding




open. Just 6% reported being closed about their Jewish identity on campus (N=922).

The dierence between those who are ‘always’open and those who are ‘sometimes’ open appearsto relate to levels o religiosity and Jewishconsciousness. Figure 53 shows that Orthodox/haredi respondents stand out with respect toopenness: 73% are ‘always’ open about being

Jewish, compared with an average o 53% ornon-Orthodox groups. Similarly, students who

are most conscious about their Jewish identity aremore likely to be more open about it: 72% o thosewho are ‘extremely’ conscious o being Jewish are‘always’ open about their identity, compared with51% o those who eel ‘quite strongly Jewish’.

Experiences o and eelingstowards IsraelThe majority (92%) o respondents have visitedIsrael; indeed, 12% have lived there or morethan one year, and a quarter (25%) has visited thecountry on more than ten occasions. O the 8%

who have never been to Israel (a proportion whichis in line with ndings rom other surveys29), thevast majority (83%) hope to visit one day.

Respondents were asked whether they plan tomove to Israel in the near uture. This is the‘most preerred path’ or 8.5% o the respondents(N=925) and a urther 9% said this is their ‘secondmost preerred path’ (see Figure 69 on page 57).

29 Graham and Boyd (2010); Becher, Waterman, Kosminand Thomson (2002); Waterman S. (2003), The Jews o

As noted (Figure 33, page 33) most respondents(72%) agree that being Jewish is about ‘SupportingIsrael’. When asked about their attitudes towardsIsrael,half(51%)saidtheyhave‘Verypositive’eelings towards Israel and a urther 38% have‘Fairly positive’ eelings; only 11% o NJSSrespondents are either negative or ambivalentabout Israel.

Leeds in 2001: Portrait o a community, London: JPR/Institute or Jewish Policy Research.

Prefer notto say

3%

No feelingseither way

4%...very

negative

0.4%...fairly

negative4%

...fairly positive38%

...very positive

51%

Figure 54: ‘My feelings towards Israel are …’ (N=925)§

§ Total does not add up to 100% due to rounding.

0

20

40

60

80

Students in general (NSBS sample N=743)Jewish students (NJSS sample N=897)

No feelings either way...very negative...fairly negative...fairly positive...very positive

53

5

39

13

4.6

15

40.4 4

63

Figure 55: ‘My feelings towards Israel are …’ NJSS data compared with NSBS data (%)




These results are in stark contrast to comparabledata rom the general student population. AsFigure 55 indicates, most students (63%) in thegeneral population simply have no eelings eitherway about Israel. Further, o the minority (37%)that do have an opinion, hal (49%) has positiveeelings and hal (51%) has negative eelings.Indeed, just 4% o the general student populationharbours ‘very negative’ eelings about Israel.

Returning to the Jewish sample, it is instructive

to explore the dierence between those who arevery positive towards Israel and those who are lesspositive. Attitudes towards Israel were exploredin great detail in JPR’s Israel Survey 201030 andthis noted a clear, positive relationship betweenattitudes and sel-dened religious position.The same relationship is evident in the NJSSsample. Figure 56 shows that eelings towardsIsrael go hand in hand with religiousness. Thisrelationship was also present with regards to

Jewish upbringing, current Jewish position and Jewish consciousness.

The more involved respondents have been with a Jewish youth movement, the more likely they areto have positive eelings towards Israel. As Table 2shows, 55% o those who have ‘regularly’ attendeda Jewish youth movement (which are mostly

30 Graham D. and Boyd J. (2010)

“So that’s why I didn’t really answer when

you asked a minute ago about do you ever

like to talk about that you’re Jewish. I get a

bit awkward, and I never used to, because

it used to just be Jews, it’s what we do. But

now it’s, like, at my campus, it [Israel] does

come up quite a bit in certain conversations,

and it just eels as i you have to justiy why

you’re a Jew and why you’re interested in

Israel, as opposed to just anything else. But

it’s not necessarily a bad thing, which is why

I preer to just avoid that whole conversation.I get uncomortable but, at the same time, I’m

happy to rant about it .” (Sophie)

“I think I’d probably rather discuss it [Israel]

with my non-Jewish riends [than my Jewish

riends] because I eel i I discuss Israel with

Jews, there’s straight away, an expectation,

essentially, that I’m going to be in support o

Israel, by and large, on what I say. And i I’m

not in support, then, at least I’d be an out-and-

out anti-Zionist. I come rom a position where

I eel quite strongly that Jewish identity and

Zionist identity are ar too strongly correlated.

That by having the one, I’m expected to have

the other […].” (Alan)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Prefer not to say

negative feelings /

no views

...fairly positive

...very positive

Secular

160

Somewhat secular

217

Somewhat religious

279

Religious

205

33 2 3

28

40

5

52

41

46

1118

43

36

67

2

Figure 56: Secular-religious outlook by feelings towards Israel




Zionist) are ‘very positive’ about Israel, comparedwith 40% o those who have never attended these.Similar trends can be seen with respect to youthprogramme involvement. (Note the directiono cause and eect cannot be determined inthis table.)

Israel on campus

Communal discussion about students’ experiencesat university oten ocus on the way in whichIsrael is portrayed on British campuses, inparticular the perception o signicant anti-Israelsentiment. This issue was explored in both thequantitative and qualitative parts o the survey,and the ollowing quotes provide insightsinto the situation rom the perspective o thestudents themselves.

“Yes, so we have an Israel Week at university. […] and it’s completely apolitical and it’s supposed

to be nothing, but just to show Israel in a goodlight. […] showing the achievements o Israel,in communications and electronics, so it’s just toshow what Israel can oer. And so we obviously get people passing, coming out and trying to giveus grie, and there was one guy who was sayingthat he was going to oer, going to give aid toGaza in a couple o month’s time, […] and hewas just having a complete rant about Israel, andwe were having a completely apolitical week.” (Simon)

“When I walk onto [...] campus, the frst thing ... you come in through the entrance and then the frst notice board is the teachers’ ... not the studentunion, like the university lecturers’ union, their notice board ... and it’s basically taken up by a big poster saying something like ‘boycott settlement

in Palestine,’ and I eel it every time I walk intouniversity ... Even i Jews agree with the message,the assumption is that they don’t, and so we areall made to eel uncomortable ... Every time I walk into uni, I eel I’m being punched in the ace ...” (Richard)

“In my university, actually anti-Israel [activity],

I don’t think I’ve ever seen, but I think becausethe community o Jews isn’t … or Zionists isn’t bigenough, we’re not so worried. People aren’t goingto attack us, because technically, I guess we’renot really there to be attacked. We aren’t doinganything they could regard as provoking. Justhaving coee [with the JSoc]. So, I never notice posters, no nothing.” (Michelle)

“I’m going to Israel with my dad in September,and I told my [non-Jewish] riends, and they’relike, oh, are you going to pray? No, actually, I’m

going to go o-road biking and stu like that.You can actually do that? Is that what you do inIsrael? They imagine Israel being this place o really, really observant Jews, just always prayingby the [Western] Wall and stu like that, andthey were so shocked to hear about what I was going to be doing.” (Claire)

“First, I’d start by saying that the [Jewishmedia] is doing a huge disservice to the Jewishcommunity in its campus coverage o Israel related issues. I think that [the Jewish media]

portrays Israel, Jewish students, it portrays lie or Jewish students as a chore, constantly battling tohelp Israel’s survival. It’s just simply not the case.In reality, the amount o Jewish students whocampaign or Israel is 1%, i that, probably less.” (Phil)

N Very

positive

(%)

Fairly

positive

(%)

Neutral / negative /

preer not to say

(%)

Sample average 925 51 38 11

Jewish youth movement

participation

Regularly / As a leader 556 55 35 9

None 100 40 39 21

Summer camp, Israel

tour or Israel gap year

participation

Just Israel tour 135 53 36 11

None o these 103 41 40 19

* Rows may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 2: Feelings towards Israel by youth movement and youth programme participation*




Survey respondents were asked how otenthe topic o Israel arises in various universitycontexts. The most common context is in clubsand societies with hal (50%) saying that thetopic arises ‘regularly’ or ‘occasionally’ (Figure57). 44% said that the topic arises ‘regularly’or ‘occasionally’ in the Students Union.Interestingly, in both o these contexts, almost aquarter o respondents do not know how otenthe topic arises. However, in contrast to the NJSSsample, data rom the general student population

paint a very dierent picture. The generalstudent sample is ar less aware o the topic o Israel arising in any context at university: just11% reported that the topic arises ‘regularly’ or‘occasionally’ in the Students Union, comparedwith 44% reported by NJSS respondents.

Both samples were also asked how airly theyeel the topic o Israel is dealt with when itdoes arise in these various contexts. The resultsare summarized in the next two graphs whichshow that many Jewish students simply do not

know whether the topic o Israel is treated airlyor otherwise. For example, although 38% o respondents eel that Israel is treated unairly intheir Students Union, 37% do not know eitherway (Figure 58). A similar picture emergesregarding ‘clubs and societies’. However, among

the National Benchmark sample, a very dierentpicture emerges (Figure 59). Students in thegeneral population are ar less likely to considerthat Israel is dealt with unairly in each o thecontexts examined.

NJSS respondents were asked the extent towhich they are ‘worried or concerned’ about‘Anti-Israel sentiment’ at their university.Relatively ew (8%) said they are ‘very worried’,but a urther 30% said they are ‘airly worried’.

However, compared with other student concerns,such as passing exams or nding a job, worriesabout anti-Israel sentiment rank quite low (seeFigure 66 on page 55).

In the course o conducting the ocus groupsdiscussions, something o a contradictionemerged. On the one hand, students are wellaware o the tensions surrounding the topic o Israel on campus, and many give the impressionthat Israel could not be discussed in any waywithout attracting some orm o criticism.

However, on the other hand, respondents areequally keen to point out that any trouble in thisregard could be easily avoided by Jewish studentswho are not particularly interested in the issues,and that only a small minority o students (onboth sides o any debate) are actively involved in

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Don't know

Rarely / never

Occasionally

Regularly

In other university /

college contexts

910

In lectures /

classes

909

In the

Student Union

903

In clubs /

societies

905

22 24

28

29

27

32

18

29

29

10

31

4

71

20

5

22

Figure 57: ‘How often, if at all, does the topic of Israel arise during term-time?’ (NJSS data)§





such encounters. Furthermore, several are quickto point out that, in over-emphasizing anti-Israelincidents at universities in Britain, the Jewishpress sometimes conveys a rather unrealistic andoverly negative image o lie or Jewish studentson campus.

Experiences o antisemitism oncampusAntisemitism continues to be a signicant issueon campus, but it is also quite subtle and complex.Some o the experiences witnessed by respondentsare interpreted as being unambiguously

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Don't know

Fairly

Unfairly


college contexts613

In lectures /

classes259

In clubs /

societies639

In the

Student Union608

37 40

15

51

2526

3427

58

21

28

38

Figure 58: ‘When the topic of Israel does arise at your university/college, in your opinion how, fairly or not would you say it is

dealt with?’ (Jewish students sample, NJSS data)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Don't know

Fairly

Unfairly


college contexts193

In lectures /

classes190

In clubs /

societies189

In the

Student Union203

48 49

32

48

40 40

11 9

5842

1012

Figure 59: ‘When the topic of Israel does arise at your university/college, in your opinion how, fairly or not would you say it isdealt with?’ (General students sample, NSBS data)§





antisemitic, but others are less black and white,especially i it is clear that comments are beingmade out o ignorance rather than malice.The ollowing selection o comments romthe ocus groups provides an initial favour o respondents’ experiences.

“I haven’t experienced antisemitism. I know alot o people at uni who I’ve made riends withhad never met a Jew beore. You do get the oddcomment about money, and I think you have to

laugh along with it. They don’t mean it in any badway, and we’re riends, and you just accept it and get on with it. I think you can make a big deal out o something…everyone, you make commentsabout, everyone has stereotypes.” (Sarah)

“I he [my riend] is making comments, I’ll make comments back, as a joke, and then whensomeone starts to talk about Palestine, then wecan laugh. But I once went to a club where I showed my ID and I’ve got a Jewish [sur]name,and then they were joking, where’s the number

on your arm? And, I just let and took my moneyback [...]. And that wasn’t unny.” (Adrian)

“I was actually with a tutor and we were playinga ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ game, whichinvolved electronics on a Friday night [sic] and he happened to know I was Jewish. Thisis a class o about 100 people. He turned to meand said ‘I looked up the times, so you’re okayuntil about 3:50, 4 o’clock is it this week?’ AndI said yes, […] he’d actually taken the eort toconsider whether I could do this and how much

o it I could do, which I thought was aboveand beyond the call o duty really.” (Ed)

In the context o discussions about Israel, it isoten unclear to students whether criticism ispurely political or whether it has antisemiticundertones. Examples o students grappling withwhere the line should be drawn are included below:

“Like, people work themselves up [about Israel],but it’s never really… yes, it’s good to havethe debate and things like that, and it’s good

that people are passionate and they’re gettinginvolved but there’s never really anything serious.There’s never really any… whether or not it’santisemitic, you never know. It’s difcult to tell.It’s certainly anti-Israel, but you think there mightbe something in it, but who knows?” (Jeremy)

“We had an Israel Awareness Week been goingon, and then someone came up to us and said,we were talking to someone, and he goes, you’rea Jew. And, I said, yes. He goes, well, I’m nottalking to you about this then, on the basis thatbecause I’m Jewish, I’m automatically really pro-Israel, and I thought that was quite… because it’sa alse generalization, so one o the old antisemitic stereotypes is accusing Jews o having moreallegiance to the Jewish people or to Israel than totheir own country, […]” (Andy)

“I’ve had the odd slogan shouted at me on theway home rom shul, like ‘You Jew!’, but inuni, it’s generally just posters up, like [Israel] apartheid but what you’ve got to do is take themdown, and your problem is solved.” (Rob )

The quantitative survey ound that just over twoout o ve (42%) respondents reported eitherhaving witnessed, and/or having being subjectedto antisemitism in the seven months prior to theNJSS (i.e. since the beginning o the 2010-11

academic year) (Figure 60). Almost one in three(32%) respondents have witnessed something theyregarded as antisemitic, and one in ve (20%)respondents reported that they have personallybeen subjected to antisemitism in the same timeperiod (Figure 61).

Witnessed &

subjected9%

Subjectedonly

11%

Witnessedonly

22%

Neither

witnessednor subjected

58%

Figure 60: Proportion of respondents who have witnessedand/or been subjected to antisemitism during the current

academic year (Percent answering ‘Yes’ in any context)*

* The question was asked in February/March 2011 and was worded:

“Although different people have different views as to what constitutes

antisemitism, would you say that you have witnessed or personallybeen subjected to antisemitism in any of the following contexts, since

the beginning of this academic year (since September 2010)?”




As Figure 61 shows, the data are roughlycomparable with the results obtained in JPR’s2011 Israel Survey on the same topic. AlthoughNJSS respondents do not appear to report quiteas high levels, it should be noted that theirresponses relate to a seven month rather than atwelve month period.

Figure 62 shows the data in terms o context.Respondents are more likely to have witnessedantisemitism rather than been subjected to it withthe exception o antisemitism ‘From an individualstudent’ (13%). A relatively high proportion o respondents reported witnessing antisemitism inuniversity ‘clubs and societies’ (13%), though veryew were subjected to antisemitism in this context.A similar pattern is noticeable with respect to the‘Student Union’. The all encompassing ‘In anothercontext’ is also notable or the relatively high

proportion o respondents witnessing (13%) andbeing subjected to (10%) antisemitism.

Figure 63 suggests a relationship exists betweenone’s experience o antisemitism and one’sconsciousness o being Jewish, i.e. the moreconscious students are o their Jewishness themore likely they are to report having experiencedantisemitism. For example, 47% o those whoare ‘extremely conscious’ o being Jewish hadwitnessed or been subjected to an incident theyregarded as antisemitic during the academic year,

compared with 32% o those who are ‘aware o their Jewishness but little more’. (It should benoted, however, that there is no clear relationshipbetween experience o antisemitism and

Jewish practice.)

Similarly, the more positive students eelabout Israel, the more likely they are to reporthaving experienced antisemitism (Figure 64).For example, 48% o those who eel ‘verypositive’ about Israel say they have experienced

0

10

20

30

40

Israel Survey 2010 (all thoseaged 18-29) (Witnessed

N=347; Subjected N=474)

NJSS 2011 (N=925for each column)

Subjected toantisemitism

Witnessedantisemitism

32

20

38

23

Figure 61: Comparison of proportions who have witnessed

and/or been subjected to antisemitism;* NJSS and the Israel

Survey§ (%)

* It should be noted that the Israel Survey asked the question withreference to the previous year, as opposed to the present academic

year of which 6-7 months had elapsed at the time of the NJSS. Also

it was not possible to filter out students only from the Israel Surveydue to low counts.§ Calculations based on JPR’s 2010 Israel Survey dataset.

0

4

8

12

16Subjected toWitnessed

In another

context

Through university's

administrative system

In a lecture /

class

In the

Student Union

In clubs /

societies

From an

individual student

13 12.9 13

3

10

34

2 21

13.4

10

Figure 62: Proportion of respondents who have witnessed and/or been subjected to antisemitism in various contexts (%)(various bases, minimum N=931 on any column)




antisemitism at university, compared with 37% o those who eel ‘airly positive’.

Figure 65 provides the regional picture and

shows the extent to which antisemitism has beenexperienced by respondents and how concernedthey are about it. Regionally, respondents inScotland are the most likely to report havingexperienced some orm o antisemitism—overhal (52%) have witnessed and/or been subjected

to antisemitism. By contrast, a third (33%) o respondents studying in London has experiencedantisemitism. Respondents studying in the North-west are the most likely to have been subjected to

antisemitism (29%).

However, it is also apparent in Figure 65 thatexperience o antisemitism does not directlycorrelate with concern about it. Overall, veryew respondents report being ‘very worried’ (4%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None

Subjected only

Witnessed only

Witnessed &

subjected

I am aware of myJewishness but little more

63

I feel quite stronglyJewish

467

I feel extremely consciousof being Jewish

382

5360

5

68

12

10

12 7

23

11

16

23

Figure 63: Experience of antisemitism in the current academic year by consciousness of being Jewish

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%None

Witnessed only

Subjected only

Witnessed &

subjected

Neutral / negative feelings

105

Fairly positive

349

Very positive

471

5263

6

66

24

21

11 8

8

18

10

13

Figure 64: ‘How do you feel about Israel?’ by experience of antisemitism in the current academic year (%




about antisemitism, although 17% report being‘airly’ worried about it (see Figure 66). Whilststudents in Scotland report experiencing themost antisemitism, they are actually the thirdleast concerned about it (20% are very or airly

worried) o the six regions in Figure 65. Similarly,although almost hal (48%) o respondents inthe ‘Southern + Wales’ region have experiencedantisemitism, just 8% are ‘very’ or ‘airlyworried’ about it. On the other hand, in London,where 33% have experienced antisemitism, 21%are ‘very’ or ‘airly worried’. The exception isthe North-west where a relatively high level o experience (49% have witnessed and or beensubjected to antisemitism) is matched by arelatively high level o concern (31% o North-west respondents are ‘very’ or ‘airly worried’

about it).

The discrepancy appears to be related to theact that concern about antisemitism closelycorrelates with the size o the Jewish populationat an institution. In general, the larger the Jewishpopulation, the more likely respondents are toreport being concerned about antisemitism.Interestingly, the size o an institution’s Jewishpopulation does not appear to be related toexperience o antisemitism.

Looking ahead

Worries and concerns Taking on new responsibilities and making liedecisions or the rst time can be daunting.Students’ ‘worries and concerns’ have been

reerred to several times in this report, especiallywith respect to personal relationships, the topico Israel on campus, and antisemitism. However,in the broad scheme o things, Israel andantisemitism appear to be o relatively low concern

to students compared with other issues. Figure66 shows that two such issues stand out above allothers—‘Passing exams’ (a worry or over three-quarters (76%) o respondents) and ‘Finding a

job ater university’ (a worry or over two-thirds(68%) o the sample).

Indeed, the most striking aspect o Figure 66 isthe relative lack o concern about antisemitismand anti-Israel sentiment. For example, studentsare hal as likely to express any concern about‘Anti-Israel sentiment at university’ (38%) as they

are about ‘Passing exams’ (76%). ‘Antisemitismat university’ is o even less concern in relativeterms—21% are ‘very’ or ‘airly’ concerned aboutthis, i.e. Jewish students are twice as likely to beworried about ‘Living up to parent’s expectations’(41%) and ‘Relationship issues’ (47%) as they areabout antisemitism. Nevertheless, antisemitismis clearly a problem at university and one thatmerits attention.

Overall, third years are the most worried aboutnding a job (75%) and rst years are the least

worried (60%), a refection o a more generalpattern showing that students’ worries in thisregard increase as they advance through universitytowards lie in the wider world. It should also benoted that emale respondents are more likely tobe worried about each o the items listed than male

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Witnessed only Subjected only Witnessed & subjected

LondonCentralNorth EastSouthern + WalesNorth WestScotland

30

55

20

90

28

39

26 24

147 228349

15

216

10

359

10

151

13

40

13

91

15

56

7

Very / fairly worried

20

31

816

8

23 21

1068

1414

Figure 65: Whether witnessed and/or been subjected to antisemitism and extent to which ‘Very or fairly worried’ about

antisemitism, by region (%)




respondents (Figure 67). Indeed, 61% o all emalerespondents are ‘very worried’ about at least oneo the items listed in Figure 66, compared with46% o male respondents.

When the key concerns o the NJSS sampleare compared with those o the general studentpopulation clear dierences emerge (Figure 68).Overall, Jewish students exhibit a greaterpropensity to be worried in general than the

wider student population. In particular, Jewishstudents appear to be more concerned about‘Passing exams’ than ‘Finding a job’; in thegeneral student population the opposite is true.

Jewish students are twice as worried about‘Relationship issues’ as students in general, butar less worried about ‘Paying o nancial debts’.They are also more likely to be worried about‘Living up to parents’ expectations’, ‘Feelinglonely’, their ‘Personal health’, ‘Antisemitism/racism’, and local ‘Crime’.

Opinions about the Jewishcommunity Focus group respondents raised severaltopics that were not directly addressed in thequantitative survey and among the more hearteltand consistent themes raised were attitudes

towards the British Jewish community which,it must be said, were largely negative and/or gloomy.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not at all worriedNot very worriedFairly worriedVery worried

My sexual identity

Crime in the area I live in during term-time

Antisemitism at university

Personal health concerns

Feeling lonely

Anti-Israel sentiment at university

Paying off my financial debts

Living up to the expectations of my parents

Relationship issues

Finding a job after I finish studying

Passing my exams 32

27

19 544

12

3513

2042

11

18

30

8

11

33

34 25

36 25

30

28

37 25

35 31

22

26

43 29

41 37

20

17

43 34

8

6

4

4

12 14 83

897

894

886

896

869

892

890

890

896

903

883

Figure 66: ‘To what extent, if at all, are you personally worried or concerned about the following?’§


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

None

1 item

2 items

3 or more items

Female

respondents

493

Male

respondents

432

314

39

14

11

21

1

22

7

18

21

54

Figure 67: Total number of items respondents were ‘very

worried’ about by gender




“[…] what’s become more and moreapparent over the last ew years is that I’mnot proud to be a British Jew because I really don’t like the way the community’sheading. Like the organizations that havethe voice and have the power […] I don’tthink they listen to people who disagreewith them and I really eel that I don’t havemuch o a voice. And I know there are a eworganizations on Israel and Judaism that are

trying to put orward a dierent viewpointbut, to be honest, I don’t eel that they will be successul given what I’ve experienced.” (Zac)

“I really do think it’s a community thing.You’ve got neo-Orthodoxy and morereligious versus Progressive and Reormand there’s a massive split and people aren’trecognizing that people are Jewish and thatto me is the most painul thing because romboth sides people are really passionate and

they do care and they just want to bring thecommunity together and do good things.”(Michal)

“I wouldn’t say it [the British Jewishcommunity] was dying, I’d say it was

changing. […] I don’t think it’s a bad thing,I don’t really think it’s a good thing; it’s justthe way lie goes. Things change and peoplehave just got to deal with it.” (Steve)

“I do have a very, in my opinion,catastrophic belie on the uture o Anglo- Jewry, so much so that I see no uture andI’m planning on making aliyah [movingto Israel] within a year o me fnishing

university.” (Richard)

Next steps …Respondents were nally asked to lookbeyond their studies and think about theiruture plans. These dier depending on whatstage students are at. For undergraduates, avaried selection o paths is being considered, asshown in Figure 69. The most popular optionis nding a job, this being the aim o almosthal (48%) o this group, the majority o whomwant to enter the workplace as employees. A

quarter (25%) is considering continuing tostudy (either academically or proessionally),and 9% plan to move to Israel.

Postgraduates dier slightly in that they aremore likely to be planning to work (57%)

0

20

40

60

80

General student sample (NSBS minimum N=610)Jewish sample (NJSS minimum N=869)

My sexual

identity

Crime in

the area I livein during

term-time

Antisemitism /

racism atuniversity*

Personal

healthconcerns

Feeling

lonely

Paying off

my financialdebts

Living up

to theexpectations

of my parents

Relationship

issues

Finding a

job afterI finish

studying

Passing my

exams

76

68 68

78

47

23

41

32

60

34

23

28

1821

6

39

23

16

4 5

Figure 68: Proportion of respondents who are ‘Very worried’ or ‘Fairly worried’ about each item: Jewish sample (NJSS)

compared with general s tudent sample (NSBS) (%)

* NSBS asked ‘Racism against my religious/ethnic/national group at university/college’




and less likely to be looking to take time out(6%) or be unsure (4%) about their plans.Interestingly, the same proportion (25%) o postgraduates plans to continue studying(either academically or proessionally) asundergraduates (N=141).

Don’t know / None of these

6%

Take ‘timeout’ to travel /

volunteer etc.

12%

Move to

Israel8%

Get a

professional

qualification

8%Continuestudying

(Masters,

PhD, etc.)17%

Work for a

Jewish organisation

7%

Self-employment

3%

Enter the workplaceas an employee

39%

Figure 69: ‘What do you hope to do in the year or two aftercompleting your course?’ (N=759) (Undergraduates only –

‘Most preferred path’)

“In terms o mysel, personally, I tend to

just take it … it scares me, the uture, so I

just tend to take each day, week, month as

it comes. Because to think too ar aheadscares me too much because being a

student and not knowing what I want to do

ater universit y, now knowing where I want

to live, all these questions are unanswered

at the moment, so I’ll just see what happens

and have a bit o un in the meantime.”

(Steve)







‘Home and away’In the course o conducting this survey andexamining the results, the research team identieda number o discussion points, several o which areincluded in this chapter in order that they mightbe used to guide constructive policy debate.

One o the overarching insights, which ultimatelyinormed the title o this report, is the notion o students being both at ‘home and away’. Studentsare in a transitional stage o their lives, betweendependence upon, and independence rom, theirparents. They are moving away rom the Jewishhome environments that nurtured them, and arestarting to evolve their own ideas about Jewishidentity and liestyle. However, ‘home and away’is not simply a reerence to two distinct places;it also seeks to capture the relationship between

them. It reers to the process o creating homeswhen away, even in the context o a universitydorm room, using the Jewish tools they haveacquired during their Jewish upbringing. It reersto the process o bringing new insights aboutthemselves back into the parental home, based onexperiences and encounters they have had whilst‘away’. And, particularly or those who have beenbrought up in intensely Jewish environments, itinvolves learning how to encounter dierence,and to respond to views and perspectives about

Judaism and Israel that they have rarely had to

conront previously.

This ‘home and away’ duality suggests theimportance o adopting an integrated approachto Jewish student lie. Students do not operatein a separate universe, independent o themainstream community; they are, or at leastshould be, integral to it, and as much part o thecommunity as any other Jewish cohort. It shouldnot simply be an issue o how they are supportedwhen they are ‘away’; it should also be an issueo how they are reintegrated when they are at

‘home’. Today’s Jewish students are the utureo the Jewish community; they will comprise itsvoluntary and proessional leadership, and itsdonors and planners. Most o those who will goon to lead British Jewish charities, organizationsand oundations in the uture will be graduates o

British universities. The ‘home and away’ stagerepresents a critical and ormative period in theirlives; it entails learning new ideas, expandingminds and horizons, and it involves a combinationo excitement and anxiety, opportunity and risk,pleasure and pain. How the Jewish community

supports, engages, challenges and cultivates itsstudents as they navigate the experience says agreat deal about the type o community it is.

Everybody’s businessGiven their uture importance to the communityand the challenges associated with being both‘home’ and ‘away’, students are rightly targetedby a wide range o Jewish organizations.Nevertheless, some key organizations appearto be less engaged than others. In particular,we observed that whilst more than hal o our

respondents have a connection to their homesynagogue, very ew o the twenty largestsynagogues in the country have the capacityto email people rom their communities whoare currently at university. Furthermore, weencountered a number o students who eelalienated by what is being provided or them oncampus because it ails to respond appropriately totheir needs or interests. Two questions thereoreemerge: rst, are community organizationssuciently conscious o the important rolesthey could play in supporting and engaging

with students on campus? And second, arethey investing sucient time and energy inunderstanding Jewish students’ interests anddetermining how they might be able to respondto them?

The more you do, the more you doWe observed that Jewishly engaged students tendto associate with multiple Jewish organizations,whereas less engaged students associate with ew,i any. In essence, the more Jewishly engagedthey are, the more organizations they associate

with. The Jewishness o one’s upbringing ingeneral is critical; the most engaged have beenthrough multiple Jewish experiences during theirchildhood and adolescence, whereas the leastengaged are ar less likely to have done so. In otherwords, the more you do, the more you do. It is

Discussion o fndings“An accurate understanding o Jewish students is essential to help ensure a vibrant uture or Britain’s Jewish

community.” Discuss.

4




too late to alter upbringing at university stage, butmultiple Jewish experiences can still be oeredand encouraged. The critical questions thereoreare: what is the range o experiences that shouldbe available to students? What opportunitiesshould they be given in order to encourage themto become more involved? And what links shouldexist between the dierent opportunities, in orderto encourage and acilitate urther involvement?

Creating an upbeat narrative

We observed that many Jewish students arerather downbeat about the inner workings anduture outlook o Britain’s Jewish community.They express rustration about a lack o opendebate and an inability to input into decision-making processes that aect them, painabout denominational tensions and splits, andultimately proer pessimistic orecasts about thecommunity’s uture. The renaissance o activitythat the British Jewish community has witnessedover the past two decades appears to have hadlittle infuence on their communal narrative.

Furthermore, whilst supporting Israel andcombating antisemitism are signicant aspectso what many students believe to be core aspectso being Jewish, they express dissatisactionwith how Jewish student lie is portrayed in the

Jewish media, and argue that an over-simplisticand exaggerated emphasis on anti-Israel activityand antisemitism distorts the reality theyexperience. The questions arising rom thesendings include: how might we cultivate a morepositive and upliting view o the community in

Jewish students? What initiatives and approaches

are needed to enable them to eel more engagedand valued, and to take ownership o andresponsibility or the community’s uture? Whatmessages should comprise the contemporaryBritish Jewish narrative?

Order o prioritiesWhilst many students exhibit a strong sense o

Jewish peoplehood and appear to be comortablewith the idea o a shared Jewish destiny, what‘being Jewish’ means to these students is biasedtowards notions o external threat over and

above individual responsibility. Rememberingthe Holocaust, combating antisemitism andsupporting Israel are all more likely to dene whatbeing Jewish means to them than charitable giving,volunteering or supporting social justice causes.Without wishing to understate the importance o

the ormer, it is striking that, at this stage in theirdevelopment, the Jewishness o this cohort appearsto have been inormed more by the orces thatseek to do damage to the Jewish People than bythe values that seek to underpin what the JewishPeople ought to be. The Jewish practices andvalues o volunteering and charitable giving are atleast partially lost on this group. We might ask, isthis set o priorities in the right order? Similarly,to what extent should Jewish identity be inormedby the genuine external threats that exist, and to

what extent should it be inormed by our owninternal Jewish texts and values? I an adjustmenttowards the latter is desirable, what Jewish habitsshould students and young people be encouragedand empowered to adopt in order to acilitatethe development o a more robust identity o this type?

Provision in proportionWe observed that the ‘home and away’ periodgenerates a range o concerns or worries or Jewishstudents, chie among which are passing exams,

nding a job, relationship issues and living up toparental expectations. Strikingly, concerns aboutanti-Israel sentiment or antisemitism at universityeature much lower down the list. In part, this maybe explained by the nding that the proportiono British students in general that harbours ‘verynegative’ eelings towards Israel is actually verysmall; it may also be a result o students’ claimsthat anti-Israel activity is, on the whole, airlyeasy to avoid. The questions that thereore ariseinclude: are communal investments in student liecurrently in proportion to the actual concerns

o students? To what extent do communal earsabout antisemitism and anti-Israel sentimentcloud our view o the predominant issues thatconcern Jewish students on a day-to-day basis?What new support inrastructures, i any,should be introduced to support them with theirprimary concerns?

Social clusteringThe decisions that Jewish students are takingand the choices they are making are resulting,consciously or otherwise, in quite remarkable,

though not unusual, levels o Jewish ‘clustering’.Through biasing choices to traditional degreepaths, expressing preerence or a rather narrowrange o institutions and ‘university towns’, andselecting courses rom a relatively limited rangeo disciplines and subjects, over hal o today’s




Jewish students are ltered and unnelled into justeight out o 113 higher educational institutions.Strikingly, there are as many Jewish studentsstudying at the three universities o Leeds,Birmingham and Nottingham, as there are inthe 73 least Jewishly populous universities puttogether. How should Jewish student providersrespond to this reality? Should student provisionbe restricted to those ew places where Jewishstudents are most likely to congregate? Whatprovision should be made available to Jewish

students based at the vast range o ‘peripheral’universities where there is little, i any, Jewishinrastructure at all? In an era o limited unds,what decisions should be taken about where scarceresources should be most eciently targeted?

Israel in perspectiveIsrael matters enormously to Jewish students. Formost, it is undamental to their Jewish identities.Almost all have been there, most eel positivetowards it, and or a clear majority, supportingIsrael is considered to be an important part o

being Jewish. But in spite o this, many report thatthey are unable to raise the topic o Israel publiclyon campus, even in ostensibly apolitical contextssuch as ‘Israel Awareness Weeks’, without theprospect o being chided by a hostile minorityor doing so. This is not an acceptable situation.Nevertheless, it is important to contextualizethe issue rom the perspective o the studentsthemselves. First, the notion that students inthe general population tend to harbour negativeviews about Israel is alse. On the contrary, themajority is disinterested and holds no opinions

at all, and o those who do have an opinion, hal hold a positive view and hal hold a negative view.Only a very small minority holds very negativeviews; whilst this minority is more than sucientto make lie dicult and unpleasant or Jewishstudents, it is in no sense omnipresent. Second,many make it clear that anti-Israel campaigns oractivities can easily be avoided i students wishto do so—indeed, many have no interest at all inthe political issues that Israel engenders. Third,perhaps most importantly, Jewish students arenot overwhelmingly worried about the negativity,

neither in absolute nor relative terms; comparedwith other issues such as passing exams andnding a job, anti-Israel sentiment on campusis o relatively marginal concern to them. Theimportant questions, thereore, include theollowing: how should the community respond

to the genuine challenge o anti-Israel sentimenton university campuses in an eective way? Howshould students and the community respond tothese serious problems, whilst at the same timemaintaining a sense o proportion both about theextent o the issues and the position they hold in

Jewish students’ consciousness?

Addressing alienationIn both the quantitative and qualitative datawe observed evidence that several groups o

Jewish students do not eel that they are beingappropriately provided or on campus, andworse, eel alienated rom what is on oer. I theoverarching purpose o Jewish student provisionis to ensure that all Jewish students, irrespectiveo background or upbringing, are supported, itis apparent that some are being short-changed.Chie among these, though not alone, are studentswho identiy as ‘Reorm/Progressive’. Some o these describe how they have elt rejected by theirmore ‘Traditional’ peers, and rustrated in theirdesires to create spaces in which to practise their

type o Judaism. Related to this is the observationthat Reorm and more secular Jewish students aregenerally less involved in organized Jewish studentlie, a act which may be accounted or both bythe nature o their upbringing and a seeminglack o attractive opportunities on oer. Other

Jewish students, rom a range o backgrounds, eelalienated rom large-scale social events, such as‘Booze or Jews’, and appear to be struggling tond opportunities to engage with their Jewishnesson a more meaningul and values-based level.The emerging questions include: what range o

provision is required to ensure that students’individual needs and interests can be cateredor in a respectul, relevant and positive way?What rameworks are required to achieve this,and what should the relationship be betweenthem? Are Jewish organizations that are activeon campus suciently varied in their ethos andapproach to be able to meet the needs o a diversestudent body?

Looking towards the uture:Continuity or renewal?

In the oreword to this report, we noted that thisgeneration o students is a particularly interestingcohort to investigate because it was born into, andhas grown up within the context o a communitythat has invested heavily in its own uture. Thebook that launched the British Jewish educational




organization ‘Jewish Continuity’ in the 1990samously asked a highly provocative question: willwe have Jewish grandchildren? We will have towait some time beore knowing the answer, butthese data oer us a rst insight into an interimquestion: will we have Jewish children? Theanswer, at this stage at least, appears to be yes. Thestudents in this sample are, on the whole, Jewishlyengaged and involved, and seem more than likelyto ‘continue’ the Judaism with which they havebeen brought up; indeed, in many respects, they

are strikingly similar to their parents. Their Jewishidentities, their characteristics o behaviour andbelonging and the ways in which they practisetheir Judaism are all amiliar. In that sense, theyare continuity personied. That said, there aresome concerns: their identities are inormed moreby external threats than by internal Jewish values,they eel misrepresented and voiceless, some eelalienated, and a number are rather pessimisticabout the Jewish community’s prospects.

However, ‘continuity’ was not the only term

employed to capture the new educational agendawhich emerged in the early 1990s; the preerred

term subsequently adopted was ‘renewal.’ Incontrast to the word ‘continuity’, which suggestsa desire to maintain the status quo, ‘renewal’suggests an element o cultural renaissance andcreative change. In this respect, this cohort doesnot appear to be exhibiting any obvious or clearsigns o ‘renewal’ at this stage. Nevertheless,the jury is still out; the post-university years o emerging adulthood will also shape and inormthe types o Jews they ultimately become. Somethings can be more condently predicted than

others. Those who grew up involved and ‘Jewishlybusy’ have remained so at university and, arelikely to stay involved in the uture. Those whohave grown up less involved and are not ndingnew reasons to become more involved at universityare at risk o driting away rom the community.The home and away years represent a criticalperiod during which new and important messagesabout, and opportunities or, Jewish engagementcan be created. Determining what these are, andhow they can be tailored to genuinely meet thediverse needs and interests o all Jewish students,

is arguably one o the most important prioritiesor the Jewish community today.




5Appendix

MethodologyRandomly sampling Jews is notoriouslydicult. This is primarily because there are nocomprehensive and up-to-date Jewish contactlists available rom which samples can be drawn.Thereore, alternative approaches must be usedto build up Jewish samples. That said, Jewishstudents are perhaps more readily contactable than

most other Jewish sub-groups since most, i notall, have email addresses and a high proportionare members, or have been members, o Jewishstudent organizations, especially the Union o

Jewish Students (UJS). On the other hand, o all Jewish cohorts, Jewish students are perhaps theleast likely to be motivated to take part in a samplesurvey o this type.

Thereore, it was decided early on that UJS shouldbe the major partner helping the survey team tocontact the Jewish student population but it was

also decided that a cash incentive in the ormo a prize draw31 would be necessary in orderto maximize response levels. The UJS databasecontained about 6,000 email addresses and all o these were used in an eort to recruit respondents.In addition, the survey team set up a networko seventeen ‘nodes’ who were Jewish studentswhom the survey team and its partners recognizedas being at the centre o various student socialnetworks. Nodes were not necessarily chosenor their access to large numbers o Jewishstudents—rather, they helped the team locate and

recruit students who were less Jewishly engagedor ormally connected by means o their ownpersonal email address lists. Nodes were oereda small ee or their assistance. Further, a modestadvertising campaign was conducted in therun up to, and during, the eldwork period. Itconsisted o eye-catching advertisements that weredistributed as posters to Jewish societies (JSocs)and to nodes, and emailed to Jewish students and

JSocs to promote the survey.

The NJSS questionnaire was developed ollowing

consultations with various experts who work

31 Respondents were oered the opportunity to enternto a prize draw or an Apple iPad worth £500 on thecondition that they provided mobile phone contactdetails.

with students and understand their needs, aswell as proessional advice rom Ipsos MORI.However, nal decisions on questionnaire contentand question wording remained the sole preserveo JPR.

The eldwork was conducted by Ipsos MORIand the survey was delivered via an online

instrument32

between 15th February 2011 and15th March 2011. The participation criteria wereor respondents to be ‘Jewish and currentlyregistered to study ull- or part-time at a UK-based university or college.’ A total o 925valid responses was received rom respondentsattending 95 dierent UK institutions. This totalis estimated to represent between 11% and 14% o the total Jewish student population in Britain (seeTechnical Details).

It is interesting to note that the survey itsel

revealed that email is not necessarily the mosteective method or contacting Jewish students.Indeed, it appears that email may now be oneo the least common ways in which studentsthemselves tend to communicate with each other(see Fig. 41, page 37). Less than 6% o respondentssaid email was their most preerred, or eventheir second most preerred, method o personalcommunication.

Respondents heard about the survey throughmultiple sources, but a majority (60%) responded

to a request rom UJS. O those who did not hearabout the survey through UJS, Facebook was animportant source (a urther 19% heard about itthis way), as were the ‘nodes’ recruited by JPRto help publicize the survey (14% were recruitedthis way).33

32 For a more detailed summary o the potentialpitalls o online surveying and the type o controland security measures that the survey team wasable to utilize: Graham D. (2011, orthcoming),Surveying minority groups online: an assessment o themethodological approach used in the 2010 Israel Survey

o Jews in Britain. London: JPR / Institute or JewishPolicy Research.

33 It should be noted that less than 1% o respondentssaid they ‘received an email rom my synagogue’,despite 53% o respondents stating that they wereconnected to a home synagogue in some way. JPRapproached the country’s 20 largest synagogues




In addition to this part o the project, a parallelsurvey was undertaken on behal o JPR by IpsosMORI using a random sample o British studentstaken rom its own panel. This was carried outbecause o the lack o credible baseline datasetswith which the NJSS sample o Jewish studentscan be directly compared.34 A total o 761 validresponses were obtained rom this NationalStudent Benchmark Survey (NSBS).

In addition to this quantitative aspect o NJSS,

ve ocus groups were also carried out shortlyater the questionnaire eldwork was completed.A total o 43 Jewish students took part in thisstage o the project between June and July 2011and each was paid a small ee or their time. Theywere selected both rom the list o questionnairerespondents and through two Jewish youthmovements (the Reorm group RSY-Netzer andthe Orthodox group Bnei Akiva). The ocusgroups allowed the survey team to hear the voiceso the students themselves, and quotations arepresented throughout the report to enhance the

understanding o the identity o Jewish studentsand experience by adding nuance, insight andnarrative. In general, quotations have beenselected to enrich the quantitative ndings.The names o all speakers have been changed toprotect anonymity.

A ull analysis and discussion o howrepresentative the NJSS sample is can be oundin the next section. In summary, although thesample resembles the wider Jewish communityin terms o geography, certain demographic

characteristics, and Jewish background variables,it is almost inevitable—given the samplingtechnique used—that it has captured the more

Jewishly engaged sections o the studentpopulation at the expense o the less Jewishlyengaged. Thus, or example, the proportiono respondents who participated in an IsraelExperience programme is about 23% higher than

(by membership) to see i they might be willing tocontact people who grew up in their communitiesand were currently studying at university. In almost

all instances, however, synagogues were unable to doso because they lacked the necessary email contactdetails.

34 Even the Census is o limited value in this instancesince it enumerated ‘students’ rom age 16-24 and onlylimited data are collected or those living away romhome during term-time.

would have been the case had a strictly randomsample o Jewish students been obtained.

Unortunately, because o the lack o appropriatebaseline data or Jewish students, it is notpossible to weight the NJSS dataset to takeaccount o this particular bias. We have to accept,thereore, that the data refect the characteristicso the more active and engaged sector o the

Jewish student population. Whilst the majorityo Jewish students all into this category, the

sample does under-represent students who arethe least Jewishly engaged, though the extentto which it does so cannot be determined withthe currently available data. That said, many o the trends within the data (such as the extentto which students volunteer disaggregated by

Jewish identity) are likely to be true o the under-sampled sectors as well. It is mainly whole sampleestimates (such as the percentage o studentsoverall who volunteer) that are more applicable tothe more engaged sections o the Jewish studentpopulation in general.

Technical Details

Estimating the NJSS sample proportionIn order to contextualize the NJSS sample itis important to gain an understanding o theproportion o all Jewish students it represents.However, to do that requires knowledge o thetotal size o Britain’s Jewish student population,a gure that can only be approximated, at best.This is because, like all identities, Jewish identityis a fuid concept; the boundaries between Jew

and non-Jew are blurred, especially when thedenition o ‘Jewish’ is sel-dened, as is thecase with this survey. Thus, the very notion o a ‘xed’ number o Jewish students studyingat any one time is problematic. However, inorder to provide some context, it is necessary toproduce a rough estimate, at least, o the Jewishstudent population size. Unortunately, evenater actoring in or Jewish undercount, evenCensus data do not provide a wholly accuratepicture because they assume a broader denitiono ‘student’ than the one being used in this

survey and, at the time o writing, were ten yearsout o date.35 Thereore, the size o the Jewishstudent population must necessarily be inerred.

35 Data rom the 2011 Census will only become availableup to a year ater the publication o this report.




Jewish students aged 19, 20, and 21 in 2011 wouldhave been aged 9, 10, and 11 years old when theCensus was carried out in 2001. Rolling the 2001Census gures orward to 2011 or these Jewishcohorts provides an estimate o the total Jewishpopulation size (ignoring net immigration) at thetime o the survey, which is approximately 8,400people.36 Census data can also be used to estimatethe proportion o this group that will have goneto university (see lines 7-9 in Table 3, page 67),which turns out to be about 71%. Taking into

account the presumed national undercount or Jews in the 2001 Census o 7.7%37 due, in part,to the voluntary nature o the Census questionon religion, we arrive at a gure o almost6,500 Jewish students. However, this totaldoes not include postgraduates, or those takingundergraduate courses lasting more than threeyears, who were also included in this survey.Since there are no data sources available thatcan be used to even approximate the size o thisgroup, a generous upper estimate can be madeby simply making the somewhat improbable

assumption that all third years continue withtheir studies or a ourth year, whilst ignoringany th years and above. Inelegant as thisapproach may be, it produces a sample poolsize o about 8,600 Jewish students. Given thatthe NJSS sample contains 925 valid responses,this suggests the sample proportion is in theregion o 11% to 14% o the total Jewish studentpopulation in Britain.

How representative is the NJSS sample? Locating relevant baseline data to assess

sample representativeness is particularlychallenging, although some assessments aremore straightorward than others. The simplestcomparison is or gender. The sample containedslightly more emales (53.3%) than males (46.7%).This emale skew also exists in the generalstudent population and to a greater extent (58.4%is emale).38 Similarly, in terms o country o birth, 84.3% were born in the UK, which closelyresembles the 2001 Census proportion or this agegroup (85.2%).39

36 Based on data rom ONS 2001 Census Table KS0737 See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/

dataqualityevrep.asp38 Ibid.39 Sample o anonymized records (SAR) or Jews aged

16-24 in 2001.

Clearly, the way in which the sample was built willimpact on its representativeness. UJS membershiplists were a key source o contact data and, as aresult, 38% o respondents said they had heardabout the survey solely through UJS, with aurther 22% mentioning UJS as a contact sourcealongside others (such as Facebook). I memberso UJS are not ‘typical’ o the general Jewishstudent population (as some o the ndings inthis study suggest), then it is possible that thesample is biased. However, it is not clear how,

or even whether, UJS membership, in and o itsel, skews responses. Rather, the actors thatimpact on the likelihood o a student joiningUJS—such as Jewish upbringing and previousexperience o Jewish youth movements—may bemore signicant.

One important baseline relates to Jewish identity.Data are available rom previous JPR surveys,40 Board o Deputies’ synagogue membershipsurveys,41 and the 2001 Census,42 which indicatethe expected proportions o ‘Orthodox’, ‘Non-

Orthodox’43 and ‘unaligned’ Jews we wouldexpect to nd in a random sample o Jews, andthese can be compared with the proportionsound in the NJSS sample. The comparison isnot straightorward since the surveys mentionedabove encompass the whole community, whereasNJSS is restricted to students alone. Thereore,only data on Jewish students’ upbringing arepresented in Figure 70, and are compared withcurrent identity data or the whole Jewishpopulation based on Census, Board o Deputiesand JPR datasets. This shows that the NJSS

40 Becher, Waterman, Kosmin and Thomson (2002);Waterman (2003).

41 GrahamandVulkan(2010).42 Although the Census does not record Jewish

denominations, neither does the Board o Deputiescollect data on those who are not aliated to asynagogue. Subtracting the Board o Deputies datarom the Census gives an approximation o the size o this ‘unaligned’ group.

43 In the JPR survey data, ‘Orthodox’ encompassesthe categories ‘Traditional (not strictly Orthodox)’,‘Orthodox (e.g. would not turn on a light on Sabbath)’,and ‘ Haredi (ultra-Orthodox, Hassidic)’ whereas

‘Non-Orthodox’ encompasses ‘Reorm/Progressive’,‘Non-practising (i.e. secular/cultural)’,‘Just Jewish’,and ‘None’. In the Board o Deputies’ data ‘Orthodox’reers to Strictly Orthodox, Central Orthodox(including the United Synagogue), and Sephardialigned movements, and ‘non-Orthodox’ reers toMasorti, Reorm, and Liberal movements.




sample closely resembles the national Jewishpopulation. Just over hal (54%) o NJSSrespondents were brought up in (nominally)‘Orthodox’ households, similar to the proportiono ‘Orthodox’ households recorded in the general

Jewish population (51%). It is also evidentthat the proportion o the NJSS sample that is‘unaligned’ (28%) is very similar to data or thegeneral Jewish population (27%).

A second key baseline relates to levels o Jewish

engagement. One o the primary concerns o thesurvey team was the possible over-sampling o students who are more Jewishly engaged. This isbased on the assumption that, by denition, themore Jewishly engaged people are, the more likelythey are to appear on Jewish email lists such asthose used by the NJSS survey team. They arealso presumably more likely to take an interest incompleting such a questionnaire in the rst place.Unortunately, it is not possible to place accuratemargins o error on either o these possibilities.However, Table 3 presents a calculation using

UJIA data on the numbers o young peoplethat take part in Israel Experience summerprogrammes (‘tour’) each year. Using tour data asa proxy or ‘Jewish engagement’ it is theoreticallypossible to estimate the extent to which NJSSover/undersampled tour participation.

In summary, we estimate that approximately 67%o all Jewish 16 year-olds (who go on to university)take part in Israel Experience programmesannually; the equivalent proportion in the NJSSsample is 82% (Table 3). This suggests that theNJSS has oversampled ‘engaged’ Jews by almost23%. In other words, there are 23% more Jewishly‘engaged’ students in the sample than would beexpected i it had been entirely random based onthis denition o ‘engaged’.

Neither o these ‘baselines’—on Jewish identityor tour participation—is ideal but, on balance,in the absence o satisactory alternativesthey are better than none. Taken at ace value,they suggest that the sample is reasonablyrepresentative in terms o the students’ Jewishdenominational background, but that theircurrent levels o Jewish engagement are probablyhigher than is the case or Jewish students as awhole. So or example, when NJSS reports thatup to 84% o respondents are currently, or haveormerly been, members o UJS (see page 40)

it is likely that the ‘true’ gure is nearer 68%(assuming the 23% over-sample estimate in Table3 is accurate).

To what extent does this oversampling matter? Itmeans that extrapolation o results to the whole

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

JPR London + Leeds (2001-02) N=2,226^Board of Deputies 2010 / 2001 Census*NJSS 2011

OrthodoxNon-Orthodox*None

28 2730

1823

15

5451

56

Figure 70: NJSS data on Jewish upbringing compared with available Jewish identity baseline data (%)

* Non-Orthodox refers to pro gressive Jewish denominations, including Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism. ‘Orthodox’ includes mainstream Orthodox (e.g. United

Synagogue)^ The Board of Deputies data are taken from Graham and Vulkan 2010, and u se 2001 Census data on Jewish households as a baseline. JPR data are based on analysis

of the original datasets.




Jewish student population (i.e. external validity)must be done careully, especially when ocusingon issues relating to Jewish engagement.

As indicated above, whole sample estimates o,or example, the proportion o Jewish studentswho volunteer, are likely to be infated. However,some o the most important ndings o NJSSrelate to trends within the sample itsel, such as therelationship between type o Jewish upbringing

and involvement with Jewish youth movements.The pattern o such within-sample relationships isless likely to be infuenced by the oversampling o the more engaged Jewish students.

In the nal analysis, the thrust o most communalpolicy and planning work is aimed at the majorityo Jewish students who are reasonably engaged. Inthat context, the bias towards Jewish engagementis acceptable.

Year NJSS respondents went on tour

Average age o NJSS students (18-23) (years) 20.5 (1)

Age or going on tour = 16, thereore 20 year-olds in 2011 were 16 in: 2007 (2)

Total number o Jewish 16 year-olds in 2007

16 year-olds were 10 in 2001 – number o Jewish 10 year-olds in 2001 Census 2,808 (3)

Rolling 2,808 orward using lietables produces the number o 16 year-olds in 2007 2,766 (4)

Subtracting the proportion that were oreign ii rom (#4) 2,351 (5)

Adding to (#5) the proportion undercounted in the Census (7.7%)iii iv 2,547 (6)

Number o 16 year-olds in 2007 who went on to university

Average rate o increase in numbers gaining degrees by Census cohortv (%) 32.4 (7)

Expected proportion o 2011 cohort at university (%) 73.7 (8)

Number that will have gone to university (#8 as % o #6) 1,878 (9)

Average number per year on tour 2006-08 (UJIA data) 1,249 (10)

Average proportion o university students in 2011 that went on tour in years 2006-08(#10 as % o #9) (%)

66.5 (11)

Proportion o NJSS respondents that went on tour

Number o UK-born NJSS respondents who went on tour 677 (12)

Total number o UK-born NJSS respondents 830 (13)

Proportion o UK-born NJSS respondents who went on tour (#12 as % o #13) (%) 81.6 (14)

Percentage point dierence (#14 subtract #11) 15.1 (15)

Percent oversampled – proportionate dierence (#15 as % o #11) (%) 22.6 (16)

Table 3: Estimation o over/undersampling o Jewish engagement using Israel Experience programme (‘tour’) datai

i Source: we are grateul to Dr Helena Miller o the UJIA or these data;

ii Using samples o anonymized records (SAR) data rom ONS shows that 15% o Jews aged 16-24 were born outside the UK;iii Source: ONS 2001 Census – Table KS07;

iv This calculation does not attempt to account or the strictly-Orthodox (haredi) component o the population who were less likely to appear inthe Census, participate in Israel Experience programmes or go to university;

v The 2001 Census reported that 55.7% o Jewish 25-34 year-olds held degrees, compared with 43.8% o 35 -49 year olds and 31.8% o 50-59

year olds (ONS Census Table S158).



Institute for Jewish Policy Research

© Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproducedor utilized in any form or by any means, now known or hereinafter invented,

including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval

system, without the permission in writing of the publisher.

jpr / report

Documents

NJSS Report Final