I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
They can, but it often sounds like the politics of envy.
The best footballers generally end up at the best clubs, is it any surprise the best students end up at the best universities and Oxford?
I recall reading research saying that the privately educated do less well than state school pupils at top universities on average though, suggesting they might not be the best students. Perhaps just the best coached for interviews and the most spoon fed through school.
It’s a while back now but my grammar school did nothing to help me in the interview process for Cambridge. I strongly suspect that private school candidates had had interview training and practice. Could have made all the difference.
Yeah my comprehensive didn't help me at all. I read a PG Wodehouse novel the night before the interview, in the hope that it might help me penetrate the Oxbridge worldview. Something must have worked since I got in. They may have just been confused by my Scottish qualifications.
Perhaps you got in on your own merit without the hothousing from certain schools.
You are very kind, thank you. I was very lucky to go there and got a huge amount out of it both personally and professionally, not least as I met my wife there. By chance I was at our college last night attending a dinner in memory of one of the academics who taught me so I'm feeling quite nostalgic about it all. At the time though it was quite gruelling and I felt very much a fish out of water and probably still suffer from a degree of imposter syndrome even now, almost thirty years later.
As I sit at anchor in New Grimsby Sound enjoying a Tanqueray moment I cannot help deprecating the travelogue one upmanship which has infected PB
I applaud PB’s new explorations of food and travel. I suspect they are also a diversion from the fucking terrible state of the world, whether you are talking British politics or, indeed, anything else
Yes hoping to murder a Scillonian lobster in due course. Will report.
Wonderful seafood down there. Enjoy
Photo!
Not set up for that ATM but will try to set up an Imgur account or something
You just go on the Vanilla site and its a doddle. Chooses photos from your phone
Test:
Regrettably, in the past couple of weeks Vanilla has started obeying the metadata in phone photos which says which way up the phone was. And so, it rotates them on screen. It is a downgrade.
Bugger! BTW it was a digital camera, not a phone.
Anyway, tell us about the Elizabeth line…
Um, OK!
May 24th - Abbey Wood to Paddington (via Canary Wharf, Whitechapel etc.) opens. However, the links from Stratford to Whitechapel, and Paddington (Crossrail) to Acton, along with the new Bond Street platforms, don't open till 2023!
Didn't they say it was fully open in three parts, and Bond Street wouldn't be open. They've been hard pressed. How can Bond street not be ready - that'll be 5 years or so late!
Ah, but two of those "three parts" are already open! Heathrow/Reading to Paddington (surface station), and Liverpool Street (surface station) to Shenfield.
The bits of Paddington that are Crossrail are a quite surreal ghost-town.
Many in Canary Wharf think that opening the Crossrail station for trains will ruin it - as a collection of bars, shops and a superb roof garden, it is very successful. The last thing it needs is a horde of people traipsing through the place....
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
In the last week the idea that Ukraine might actually win this war, as opposed to achieving a bloody and indecisive draw, has really gained momentum. The losses in the river crossing, the inability to wipe out those marines in Marisupal, the withdraws around Kharkiv, all seem to point to major problems. for the Russians.
As I have said before though, be careful what you wish for. As Russia grows ever more desperate the risk of escalation to non conventional weapons increases exponentially. We live in very, very dangerous times with leadership that is less than optimal for such a situation.
Although it's encouraging he only wants those in Eastern Ukraine to be safe. I mean, that's something the Russians could arrange tomorrow simply by getting their forces the fuck out of there.
You are clearly forgetting the nazis and facists that Ukraine is allegedly run by.
The Eurovision popular vote decision last night was truly stunning. From 39 countries (since you can't vote for yourself) the maximum vote was 468. Ukraine got 430 which might be explained by 20 firsts and 19 seconds. For all the money Russia spends on propaganda, bot farms and the like that is a truly catastrophic outcome.
The Russian effort with propaganda seems to be aimed outside Europe and the US. Hence the rather interesting polling from around the world on the Ukraine conflict.
In the last week the idea that Ukraine might actually win this war, as opposed to achieving a bloody and indecisive draw, has really gained momentum. The losses in the river crossing, the inability to wipe out those marines in Marisupal, the withdraws around Kharkiv, all seem to point to major problems. for the Russians.
As I have said before though, be careful what you wish for. As Russia grows ever more desperate the risk of escalation to non conventional weapons increases exponentially. We live in very, very dangerous times with leadership that is less than optimal for such a situation.
However I find it hard to believe anyone in the Russian elite, part from the possibly-dying Putin, actually wants this war, let alone any escalation to “nukes’ or “chemical attacks” or whatever
If you are in the Russian elite you have - or you had - a pretty fantastic life. You are rich beyond imagining. You enjoy the fine fruits of western life - glam flats in London, yachts in Nice and Capri, holidays in the Cyclades and education for your kids at Eton and Harvard - and now this has all been taken away and for WHAT? So you can be hated by the world and lose most of your assets and face an increasingly restive Russian demos
And now Putin risks going even further and simply killing everyone on earth
I don’t believe more than a few dozen people in Russia want to risk this. Literally a handful of nutters. Meanwhile Putin’s madness means Russia will become a Chinese colony, if the world survives
Mad Vlad must be in danger of losing all control. I bet the army hates him
That is why this is so dangerous. We have the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of a lunatic with nothing to lose, sick, paranoid and probably scared. Its just as well Boris is so famous for his tact and care of speech otherwise anything could happen.
Remember when government was about finding solutions rather than just trying to get good editorial coverage from the Telegraph?
I appreciate Benn is no longer a Labour front-bencher, but if he we’re to get a cabinet position in a new Labour government we should be lucky.
Agreed that is very sensible. It is also worth pointing out that there are precedents. The EU has made various exceptions in the past for territories so that they can operate properly and smoothly with the EU even though strictly they breach EU rules to do so. This applies to Monaco, Liechtenstein and some of the strange enclaves around Switzerland. In each case the EU drew up a set of rules specific for those areas to meet their unique needs, even though those rules breached existing regulation.
But as Benn has said this needs adult behaviour on both sides and I am not convinced we are going to see that from a PM who regards this as an issue on which he can set up straw men and then claim spurious wins.
If I was assembling a cabinet that had to include at least one Labour MP it would be him.
Anyway, one of the many advantages of having a Daughter in hospitality is that our knives get professionally sharpened. And I am sure you will all be delighted to know that using one of those sharp knives, some alcohol and your wonderful tips (for which many thanks) I managed to extract my splinter.
Hooray!
Of course, now that arm is covered in nettle stings as a result of more gardening.
I like to live dangerously ....😀
My wife just broke her wrist rollerblading 😟
Sorry to hear that. Hope she mends soon
Is it me or are PB-ers unusually prone to accidents?
I ascribe this to our innate derring-do, not anything to do with age
God yes! I am always bashing myself on table edges, doors etc, falling over and so on. I have a blood condition which means I bruise very easily and often find bruises where I don't even remember hurting myself. A few weeks back I fell quite heavily while trying to fix a down pipe which had come loose during wind. My thigh went black.
Honestly, if I'd died suddenly the police would be round asking Husband questions about why his wife's body was covered in bruises.
Sounds to me like a prospective murderer has access to Cyclefree's phone/password and is establishing his/her defence.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
Many of our intake (pharmacy) needs extra maths help, and the bits I teach (chemistry) sees some very low standards on arrival. Chemistry in particular suffers from a ‘lies to children’ approach where I need to tell them stuff they think they know is wrong. Favourite lie? Electrons as dots and crosses. Should be banned.
The pluses and minuses version of physics saved the life of Marcus McDilda. Which may have accidentally led to a chain (ha!) of events that helped end WWII.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The unsaid comment on the subject, is that it’s way, way easier to get into the Russell Group universities if you’re paying the full fees, rather than going through the internal UK UCAS system
When I worked in HE, which was (a) not on the Russell Group and (b) in the days before caps were lifted, there were very large numbers of overseas students whose English and educational attainment wasn't up to standard for the uni (not on my courses so much, but in business and maths).
It was a widely spoken officially unspoken secret that the uni recruited them as cash cows on inflated fees and outside capped numbers.
Don't know whether that's still typical.
A friend went to an interview at Oxbridge (not saying which one :-) ) for a PhD.
At the end, he was told that his application was very interesting and they would get back to him....
At which point he mentioned that, despite his British accent, he was an overseas student and would be paying full fees.
They offered him the place on the spot.
As he put it, the most expensive library card on Earth.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
I did some interviewing for a uni back in the day. We would occasionally pick out something from the personal statement as a conversation-starter if we got desperate, but we didn’t really take them seriously, either in a postive or negative way (science subject).
The latest military setbacks are placing the Russian forces in the Izyum pocket at considerable risk, yet there seems to be no attempt to extract troops from this danger, despite the fact that the new Ukrainian artillery has already demonstrated their enhanced capability. This maybe because the Russians cannot get them out, and this is the largest single force the Russians have in Ukraine, if so then there is a real risk that Izyum could become a decisive defeat for the invaders.
The Russian response to the formal Finnish application to join NATO also has a few people scratching their heads here. Cutting off of Russian electricity supply has essentially no impact on Finland, whereas cutting off gas would have created problems. The implication is that this is simply a gesture, rather than anything substantive. The question is why the response is so low key, when the rhetoric coming from Moscow remains so determinedly bellicose. It seems that there is some uncertainty in Russia right now.
What we are hearing is that the Kremlin is increasingly unable to take effective decisions, and that this could be the result of Putin´s rumoured health problems. Certainly it now seems that there is something of a debate in the security comittee about what to do next. As I mentioned a few days ago, there has been an undeclared call up, but this too small to add to the military capability of Russia and the new troops are anyway insufficiently trained and are being thinly distributed in combat groups that are already heavily demoralised. The Russian losses may indeed be closer to the UA estimates of 28,000 dead than the 15,000 estimate of the British MoD. Diplomatic pressure on Moscow is not only coming from the West, but from China and even from supposed allies in Central Asia.
We feel that something big is brewing in Moscow, but when this breaks remains to be seen. The Kremlin is slowily losing its freedom of action and the military crisis is inexorably leading to a political crisis.
If Putin does keel over, any word on a likely replacement?
I believe under the constitution Mishustin is still next in line but all the indications are he's a fairly peripheral figure. Any possible Khrushchevs to his Malenkov?
Putin is clearly toast. I don't think anyone knows who might replace him though. It's just a vacuum.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
What worries me is it might be somebody worse. Sure, the Soviet leadership gradually improved from Stalin, but the Tsar to Lvov to Kerensky to Lenin to Stalin was definitely a series of backward steps (which is not based on any starry-eyed enthusiasm for the Tsar, Lvov, Kerensky or Lenin).
Certainly there are plenty of extreme RU nationalists around who see Putin as a ponceyboots. If one of them picks up the crown...
Interestingly, I once vaguely knew Kerensky's great-granddaughter. She worked in IT for British Steel at Redcar.
In the last week the idea that Ukraine might actually win this war, as opposed to achieving a bloody and indecisive draw, has really gained momentum. The losses in the river crossing, the inability to wipe out those marines in Marisupal, the withdraws around Kharkiv, all seem to point to major problems. for the Russians.
As I have said before though, be careful what you wish for. As Russia grows ever more desperate the risk of escalation to non conventional weapons increases exponentially. We live in very, very dangerous times with leadership that is less than optimal for such a situation.
However I find it hard to believe anyone in the Russian elite, part from the possibly-dying Putin, actually wants this war, let alone any escalation to “nukes’ or “chemical attacks” or whatever
If you are in the Russian elite you have - or you had - a pretty fantastic life. You are rich beyond imagining. You enjoy the fine fruits of western life - glam flats in London, yachts in Nice and Capri, holidays in the Cyclades and education for your kids at Eton and Harvard - and now this has all been taken away and for WHAT? So you can be hated by the world and lose most of your assets and face an increasingly restive Russian demos
And now Putin risks going even further and simply killing everyone on earth
I don’t believe more than a few dozen people in Russia want to risk this. Literally a handful of nutters. Meanwhile Putin’s madness means Russia will become a Chinese colony, if the world survives
Mad Vlad must be in danger of losing all control. I bet the army hates him
That is why this is so dangerous. We have the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of a lunatic with nothing to lose, sick, paranoid and probably scared. Its just as well Boris is so famous for his tact and care of speech otherwise anything could happen.
I see people are still falling for the Rational Opponent Fallacy.
To a very great extent, the leaders in various countries believe their own media. Even when it is their now propaganda they are reading! This has been shown, time and again, though history.
The dictators are the worst for this. They don't secretly giggle in the big room with the long table about how they've pulled one over on The Masses. They talk about the same conspiracy theories they have printed in Der Sturmer or whatever. They Believe.
For the Putinists, they are in the Existential Battle For Russia.
In a way they are exactly right. If the Western "virus" spreads to Russia, instead of the thunderous, joyous sound of a million boots goose stepping in unison... a prayer to National Unity... you will have minorities demanding equal rights. Questions about the rightness of All The Actions Of The State. Insubordination. Chaos. Instead of One People, looking lovingly at the One Leader.. a million dissenting voices.
@SJAMcBride Boris Johnson has written a 2,200-word essay for tomorrow's @BelTel in which he sets out his Northern Ireland policy in multiple areas - Irish language, SF FM, abortion, Troubles amnesty & lots on the protocol. Much more interesting than such pieces from politicians tend to be.
Well, I welcomed Keir doing an essay awhile back, even if virtually one would read it, so I suppose I welcome Boris doing a short one too (or rather a Spad doing it and slapping his name on it, which to be fair was probably what Keir did too).
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
I'm sure you do your best to keep it well hidden.
My son spent quite some time on his PS for PPE. It was hard covering a life long passion for 3 completely different subjects in about 3 paragraphs 😉 His statements were touched on in his interviews, however. Overall, Oxbridge did seem to take interviews quite seriously. My wife was addicted to the student room and there were endless examples of people getting and not getting offers despite their results in the entrance exams.
A very good result for the Greens and indeed for the CDU. The pre-election polls suggested 33-34% but once again the polls underestimated the CDU vote and overestimated the SPD who finished up down on the 2017 numbers. A poor result for them but worse for the FDP who only just remained in the Landtag along with Alternative.
In terms of the 199-seat Landag, CDU have 78, SPD 58, Greens 39, FDP 12 and Alternative 12
The existing CDU-FDP Government has therefore lost its majority but there's no obvious alternative as SPD/Green also falls just short. The strong Green performance seems to echo the positive ratings for the Greens in the Federal Government and they are now the kingmakers in NRW. The CDU leader Wust took over from Armin Laschet just 6 months ago but has clearly got a boost from distancing himself from the old Laschet administration.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantaged
Aha, I had always suspected from your username that that (both Cambridge, and rough date range) might be the case...
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
When was this? Wouldn't be surprised to learn it's still an issue today.
It has got to the stage with our qualifications system that it is more or less impossible to do Maths A-level with an ordinary Maths GCSE. Which tells me somebody dropped an absolute bollock writing the spec.
Similarly, History a-level is a very bad preparation for degree level study as I've outlined before. This is largely because all the advice academics working for OFQUAL gave was consciously rejected in favour of personal hobby horses.
Personally I found my (American-based international) mathematics - all about manipulating numbers and formulae - almost entirely useless as a preparation for university maths (all about proving theorems), which in turn was almost entirely useless for the maths PhD (all about developing new theorems, however useless). A pity, since I took maths because I was good at it at school, and I'd probably have enjoyed something like history a lot more. I ended up in IT, like most of the students who I knew, regardless of what they studied.
And so ... during your PhD, you discovered Palmer's Theorem, which is ... what? Can it be stated succinctly ?
Er...I'd need to look it up. It was something to do with certain theorems that had only been proved for topological spaces with which we are familiar (e.g. if you have two points, you can draw non-touching circles around each - a T4 space, I think) also worked if one generalised to other types of space.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
I'm sure you do your best to keep it well hidden.
My son spent quite some time on his PS for PPE. It was hard covering a life long passion for 3 completely different subjects in about 3 paragraphs 😉 His statements were touched on in his interviews, however. Overall, Oxbridge did seem to take interviews quite seriously. My wife was addicted to the student room and there were endless examples of people getting and not getting offers despite their results in the entrance exams.
It depends on course and uni. Generally for pharmacy, if you get the grades you get to pick where you go (say with AAB). Those kids generally are quite stressed by the interview, thinking they might get rejected. Ten years ago, when we had more applicants, we did reject some, but it’s rare in the current climate. Back in my uni application days at my Cambridge interview, the chap admitted that they could chose the lucky ones at random from those who applied and they would all do equally well, such was the standard. I imagine that is still the case for some courses and unis. But definitely not for pharmacy.
Er...I'd need to look it up. It was something to do with certain theorems that had only been proved for topological spaces with which we are familiar (e.g. if you have two points, you can draw non-touching circles around each - a T4 space, I think) also worked if one generalised to other types of space.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
My adviser on point-set topology (he field) was quite distinguished:
He said at the start of the PhD that ,most students were either lions or jackals - lions attempted to explore new territory, while jackals tidied up the theory in areas where lions had gone before. A PhD could be entirely jackal work, and I might find as I worked that I started off as a lion but decided to be a jackal - it was entirely up to me.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
When was this? Wouldn't be surprised to learn it's still an issue today.
It has got to the stage with our qualifications system that it is more or less impossible to do Maths A-level with an ordinary Maths GCSE. Which tells me somebody dropped an absolute bollock writing the spec.
Similarly, History a-level is a very bad preparation for degree level study as I've outlined before. This is largely because all the advice academics working for OFQUAL gave was consciously rejected in favour of personal hobby horses.
Personally I found my (American-based international) mathematics - all about manipulating numbers and formulae - almost entirely useless as a preparation for university maths (all about proving theorems), which in turn was almost entirely useless for the maths PhD (all about developing new theorems, however useless). A pity, since I took maths because I was good at it at school, and I'd probably have enjoyed something like history a lot more. I ended up in IT, like most of the students who I knew, regardless of what they studied.
And so ... during your PhD, you discovered Palmer's Theorem, which is ... what? Can it be stated succinctly ?
Er...I'd need to look it up. It was something to do with certain theorems that had only been proved for topological spaces with which we are familiar (e.g. if you have two points, you can draw non-touching circles around each - a T4 space, I think) also worked if one generalised to other types of space.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
AIUI, pure maths generally leads applied maths by about 100 years. Possibly this will be a vital step on the development of interstellar travel, or free energy, or something. The fact you probably won't be around to see it should not dissuade you from at least feeling some pride in its potential.
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
In the last week the idea that Ukraine might actually win this war, as opposed to achieving a bloody and indecisive draw, has really gained momentum. The losses in the river crossing, the inability to wipe out those marines in Marisupal, the withdraws around Kharkiv, all seem to point to major problems. for the Russians.
As I have said before though, be careful what you wish for. As Russia grows ever more desperate the risk of escalation to non conventional weapons increases exponentially. We live in very, very dangerous times with leadership that is less than optimal for such a situation.
However I find it hard to believe anyone in the Russian elite, part from the possibly-dying Putin, actually wants this war, let alone any escalation to “nukes’ or “chemical attacks” or whatever
If you are in the Russian elite you have - or you had - a pretty fantastic life. You are rich beyond imagining. You enjoy the fine fruits of western life - glam flats in London, yachts in Nice and Capri, holidays in the Cyclades and education for your kids at Eton and Harvard - and now this has all been taken away and for WHAT? So you can be hated by the world and lose most of your assets and face an increasingly restive Russian demos
And now Putin risks going even further and simply killing everyone on earth
I don’t believe more than a few dozen people in Russia want to risk this. Literally a handful of nutters. Meanwhile Putin’s madness means Russia will become a Chinese colony, if the world survives
Mad Vlad must be in danger of losing all control. I bet the army hates him
That is why this is so dangerous. We have the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of a lunatic with nothing to lose, sick, paranoid and probably scared. Its just as well Boris is so famous for his tact and care of speech otherwise anything could happen.
I see people are still falling for the Rational Opponent Fallacy.
To a very great extent, the leaders in various countries believe their own media. Even when it is their now propaganda they are reading! This has been shown, time and again, though history.
The dictators are the worst for this. They don't secretly giggle in the big room with the long table about how they've pulled one over on The Masses. They talk about the same conspiracy theories they have printed in Der Sturmer or whatever. They Believe.
For the Putinists, they are in the Existential Battle For Russia.
In a way they are exactly right. If the Western "virus" spreads to Russia, instead of the thunderous, joyous sound of a million boots goose stepping in unison... a prayer to National Unity... you will have minorities demanding equal rights. Questions about the rightness of All The Actions Of The State. Insubordination. Chaos. Instead of One People, looking lovingly at the One Leader.. a million dissenting voices.
Personally, i like the idea that my opponent is rational. It makes my job so much easier and settlement probable. Most advocates are reasonable but some have built quite successful careers on being anything but. When you get a case with one of them on the other side you mentally sigh and know this is going to be a lot of hard work, much of it on your "rational " analysis apparently pointless. Sometimes you end up taking your eye off the ball because of all the nonsense. Whether that is the point I am not entirely sure, which possibly shows the skill level involved.
Er...I'd need to look it up. It was something to do with certain theorems that had only been proved for topological spaces with which we are familiar (e.g. if you have two points, you can draw non-touching circles around each - a T4 space, I think) also worked if one generalised to other types of space.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
My adviser on point-set topology (he field) was quite distinguished:
He said at the start of the PhD that ,most students were either lions or jackals - lions attempted to explore new territory, while jackals tidied up the theory in areas where lions had gone before. A PhD could be entirely jackal work, and I might find as I worked that I started off as a lion but decided to be a jackal - it was entirely up to me.
I was definitely a jackal, sadly.
So, Solomon Lefschetz was your grandfather, academically speaking ...
I like wiki's terse statement: "Dowker conjectured that so-called Dowker spaces could not exist, a conjecture ultimately proven false"
The problem with Putin standing down (or dropping dead) is that the entire Russian system is a kleptocracy built on proto-fascist military worship and brainwashing the population.
An interesting thought experiment might be to define a narrative that sees Russia becoming democratic.
As I sit at anchor in New Grimsby Sound enjoying a Tanqueray moment I cannot help deprecating the travelogue one upmanship which has infected PB
I applaud PB’s new explorations of food and travel. I suspect they are also a diversion from the fucking terrible state of the world, whether you are talking British politics or, indeed, anything else
Yes hoping to murder a Scillonian lobster in due course. Will report.
Wonderful seafood down there. Enjoy
Photo!
Not set up for that ATM but will try to set up an Imgur account or something
You just go on the Vanilla site and its a doddle. Chooses photos from your phone
Test:
Regrettably, in the past couple of weeks Vanilla has started obeying the metadata in phone photos which says which way up the phone was. And so, it rotates them on screen. It is a downgrade.
Bugger! BTW it was a digital camera, not a phone.
Anyway, tell us about the Elizabeth line…
Um, OK!
May 24th - Abbey Wood to Paddington (via Canary Wharf, Whitechapel etc.) opens. However, the links from Stratford to Whitechapel, and Paddington (Crossrail) to Acton, along with the new Bond Street platforms, don't open till 2023!
Didn't they say it was fully open in three parts, and Bond Street wouldn't be open. They've been hard pressed. How can Bond street not be ready - that'll be 5 years or so late!
I will soon be able to leave my flat on Shaftesbury Avenue at 9am, and be through Security at at Heathrow Terminal 3, well before 10.
Using the Heathrow Express, I’ve done “close door in Camden” to “sipping champagne in the Eva Air Lounge at LHR T3” in just under 1 hour. Which felt incredible
But I needed lots of green lights and good timing
People diss Heathrow but in many ways it is superbly located, for the main airport of a great world city. Even better now with the Liz Line
Of course, it has to be Terminal 3, because that has by far the shortest walk from train to security, and doesn't involve the extra five minutes ride to Terminal 5...
If you are fortunate to live near the Lizzy Line (as I am), then it will be revolutionary.
Right now, the quickest way to Heathrow is a taxi to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. But, realistically, it's 25 minutes to get there. Which means I need to leave 32-33 minutes before the train I wish to catch. (And that can still be cutting it a little fine.)
With the Lizzy Line, even before through trains, I will be five minutes to the Elizabeth Line platform at TCR, five minutes (max!) wait for a train, and then five minutes to Paddington. So, it will take me between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to get to Paddington. If I'm lucky with the interchange there, I could be - all in - at Heathrow in under 30 minutes.
When through trains start, it will be a little slower (but less hassle), and should mean that my worst case time to Heathrow will be maybe 50 minutes. Most of the time, though, it will be 40-45 minutes there.
In the last week the idea that Ukraine might actually win this war, as opposed to achieving a bloody and indecisive draw, has really gained momentum. The losses in the river crossing, the inability to wipe out those marines in Marisupal, the withdraws around Kharkiv, all seem to point to major problems. for the Russians.
As I have said before though, be careful what you wish for. As Russia grows ever more desperate the risk of escalation to non conventional weapons increases exponentially. We live in very, very dangerous times with leadership that is less than optimal for such a situation.
However I find it hard to believe anyone in the Russian elite, part from the possibly-dying Putin, actually wants this war, let alone any escalation to “nukes’ or “chemical attacks” or whatever
If you are in the Russian elite you have - or you had - a pretty fantastic life. You are rich beyond imagining. You enjoy the fine fruits of western life - glam flats in London, yachts in Nice and Capri, holidays in the Cyclades and education for your kids at Eton and Harvard - and now this has all been taken away and for WHAT? So you can be hated by the world and lose most of your assets and face an increasingly restive Russian demos
And now Putin risks going even further and simply killing everyone on earth
I don’t believe more than a few dozen people in Russia want to risk this. Literally a handful of nutters. Meanwhile Putin’s madness means Russia will become a Chinese colony, if the world survives
Mad Vlad must be in danger of losing all control. I bet the army hates him
That is why this is so dangerous. We have the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of a lunatic with nothing to lose, sick, paranoid and probably scared. Its just as well Boris is so famous for his tact and care of speech otherwise anything could happen.
I see people are still falling for the Rational Opponent Fallacy.
To a very great extent, the leaders in various countries believe their own media. Even when it is their now propaganda they are reading! This has been shown, time and again, though history.
The dictators are the worst for this. They don't secretly giggle in the big room with the long table about how they've pulled one over on The Masses. They talk about the same conspiracy theories they have printed in Der Sturmer or whatever. They Believe.
For the Putinists, they are in the Existential Battle For Russia.
In a way they are exactly right. If the Western "virus" spreads to Russia, instead of the thunderous, joyous sound of a million boots goose stepping in unison... a prayer to National Unity... you will have minorities demanding equal rights. Questions about the rightness of All The Actions Of The State. Insubordination. Chaos. Instead of One People, looking lovingly at the One Leader.. a million dissenting voices.
Personally, i like the idea that my opponent is rational. It makes my job so much easier and settlement probable. Most advocates are reasonable but some have built quite successful careers on being anything but. When you get a case with one of them on the other side you mentally sigh and know this is going to be a lot of hard work, much of it on your "rational " analysis apparently pointless. Sometimes you end up taking your eye off the ball because of all the nonsense. Whether that is the point I am not entirely sure, which possibly shows the skill level involved.
"Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen,
I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
The problem with Putin standing down (or dropping dead) is that the entire Russian system is a kleptocracy built on proto-fascist military worship and brainwashing the population.
An interesting thought experiment might be to define a narrative that sees Russia becoming democratic.
Yes, interesting and depressingly challenging. There was that fella on Unherd a few weeks case who made the case that Russia would splinter into lots of little bits. Actually quite convincing that there could be a motivation for it - but understandably vague on what the response from the centre might be. But that's the path to democracy I can most readily see.
As I sit at anchor in New Grimsby Sound enjoying a Tanqueray moment I cannot help deprecating the travelogue one upmanship which has infected PB
I applaud PB’s new explorations of food and travel. I suspect they are also a diversion from the fucking terrible state of the world, whether you are talking British politics or, indeed, anything else
Yes hoping to murder a Scillonian lobster in due course. Will report.
Wonderful seafood down there. Enjoy
Photo!
Not set up for that ATM but will try to set up an Imgur account or something
You just go on the Vanilla site and its a doddle. Chooses photos from your phone
Test:
Regrettably, in the past couple of weeks Vanilla has started obeying the metadata in phone photos which says which way up the phone was. And so, it rotates them on screen. It is a downgrade.
Bugger! BTW it was a digital camera, not a phone.
Anyway, tell us about the Elizabeth line…
Um, OK!
May 24th - Abbey Wood to Paddington (via Canary Wharf, Whitechapel etc.) opens. However, the links from Stratford to Whitechapel, and Paddington (Crossrail) to Acton, along with the new Bond Street platforms, don't open till 2023!
Didn't they say it was fully open in three parts, and Bond Street wouldn't be open. They've been hard pressed. How can Bond street not be ready - that'll be 5 years or so late!
I will soon be able to leave my flat on Shaftesbury Avenue at 9am, and be through Security at at Heathrow Terminal 3, well before 10.
Using the Heathrow Express, I’ve done “close door in Camden” to “sipping champagne in the Eva Air Lounge at LHR T3” in just under 1 hour. Which felt incredible
But I needed lots of green lights and good timing
People diss Heathrow but in many ways it is superbly located, for the main airport of a great world city. Even better now with the Liz Line
Of course, it has to be Terminal 3, because that has by far the shortest walk from train to security, and doesn't involve the extra five minutes ride to Terminal 5...
If you are fortunate to live near the Lizzy Line (as I am), then it will be revolutionary.
Right now, the quickest way to Heathrow is a taxi to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. But, realistically, it's 25 minutes to get there. Which means I need to leave 32-33 minutes before the train I wish to catch. (And that can still be cutting it a little fine.)
With the Lizzy Line, even before through trains, I will be five minutes to the Elizabeth Line platform at TCR, five minutes (max!) wait for a train, and then five minutes to Paddington. So, it will take me between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to get to Paddington. If I'm lucky with the interchange there, I could be - all in - at Heathrow in under 30 minutes.
When through trains start, it will be a little slower (but less hassle), and should mean that my worst case time to Heathrow will be maybe 50 minutes. Most of the time, though, it will be 40-45 minutes there.
1st world problems. My rather more modest achievement was at that international centre known as Dundee City Airport, coming back up from London City. From getting down the stairs of the plane, collecting my suitcase to the door of my car in under 2 minutes. Another 7 minutes to home. And even then I didn't catch the wife out!
A very good result for the Greens and indeed for the CDU. The pre-election polls suggested 33-34% but once again the polls underestimated the CDU vote and overestimated the SPD who finished up down on the 2017 numbers. A poor result for them but worse for the FDP who only just remained in the Landtag along with Alternative.
In terms of the 199-seat Landag, CDU have 78, SPD 58, Greens 39, FDP 12 and Alternative 12
The existing CDU-FDP Government has therefore lost its majority but there's no obvious alternative as SPD/Green also falls just short. The strong Green performance seems to echo the positive ratings for the Greens in the Federal Government and they are now the kingmakers in NRW. The CDU leader Wust took over from Armin Laschet just 6 months ago but has clearly got a boost from distancing himself from the old Laschet administration.
As I pointed out earlier. The pressure will be on the local Parties to assemble the same coalition as the Federal government. SPD/Green/FDP. This is because they then get to nominate the 6 NRW representatives to the 69 seat Bundesrat (Upper House), where there is currently no government majority. The representatives change with each Lander election. It isn't directly voted for. Such an arrangement would greatly assist in getting Federal business through.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
When was this? Wouldn't be surprised to learn it's still an issue today.
It has got to the stage with our qualifications system that it is more or less impossible to do Maths A-level with an ordinary Maths GCSE. Which tells me somebody dropped an absolute bollock writing the spec.
Similarly, History a-level is a very bad preparation for degree level study as I've outlined before. This is largely because all the advice academics working for OFQUAL gave was consciously rejected in favour of personal hobby horses.
Personally I found my (American-based international) mathematics - all about manipulating numbers and formulae - almost entirely useless as a preparation for university maths (all about proving theorems), which in turn was almost entirely useless for the maths PhD (all about developing new theorems, however useless). A pity, since I took maths because I was good at it at school, and I'd probably have enjoyed something like history a lot more. I ended up in IT, like most of the students who I knew, regardless of what they studied.
And so ... during your PhD, you discovered Palmer's Theorem, which is ... what? Can it be stated succinctly ?
Er...I'd need to look it up. It was something to do with certain theorems that had only been proved for topological spaces with which we are familiar (e.g. if you have two points, you can draw non-touching circles around each - a T4 space, I think) also worked if one generalised to other types of space.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
AIUI, pure maths generally leads applied maths by about 100 years. Possibly this will be a vital step on the development of interstellar travel, or free energy, or something. The fact you probably won't be around to see it should not dissuade you from at least feeling some pride in its potential.
The examiners of my physics degree certainly felt that pure maths led me by about 100 years worth of development.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
Many of our intake (pharmacy) needs extra maths help, and the bits I teach (chemistry) sees some very low standards on arrival. Chemistry in particular suffers from a ‘lies to children’ approach where I need to tell them stuff they think they know is wrong. Favourite lie? Electrons as dots and crosses. Should be banned.
The pluses and minuses version of physics saved the life of Marcus McDilda. Which may have accidentally led to a chain (ha!) of events that helped end WWII.
Looked that up - nice!
If you are interested in the knock on effects from McDilda's interrogation, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Mission-Jim-Smith/dp/0553816101 is a fascinating read. An ex-29 crewman got together with a historian who dug around in some primary source archives to piece together a really good account of the last days of the war in Japan.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Fascinating graph in the link. Overall, Russian equipment losses seem to have been running around 3x those of Ukraine. You can quibble about the identification and counting methodology, but whatever. There’s one massive outlier.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1525583759738798080 … Whats most interesting is that the base ratio is close to being matched also for all subsets of equipment except one. Russian logistics losses are running at a staggering more than 15 pieces for every 1 Ukrainian...
As I sit at anchor in New Grimsby Sound enjoying a Tanqueray moment I cannot help deprecating the travelogue one upmanship which has infected PB
I applaud PB’s new explorations of food and travel. I suspect they are also a diversion from the fucking terrible state of the world, whether you are talking British politics or, indeed, anything else
Yes hoping to murder a Scillonian lobster in due course. Will report.
Wonderful seafood down there. Enjoy
Photo!
Not set up for that ATM but will try to set up an Imgur account or something
You just go on the Vanilla site and its a doddle. Chooses photos from your phone
Test:
Regrettably, in the past couple of weeks Vanilla has started obeying the metadata in phone photos which says which way up the phone was. And so, it rotates them on screen. It is a downgrade.
Bugger! BTW it was a digital camera, not a phone.
Anyway, tell us about the Elizabeth line…
Um, OK!
May 24th - Abbey Wood to Paddington (via Canary Wharf, Whitechapel etc.) opens. However, the links from Stratford to Whitechapel, and Paddington (Crossrail) to Acton, along with the new Bond Street platforms, don't open till 2023!
Didn't they say it was fully open in three parts, and Bond Street wouldn't be open. They've been hard pressed. How can Bond street not be ready - that'll be 5 years or so late!
I will soon be able to leave my flat on Shaftesbury Avenue at 9am, and be through Security at at Heathrow Terminal 3, well before 10.
Using the Heathrow Express, I’ve done “close door in Camden” to “sipping champagne in the Eva Air Lounge at LHR T3” in just under 1 hour. Which felt incredible
But I needed lots of green lights and good timing
People diss Heathrow but in many ways it is superbly located, for the main airport of a great world city. Even better now with the Liz Line
Of course, it has to be Terminal 3, because that has by far the shortest walk from train to security, and doesn't involve the extra five minutes ride to Terminal 5...
If you are fortunate to live near the Lizzy Line (as I am), then it will be revolutionary.
Right now, the quickest way to Heathrow is a taxi to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. But, realistically, it's 25 minutes to get there. Which means I need to leave 32-33 minutes before the train I wish to catch. (And that can still be cutting it a little fine.)
With the Lizzy Line, even before through trains, I will be five minutes to the Elizabeth Line platform at TCR, five minutes (max!) wait for a train, and then five minutes to Paddington. So, it will take me between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to get to Paddington. If I'm lucky with the interchange there, I could be - all in - at Heathrow in under 30 minutes.
When through trains start, it will be a little slower (but less hassle), and should mean that my worst case time to Heathrow will be maybe 50 minutes. Most of the time, though, it will be 40-45 minutes there.
1st world problems. My rather more modest achievement was at that international centre known as Dundee City Airport, coming back up from London City. From getting down the stairs of the plane, collecting my suitcase to the door of my car in under 2 minutes. Another 7 minutes to home. And even then I didn't catch the wife out!
is awesome. No bullshit queues. No 3 miles of crap in duty free. You get on and off planes. They give you your luggage, or take it - and never lose it. There aren't enough flights to get luggage muddled up.
Fascinating graph in the link. Overall, Russian equipment losses seem to have been running around 3x those of Ukraine. You can quibble about the identification and counting methodology, but whatever. There’s one massive outlier.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1525583759738798080 … Whats most interesting is that the base ratio is close to being matched also for all subsets of equipment except one. Russian logistics losses are running at a staggering more than 15 pieces for every 1 Ukrainian...
You do have to consider that the invader, by definition, has a longer logistics tail than the defender within its own borders.
AIUI, pure maths generally leads applied maths by about 100 years. Possibly this will be a vital step on the development of interstellar travel, or free energy, or something. The fact you probably won't be around to see it should not dissuade you from at least feeling some pride in its potential.
You're very kind - I feel genuinely pleased at that thought.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
As I sit at anchor in New Grimsby Sound enjoying a Tanqueray moment I cannot help deprecating the travelogue one upmanship which has infected PB
I applaud PB’s new explorations of food and travel. I suspect they are also a diversion from the fucking terrible state of the world, whether you are talking British politics or, indeed, anything else
Yes hoping to murder a Scillonian lobster in due course. Will report.
Wonderful seafood down there. Enjoy
Photo!
Not set up for that ATM but will try to set up an Imgur account or something
You just go on the Vanilla site and its a doddle. Chooses photos from your phone
Test:
Regrettably, in the past couple of weeks Vanilla has started obeying the metadata in phone photos which says which way up the phone was. And so, it rotates them on screen. It is a downgrade.
Bugger! BTW it was a digital camera, not a phone.
Anyway, tell us about the Elizabeth line…
Um, OK!
May 24th - Abbey Wood to Paddington (via Canary Wharf, Whitechapel etc.) opens. However, the links from Stratford to Whitechapel, and Paddington (Crossrail) to Acton, along with the new Bond Street platforms, don't open till 2023!
Didn't they say it was fully open in three parts, and Bond Street wouldn't be open. They've been hard pressed. How can Bond street not be ready - that'll be 5 years or so late!
I will soon be able to leave my flat on Shaftesbury Avenue at 9am, and be through Security at at Heathrow Terminal 3, well before 10.
Using the Heathrow Express, I’ve done “close door in Camden” to “sipping champagne in the Eva Air Lounge at LHR T3” in just under 1 hour. Which felt incredible
But I needed lots of green lights and good timing
People diss Heathrow but in many ways it is superbly located, for the main airport of a great world city. Even better now with the Liz Line
Of course, it has to be Terminal 3, because that has by far the shortest walk from train to security, and doesn't involve the extra five minutes ride to Terminal 5...
If you are fortunate to live near the Lizzy Line (as I am), then it will be revolutionary.
Right now, the quickest way to Heathrow is a taxi to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. But, realistically, it's 25 minutes to get there. Which means I need to leave 32-33 minutes before the train I wish to catch. (And that can still be cutting it a little fine.)
With the Lizzy Line, even before through trains, I will be five minutes to the Elizabeth Line platform at TCR, five minutes (max!) wait for a train, and then five minutes to Paddington. So, it will take me between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to get to Paddington. If I'm lucky with the interchange there, I could be - all in - at Heathrow in under 30 minutes.
When through trains start, it will be a little slower (but less hassle), and should mean that my worst case time to Heathrow will be maybe 50 minutes. Most of the time, though, it will be 40-45 minutes there.
1st world problems. My rather more modest achievement was at that international centre known as Dundee City Airport, coming back up from London City. From getting down the stairs of the plane, collecting my suitcase to the door of my car in under 2 minutes. Another 7 minutes to home. And even then I didn't catch the wife out!
Your wife was maybe watching the live arrivals page on her phone! It looks like it could be quicker to fly from London to Glasgow via Dundee than via Glasgow! Could be a selling angle!
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
The old internal markets bill was passed by the commons, then pulled from the Lords. Not sure the EU would fall for it again (if they fell for it before…)
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Anywhere south or east of Galashiels is the South East.
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
The old internal markets bill was passed by the commons, then pulled from the Lords. Not sure the EU would fall for it again (if they fell for it before…)
I happen to believe that the Protocol *is* causing problems in Northern Ireland, and so regardless of the fact that it is Boris’s mess, the government does need to find a way to address it.
The problem to me is that the solution requires a high degree of trust, and Boris simply cannot be trusted. Boris / this government are unable to clean this up.
A very good result for the Greens and indeed for the CDU. The pre-election polls suggested 33-34% but once again the polls underestimated the CDU vote and overestimated the SPD who finished up down on the 2017 numbers. A poor result for them but worse for the FDP who only just remained in the Landtag along with Alternative.
In terms of the 199-seat Landag, CDU have 78, SPD 58, Greens 39, FDP 12 and Alternative 12
The existing CDU-FDP Government has therefore lost its majority but there's no obvious alternative as SPD/Green also falls just short. The strong Green performance seems to echo the positive ratings for the Greens in the Federal Government and they are now the kingmakers in NRW. The CDU leader Wust took over from Armin Laschet just 6 months ago but has clearly got a boost from distancing himself from the old Laschet administration.
As I pointed out earlier. The pressure will be on the local Parties to assemble the same coalition as the Federal government. SPD/Green/FDP. This is because they then get to nominate the 6 NRW representatives to the 69 seat Bundesrat (Upper House), where there is currently no government majority. The representatives change with each Lander election. It isn't directly voted for. Such an arrangement would greatly assist in getting Federal business through.
And what's more they vote as a bloc by Lander. So. A CDU delegation from a CDU/FDP Lander would vote to oppose controversial government legislation. Even the FDP delegates. Despite the Federal FDP being in favour. It's about making the Lander an A-Lander * (SPD-led, and voting with the government), rather than a B-Lander (CDU/CSU led and voting against). Bit confusing I know. * The A and B designation is convention rather than an indication of who is in government.
The lapdog Braverman can say what she likes but Treaties are based on International law not the law that no 10 wants .
Can Braverman be struck off? She appears to be a crook.
She’s a fxcking imbecile with a really annoying smirk . She’s also clueless and just there to wave through any old crap for no 10.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
I wasn’t sure what the legal advice was for. We’re back in the world of treaties and “real” international law outside the EU. International law isn’t a “thing” quite like domestic law or the laws within such a bloc. We can repudiate any treaty if we like - doing so isn’t “unlawful” in the same sense - it just carries a risk of consequences. (Not defending her, just observing that “law” is a different thing in an international context).
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
The old internal markets bill was passed by the commons, then pulled from the Lords. Not sure the EU would fall for it again (if they fell for it before…)
I happen to believe that the Protocol *is* causing problems in Northern Ireland, and so regardless of the fact that it is Boris’s mess, the government does need to find a way to address it.
The problem to me is that the solution requires a high degree of trust, and Boris simply cannot be trusted. Boris / this government are unable to clean this up.
The other issue is that the government tries to follow a hardball strategy and then caves every time a coconut.
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
The old internal markets bill was passed by the commons, then pulled from the Lords. Not sure the EU would fall for it again (if they fell for it before…)
I happen to believe that the Protocol *is* causing problems in Northern Ireland, and so regardless of the fact that it is Boris’s mess, the government does need to find a way to address it.
The problem to me is that the solution requires a high degree of trust, and Boris simply cannot be trusted. Boris / this government are unable to clean this up.
Two issues here: things already implemented which are causing trouble, and things not yet implemented, subject to unilaterally-extended grace periods. I assume the two issues are being played together: “give ground on the issues affecting NI already, or we’ll extend the grace periods indefinitely”
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
Essex and Hertfordshire are classified as East rather than South East but also Home Counties. Oxon and Bucks are definitely South East but on the border of Home Counties
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
This is also true for job seekers. Lots of under 25s I know are shocked when I tell them any cover letters are ignored and the only thing that matter is the CV experience passing the auto filter. I've recruited around 40-50 people throughout my career at various companies and levels, not once have I bothered with a cover letter and I don't know any hiring managers that do.
When I applied for my first job at SCEE there was a mandatory cover letter required, instead of writing one I just sent them a blank document. Still got the job. Clearly they had the same policy as me.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
Would the good people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland necessarily regard Oxbridge as first choice? I've worked with a few Scots who'd not look further than Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. Considering only England, by those figures, knocking off 10 million for S,W,NI, 19/57 = 1/3.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
At school in the 1990s I remember we were told that the personal statement was quite important. Maybe that was bad advice.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And Banbury is less than an hour from Birmingham.
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
The old internal markets bill was passed by the commons, then pulled from the Lords. Not sure the EU would fall for it again (if they fell for it before…)
I happen to believe that the Protocol *is* causing problems in Northern Ireland, and so regardless of the fact that it is Boris’s mess, the government does need to find a way to address it.
The problem to me is that the solution requires a high degree of trust, and Boris simply cannot be trusted. Boris / this government are unable to clean this up.
That’s fair but when push came to shove elements in the EU showed some capacity to be untrustworthy too. Covid exposed some pretty nasty elements in the EU, UVDL and Macron for starters.
The problem with Putin standing down (or dropping dead) is that the entire Russian system is a kleptocracy built on proto-fascist military worship and brainwashing the population.
An interesting thought experiment might be to define a narrative that sees Russia becoming democratic.
Yes, interesting and depressingly challenging. There was that fella on Unherd a few weeks case who made the case that Russia would splinter into lots of little bits. Actually quite convincing that there could be a motivation for it - but understandably vague on what the response from the centre might be. But that's the path to democracy I can most readily see.
I could imagine it happening in a couple of stages. Probably most likely ironically if Putin stays leader until natural death.
- Natural death in a year or so - Anointed successor, seen as harmless and a little ineffectual but true to the Putinist cause - Pragmatically pulls back from Ukraine, looks to calm relations with West, allows some opening up of press freedom and lifts various emergency laws. But corruption continues - Next election a Navalny character stands, and the leader lacks the killer instinct. Allows a peaceful transfer of power
Essentially Russia needs a surprise reformist: an FW De Klerk, or a Gorbachev, or a King Juan Carlos, or dare I say it a Keir Starmer.
The lapdog Braverman can say what she likes but Treaties are based on International law not the law that no 10 wants .
Can Braverman be struck off? She appears to be a crook.
She’s a fxcking imbecile with a really annoying smirk . She’s also clueless and just there to wave through any old crap for no 10.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
I wasn’t sure what the legal advice was for. We’re back in the world of treaties and “real” international law outside the EU. International law isn’t a “thing” quite like domestic law or the laws within such a bloc. We can repudiate any treaty if we like - doing so isn’t “unlawful” in the same sense - it just carries a risk of consequences. (Not defending her, just observing that “law” is a different thing in an international context).
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
I can remember a few "lawyers" claiming that abrogating the ABM treaty was "illegal" - despite the the provisions for abrogating the treaty being written into... the treaty.
It was rather funny when one of them was interviewed on CNN. He took the view that it was illegal because he said so. When rather gently asked to explain why it was illegal, he started to swell like a puffer fish....
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
At school in the 1990s I remember we were told that the personal statement was quite important. Maybe that was bad advice.
Weeks spent helping my fellow sixth formers get their personal statements printed (rather than pasted in) by trying to get the folded form through the feed of a laser printer (when replacement forms were hard to come by). Happy days.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
Yes interviews now are so sterile and formulaic that they are losing their point. I prefer a question such as: "can you tell me of a time where you have found one of these NHS values difficult?"
I am fairly sure that I would not pass Med Schhol entrance nowadays, and certainly not Higher Specialist Training either. Not that recruitment should be a self-replicating oligarchy, but many of my best colleagues say the same.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
To find out would take a lot of in depth work, I suspect. I would further suspect that the subject would have an effect on outcomes.
The first question is how much the knowledge imparted at school is actually useful for the university degree. Then there are the generic skills in studying, learning, revising etc
In mathematics, a professor at a Russell Group university I did an MPhil with, was forced to start remedial classes for a percentage of the students. This was because a number were not fluent at fairly basic mathematical operations - differentiation and integration. Worse, they had trouble identifying which mathematical "tools" to use on a problem. The issue there wasn't background, just that he was seeing students with A at maths A level with this situation.
My medical school feeds back on its admissions via in course assessments, which is fairly straightforwrd when all students are on the same course compared to a multiplicity. Hence we have eliminated some stations at interview and introduced others. One thing that was dropped was the personal statement, as these were often ghost-written for the applicants. I am not aware of downgrading of private schooling as part of this though.
I used to read personal statements (just don’t have time nowadays). I recall about two that stood out over the years, from hundreds. Mostly they are identykit that schools ‘think’ Unis want to see. In reality I couldn’t give a shit how many DoE expeditions the kid has done. I’d rather know what makes them different, what makes them them. Schools don’t seem to understand that.
When I first went into teaching I was stunned to find that some students spent more time writing their personal statements than doing their English coursework.
When I asked why, I was assured it was really important they get it right as a good personal statement was vital for uni applications.
In vain did I assure them it was unlikely to make the slightest difference...
I think you would be horrified to still see how much time is wasted on those aforesaid identikit statements. Literally months of effort. For nothing.
I try, I really try to read them. But this year I’ve interviewed around 70 candidates (30 mins each) and they all get the same questions anyway. And even worse, unless they say something utterly bizarre they are getting the standard offer anyway. The interview is mainly to satisfy Health Education England, that they show NHS values. We call this the Shipman Clause. It’s also a chance to show how nice we are - it’s a sales pitch from us. Most students have not twigged this last bit.
Yes interviews now are so sterile and formulaic that they are losing their point. I prefer a question such as: "can you tell me of a time where you have found one of these NHS values difficult?"
I am fairly sure that I would not pass Med Schhol entrance nowadays, and certainly not Higher Specialist Training either. Not that recruitment should be a self-replicating oligarchy, but many of my best colleagues say the same.
The idea that we will winkle out a psychopath at the interview for a degree stage is just laughable. And anyway, surely x years of training should include incalcating NHS values into the students? But no, we have to try to get them to show they care, and put patients first, and listen to patients views...
The lapdog Braverman can say what she likes but Treaties are based on International law not the law that no 10 wants .
Can Braverman be struck off? She appears to be a crook.
She’s a fxcking imbecile with a really annoying smirk . She’s also clueless and just there to wave through any old crap for no 10.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
I wasn’t sure what the legal advice was for. We’re back in the world of treaties and “real” international law outside the EU. International law isn’t a “thing” quite like domestic law or the laws within such a bloc. We can repudiate any treaty if we like - doing so isn’t “unlawful” in the same sense - it just carries a risk of consequences. (Not defending her, just observing that “law” is a different thing in an international context).
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
The UK can pull out of a Treaty if they’re not happy . What they can’t do is make unilateral changes to it , that then becomes a breach of international law .
International law does trump domestic law . This was highlighted during the Article 50 extensions where there was a lot of fuss over the laying of the suitable statutory instrument needed to change domestic law .
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
Wilts is interesting. Parts are definitely south (Salisbury area etc), parts more West Country (west wilts round Warminster etc) and Swindon definitely belongs in the West Country. And yet to look on a map you’d say Central Southern.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
Would the good people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland necessarily regard Oxbridge as first choice? I've worked with a few Scots who'd not look further than Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. Considering only England, by those figures, knocking off 10 million for S,W,NI, 19/57 = 1/3.
Some Scots do undergrad at Edinburgh or Glasgow and postgrad at Oxbridge
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Anywhere south or east of Galashiels is the South East.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
Would the good people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland necessarily regard Oxbridge as first choice? I've worked with a few Scots who'd not look further than Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. Considering only England, by those figures, knocking off 10 million for S,W,NI, 19/57 = 1/3.
Some Scots do undergrad at Edinburgh or Glasgow and postgrad at Oxbridge
Some English residents do it the other way round. Doesn't prove anything except it matters where the relevant postgrad courses are, PhD/DPhil supervisors/topics, etc.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
Wilts is interesting. Parts are definitely south (Salisbury area etc), parts more West Country (west wilts round Warminster etc) and Swindon definitely belongs in the West Country. And yet to look on a map you’d say Central Southern.
Yes, sometimes the traditional county lines fit the watershed perfectly. Some don’t quite. I think Wiltshire is one that doesn’t.
Swindon, as you say, is essentially an industrial exclave of Bristol.
Nevertheless, I personally use the county divisions because they are well known. Wiltshire sits alongside Dorset and Hampshire in “Wessex” because it’s point of gravity - ie Salisbury - is there.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
So. Where is Cumbria? To me it is an obvious North. But Northumberland, Durham and Teesside see themselves as North East. And Cumbria obviously isn't NE. Nor does it have much in common with NW. Nor does it fall into watershed.
The problem with Putin standing down (or dropping dead) is that the entire Russian system is a kleptocracy built on proto-fascist military worship and brainwashing the population.
An interesting thought experiment might be to define a narrative that sees Russia becoming democratic.
Yes, interesting and depressingly challenging. There was that fella on Unherd a few weeks case who made the case that Russia would splinter into lots of little bits. Actually quite convincing that there could be a motivation for it - but understandably vague on what the response from the centre might be. But that's the path to democracy I can most readily see.
I could imagine it happening in a couple of stages. Probably most likely ironically if Putin stays leader until natural death.
- Natural death in a year or so - Anointed successor, seen as harmless and a little ineffectual but true to the Putinist cause - Pragmatically pulls back from Ukraine, looks to calm relations with West, allows some opening up of press freedom and lifts various emergency laws. But corruption continues - Next election a Navalny character stands, and the leader lacks the killer instinct. Allows a peaceful transfer of power
Essentially Russia needs a surprise reformist: an FW De Klerk, or a Gorbachev, or a King Juan Carlos, or dare I say it a Keir Starmer.
Indeed. Running Britain will be just practice for the main event for him...
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
So. Where is Cumbria? To be it is an obvious North. But Northumberland, Durham and Teesside see themselves as North East. And Cumbria obviously isn't NE. Nor does it have much in common with NW. Nor does it fall into watershed.
It’s by itself. Anyway, it’s two counties: Cumberland and Westmorland.
Other counties that sit unto themselves are Cornwall, Devon and Yorkshire.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
So much for "levelling up" and "left behind towns".
There may be some thing to the Private School business though. I have two family members who applied last year. One from an expensive private school with all the social graces, and both parents Cambridge graduates didn't get in so is off to Durham. The other state school educated and quite gawky and nerdish but in at Cambridge to do maths.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And Banbury is less than an hour from Birmingham.
Trouble with Hampshire is that it's so damn big. Anywhere north and east of about WInchester is definitely "looking towards London" South East. The west, from Andover down to the New Forest is convincingly Wessex. And had the Portsmouth-Southampton conurbation been turned into a metropolitan county, nobody would have been that surprised.
Funnily enough, the BBC seem to agree. There isn't a Radio Hampshire, instead being covered by Solent, Surrey and Berkshire.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And north Oxfordshire is about half an hour from Birmingham.
I discovered that watersheds seems the most “natural” split or at least seems to correlate best to the instinctive feeling I have after 20 years living in the UK.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
Wilts is interesting. Parts are definitely south (Salisbury area etc), parts more West Country (west wilts round Warminster etc) and Swindon definitely belongs in the West Country. And yet to look on a map you’d say Central Southern.
Yes, sometimes the traditional county lines fit the watershed perfectly. Some don’t quite. I think Wiltshire is one that doesn’t.
Swindon, as you say, is essentially an industrial exclave of Bristol.
Nevertheless, I personally use the county divisions because they are well known. Wiltshire sits alongside Dorset and Hampshire in “Wessex” because it’s point of gravity - ie Salisbury - is there.
Your middle sentence is fighting talk... But yes Wessex is a good region for those counties.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Erm, England? Surely should be E,S,W & NI.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
Would the good people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland necessarily regard Oxbridge as first choice? I've worked with a few Scots who'd not look further than Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. Considering only England, by those figures, knocking off 10 million for S,W,NI, 19/57 = 1/3.
Remember the Scottish schooling /uni system - 1 year 6th form/ Highers, 4 years u/grad. So they naturally tend to go for home.
The lapdog Braverman can say what she likes but Treaties are based on International law not the law that no 10 wants .
Can Braverman be struck off? She appears to be a crook.
She’s a fxcking imbecile with a really annoying smirk . She’s also clueless and just there to wave through any old crap for no 10.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
I wasn’t sure what the legal advice was for. We’re back in the world of treaties and “real” international law outside the EU. International law isn’t a “thing” quite like domestic law or the laws within such a bloc. We can repudiate any treaty if we like - doing so isn’t “unlawful” in the same sense - it just carries a risk of consequences. (Not defending her, just observing that “law” is a different thing in an international context).
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
The UK can pull out of a Treaty if they’re not happy . What they can’t do is make unilateral changes to it , that then becomes a breach of international law .
International law does trump domestic law . This was highlighted during the Article 50 extensions where there was a lot of fuss over the laying of the suitable statutory instrument needed to change domestic law .
I am not condoning Boris on this, but let us never forget UVDL of all people threatened to do just the same
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
Wonderful stuff indeed. That means people cannot critique overrepresentation of the public school educated?
The latest fashion is for your children to be tutored personally through A levels - 4 subjects, 4 tutors, while “attending” a local state institution.
This is cheaper than private school and allows you to claim that your are a member of the Head Count.
The state schools play along, to the point of not reporting absence, since having a child with 4 predicted A************* and going to a top university makes you look better…..
There’s an interesting rule for UK expatriates, that one must be resident in the UK for two years before university admission, in order to “take advantage” of the UK uni fees schedule.
Until a few years ago, this would lead to expatriate parents moving back to the UK as their kids approached GCSEs, but now it’s resulting in their decision to remain expatriates and deal with the ‘overseas’ fees, because of the discrimination against private schools.
I'm always slightly nervous about calling the discrimination card without clear evidence. I'm also well aware that when I was at Cambridge, from a State school, 1992-95 then there was an awful lot of the same noise about how Private school pupils were disadvantage.
The issue I had was that - at that time - those colleges with the highest proportion of State pupils (Trinity and Kings) were top of the Topkins Table (i.e. got the most Firsts).
Because it seems like it would be pretty easy to see if less talented - on average - people were coming from the State schools. Simply: does a 21 year old from a private school achieve better academic results (on average) or not.
If one judged (and incentivized) the Colleges on output, then it would clearly be in their interests to attract those with the most potential.
And, fwiw, I suspect that would mean that (on average) State school pupils would come in with slightly lower grades, because they would be less likely to have fully achieved their potential.
The parents/students are not the only ones trying to game the system.
The Colleges are just as interested in gaming the system.
So, for example, if the Admissions Tutor admits students from Hills Rd SFC, or Varndean SFC, or Farnborough SFC (to name 3 outstanding state schools who get tonnes of people into Oxbridge), then their socio-economic background is no different from students at private schools like Haberdashers Aske or St Pauls or Nottingham High School -- but the former make the College look much better as they can hit "state school" targets.
The overwhelming bias of Oxbridge remains geography -- 40 to 45 per cent of the intake is usually London and the South East.
Erm, doesn't roughly 40 per cent of the population of England live in London and the South-East?
Approximately 1 in 3. By official region. Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE. Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
I would.
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
Yeah. The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure. So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region. And Banbury is less than an hour from Birmingham.
Trouble with Hampshire is that it's so damn big. Anywhere north and east of about WInchester is definitely "looking towards London" South East. The west, from Andover down to the New Forest is convincingly Wessex. And had the Portsmouth-Southampton conurbation been turned into a metropolitan county, nobody would have been that surprised.
Funnily enough, the BBC seem to agree. There isn't a Radio Hampshire, instead being covered by Solent, Surrey and Berkshire.
Hello, fellow erstwhile Gosport dweller.
No true Gosporter would ever think they are in the South East (in my opinion).
My late Aunt Dora could just about cope with Hayling Island but any further afield and there be demons.
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, it was a private education that allowed my father and myself to flourish and succeed in this country.
It's the lack of a private education, because they couldn't afford it, that's made life difficult for a lot of other people.
The lapdog Braverman can say what she likes but Treaties are based on International law not the law that no 10 wants .
Can Braverman be struck off? She appears to be a crook.
She’s a fxcking imbecile with a really annoying smirk . She’s also clueless and just there to wave through any old crap for no 10.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
I wasn’t sure what the legal advice was for. We’re back in the world of treaties and “real” international law outside the EU. International law isn’t a “thing” quite like domestic law or the laws within such a bloc. We can repudiate any treaty if we like - doing so isn’t “unlawful” in the same sense - it just carries a risk of consequences. (Not defending her, just observing that “law” is a different thing in an international context).
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
The UK can pull out of a Treaty if they’re not happy . What they can’t do is make unilateral changes to it , that then becomes a breach of international law .
International law does trump domestic law . This was highlighted during the Article 50 extensions where there was a lot of fuss over the laying of the suitable statutory instrument needed to change domestic law .
I am not condoning Boris on this, but let us never forget UVDL of all people threatened to do just the same
Comments
Most students have not twigged this last bit.
To a very great extent, the leaders in various countries believe their own media. Even when it is their now propaganda they are reading! This has been shown, time and again, though history.
The dictators are the worst for this. They don't secretly giggle in the big room with the long table about how they've pulled one over on The Masses. They talk about the same conspiracy theories they have printed in Der Sturmer or whatever. They Believe.
For the Putinists, they are in the Existential Battle For Russia.
In a way they are exactly right. If the Western "virus" spreads to Russia, instead of the thunderous, joyous sound of a million boots goose stepping in unison... a prayer to National Unity... you will have minorities demanding equal rights. Questions about the rightness of All The Actions Of The State. Insubordination. Chaos. Instead of One People, looking lovingly at the One Leader.. a million dissenting voices.
My son spent quite some time on his PS for PPE. It was hard covering a life long passion for 3 completely different subjects in about 3 paragraphs 😉 His statements were touched on in his interviews, however. Overall, Oxbridge did seem to take interviews quite seriously. My wife was addicted to the student room and there were endless examples of people getting and not getting offers despite their results in the entrance exams.
I imagine this has already been analysed to destruction but we have the results from the Nordrhein-Westfalen Regional election.
CDU: 35.8% (+2.8)
SPD: 26.7% (-4.5)
Greens: 18.0% (+11.6)
FDP: 5.6% (-7.0)
AfD: 5.6% (-1.8)
A very good result for the Greens and indeed for the CDU. The pre-election polls suggested 33-34% but once again the polls underestimated the CDU vote and overestimated the SPD who finished up down on the 2017 numbers. A poor result for them but worse for the FDP who only just remained in the Landtag along with Alternative.
In terms of the 199-seat Landag, CDU have 78, SPD 58, Greens 39, FDP 12 and Alternative 12
The existing CDU-FDP Government has therefore lost its majority but there's no obvious alternative as SPD/Green also falls just short. The strong Green performance seems to echo the positive ratings for the Greens in the Federal Government and they are now the kingmakers in NRW. The CDU leader Wust took over from Armin Laschet just 6 months ago but has clearly got a boost from distancing himself from the old Laschet administration.
Why would you do that? I had no idea. Still don't.
Back in my uni application days at my Cambridge interview, the chap admitted that they could chose the lucky ones at random from those who applied and they would all do equally well, such was the standard. I imagine that is still the case for some courses and unis. But definitely not for pharmacy.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Dowker/
He said at the start of the PhD that ,most students were either lions or jackals - lions attempted to explore new territory, while jackals tidied up the theory in areas where lions had gone before. A PhD could be entirely jackal work, and I might find as I worked that I started off as a lion but decided to be a jackal - it was entirely up to me.
I was definitely a jackal, sadly.
...by-election?
The Guardian is reporting that Boris has given the green light to the controversial bill which seeks to override the Protocol, despite “frayed relations with Liz Truss”.
I like wiki's terse statement: "Dowker conjectured that so-called Dowker spaces could not exist, a conjecture ultimately proven false"
An interesting thought experiment might be to define a narrative that sees Russia becoming democratic.
If you are fortunate to live near the Lizzy Line (as I am), then it will be revolutionary.
Right now, the quickest way to Heathrow is a taxi to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. But, realistically, it's 25 minutes to get there. Which means I need to leave 32-33 minutes before the train I wish to catch. (And that can still be cutting it a little fine.)
With the Lizzy Line, even before through trains, I will be five minutes to the Elizabeth Line platform at TCR, five minutes (max!) wait for a train, and then five minutes to Paddington. So, it will take me between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to get to Paddington. If I'm lucky with the interchange there, I could be - all in - at Heathrow in under 30 minutes.
When through trains start, it will be a little slower (but less hassle), and should mean that my worst case time to Heathrow will be maybe 50 minutes. Most of the time, though, it will be 40-45 minutes there.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen,
I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
There was that fella on Unherd a few weeks case who made the case that Russia would splinter into lots of little bits. Actually quite convincing that there could be a motivation for it - but understandably vague on what the response from the centre might be.
But that's the path to democracy I can most readily see.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1525630544884686851
Meanwhile in Russia: they're upset about Ukraine's "vile provocation" of bringing up Russia's invasion while on stage…
This is because they then get to nominate the 6 NRW representatives to the 69 seat Bundesrat (Upper House), where there is currently no government majority.
The representatives change with each Lander election. It isn't directly voted for.
Such an arrangement would greatly assist in getting Federal business through.
They really ought to be a Football League side.
And so they are!
Overall, Russian equipment losses seem to have been running around 3x those of Ukraine. You can quibble about the identification and counting methodology, but whatever.
There’s one massive outlier.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1525583759738798080
… Whats most interesting is that the base ratio is close to being matched also for all subsets of equipment except one. Russian logistics losses are running at a staggering more than 15 pieces for every 1 Ukrainian...
is awesome. No bullshit queues. No 3 miles of crap in duty free. You get on and off planes. They give you your luggage, or take it - and never lose it. There aren't enough flights to get luggage muddled up.
She appears to be a crook.
Although I reckon few would consider Hertfordshire and Essex not to be SE.
Nor, necessarily Oxon and Bucks to be so.
Pop London and South East ~ 19 million. Pop UK ~ 67 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294729/uk-population-by-region/
19/67 ~ 28 per cent.
Very few people at Oxbridge from Wales, Scotland, Nor'n Ireland, North of England and South West of England.
If no 10 wanted to start culling pensioners she’d find a way to say it was legal .
Despite the government’s designation, I would put the whole Thames watershed (Oxon, Bucks, Berks, Herts, Surrey, Essex) plus Kent and Sussex in the South East.
Hampshire not.
It looks like it could be quicker to fly from London to Glasgow via Dundee than via Glasgow! Could be a selling angle!
The problem to me is that the solution requires a high degree of trust, and Boris simply cannot be trusted. Boris / this government are unable to clean this up.
It's about making the Lander an A-Lander * (SPD-led, and voting with the government), rather than a B-Lander (CDU/CSU led and voting against).
Bit confusing I know.
* The A and B designation is convention rather than an indication of who is in government.
And one of the horses is being ridden by a man with no shirt.
Edit - E.g. There’s no way in which any lawyer could advise HMG that repudiating a treaty was “unlawful”. That’s not how international law works.
When I applied for my first job at SCEE there was a mandatory cover letter required, instead of writing one I just sent them a blank document. Still got the job. Clearly they had the same policy as me.
Some mitigation’s to help smoother trade but there’s no way things can return to what they were pre Brexit . The DUP backed Brexit and need to own it.
LBISS
(London Bridge is structurally sound)
The SE is often talked about. But it's a bit of an ill-defined concept
Where does it begin and end? Not by the official definition for sure.
So where is Hampshire by your reckoning? It's a bit like Lincolnshire and Cumbria. A county without an obvious region.
And Banbury is less than an hour from Birmingham.
- Natural death in a year or so
- Anointed successor, seen as harmless and a little ineffectual but true to the Putinist cause
- Pragmatically pulls back from Ukraine, looks to calm relations with West, allows some opening up of press freedom and lifts various emergency laws. But corruption continues
- Next election a Navalny character stands, and the leader lacks the killer instinct. Allows a peaceful transfer of power
Essentially Russia needs a surprise reformist: an FW De Klerk, or a Gorbachev, or a King Juan Carlos, or dare I say it a Keir Starmer.
It was rather funny when one of them was interviewed on CNN. He took the view that it was illegal because he said so. When rather gently asked to explain why it was illegal, he started to swell like a puffer fish....
I am fairly sure that I would not pass Med Schhol entrance nowadays, and certainly not Higher Specialist Training either. Not that recruitment should be a self-replicating oligarchy, but many of my best colleagues say the same.
I mean to say. Damn she looks great for her age sure.
But it isn't far away.
Brentford's Ivan Toney and Rico Henry say their families were racially abused after Brentford win at Everton
Toney tweeted: "For the man that racially abused my family Il (sic) do everything I can to get you the punishment you deserve!"
Henry tweeed: "To see my mom upset after being racially abused by a few Everton fans brought fire to my stomach!"
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/12614237/brentfords-ivan-toney-says-his-family-were-racially-abused-at-brentford-win-at-everton
All else is distraction.
It is true that Oxfordshire heads north quite a bit but very much most of it is in the Thames watershed. Birmingham, of course, isn’t.
Hampshire seems to me to be a southern county and fits along with Dorset and Wiltshire. And if you check the geography, Hampshire is indeed oriented toward the Solent.
But no, we have to try to get them to show they care, and put patients first, and listen to patients views...
International law does trump domestic law . This was highlighted during the Article 50 extensions where there was a lot of fuss over the laying of the suitable statutory instrument needed to change domestic law .
It sounds brutally mechanistic but she is a wonderful source of stability, and we could REALLY do with more of that right now
She is the mother of the nation. God save ‘er
Swindon, as you say, is essentially an industrial exclave of Bristol.
Nevertheless, I personally use the county divisions because they are well known. Wiltshire sits alongside Dorset and Hampshire in “Wessex” because it’s point of gravity - ie Salisbury - is there.
And Cumbria obviously isn't NE. Nor does it have much in common with NW.
Nor does it fall into watershed.
Other counties that sit unto themselves are Cornwall, Devon and Yorkshire.
There may be some thing to the Private School business though. I have two family members who applied last year. One from an expensive private school with all the social graces, and both parents Cambridge graduates didn't get in so is off to Durham. The other state school educated and quite gawky and nerdish but in at Cambridge to do maths.
Funnily enough, the BBC seem to agree. There isn't a Radio Hampshire, instead being covered by Solent, Surrey and Berkshire.
But yes Wessex is a good region for those counties.
No true Gosporter would ever think they are in the South East (in my opinion).
My late Aunt Dora could just about cope with Hayling Island but any further afield and there be demons.