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
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
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 .
No, that was in exit from the EU, whose laws did trump our own (why I voted leave). Not now the case.
Edit - I am generally against repudiating treaties because I think we should keep our word. But international law (mostly) has no “court” or similar to police it.
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...
Dropping interviews would allow university places to be assigned by computer as soon as A-level results are published, and without changing the start of the university year or the exam season.
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
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...
FWIW a good friend and neighbor left his house in north Seattle this morning, riding on his bicycle in the cold rain to . . . New York City.
Original plan was to head east over Snoqualmie Pass and across eastern Washington to Boise & points east. HOWEVER our unseasonably wet & cold start to Spring means that bike route over the Cascades is blocked by snow.
So instead he's riding south toward Portland then up the Columbia River though the Gorge, and wheeling thorough eastern Oregon to Boise, then o the Grand Tetons and the Continental Divide.
From there miles and miles and miles across the Great Plains, the Missouri River and the mighty Mississippi, and through the heart of the Midwest, past the Great Lakes and on to the Big Apple.
Would say my friend is well-prepared, has been planning his trans-continental trek for over a year and is in great shape, with many miles of bicycling under his belt in recent months. (My own contribution being small quantity of quality snake-bite medicine to supplement his first-aid kit.)
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.
There
Suspect there is a big difference between science/maths and arts subjects in this regard.
Some unofficial cohort-tracking at Fen Poly twenty years or so ago showed science students from private schools were well ahead in Part 1A, slightly ahead in Part 1B, and slightly behind in Part II results (first year, second year, third year respectively).
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
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.
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.
Oh are Highers only one year? I am an idiot and never knew that.
The FA should adopt a zero tolerance approach and deduct points. Of course they won’t. They’ll make a few noises. Talk tough. Get a few quotes from Kick it Out. Nothing will happen.
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
So essentially you are condoning Boris.
Why is drawing a parallel with UVDL condoning Boris
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
“Solent City” in theory has it all. Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
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.
Oh are Highers only one year? I am an idiot and never knew that.
There is, or was, an extension called, I kid you not, the Higher Still.
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...
Dropping interviews would allow university places to be assigned by computer as soon as A-level results are published, and without changing the start of the university year or the exam season.
They pretty much are now. What needs to change is probably the idea of applying to five places and then choosing two, one as insurance pre exams. An awful lot of time is wasted. Far better to let students get the grades and then apply to the place they really want to go. For sure there will be issues with that too, but I think it’s time has come.
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
“Solent City” in theory has it all. Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
It’s very mostly awful. Discuss.
Hmm! I tend to go for the military-industrial archaeology. Which I suppose makes your point ...
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.
There
Suspect there is a big difference between science/maths and arts subjects in this regard.
Some unofficial cohort-tracking at Fen Poly twenty years or so ago showed science students from private schools were well ahead in Part 1A, slightly ahead in Part 1B, and slightly behind in Part II results (first year, second year, third year respectively).
In terms of entry bias, we should also remember that some subjects are almost entirely the preserve of public schools, such as Classics and (for reasons I've never understood) History of Art.
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.
The whole of the Thames watershed? That includes parts of Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire
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 not defending UVDL . That was a mistake , thankfully the threat lasted about 3 hours and was dropped .
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...
Dropping interviews would allow university places to be assigned by computer as soon as A-level results are published, and without changing the start of the university year or the exam season.
They pretty much are now. What needs to change is probably the idea of applying to five places and then choosing two, one as insurance pre exams. An awful lot of time is wasted. Far better to let students get the grades and then apply to the place they really want to go. For sure there will be issues with that too, but I think it’s time has come.
But then how would Oxbridge and I have come to the mutual understanding that my talents were best used elsewhere? I needed my Cambridge interview for that.
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
So essentially you are condoning Boris.
Why is drawing a parallel with UVDL condoning Boris
Because it’s actually irrelevant.
UVDL made a stupid mistake and it’s provided a helpful talking point for HMG, but it’s got nothing to do really with Boris’s decision to lie about the protocol, agree the protocol, and now to (possibly) disavow the protocol.
Nor does it provide any clues or suggestions about how to address the Protocol’s problems.
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...
Dropping interviews would allow university places to be assigned by computer as soon as A-level results are published, and without changing the start of the university year or the exam season.
They pretty much are now. What needs to change is probably the idea of applying to five places and then choosing two, one as insurance pre exams. An awful lot of time is wasted. Far better to let students get the grades and then apply to the place they really want to go. For sure there will be issues with that too, but I think it’s time has come.
But then how would Oxbridge and I have come to the mutual understanding that my talents were best used elsewhere? I needed my Cambridge interview for that.
There would probably still be interviews, just after the grades were awarded.
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
So essentially you are condoning Boris.
Why is drawing a parallel with UVDL condoning Boris
Because it’s actually irrelevant.
UVDL made a stupid mistake and it’s provided a helpful talking point for HMG, but it’s got nothing to do really with Boris’s decision to lie about the protocol, agree the protocol, and now to (possibly) disavow the protocol.
Nor does it provide any clues or suggestions about how to address the Protocol’s problems.
But it gives an excuse for a convenient 2690 Minutes Hate to cover up for the problems caused by HMG.
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.
The whole of the Thames watershed? That includes parts of Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire
Yeh but not much.
Gloucestershire mostly lies in a West Midlands (Severn) watershed, and Northamptonshire an Eastern (Ouse or Nene or Welland, I can’t remember) one.
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 not defending UVDL . That was a mistake , thankfully the threat lasted about 3 hours and was dropped .
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.
The whole of the Thames watershed? That includes parts of Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire
Yeh but not much.
Gloucestershire mostly lies in a West Midlands (Severn) watershed, and Northamptonshire an Eastern (Ouse or Nene or Welland, I can’t remember) one.
Gloucestershire is South West, Northamptonshire East Midlands
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...
Certainly so. Psychopaths interview well because they are often quite charming and persuasive.
In practice, something like 75% of medical school applicants with the right A levels get in, albeit sometimes needing a second go.
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.
The whole of the Thames watershed? That includes parts of Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire
Yeh but not much.
Gloucestershire mostly lies in a West Midlands (Severn) watershed, and Northamptonshire an Eastern (Ouse or Nene or Welland, I can’t remember) one.
Gloucestershire is South West, Northamptonshire East Midlands
According to the government’s divisions, yes, but I happen to disagree with them.
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
Absolutely. Even more so now that the area around Gunwharf Quays has been glammed up. One of the "children, we have to do this so that you can understand your father's quirks" things.
Ferries are funny things. On one hand, if you are in a ferry-able place, it implies that you are geographically a bit cut off. But on the other hand, ships give opportunites to go everywhere. Parochial and global, with something in the middle missing.
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...
Dropping interviews would allow university places to be assigned by computer as soon as A-level results are published, and without changing the start of the university year or the exam season.
They pretty much are now. What needs to change is probably the idea of applying to five places and then choosing two, one as insurance pre exams. An awful lot of time is wasted. Far better to let students get the grades and then apply to the place they really want to go. For sure there will be issues with that too, but I think it’s time has come.
Leicester University Medical School prefers post A level applicants, as they can be given places on the spot. The additional year of life experience is quite important too, students arrive with more social maturity.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
Absolutely. Even more so now that the area around Gunwharf Quays has been glammed up. One of the "children, we have to do this so that you can understand your father's quirks" things.
Ferries are funny things. On one hand, if you are in a ferry-able place, it implies that you are geographically a bit cut off. But on the other hand, ships give opportunites to go everywhere. Parochial and global, with something in the middle missing.
Victoria, BC felt very much like that. Super connected but also a long way from anywhere.
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
So essentially you are condoning Boris.
Why is drawing a parallel with UVDL condoning Boris
Because it’s actually irrelevant.
UVDL made a stupid mistake and it’s provided a helpful talking point for HMG, but it’s got nothing to do really with Boris’s decision to lie about the protocol, agree the protocol, and now to (possibly) disavow the protocol.
Nor does it provide any clues or suggestions about how to address the Protocol’s problems.
The point is it demonstrated UVDL mindset and it was not a mistake but it was something she was made to backtrack on
This issue is hugely complex with the DUP digging in and a compromise has to be found
Maybe the next few days will shed some light but all sides need to make a determined effort to overcome the problems
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
“Solent City” in theory has it all. Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
It’s very mostly awful. Discuss.
Hmm! I tend to go for the military-industrial archaeology. Which I suppose makes your point ...
Nelson’s Victory is astonishing, simply amazing.
The Dockyard should be a UNESCO World Heritage site, I’m not sure why it’s not.
But generally speaking, the place (the Soton-Portsmouth metro) is dreary, tatty, and depressing. It is also - like the north - “left behind”.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
The only generous interpretation is that it’s adding something in we can later drop.
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.
Shouldn't the NI Assembly be the best judge of whether it is causing problems or not?
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
If the EU can't agree with us, we should invoke A16 and walk away until they can reach an agreement with us.
It isn't despicable to fail to reach an agreement. We're under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to reach a deal with the EU, and are 100% legally entitled to invoke A16 and kill off the Protocol under the Protocol's own safeguarding terms.
Implementing proper safeguarding is never immoral or illegal, that is what safeguarding is there for.
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.
Oh are Highers only one year? I am an idiot and never knew that.
There is, or was, an extension called, I kid you not, the Higher Still.
I liked the old CSYS (Certificate of Sixth Year Studies).
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
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.
Shouldn't the NI Assembly be the best judge of whether it is causing problems or not?
We have no Assembly at present in NI.
Abstentionism has long been part of Irish politics, but here we have the DUP not just abstaining themselves, but preventing anyone else from attending too.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
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.
Shouldn't the NI Assembly be the best judge of whether it is causing problems or not?
Yes - and the NI Assembly hasn't been able to sit for months and can't reach an agreement for an Assembly government or even a Speaker, so it isn't even sitting.
If politics in NI has so failed that they can't even elect a Speaker, do you think that is a problem or a sign that all is hunky-dory?
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...
Certainly so. Psychopaths interview well because they are often quite charming and persuasive.
In practice, something like 75% of medical school applicants with the right A levels get in, albeit sometimes needing a second go.
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.
There
Suspect there is a big difference between science/maths and arts subjects in this regard.
Some unofficial cohort-tracking at Fen Poly twenty years or so ago showed science students from private schools were well ahead in Part 1A, slightly ahead in Part 1B, and slightly behind in Part II results (first year, second year, third year respectively).
In terms of entry bias, we should also remember that some subjects are almost entirely the preserve of public schools, such as Classics and (for reasons I've never understood) History of Art.
For some people, Art History is the only way out of the ghetto.
"Fils d'une concierge et d'un postier, il étudie au lycée Pablo-Picasso de Fontenay-sous-Bois1. Diplômé de l'École du Louvre, agrégé d’histoire en 1989 ..."
Of course, that wanker Macron has just fired him as Director of the Louvre. Too working class.
It is true that almost everyone in the UK gallery/museum world seems to be the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire ...
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think folk have to be encouraged to go into the office at least some of the time. I'm not convinced 100% WFH is any more optimal than 100% in the office ever was.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
Great weekend. In change of plans GF taken lift back to London with her friends, I’m staying on in North yorkshire to go with my Dad to next Saturdays Cup Final.
I have studied it closely. And read through PB I’ve missed. Boris is absolutely right over the protocol. If goods moving from mainland UK into NI just for consumption in NI, why should it pass Through a EU border? It shouldn’t. It’s potty solution the EU insisted on us. Goods for NI consumption should sail through under a green light. If it further crosses into EU, smuggling in other words, it’s in interest of EU to agree with us to harsh penalties on the smugglers, it just shows what a sham EU border policy always been if they won’t, UK always maintains proper borders. That’s a perfectly workable solution proposed by UK government, everyone needs to get behind it. And the seriousness of it, that means any proper PM has no choice but to act, Northern Ireland is suffering post Covid and have a cost of living crisis, the EU insisting on checks in the Irish Sea is hampering the UK government from helping northern island.
When the legislation comes to the commons Starmer has to nod it through not play silly politics over this one. Big G is right that “on manoeuvres” Truss is too Hawkish in her language as proved by Boris having to tick her off about it. UK has a strong argument, if she keeps a cool head we can easily thrash EU in negotiations on this.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
It's not my experience that private sector call centres are more efficient than civil servants - quite the contrary.
I phoned a major insurance company this very week and was greeted with an automated message saying 'Due to covid the hours we are able to answer the phone have been limited."
Sorry. But WFH is here to stay. Don't like it? Well make working in an office more attractive than the alternative.
Where I work, the younger staff want to go back to the office more - they want to go out in the city after work, meet friends at different jobs for coffee etc.
The middle managers want to avoid the commute, their friends are in the areas where they live... Families etc.
It is quite hilarious hearing the managers "not hearing" the requests for more team days in the office, sometimes.
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
I would venture to suggest there are two sides to this story and on what I have read of Boris's comment piece he makes some very reasonable points
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
How on message for JRM- forcing others to work less conveniently in order to cater to his whims (printing stuff out for him etc), and thinking that means he is the efficient one.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
I’ve said before that the U.K. government found itself in an impossible position. Squaring the GFA and leaving the single market, as required for Brexit, means a border somewhere. GFA says it can’t be in the island of Ireland. So it has to be in the sea. But then you have checks within the country, which should never be allowed. I doubt France would allow checks between departments. There are solutions, but no serious effort has been put into doing them.
The NI economy is doing better than the UK in terms of bounce back after covid .
No 10 and the DUP are over dramatizing trade issues between the UK and NI and by threatening to crash the protocol they’re threatening businesses with more changes and more costs after they were getting used to the trade terms .
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think folk have to be encouraged to go into the office at least some of the time. I'm not convinced 100% WFH is any more optimal than 100% in the office ever was.
I don't think its the government's responsibility to be doing that.
Let employers decide to set their staff their targets etc - if people WFH are falling behind, let the employers deal with that appropriately.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
Yes, Johnson is his usual mendacious self. He will never say that his "oven ready deal" of which the NIP was a core strand is the root of the problem.
The simplist and most obvious way to resolve the issue is for the UK to agree to dynamically follow SM rules and regulations. The absurdity is that we actually still do, just refuse to say so, so that Brexiteers can puff out their chests over Sovereignty.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
If only Phones4u wasn't a company that went bust eight years ago ...
Yes, another numbskull who doesn't understand or want to understand the modern working environment.
It's fascinating the target of this vitriol is or are "civil servants" (presumably this means the whole public sector). Plenty of private companies are allowing WFH or hybrid working and some are actively encouraging it. Are these companies to be ordered by Government diktat to send their workers back to desks which no longer exist in offices which have been completely re-figured for different ways of working?
That's the problem with the likes of Johnson and Cauldwell - their notion of how people work is so antiquated as to be laughable. The notion of banks of desks and suited office workers working like battery hens didn't die with the pandemic - it disappeared 30 years ago.
I presume they think the Mail's readership still thinks that's how office work is carried out.
It's time the Government got on with the business of running the country (not that they have shown themselves to be much good at it) and stop telling people how to live their lives or how to work.
This wouldn't happen if we had a proper Tory Government.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think folk have to be encouraged to go into the office at least some of the time. I'm not convinced 100% WFH is any more optimal than 100% in the office ever was.
Great weekend. In change of plans GF taken lift back to London with her friends, I’m staying on in North yorkshire to go with my Dad to next Saturdays Cup Final.
I have studied it closely. And read through PB I’ve missed. Boris is absolutely right over the protocol. If goods moving from mainland UK into NI just for consumption in NI, why should it pass Through a EU border? It shouldn’t. It’s potty solution the EU insisted on us. Goods for NI consumption should sail through under a green light. If it further crosses into EU, smuggling in other words, it’s in interest of EU to agree with us to harsh penalties on the smugglers, it just shows what a sham EU border policy always been if they won’t, UK always maintains proper borders. That’s a perfectly workable solution proposed by UK government, everyone needs to get behind it. And the seriousness of it, that means any proper PM has no choice but to act, Northern Ireland is suffering post Covid and have a cost of living crisis, the EU insisting on checks in the Irish Sea is hampering the UK government from helping northern island.
When the legislation comes to the commons Starmer has to nod it through not play silly politics over this one. Big G is right that “on manoeuvres” Truss is too Hawkish in her language as proved by Boris having to tick her off about it. UK has a strong argument, if she keeps a cool head we can easily thrash EU in negotiations on this.
We should have gone for a very Northern Ireland solution.
A diamond hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. A thousand foot deep ditch, nuclear land mines etc etc.
All paid for out of a budget of 1 euro a year.
Meanwhile, Slab* and the boys could get on with their smuggling. It keeps them happy and out of the killing people business.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
It’s important for the country to achieve productivity. Government are making it clear in voters minds, lack of productivity is becuase workers won’t go back to work. From now on it’s not the governments fault if productivity is low, it’s the work forces who just won’t go to work.
Ask yourself, now the government has pushed this, made their position crystal clear, who will the electorate side with?
Likewise, inflation crisis is the fault of the Bank of England. Cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland fault of the EU. Households struggling because we have ninety thousand too many civil servants. Illegal asylum seekers coming across channel because of Labour and liberal elite and judiciary determined to thwart government solutions. None of this is the fault of government. Government have plans to sort heap of problems out once and for all, thwarted by liberal and lefty goons opposing the plans.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think folk have to be encouraged to go into the office at least some of the time. I'm not convinced 100% WFH is any more optimal than 100% in the office ever was.
I don't think its the government's responsibility to be doing that.
Let employers decide to set their staff their targets etc - if people WFH are falling behind, let the employers deal with that appropriately.
Yes, I prefer not to WFH, and I think the epochal language some people use about the recent shifts betray a less than objective view of its benefits, but it should be up to the employer. The government can try to force a rigid view on those it employs, and reap the consequences if it causes problems, but can butt out otherwise.
You could also gve the 'market can't be bucked' argument that companies that get workers in the office will out compete those that don't. I suppose the obvious way to get workers to work in the office is better terms. If you pay them more but stipulate they have to come to work, you'll get people to make that bargain. And ultimately the market will tell us whether it's worth it.
Personally, I think for most office jobs, you get more out of workers who are in the office than not. I wouldn't want to go back to working in the office full time (though I hated, hated, being made to be at home full time) - but that's not a productivity thing, that's because my life is unexpectedly filled up with things to do like take daughter 1 to climbing, daughter 2 to football, daughter 3 to gymanstics.
WFH is having a neutral impact on the amount of time in my life, but is giving my daughters all sorts of opportunities they didn't get before.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
I’ve said before that the U.K. government found itself in an impossible position. Squaring the GFA and leaving the single market, as required for Brexit, means a border somewhere. GFA says it can’t be in the island of Ireland. So it has to be in the sea. But then you have checks within the country, which should never be allowed. I doubt France would allow checks between departments. There are solutions, but no serious effort has been put into doing them.
The UK should never have agreed to the EU’s sequencing. We threw away one of few pieces of leverage: the ability to sit, refusing to budge until the EU agreed to park the substance of Northern Ireland until a TCA was agreed.
Having done that, Theresa May’s deal did actually find a way of dealing with the border albeit it delayed the “one true Brexit” (as defined by the hardliners).
Having white-anted Theresa May, yes, Boris boxed himself into a corner.
The main worry of many civil servants have been ministers’ increasing use of email and text to speak to their colleagues directly. JRM putting his office back in charge and able to control the narrative will be welcomed.
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
I would venture to suggest there are two sides to this story and on what I have read of Boris's comment piece he makes some very reasonable points
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
I think some people's attitude is to look down their nose at the DUP, blame them for the impasse, and wish them to go away.
Nevermind that the DUP thanks to the GFA and the election results need to be brought onside in order for the Assembly to even sit. Far easier to just hate the DUP and blame them and think nothing should be done to rectify the situation before putting their head back into the sand.
Yup. The market can’t be bucked. Those who don’t embrace it will lose the best staff to those who do.
I don't understand why conservatives seem so wound up by WFH. As you say the market will decide. A myriad of individuals and organizations will make their own decisions. Reminds me of the kind of price signals stuff and little platoons that tories are supposed to believe in rather than the state deciding.
But of course Johnson's government isn't remotely conservative.
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
Yes, Johnson is his usual mendacious self. He will never say that his "oven ready deal" of which the NIP was a core strand is the root of the problem.
The simplist and most obvious way to resolve the issue is for the UK to agree to dynamically follow SM rules and regulations. The absurdity is that we actually still do, just refuse to say so, so that Brexiteers can puff out their chests over Sovereignty.
The root of the problem is that the EU chose to insist upon NI being dealt with before Trade, which was always cart before horse.
Thankfully the deal came with safeguarding provisions that override the NIP if it causes issues. So if you agree there are issues, you must agree that safeguarding can and should be applied surely?
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
It’s important for the country to achieve productivity. Government are making it clear in voters minds, lack of productivity is becuase workers won’t go back to work. From now on it’s not the governments fault if productivity is low, it’s the work forces who just won’t go to work.
Ask yourself, now the government has pushed this, made their position crystal clear, who will the electorate side with?
Which govrrnment minister is ot that thinks that British workers are idle skivers? All of them it seems.
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
I would venture to suggest there are two sides to this story and on what I have read of Boris's comment piece he makes some very reasonable points
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
There is no trust or goodwill left because Johnson trashed that . The EU responded with some compromises which were totally ignored by no 10.
The way to get the EU to move more was to go to NI months ago and speak to all parties not ignore Sinn Fein and the other pro protocol parties and just suck up to the DUP.
The DUP want to pretend Brexit never happened and think that things can return to what they were before , they can’t .
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
I would venture to suggest there are two sides to this story and on what I have read of Boris's comment piece he makes some very reasonable points
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
I think some people's attitude is to look down their nose at the DUP, blame them for the impasse, and wish them to go away.
Nevermind that the DUP thanks to the GFA and the election results need to be brought onside in order for the Assembly to even sit. Far easier to just hate the DUP and blame them and think nothing should be done to rectify the situation before putting their head back into the sand.
That would be easier to do if the DUP didn't posture like little children about every little damn thing. It makes finding a way to address their concerns harder than it needs to be because of their histrionics.
Yes, everyone should still have listened to the boy who cried wolf given the importance of responding to wolf attacks, but it's understandable that people just got sick of the attention seeking and tuned it out.
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
“Solent City” in theory has it all. Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
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.
Must have been terribly exotic taking the boat over to Pompey Harbour Station. Quite romantic really.
There’s a joke here somewhere about Priddy’s Hard but I am not quite able to make it.
Looking forward to another trip there sometime, actually, to the Navy weapons museum at the old ammunition depot - my dad was an armaments specialist in the RN and I wouldn't mind another look around. Also to see the Weevil Victualling Yard where IIRC they made the salt pork and biscuits - I believe the seafront is more accessible than it used to be.
“Solent City” in theory has it all. Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
It’s very mostly awful. Discuss.
Hmm! I tend to go for the military-industrial archaeology. Which I suppose makes your point ...
Nelson’s Victory is astonishing, simply amazing.
The Dockyard should be a UNESCO World Heritage site, I’m not sure why it’s not.
But generally speaking, the place (the Soton-Portsmouth metro) is dreary, tatty, and depressing. It is also - like the north - “left behind”.
Because it was bombed to shit in WW2 and, like too much of Britain, cheaply and shoddily rebuilt - and our narcisstic wanker-elite class of architects/town planners don’t have the brains, humility or wits to solve the problems of their own creation, despite 70 years having passed
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
Yes, Johnson is his usual mendacious self. He will never say that his "oven ready deal" of which the NIP was a core strand is the root of the problem.
The simplist and most obvious way to resolve the issue is for the UK to agree to dynamically follow SM rules and regulations. The absurdity is that we actually still do, just refuse to say so, so that Brexiteers can puff out their chests over Sovereignty.
The root of the problem is that the EU chose to insist upon NI being dealt with before Trade, which was always cart before horse.
Thankfully the deal came with safeguarding provisions that override the NIP if it causes issues. So if you agree there are issues, you must agree that safeguarding can and should be applied surely?
Though any unilateral action will provoke a response on some other aspect of the Brexit Deal. It is not tenable to rip up part of the treaty and insist on the rest.
"A catastrophe for the British economy': Entrepreneur and philanthropist John Cauldwell condemns WFH culture as an 'epidemic of inefficiency sweeping the country' as he demands civil servants get back to their desks"
It’s important for the country to achieve productivity. Government are making it clear in voters minds, lack of productivity is becuase workers won’t go back to work. From now on it’s not the governments fault if productivity is low, it’s the work forces who just won’t go to work.
Ask yourself, now the government has pushed this, made their position crystal clear, who will the electorate side with?
Which govrrnment minister is ot that thinks that British workers are idle skivers? All of them it seems.
I believe it was one of the premises of “Britannia Unchained” by Messrs Raab, Truss, Kwarteng etc that British workers were lazy good for nothings.
The DUP want a hard border on the island and they won’t play second fiddle to Sinn Fein.
Neither demand (never vocalised but implicit in their actions) can actually be accommodated at all.
HMG is using them in its EU war, but ultimately they will be fucked over. Again.
However if there is a hung parliament at the next general election as current polls suggest, getting DUP support will be Boris' only chance to stay in power. Donaldson would dictate terms to him accordingly
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
I agree with every word of that extract.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
Yes, Johnson is his usual mendacious self. He will never say that his "oven ready deal" of which the NIP was a core strand is the root of the problem.
The simplist and most obvious way to resolve the issue is for the UK to agree to dynamically follow SM rules and regulations. The absurdity is that we actually still do, just refuse to say so, so that Brexiteers can puff out their chests over Sovereignty.
The root of the problem is that the EU chose to insist upon NI being dealt with before Trade, which was always cart before horse.
Thankfully the deal came with safeguarding provisions that override the NIP if it causes issues. So if you agree there are issues, you must agree that safeguarding can and should be applied surely?
Though any unilateral action will provoke a response on some other aspect of the Brexit Deal. It is not tenable to rip up part of the treaty and insist on the rest.
That's their prerogative absolutely, if they can get unanimity to agree to whatever response they choose to implement if its needed.
I have no qualms with that whatsoever. But surely you do agree we are perfectly entitled to implement the safeguarding clauses of the Protocol?
Dear Me Johnson really has lost it going by the DT.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
I would venture to suggest there are two sides to this story and on what I have read of Boris's comment piece he makes some very reasonable points
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
There is no trust or goodwill left because Johnson trashed that . The EU responded with some compromises which were totally ignored by no 10.
The way to get the EU to move more was to go to NI months ago and speak to all parties not ignore Sinn Fein and the other pro protocol parties and just suck up to the DUP.
The DUP want to pretend Brexit never happened and think that things can return to what they were before , they can’t .
Mitigation’s yes but that’s it .
It seems Boris's comment piece has been received quite well and is constructive
You can attack the DUP but they are not going away and as for going to NI months ago, the protocol has been constantly discussed across NI - UK and Europe
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think folk have to be encouraged to go into the office at least some of the time. I'm not convinced 100% WFH is any more optimal than 100% in the office ever was.
Almost nobody wants 100% wfh. That’s a straw man.
Come work where I work (major financial services organisation).
Doesn't matter what people say they want, you see what they actually do. The reality is no-one comes in because no-one else comes in, so essentially nearly everyone is WFH nearly 100% of the time bar a relatively tiny cohort that are choosing to go in and sit in near empty offices. Unless the bosses actually tell folk to be in X% of the time or whatever, nearly everyone just stays home.
What we are beginning to see is little clumps of people that used to sit near each other (even when they didn't work that closely) trying to individually reach out to each other to try and recreate that once a month, or whatever, because otherwise you're just sat at home on your own the whole time.
I'd not come across that Australian idiom before but it's really useful:
The Macquarie Dictionary says the verb "to white-ant" means "to subvert or undermine from within". The term is derived from the action of termites (white ants) eating the inside of wooden building foundations, often leaving no outward evidence, until the structure crumbles.
Comments
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.
Edit - I am generally against repudiating treaties because I think we should keep our word. But international law (mostly) has no “court” or similar to police it.
FWIW a good friend and neighbor left his house in north Seattle this morning, riding on his bicycle in the cold rain to . . . New York City.
Original plan was to head east over Snoqualmie Pass and across eastern Washington to Boise & points east. HOWEVER our unseasonably wet & cold start to Spring means that bike route over the Cascades is blocked by snow.
So instead he's riding south toward Portland then up the Columbia River though the Gorge, and wheeling thorough eastern Oregon to Boise, then o the Grand Tetons and the Continental Divide.
From there miles and miles and miles across the Great Plains, the Missouri River and the mighty Mississippi, and through the heart of the Midwest, past the Great Lakes and on to the Big Apple.
Would say my friend is well-prepared, has been planning his trans-continental trek for over a year and is in great shape, with many miles of bicycling under his belt in recent months. (My own contribution being small quantity of quality snake-bite medicine to supplement his first-aid kit.)
Go East, young man, go East!
Some unofficial cohort-tracking at Fen Poly twenty years or so ago showed science students from private schools were well ahead in Part 1A, slightly ahead in Part 1B, and slightly behind in Part II results (first year, second year, third year respectively).
The politics of NI don't transfer onto those of Britain.
The FA should adopt a zero tolerance approach and deduct points. Of course they won’t. They’ll make a few noises. Talk tough. Get a few quotes from Kick it Out. Nothing will happen.
Weather, coastline, boating, Russell Group universities.
It’s very mostly awful. Discuss.
For sure there will be issues with that too, but I think it’s time has come.
UVDL made a stupid mistake and it’s provided a helpful talking point for HMG, but it’s got nothing to do really with Boris’s decision to lie about the protocol, agree the protocol, and now to (possibly) disavow the protocol.
Nor does it provide any clues or suggestions about how to address the Protocol’s problems.
Gloucestershire mostly lies in a West Midlands (Severn) watershed, and Northamptonshire an Eastern (Ouse or Nene or Welland, I can’t remember) one.
In practice, something like 75% of medical school applicants with the right A levels get in, albeit sometimes needing a second go.
Ferries are funny things. On one hand, if you are in a ferry-able place, it implies that you are geographically a bit cut off. But on the other hand, ships give opportunites to go everywhere. Parochial and global, with something in the middle missing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10818091/A-catastrophe-British-economy-Phones-4u-founder-JOHN-CAUDWELL-condemns-WFH-culture.html
Super connected but also a long way from anywhere.
This issue is hugely complex with the DUP digging in and a compromise has to be found
Maybe the next few days will shed some light but all sides need to make a determined effort to overcome the problems
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/comment/stormont-must-be-restored-so-politicians-can-deliver-for-the-people-of-ni-41652590.html
We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.
We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.
In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.
Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.
None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland’s economic life — is taking too much of the strain.
Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the “harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands”, is not functioning as it must.
And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.
Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.
Edit - And yet another article that misses the point that passports were outsourced.
Blaming the EU for the cost of living crisis and the demands in terms of changes to the NI protocol aren’t going to happen . Now demanding the removal of the ECJ from that which no business asked for. With no ECJ no access to the single market . Johnson is destroying any chance of an agreement. Utterly despicable .
The Dockyard should be a UNESCO World Heritage site, I’m not sure why it’s not.
But generally speaking, the place (the Soton-Portsmouth metro) is dreary, tatty, and depressing. It is also - like the north - “left behind”.
Don't like it?
Well make working in an office more attractive than the alternative.
It isn't despicable to fail to reach an agreement. We're under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to reach a deal with the EU, and are 100% legally entitled to invoke A16 and kill off the Protocol under the Protocol's own safeguarding terms.
Implementing proper safeguarding is never immoral or illegal, that is what safeguarding is there for.
Abstentionism has long been part of Irish politics, but here we have the DUP not just abstaining themselves, but preventing anyone else from attending too.
The problem is Boris created this mess and has serially attempted to malign the EU just for the shits and giggles. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU find it difficult to create the compromises required.
If politics in NI has so failed that they can't even elect a Speaker, do you think that is a problem or a sign that all is hunky-dory?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Martinez
"Fils d'une concierge et d'un postier, il étudie au lycée Pablo-Picasso de Fontenay-sous-Bois1. Diplômé de l'École du Louvre, agrégé d’histoire en 1989 ..."
Of course, that wanker Macron has just fired him as Director of the Louvre. Too working class.
It is true that almost everyone in the UK gallery/museum world seems to be the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire ...
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1525476112737964032?s=20&t=qaRE7c7DirZhy0j8Xdk6Pw
I have studied it closely. And read through PB I’ve missed. Boris is absolutely right over the protocol. If goods moving from mainland UK into NI just for consumption in NI, why should it pass Through a EU border? It shouldn’t. It’s potty solution the EU insisted on us. Goods for NI consumption should sail through under a green light. If it further crosses into EU, smuggling in other words, it’s in interest of EU to agree with us to harsh penalties on the smugglers, it just shows what a sham EU border policy always been if they won’t, UK always maintains proper borders. That’s a perfectly workable solution proposed by UK government, everyone needs to get behind it. And the seriousness of it, that means any proper PM has no choice but to act, Northern Ireland is suffering post Covid and have a cost of living crisis, the EU insisting on checks in the Irish Sea is hampering the UK government from helping northern island.
When the legislation comes to the commons Starmer has to nod it through not play silly politics over this one. Big G is right that “on manoeuvres” Truss is too Hawkish in her language as proved by Boris having to tick her off about it. UK has a strong argument, if she keeps a cool head we can easily thrash EU in negotiations on this.
The middle managers want to avoid the commute, their friends are in the areas where they live... Families etc.
It is quite hilarious hearing the managers "not hearing" the requests for more team days in the office, sometimes.
Within the treaty, provisions were reserved to provide an opportunity to review problems that arose post the implementation and it is clear the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over UK - NI only trade
I understand A16 was part of the treaty and if an impasse becomes stalemate then A16 will no doubt be served
I would just ask how do you think Starmer and labour would unlock this dispute and assuage the DUP
There are solutions, but no serious effort has been put into doing them.
No 10 and the DUP are over dramatizing trade issues between the UK and NI and by threatening to crash the protocol they’re threatening businesses with more changes and more costs after they were getting used to the trade terms .
Let employers decide to set their staff their targets etc - if people WFH are falling behind, let the employers deal with that appropriately.
The simplist and most obvious way to resolve the issue is for the UK to agree to dynamically follow SM rules and regulations. The absurdity is that we actually still do, just refuse to say so, so that Brexiteers can puff out their chests over Sovereignty.
It's fascinating the target of this vitriol is or are "civil servants" (presumably this means the whole public sector). Plenty of private companies are allowing WFH or hybrid working and some are actively encouraging it. Are these companies to be ordered by Government diktat to send their workers back to desks which no longer exist in offices which have been completely re-figured for different ways of working?
That's the problem with the likes of Johnson and Cauldwell - their notion of how people work is so antiquated as to be laughable. The notion of banks of desks and suited office workers working like battery hens didn't die with the pandemic - it disappeared 30 years ago.
I presume they think the Mail's readership still thinks that's how office work is carried out.
It's time the Government got on with the business of running the country (not that they have shown themselves to be much good at it) and stop telling people how to live their lives or how to work.
This wouldn't happen if we had a proper Tory Government.
Oh wait....
A diamond hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. A thousand foot deep ditch, nuclear land mines etc etc.
All paid for out of a budget of 1 euro a year.
Meanwhile, Slab* and the boys could get on with their smuggling. It keeps them happy and out of the killing people business.
*Yes I know, but he was the archetype.
Ask yourself, now the government has pushed this, made their position crystal clear, who will the electorate side with?
Likewise, inflation crisis is the fault of the Bank of England. Cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland fault of the EU. Households struggling because we have ninety thousand too many civil servants. Illegal asylum seekers coming across channel because of Labour and liberal elite and judiciary determined to thwart government solutions. None of this is the fault of government. Government have plans to sort heap of problems out once and for all, thwarted by liberal and lefty goons opposing the plans.
I suppose the obvious way to get workers to work in the office is better terms. If you pay them more but stipulate they have to come to work, you'll get people to make that bargain.
And ultimately the market will tell us whether it's worth it.
Personally, I think for most office jobs, you get more out of workers who are in the office than not. I wouldn't want to go back to working in the office full time (though I hated, hated, being made to be at home full time) - but that's not a productivity thing, that's because my life is unexpectedly filled up with things to do like take daughter 1 to climbing, daughter 2 to football, daughter 3 to gymanstics.
WFH is having a neutral impact on the amount of time in my life, but is giving my daughters all sorts of opportunities they didn't get before.
Having done that, Theresa May’s deal did actually find a way of dealing with the border albeit it delayed the “one true Brexit” (as defined by the hardliners).
Having white-anted Theresa May, yes, Boris boxed himself into a corner.
He’s a moron.
Nevermind that the DUP thanks to the GFA and the election results need to be brought onside in order for the Assembly to even sit. Far easier to just hate the DUP and blame them and think nothing should be done to rectify the situation before putting their head back into the sand.
But of course Johnson's government isn't remotely conservative.
Every time they go for populist rant.
Thankfully the deal came with safeguarding provisions that override the NIP if it causes issues. So if you agree there are issues, you must agree that safeguarding can and should be applied surely?
The way to get the EU to move more was to go to NI months ago and speak to all parties not ignore Sinn Fein and the other pro protocol parties and just suck up to the DUP.
The DUP want to pretend Brexit never happened and think that things can return to what they were before , they can’t .
Mitigation’s yes but that’s it .
Yes, everyone should still have listened to the boy who cried wolf given the importance of responding to wolf attacks, but it's understandable that people just got sick of the attention seeking and tuned it out.
Because it was bombed to shit in WW2 and, like too much of Britain, cheaply and shoddily rebuilt - and our narcisstic wanker-elite class of architects/town planners don’t have the brains, humility or wits to solve the problems of their own creation, despite 70 years having passed
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1525931815793475587
Neither demand (never vocalised but implicit in their actions) can actually be accommodated at all.
HMG is using them in its EU war, but ultimately they will be fucked over. Again.
I have no qualms with that whatsoever. But surely you do agree we are perfectly entitled to implement the safeguarding clauses of the Protocol?
You can attack the DUP but they are not going away and as for going to NI months ago, the protocol has been constantly discussed across NI - UK and Europe
@KyivIndependent
⚡️ General Staff: Russian troops staffed at less than 20% of full capacities in certain areas.
Doesn't matter what people say they want, you see what they actually do. The reality is no-one comes in because no-one else comes in, so essentially nearly everyone is WFH nearly 100% of the time bar a relatively tiny cohort that are choosing to go in and sit in near empty offices. Unless the bosses actually tell folk to be in X% of the time or whatever, nearly everyone just stays home.
What we are beginning to see is little clumps of people that used to sit near each other (even when they didn't work that closely) trying to individually reach out to each other to try and recreate that once a month, or whatever, because otherwise you're just sat at home on your own the whole time.
The Macquarie Dictionary says the verb "to white-ant" means "to subvert or undermine from within". The term is derived from the action of termites (white ants) eating the inside of wooden building foundations, often leaving no outward evidence, until the structure crumbles.