AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Why are you such an idiot to get 2 Bs?
(Of course you're not an idiot, just that grades don't actually mean anything)
Neither were in the subject I studied at my RG university though
And? My point was that exam results don't indicate anything.
Yes they do.
As I said how many doctors, lawyers and professors or even CEOs got below average or even only average exam results?
Very few
Exams are a poor method of assessment. Promoted only by swots who have the ability to learn facts by rote. Ssome exam passers assimilate and understand nothing.
@CarlottaVance do you believe trans people deserve our love and compassion and do you think they are deserving of rights under the law?
Yes, and I’ve said so many times. They already have rights under the law.
The discussion is about a badly drafted Scottish Bill that could compromise women’s rights to single sex spaces established by the Equality Act which is a U.K. wide matter and the responsibility of the U.K. government.
What’s your view on the Scottish GRR Bill?
Yet every post you make seems to attack them.
Let's be honest, if the Tories were proposing this bill you'd be telling us how wonderful it was. You are the most partisan poster on this entire site, actually worse than HYUFD.
Show me a post where I have attacked trans people.
Once again, directly to ad hom.
Why is a position supported by Labour and SNP MPs a Tory one?
What do YOU think of the Scottish GRR Bill?
Or don’t you have an opinion?
I already posted my views on this topic days ago. I think the commentary on this bill from you and others is entirely cynical and not about safety or anything else. We know this because you keep saying about how this is Sturgeon's big failure, that is what this is really about.
This issue is incredibly complicated, there is no perfect solution or answer. But I start from the position of love and compassion, not trying to vilify people to score points.
So, no quote of an attack by me on trans people. No acceptance that the politician leading the proposed change is responsible for the problem, but you’re quite happy to vilify me to score points.
Nicola Sturgeon is not responsible for women using single sex spaces which is what you asked me.
Answer my question: if a man has transitioned completely to being a woman (gender), can they EVER use single sex spaces?
And if not, why not? What is the issue?
I asked your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill - which Sturgeon is responsible for. The answer to your question will depend on the law.
How many trans women do you think “completely transition” to having no male genitalia?
I agree with you in general but completely transitioning gender does not IMO require surgery to create fake genitalia. Gender is a matter of identity. This is what differentiates it from sex. If you argue in this way you are almost encouraging these surgeries aren't you?
I think the loo issue is a bit of a distraction from the main issue - we allow someone to change gender but must not allow this to be conflated with changing sex.
I agree - genital surgery is difficult, irreversible and has high complication rates - which is why in particular children should not have access to it, or be pushed onto a pathway that leads to it. The Swedish approach of “wait and see, pushing neither transition nor desistance” seems the most humane.
The issue we are then left with is that there are male bodied trans people and there are men who will exploit loopholes to gain access to single sex spaces.
In the discussion it is striking how often defenders of the GRR bill (which ignores the complication created by this issue) launch into hypotheticals about toilets rather than address the legal issues the bill raises.
I support the bill - specifically to make it easier and based primarily on self-id not psychiatric diagnosis to obtain a GRC. But I don't support gender identity always and everywhere replacing biological sex. The default in society should be trans inclusion but exclusion should also be possible. Currently the EA allows single sex exemptions if it's a 'proportionate means to a legitimate end'. It's important this continues and I expect it will. So, easier legal transition, default trans inclusion, with exceptions where properly justified - this is in my view the direction to go in and it's where I think we'll eventually get to.
The issue is the Equality act allows you to discriminate on the basis of sex for single sex spaces provided the discrimination is proportionate. So for example a woman’s refuge against male violence would be able to say to a man “you can’t come in.”
It does not allow you to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. So a trans person with a GRC could mount a legal challenge today to being excluded. While very few GRCs have been issued, and those that have have been subject to safeguarding this has not been a problem.
The concern is that removing the safeguarding entirely - which is what is proposed - will lead to a substantial increase in the number issued (numbers are debated, but the Scottish government argues simultaneously that “there is a pressing need for urgent reform“. AND “not many will be issued”) and with no safeguarding in place bad actors will get through. Small groups confronted by people with GRCs will either need to accept them or get legal advice - which many can’t afford.
This was pointed out repeatedly to ScotGov and waved away.
The EA does allow single sex service providers to exclude trans people (with or without a GRC) if it passes the 'proportionate means to legitimate end' test.
@CarlottaVance do you believe trans people deserve our love and compassion and do you think they are deserving of rights under the law?
Yes, and I’ve said so many times. They already have rights under the law.
The discussion is about a badly drafted Scottish Bill that could compromise women’s rights to single sex spaces established by the Equality Act which is a U.K. wide matter and the responsibility of the U.K. government.
What’s your view on the Scottish GRR Bill?
Yet every post you make seems to attack them.
Let's be honest, if the Tories were proposing this bill you'd be telling us how wonderful it was. You are the most partisan poster on this entire site, actually worse than HYUFD.
Show me a post where I have attacked trans people.
Once again, directly to ad hom.
Why is a position supported by Labour and SNP MPs a Tory one?
What do YOU think of the Scottish GRR Bill?
Or don’t you have an opinion?
I already posted my views on this topic days ago. I think the commentary on this bill from you and others is entirely cynical and not about safety or anything else. We know this because you keep saying about how this is Sturgeon's big failure, that is what this is really about.
This issue is incredibly complicated, there is no perfect solution or answer. But I start from the position of love and compassion, not trying to vilify people to score points.
So, no quote of an attack by me on trans people. No acceptance that the politician leading the proposed change is responsible for the problem, but you’re quite happy to vilify me to score points.
Nicola Sturgeon is not responsible for women using single sex spaces which is what you asked me.
Answer my question: if a man has transitioned completely to being a woman (gender), can they EVER use single sex spaces?
And if not, why not? What is the issue?
I asked your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill - which Sturgeon is responsible for. The answer to your question will depend on the law.
How many trans women do you think “completely transition” to having no male genitalia?
I agree with you in general but completely transitioning gender does not IMO require surgery to create fake genitalia. Gender is a matter of identity. This is what differentiates it from sex. If you argue in this way you are almost encouraging these surgeries aren't you?
I think the loo issue is a bit of a distraction from the main issue - we allow someone to change gender but must not allow this to be conflated with changing sex.
I agree - genital surgery is difficult, irreversible and has high complication rates - which is why in particular children should not have access to it, or be pushed onto a pathway that leads to it. The Swedish approach of “wait and see, pushing neither transition nor desistance” seems the most humane.
The issue we are then left with is that there are male bodied trans people and there are men who will exploit loopholes to gain access to single sex spaces.
In the discussion it is striking how often defenders of the GRR bill (which ignores the complication created by this issue) launch into hypotheticals about toilets rather than address the legal issues the bill raises.
I support the bill - specifically to make it easier and based primarily on self-id not psychiatric diagnosis to obtain a GRC. But I don't support gender identity always and everywhere replacing biological sex. The default in society should be trans inclusion but exclusion should also be possible. Currently the EA allows single sex exemptions if it's a 'proportionate means to a legitimate end'. It's important this continues and I expect it will. So, easier legal transition, default trans inclusion, with exceptions where properly justified - this is in my view the direction to go in and it's where I think we'll eventually get to.
I am hoping a matter for exclusion in your view should be sport? Also conflating gender with sex and retrospectively changing birth certificates?
Some sports, yes, and I'd leave it to the governing bodies. Birth certs? Seems wrong to change a factual event without an audit trail but I'm not sure how all that works now or what the ramifications are.
I agree with leaving it to the governing bodies but the government has been lax IMO in giving some direction to these bodies - i.e. sport is segregated by sex not gender - and this has allowed bad arguments to develop and fester.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
You and he are just utterly, weirdly, obsessed by this topic. In a frankly really, really, nasty way.
The only person being nasty here is you. The last header I wrote on this was because OGH asked me to. The substance of it was frankly no different from what Catherine Bennett wrote in the Guardian a few days later. Other left-leaning feminists have written similar stuff.
I have no issues with @JosiasJessop or @CorrectHorseBattery discussing this - or anyone else - even if they disagree because at least they engage politely and sometimes passionately and make me think about my views. And critique in my own mind why I think what I do. I have written elsewhere about some wider issues relating to this precisely because this is not the forum for those sorts of self-reflective or longer analyses. I have found some of the articles @Phil has posted quite interesting too.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Even disaster and shambles feature quite prominent for Leavers.
Who will flush the great Brexit turd?
I’m a Leaver and I think it has been a shambles and a disaster, in terms of the handling and the execution. Who could think otherwise? It has been a national humiliation, and the Tories deserve to be hurled into electoral perdition for this (and they will).. But I would vote Leave again, tomorrow - with great reluctance (as I did in 2026) - and for the same reasons. Sovereignty and democracy. The EU is still fundamentally undemocratic in a way the UK is not
Indeed the imminent thrashing of the Tories shows Brexit at work. We are governed by fools, frauds and flailing idiots. We are going to give them a terrible spanking and they will be suitably chided by this traumatic defeat. We cannot do that to the EU Commission. We cannot hand Ursula’s petite derrière to her on a Belgian plate
Thus: Brexit. The right decision
Quite.
Also - we haven't changed a shred of EU law. How is that leaving? Even the most hardcore remainer in their worst prophecies of doom never argued that leaving would keep us 100% aligned with all EU laws, regulations, projects, strategic goals, and competition/state aid rules.
The latter of these is particularly shit, given that most other EU countries seem to find ways to neatly side step those rules, so by gold-plating them AND hanging on to them with white knuckles post-Brexit, forcing us to build RN ships in Spain, our civil service has put us in a worse position than actual members.
So it seems to me that EU membership is the turd that won't flush, rather than Brexit.
Make it easier when we go back in.
Yes, I think that is undoubtedly the purpose. As is the general foot-dragging inefficiency of our agencies in dealing with anything affected by Brexit. But that isn't the fault of leaving the EU, it's the fault of the ideologically driven nutjobs infesting the public payroll.
A solution.
After Rejoin…
Every Jobsworth has to present evidence, in order to receive promotion, of how he/she has interpreted an EU rule to advantage U.K.
If it is at the expense of the French, double points.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
@CarlottaVance do you believe trans people deserve our love and compassion and do you think they are deserving of rights under the law?
Yes, and I’ve said so many times. They already have rights under the law.
The discussion is about a badly drafted Scottish Bill that could compromise women’s rights to single sex spaces established by the Equality Act which is a U.K. wide matter and the responsibility of the U.K. government.
What’s your view on the Scottish GRR Bill?
Yet every post you make seems to attack them.
Let's be honest, if the Tories were proposing this bill you'd be telling us how wonderful it was. You are the most partisan poster on this entire site, actually worse than HYUFD.
Show me a post where I have attacked trans people.
Once again, directly to ad hom.
Why is a position supported by Labour and SNP MPs a Tory one?
What do YOU think of the Scottish GRR Bill?
Or don’t you have an opinion?
I already posted my views on this topic days ago. I think the commentary on this bill from you and others is entirely cynical and not about safety or anything else. We know this because you keep saying about how this is Sturgeon's big failure, that is what this is really about.
This issue is incredibly complicated, there is no perfect solution or answer. But I start from the position of love and compassion, not trying to vilify people to score points.
So, no quote of an attack by me on trans people. No acceptance that the politician leading the proposed change is responsible for the problem, but you’re quite happy to vilify me to score points.
Nicola Sturgeon is not responsible for women using single sex spaces which is what you asked me.
Answer my question: if a man has transitioned completely to being a woman (gender), can they EVER use single sex spaces?
And if not, why not? What is the issue?
I asked your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill - which Sturgeon is responsible for. The answer to your question will depend on the law.
How many trans women do you think “completely transition” to having no male genitalia?
I agree with you in general but completely transitioning gender does not IMO require surgery to create fake genitalia. Gender is a matter of identity. This is what differentiates it from sex. If you argue in this way you are almost encouraging these surgeries aren't you?
I think the loo issue is a bit of a distraction from the main issue - we allow someone to change gender but must not allow this to be conflated with changing sex.
I agree - genital surgery is difficult, irreversible and has high complication rates - which is why in particular children should not have access to it, or be pushed onto a pathway that leads to it. The Swedish approach of “wait and see, pushing neither transition nor desistance” seems the most humane.
The issue we are then left with is that there are male bodied trans people and there are men who will exploit loopholes to gain access to single sex spaces.
In the discussion it is striking how often defenders of the GRR bill (which ignores the complication created by this issue) launch into hypotheticals about toilets rather than address the legal issues the bill raises.
I support the bill - specifically to make it easier and based primarily on self-id not psychiatric diagnosis to obtain a GRC. But I don't support gender identity always and everywhere replacing biological sex. The default in society should be trans inclusion but exclusion should also be possible. Currently the EA allows single sex exemptions if it's a 'proportionate means to a legitimate end'. It's important this continues and I expect it will. So, easier legal transition, default trans inclusion, with exceptions where properly justified - this is in my view the direction to go in and it's where I think we'll eventually get to.
The issue is the Equality act allows you to discriminate on the basis of sex for single sex spaces provided the discrimination is proportionate. So for example a woman’s refuge against male violence would be able to say to a man “you can’t come in.”
It does not allow you to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. So a trans person with a GRC could mount a legal challenge today to being excluded. While very few GRCs have been issued, and those that have have been subject to safeguarding this has not been a problem.
The concern is that removing the safeguarding entirely - which is what is proposed - will lead to a substantial increase in the number issued (numbers are debated, but the Scottish government argues simultaneously that “there is a pressing need for urgent reform“. AND “not many will be issued”) and with no safeguarding in place bad actors will get through. Small groups confronted by people with GRCs will either need to accept them or get legal advice - which many can’t afford.
This was pointed out repeatedly to ScotGov and waved away.
The EA does allow single sex service providers to exclude trans people (with or without a GRC) if it passes the 'proportionate means to legitimate end' test.
Cunningham’s evidence to the Select Committee yesterday that proportionate exclusion based on sex is much more straight forward (as it’s specifically mentioned) than on gender reassignment - hence the concern in an increase in the number of GRCs and removal of safeguarding.
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
So what? I read the Guardian. I am rich. I know the system is rigged to favour people like me. Of course it's rigged even more to favour people who are an order of magnitude richer than me, but that's irrelevant. It's not hypocritical to be rich and also favour policies that hurt the rich. The system should favour the poor, but within the system it's my right as an individual - in fact my responsibility - to make as much money as I can.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
You say 'Wrong on both counts'. No idea what that means as I only made one point and that was you won't ever admit a mistake which is just one point and how is that wrong? You never do.
This has nothing to do with politics. When you got your homework back at school marked wrong did you assume you were really right, but it was marked wrong because you were a Tory or did you ever accept you might get something wrong.
Last night you were wrong but wouldn't admit it. It was an easy mistake to make as it was a rubbish graph. @Richard_Tyndall made a mistake reading it also and he put his hands up. Why can't you?
There really is something wrong with someone who can never admit they get things wrong.
if you are a male gender who transitioned to female at 18 years old and you have been of the female gender for 30 years, should you be able to enter female-only spaces?
If not, why not? What issue is it causing you?
As far as I am aware a man has always been able to legally enter a woman's loo and vice versa. Quite a few times I've been in men's loo and seen a woman enter (presumably due to a queue for the women's) and go into a cubicle. I don't think this has ever been illegal.
I suppose those worried about this issue say that men will pretend to be a woman (i.e. by disguise) in order to violate women in a women's loo - but this seems a bit of a stretch to me. They can now - why bother with the disguise - and of course such a man isn't transgender.
That seems to be a big issue yes, it seems to come up constantly on this forum. I like you cannot see it being a large problem.
To me it seems like we're imagining scenarios that won't happen in an effort to vilify a group of people who the majority of just want to be accepted and live their life as the gender they see they are.
I just cannot see the problem.
This sounds exactly what Sturgeon said a few weeks ago, and the "imagined scenario" then promptly happened.
We're talking about single-sex spaces.
A man can walk into a loo and rape a woman today - has nothing to do with trans people.
Most trans people don't rape women - just as most gay people aren't paedophiles.
But the language is identical to that we used to hear back in the 80s and the 90s.
Most Met police officers aren't rapists. Didn't stop the Sarah Everard case receiving far more attention than other cases.
The way things are going, are we sure we can say that?
Afternoon all. Parish Pump Politics Update, perhaps to save money for local Councils anyone helps run.
Greenwich Borough Council have blocked the main Thames Path route to wheelchairs and mobility scooters (and many, many types of bicycle and prams, strollers etc). Just near the O2.
At least one of their Councillors is quite proud of it: (snip tweet)
There are two things about these types of barrier, apart from being deprecated in all the national guidelines.
1 - They are an offence under the Equality Act 2010. 2 - They cost somewhere North of 5k to put in, and it will be coming straight back out again when somebody claims under 1.
*Headdesk*. The legal solution is an accessible footpath, and suitable enforcement.
Have a good day all.
I'd make another point: these sorts of stiles (I call them 'squeeze stiles') can also be very difficult to get through with a large backpack on. Say, like someone who's walked the Thames Path for nearly 200 miles carries.
There're some really bad examples further east along the Kent Coast, on the Saxon Shore Way. From memory, near Gillingham, but I might be wrong. But the worst is a stretch of the Speyside Way in Scotland, where the landowner has put these really nasty sort of stiles every 100 metres (or so it feels). For miles...
1) old fashioned climb over stiles and those swing-gate-in-a-cage ones were considered “Blocking” for low agility people. 2) people refusing to shut gates behind them. 3) invent a new m, auto closing gate…
What will step 4 be, I wonder.
There is no 'perfect' stile, but those stiles are hideous, especially with a pack, as you have to hold them both open simultaneously as you pass through, and one always ends up falling back and snagging your trailing leg or pack. I'm unsure if that's how they're meant to work, but it's what happens.
The problem with the Speyside Way example is that there are so many of them in a short distance. I believe the landowner didn't want the trail passing through his land, so put a stipulation on that there had to be all these stiles.
I can well believe it.
The problem, as usual, is the weird minority for whom closing a gate, in countryside, is too much effort. Or something. I’ve seen people do it, quite deliberately.
On urban stuff - given the way the Thames Path has become a racetrack for nutters on powered bikes, near me… well something has to give.
What can be done? The non insane (majority) cyclists are fine - 5-10 miles an hour causes no problems. Disability stuff - obviously no problem.
Unfortunately my attempts at constructing a Holtzman shield generator have failed.
Hammersmith are looking to use a PSPO on narrow parts of the Thames Path, and they seem to be getting far closer to something that will work than say Mansfield did a few years ago, when they entirely banned cycling after afaics one incident and got themselves a legal action.
Hammersmith are in a mess on some of their technical definitions, though.
The best way to deal with too much somewhat quicker cycle traffic on a shared path (esp. commuting) is to provide a nearby, more convenient, quicker route - then they will use that, and still remove motor traffic / congestion from the roads by being on a 1m bike each not a 2m x 5m car with space all around it. The Thames Path is intricate enough that it is not a very quick route.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
Afternoon all. Parish Pump Politics Update, perhaps to save money for local Councils anyone helps run.
Greenwich Borough Council have blocked the main Thames Path route to wheelchairs and mobility scooters (and many, many types of bicycle and prams, strollers etc). Just near the O2.
At least one of their Councillors is quite proud of it: (snip tweet)
There are two things about these types of barrier, apart from being deprecated in all the national guidelines.
1 - They are an offence under the Equality Act 2010. 2 - They cost somewhere North of 5k to put in, and it will be coming straight back out again when somebody claims under 1.
*Headdesk*. The legal solution is an accessible footpath, and suitable enforcement.
Have a good day all.
I'd make another point: these sorts of stiles (I call them 'squeeze stiles') can also be very difficult to get through with a large backpack on. Say, like someone who's walked the Thames Path for nearly 200 miles carries.
There're some really bad examples further east along the Kent Coast, on the Saxon Shore Way. From memory, near Gillingham, but I might be wrong. But the worst is a stretch of the Speyside Way in Scotland, where the landowner has put these really nasty sort of stiles every 100 metres (or so it feels). For miles...
1) old fashioned climb over stiles and those swing-gate-in-a-cage ones were considered “Blocking” for low agility people. 2) people refusing to shut gates behind them. 3) invent a new m, auto closing gate…
What will step 4 be, I wonder.
There is no 'perfect' stile, but those stiles are hideous, especially with a pack, as you have to hold them both open simultaneously as you pass through, and one always ends up falling back and snagging your trailing leg or pack. I'm unsure if that's how they're meant to work, but it's what happens.
The problem with the Speyside Way example is that there are so many of them in a short distance. I believe the landowner didn't want the trail passing through his land, so put a stipulation on that there had to be all these stiles.
I can well believe it.
The problem, as usual, is the weird minority for whom closing a gate, in countryside, is too much effort. Or something. I’ve seen people do it, quite deliberately.
On urban stuff - given the way the Thames Path has become a racetrack for nutters on powered bikes, near me… well something has to give.
What can be done? The non insane (majority) cyclists are fine - 5-10 miles an hour causes no problems. Disability stuff - obviously no problem.
Unfortunately my attempts at constructing a Holtzman shield generator have failed.
Hammersmith are looking to use a PSPO on narrow parts of the Thames Path, and they seem to be getting far closer to something that will work than say Mansfield did a few years ago, when they entirely banned cycling after afaics one incident and got themselves a legal action.
Hammersmith are in a mess on some of their technical definitions, though.
The best way to deal with too much somewhat quicker cycle traffic on a shared path (esp. commuting) is to provide a nearby, more convenient, quicker route - then they will use that, and still remove motor traffic / congestion from the roads by being on a 1m bike each not a 2m x 5m car with space all around it. The Thames Path is intricate enough that it is not a very quick route.
What about a Gepard with a Doppler filter on the radar for anything moving faster than 10 mph?
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
To be honest once you've seen one plastic table with a sad lone glass of booze on it you've seen them all.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I went to what is now a Russell Group University. I was as much an idiot then as I am now, and they let me in, so I shoot your argument down in flames.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
WTF is keeping Sunak from appointing somebody now? Tory leaders can be and have been got rid of in various ways... Is telling him he won't be allowed to appoint the chairman by diktat the way Sunak will be removed?
I thought it was suspicious how long Zahawi held on for, even to the point where some serious commentators were saying he'd won for the time being. The question was what might unravel. That question may still be open.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
Over to you: photos or it didn’t happen
After COMPLETING DRY JANUARY I will be visiting the FOURTH BEST PUB IN KNOTTINGLEY later for a pint of John Smiths, none of that OVERLY HOPPY WANKY IPA shit that they sell in THAT LEEDS.
if you are a male gender who transitioned to female at 18 years old and you have been of the female gender for 30 years, should you be able to enter female-only spaces?
If not, why not? What issue is it causing you?
As far as I am aware a man has always been able to legally enter a woman's loo and vice versa. Quite a few times I've been in men's loo and seen a woman enter (presumably due to a queue for the women's) and go into a cubicle. I don't think this has ever been illegal.
I suppose those worried about this issue say that men will pretend to be a woman (i.e. by disguise) in order to violate women in a women's loo - but this seems a bit of a stretch to me. They can now - why bother with the disguise - and of course such a man isn't transgender.
That seems to be a big issue yes, it seems to come up constantly on this forum. I like you cannot see it being a large problem.
To me it seems like we're imagining scenarios that won't happen in an effort to vilify a group of people who the majority of just want to be accepted and live their life as the gender they see they are.
I just cannot see the problem.
This sounds exactly what Sturgeon said a few weeks ago, and the "imagined scenario" then promptly happened.
We're talking about single-sex spaces.
A man can walk into a loo and rape a woman today - has nothing to do with trans people.
Most trans people don't rape women - just as most gay people aren't paedophiles.
But the language is identical to that we used to hear back in the 80s and the 90s.
Most when talking about single sex spaces have repeatedly mentioned womens jails, refuges, hospital wards etc. Loo's have never been single sex spaces other than by social convention. There is no law against using a loo of any gender.
It is only you that keeps bringing it back to loo's when most I have seen comment have have specifically mentions jails, sports, wards and refuges.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
You and he are just utterly, weirdly, obsessed by this topic. In a frankly really, really, nasty way.
The only person being nasty here is you. The last header I wrote on this was because OGH asked me to. The substance of it was frankly no different from what Catherine Bennett wrote in the Guardian a few days later. Other left-leaning feminists have written similar stuff.
I have no issues with @JosiasJessop or @CorrectHorseBattery discussing this - or anyone else - even if they disagree because at least they engage politely and sometimes passionately and make me think about my views. And critique in my own mind why I think what I do. I have written elsewhere about some wider issues relating to this precisely because this is not the forum for those sorts of self-reflective or longer analyses. I have found some of the articles @Phil has posted quite interesting too.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Incidentally @cyclefree, that article in the LRB I linked to a while back appears to have been expanded into a book by the author. I haven’t read it, so can’t say whether it’s any good.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
@CarlottaVance do you believe trans people deserve our love and compassion and do you think they are deserving of rights under the law?
Yes, and I’ve said so many times. They already have rights under the law.
The discussion is about a badly drafted Scottish Bill that could compromise women’s rights to single sex spaces established by the Equality Act which is a U.K. wide matter and the responsibility of the U.K. government.
What’s your view on the Scottish GRR Bill?
Yet every post you make seems to attack them.
Let's be honest, if the Tories were proposing this bill you'd be telling us how wonderful it was. You are the most partisan poster on this entire site, actually worse than HYUFD.
Show me a post where I have attacked trans people.
Once again, directly to ad hom.
Why is a position supported by Labour and SNP MPs a Tory one?
What do YOU think of the Scottish GRR Bill?
Or don’t you have an opinion?
I already posted my views on this topic days ago. I think the commentary on this bill from you and others is entirely cynical and not about safety or anything else. We know this because you keep saying about how this is Sturgeon's big failure, that is what this is really about.
This issue is incredibly complicated, there is no perfect solution or answer. But I start from the position of love and compassion, not trying to vilify people to score points.
So, no quote of an attack by me on trans people. No acceptance that the politician leading the proposed change is responsible for the problem, but you’re quite happy to vilify me to score points.
Nicola Sturgeon is not responsible for women using single sex spaces which is what you asked me.
Answer my question: if a man has transitioned completely to being a woman (gender), can they EVER use single sex spaces?
And if not, why not? What is the issue?
I asked your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill - which Sturgeon is responsible for. The answer to your question will depend on the law.
How many trans women do you think “completely transition” to having no male genitalia?
I agree with you in general but completely transitioning gender does not IMO require surgery to create fake genitalia. Gender is a matter of identity. This is what differentiates it from sex. If you argue in this way you are almost encouraging these surgeries aren't you?
I think the loo issue is a bit of a distraction from the main issue - we allow someone to change gender but must not allow this to be conflated with changing sex.
I agree - genital surgery is difficult, irreversible and has high complication rates - which is why in particular children should not have access to it, or be pushed onto a pathway that leads to it. The Swedish approach of “wait and see, pushing neither transition nor desistance” seems the most humane.
The issue we are then left with is that there are male bodied trans people and there are men who will exploit loopholes to gain access to single sex spaces.
In the discussion it is striking how often defenders of the GRR bill (which ignores the complication created by this issue) launch into hypotheticals about toilets rather than address the legal issues the bill raises.
I support the bill - specifically to make it easier and based primarily on self-id not psychiatric diagnosis to obtain a GRC. But I don't support gender identity always and everywhere replacing biological sex. The default in society should be trans inclusion but exclusion should also be possible. Currently the EA allows single sex exemptions if it's a 'proportionate means to a legitimate end'. It's important this continues and I expect it will. So, easier legal transition, default trans inclusion, with exceptions where properly justified - this is in my view the direction to go in and it's where I think we'll eventually get to.
The issue is the Equality act allows you to discriminate on the basis of sex for single sex spaces provided the discrimination is proportionate. So for example a woman’s refuge against male violence would be able to say to a man “you can’t come in.”
It does not allow you to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment. So a trans person with a GRC could mount a legal challenge today to being excluded. While very few GRCs have been issued, and those that have have been subject to safeguarding this has not been a problem.
The concern is that removing the safeguarding entirely - which is what is proposed - will lead to a substantial increase in the number issued (numbers are debated, but the Scottish government argues simultaneously that “there is a pressing need for urgent reform“. AND “not many will be issued”) and with no safeguarding in place bad actors will get through. Small groups confronted by people with GRCs will either need to accept them or get legal advice - which many can’t afford.
This was pointed out repeatedly to ScotGov and waved away.
The EA does allow single sex service providers to exclude trans people (with or without a GRC) if it passes the 'proportionate means to legitimate end' test.
It's not at all clear post the Haldane judgment that this will continue to work because of her ruling that sex in the EA includes someone with a GRC. If so their sex cannot be used as the basis for excluding them - under this exemption - because it will be the same as those you are seeking to exclude them from.
That is the problem both with the Bill and that judgment. Until it is resolved single sex providers are not going to exclude people and risk being faced with a discrimination claim. The legal and practical consequences of that judgment are not at all easy and deserve more attention - politically - than they are AFAIK getting.
Legally there has been a lot of commentary on it and it is hard to know how the courts in E&W will rule should similar arguments be made.
From a legal perspective the legal arguments are very interesting.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Why are you such an idiot to get 2 Bs?
(Of course you're not an idiot, just that grades don't actually mean anything)
Neither were in the subject I studied at my RG university though
And? My point was that exam results don't indicate anything.
Yes they do.
As I said how many doctors, lawyers and professors or even CEOs got below average or even only average exam results?
Very few
Exams are a poor method of assessment. Promoted only by swots who have the ability to learn facts by rote. Ssome exam passers assimilate and understand nothing.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there for postgrad had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
Even within the politics faculty the consistency of "teaching" was patchy to say the least. At Cardiff I was "taught" by the wonderful (failed Labour and SDP candidate) Barry Jones and the (in my opinion) woeful (failed Tory candidate) Dr Ann Robinson who soon after became the mouthpiece for the IOD, a role to which she was much better suited.
You and he are just utterly, weirdly, obsessed by this topic. In a frankly really, really, nasty way.
The only person being nasty here is you. The last header I wrote on this was because OGH asked me to. The substance of it was frankly no different from what Catherine Bennett wrote in the Guardian a few days later. Other left-leaning feminists have written similar stuff.
I have no issues with @JosiasJessop or @CorrectHorseBattery discussing this - or anyone else - even if they disagree because at least they engage politely and sometimes passionately and make me think about my views. And critique in my own mind why I think what I do. I have written elsewhere about some wider issues relating to this precisely because this is not the forum for those sorts of self-reflective or longer analyses. I have found some of the articles @Phil has posted quite interesting too.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Incidentally @cyclefree, that article in the LRB I linked to a while back appears to have been expanded into a book by the author. I haven’t read it, so can’t say whether it’s any good.
Thanks. I found it quite a hard read in the sense that I really had to take time to read it carefully and think through what he was saying. There was a lot of meat in it to engage with. But I appreciated the link and it's good to get into the weeds of a longer essay from time to time.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
I got rather good GCSE results, despite missing loads of school due to operations and other health matters. I then got terrible A-level results despite missing less (though not none) of school during those two years. I then abandoned my degree after two years because of health problems and deciding it was the wrong course for me.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
Even within the politics faculty the consistency of "teaching" was patchy to say the least. At Cardiff I was "taught" by the wonderful (failed Labour and SDP candidate) Barry Jones and the (in my opinion) woeful (failed Tory candidate) Dr Ann Robinson who soon after became the mouthpiece for the IOD, a role to which she was much better suited.
When were you at Cardiff MexP? I was there 83-86. I know Welshowl formerly of this parish was there 83-87 as well.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
I got rather good GCSE results, despite missing loads of school due to operations and other health matters. I then got terrible A-level results despite missing less (though not none) of school during those two years. I then abandoned my degree after two years because of health problems and deciding it was the wrong course for me.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
It is great you don't have regrets. I do. If I could live my life again (but with the knowledge I have now) I would do it differently.
Once I got to about 13 or 14 I started to really enjoy studying. I didn't before that. It was great being the best. And then I got to Uni and I wasn't anymore, by a long way, but still had to work hard. If I had my time again I would make life less challenging and spend more time on other activities. I did a lot more of that when I left Uni.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
No it isn't. My point virtually every student at a Russell Group university was in the top 10% for their subject remains correct.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
Is Bath the second best Economics Department in the UK? According to whom? (I'm not saying you're wrong, and it's been a while since I was in academia but I don't recall Bath being massively rated). I'd put UCL, Cambridge, Warwick even Oxford despite not offering a proper undergraduate econ degree, higher alongside LSE. But maybe my ratings are out of date!
I'm very happy to say that saying elderly people should die was extreme, didn't mean to cause any offence and it was clearly hyperbolic - but I really do stand by the fact we've been screwed over by these people and I think lockdowns were a big mistake when they're so ungrateful for it.
We'd have been much better off just letting nature take its course, that was what I was trying to say, although I went too far.
Younger people also contracted Covid, and died from it.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
No it isn't. My point virtually every student at a Russell Group university was in the top 10% for their subject remains correct.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
Huh? You were the one who mentioned research, not me! And since you have also been demonstrated to be wrong on exam grades, I can only admire your chutzpah (a la @Mexicanpete ) in bringing that back up!
I would refer to somebody you've probably never heard of, called Socrates. 'Admitting ignorance is the first step in acquiring wisdom.' If you admitted ignorance, perhaps you might sometimes demonstrate the intelligence you claim puts you in the top 10%.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I went to what is now a Russell Group University. I was as much an idiot then as I am now, and they let me in, so I shoot your argument down in flames.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
Anyone who thinks the Russel Group has any real proof of ‘being the best’ in terms of Unis is somewhat deluded. Certainly they tend to have medical schools, be research focussed etc and in general tend to be higher up the rankings. But so what? My employer, Bath, is consistently a top 10 uni in most lists and isn’t RG. It boasts some very well regarded departments nationally. It’s high on the employability lists for graduates. I despair when I see the RG used as shorthand for quality. It’s not. It’s a smug collection of universities who formed an alliance at the Russel Hotel.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
I think I mentioned previously when we were discussing this that when I was at Uni in the 80s the top places for Geology were Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Keele, Imperial and the polytechnics at Kingston and Portsmouth. The best overall course was the OU. Oxford and Cambridge didn't get close for geology.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
Is Bath the second best Economics Department in the UK? According to whom? (I'm not saying you're wrong, and it's been a while since I was in academia but I don't recall Bath being massively rated). I'd put UCL, Cambridge, Warwick even Oxford despite not offering a proper undergraduate econ degree, higher alongside LSE. But maybe my ratings are out of date!
It's my knowledge appears to be out of date. It's ranked eighth at the moment in the GUG. However, it was the uni all my economics students from abroad wanted to study at if they didn't make LSE because they saw it as the next best.
What about a Gepard with a Doppler filter on the radar for anything moving faster than 10 mph?
President Z has first dibs on those.
You need to recondition the Ramillies and Resolution 15" guns at the Imperial War Museum, or hijack Belfast.
Marksman on a Challenger 1 hull? The prototype is kicking around somewhere and there is talk of getting Marksman back into production since it is the only Western SPAAG that is vaguely recently manufactured….
If we are going heavy calibre - what about the 18” railway gun at Fort Nelson? It’s in good nick, parked in shed.. would they miss it?
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Why are you such an idiot to get 2 Bs?
(Of course you're not an idiot, just that grades don't actually mean anything)
Neither were in the subject I studied at my RG university though
And? My point was that exam results don't indicate anything.
Yes they do.
As I said how many doctors, lawyers and professors or even CEOs got below average or even only average exam results?
Very few
Exams are a poor method of assessment. Promoted only by swots who have the ability to learn facts by rote. Ssome exam passers assimilate and understand nothing.
Only if you fail.them.
No, I passed mine. Assessment is needed to ascertain competence. Exams seldom do this well. Certain subjects need some written form of assessment, and open book tests can be OK. A 500 word essay on some random subject, the crux of which you have learned off by heart with little or no analysis does not.
If I were to demonstrate to you how to rebuild an SU carburettor the most efficient way to test your learning would be to get you to rebuild one for me. You could apply this to all sorts of learning. Instead of a dreary law exam a candidate could defend a realistic role play defendent in a realistic court setting.
A two hour long written exam to test a year or two of learning is inefficient. No one likes them except HY and Michael Gove.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
I got rather good GCSE results, despite missing loads of school due to operations and other health matters. I then got terrible A-level results despite missing less (though not none) of school during those two years. I then abandoned my degree after two years because of health problems and deciding it was the wrong course for me.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
I eventually got an OU degree when I was 50, in a subject totally unrelated to my career. Education is great when it’s not purely for vocational purposes. It was in Geology.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I went to what is now a Russell Group University. I was as much an idiot then as I am now, and they let me in, so I shoot your argument down in flames.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
Anyone who thinks the Russel Group has any real proof of ‘being the best’ in terms of Unis is somewhat deluded. Certainly they tend to have medical schools, be research focussed etc and in general tend to be higher up the rankings. But so what? My employer, Bath, is consistently a top 10 uni in most lists and isn’t RG. It boasts some very well regarded departments nationally. It’s high on the employability lists for graduates. I despair when I see the RG used as shorthand for quality. It’s not. It’s a smug collection of universities who formed an alliance at the Russel Hotel.
Which have - with it has to be said unfortunate effects - been granted special privileges by the government based on that misunderstanding.
I'm very happy to say that saying elderly people should die was extreme, didn't mean to cause any offence and it was clearly hyperbolic - but I really do stand by the fact we've been screwed over by these people and I think lockdowns were a big mistake when they're so ungrateful for it.
We'd have been much better off just letting nature take its course, that was what I was trying to say, although I went too far.
Younger people also contracted Covid, and died from it.
But so many people are now dying from ailments not caught during lockdown, or exacerbated by the pressure on hospitals because of lockdown, or because people are shunning A&E because of post-lockdown queues etc etc etc
Excess deaths are way up, across the world
@CorrectHorseBattery3 does not phrase it in a pretty way, but he has a point. Lockdowns were a grave decision and it is not at all clear to me that the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns in the UK were justified, given the economic cost, and now the cost in lives
Indeed, I am almost certain Lockdowns 2 and 3 were a catastrophic error, for which we will all be paying for many years. And all to protect the very old and the very fat (in the main). Tragic
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Why are you such an idiot to get 2 Bs?
(Of course you're not an idiot, just that grades don't actually mean anything)
Neither were in the subject I studied at my RG university though
And? My point was that exam results don't indicate anything.
Yes they do.
As I said how many doctors, lawyers and professors or even CEOs got below average or even only average exam results?
Very few
Exams are a poor method of assessment. Promoted only by swots who have the ability to learn facts by rote. Ssome exam passers assimilate and understand nothing.
Only if you fail.them.
No, I passed mine. Assessment is needed to ascertain competence. Exams seldom do this well. Certain subjects need some written form of assessment, and open book tests can be OK. A 500 word essay on some random subject, the crux of which you have learned off by heart with little or no analysis does not.
If I were to demonstrate to you how to rebuild an SU carburettor the most efficient way to test your learning would be to get you to rebuild one for me. You could apply this to all sorts of learning. Instead of a dreary law exam a candidate could defend a realistic role play defendent in a realistic court setting.
A two hour long written exam to test a year or two of learning is inefficient. No one likes them except HY and Michael Gove.
You've forgotten Nick Gibb and Amanda Spielman.
There are lots of lucky people around today who have forgotten politicians who meddled in education...
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
Is Bath the second best Economics Department in the UK? According to whom? (I'm not saying you're wrong, and it's been a while since I was in academia but I don't recall Bath being massively rated). I'd put UCL, Cambridge, Warwick even Oxford despite not offering a proper undergraduate econ degree, higher alongside LSE. But maybe my ratings are out of date!
It's my knowledge appears to be out of date. It's ranked eighth at the moment in the GUG. However, it was the uni all my economics students from abroad wanted to study at if they didn't make LSE because they saw it as the next best.
Interesting, thanks. LSE is a very good place to study economics with an incredible faculty plus it is located in the greatest city on Earth. However, I have heard complaints about the quality of teaching for undergraduates. I am an LSE alumnus but only postgraduate.
I'm very happy to say that saying elderly people should die was extreme, didn't mean to cause any offence and it was clearly hyperbolic - but I really do stand by the fact we've been screwed over by these people and I think lockdowns were a big mistake when they're so ungrateful for it.
We'd have been much better off just letting nature take its course, that was what I was trying to say, although I went too far.
Younger people also contracted Covid, and died from it.
But so many people are now dying from ailments not caught during lockdown, or exacerbated by the pressure on hospitals because of lockdown, or because people are shunning A&E because of post-lockdown queues etc etc etc
Excess deaths are way up, across the world
@CorrectHorseBattery3 does not phrase it in a pretty way, but he has a point. Lockdowns were a grave decision and it is not at all clear to me that the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns in the UK were justified, given the economic cost, and now the cost in lives
Indeed, I am almost certain Lockdowns 2 and 3 were a catastrophic error, for which we will all be paying for many years. And all to protect the very old and the very fat (in the main). Tragic
There's an argument to be had that these lockdowns were a mistake.
But, that argument is not that it only affects the over 60's, who all deserve to die because they don't vote Labour.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
Even within the politics faculty the consistency of "teaching" was patchy to say the least. At Cardiff I was "taught" by the wonderful (failed Labour and SDP candidate) Barry Jones and the (in my opinion) woeful (failed Tory candidate) Dr Ann Robinson who soon after became the mouthpiece for the IOD, a role to which she was much better suited.
When were you at Cardiff MexP? I was there 83-86. I know Welshowl formerly of this parish was there 83-87 as well.
My brother Rob was there 85-88, other brother a little after your time.
I'm very happy to say that saying elderly people should die was extreme, didn't mean to cause any offence and it was clearly hyperbolic - but I really do stand by the fact we've been screwed over by these people and I think lockdowns were a big mistake when they're so ungrateful for it.
We'd have been much better off just letting nature take its course, that was what I was trying to say, although I went too far.
Younger people also contracted Covid, and died from it.
But so many people are now dying from ailments not caught during lockdown, or exacerbated by the pressure on hospitals because of lockdown, or because people are shunning A&E because of post-lockdown queues etc etc etc
Excess deaths are way up, across the world
@CorrectHorseBattery3 does not phrase it in a pretty way, but he has a point. Lockdowns were a grave decision and it is not at all clear to me that the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns in the UK were justified, given the economic cost, and now the cost in lives
Indeed, I am almost certain Lockdowns 2 and 3 were a catastrophic error, for which we will all be paying for many years. And all to protect the very old and the very fat (in the main). Tragic
There's an argument to be had that these lockdowns were a mistake.
But, that argument is not that it only affects the over 60's, who all deserve to die because they don't vote Labour.
I was right on one thing. I said that they would be a political and administrative failure.
Why? Because if they failed - well, they failed.
And if they succeeded, everyone would say they weren't needed and get mad at the govt.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I went to what is now a Russell Group University. I was as much an idiot then as I am now, and they let me in, so I shoot your argument down in flames.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
Anyone who thinks the Russel Group has any real proof of ‘being the best’ in terms of Unis is somewhat deluded. Certainly they tend to have medical schools, be research focussed etc and in general tend to be higher up the rankings. But so what? My employer, Bath, is consistently a top 10 uni in most lists and isn’t RG. It boasts some very well regarded departments nationally. It’s high on the employability lists for graduates. I despair when I see the RG used as shorthand for quality. It’s not. It’s a smug collection of universities who formed an alliance at the Russel Hotel.
Which have - with it has to be said unfortunate effects - been granted special privileges by the government based on that misunderstanding.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Hey! That is MY job........
No. Your job is to talk about shoes. So that I too can talk about shoes. Shoes are very important to a happy and elegant life. When deciding on an outfit I often choose my shoes first.
Last week, for instance, I decided on rather natty purple suede shoes and the dress later for lunch with a handsome lawyer friend. Yesterday it was suede ankle boots for another lunch. And so on.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
I got rather good GCSE results, despite missing loads of school due to operations and other health matters. I then got terrible A-level results despite missing less (though not none) of school during those two years. I then abandoned my degree after two years because of health problems and deciding it was the wrong course for me.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
I eventually got an OU degree when I was 50, in a subject totally unrelated to my career. Education is great when it’s not purely for vocational purposes. It was in Geology.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Hey! That is MY job........
No. Your job is to talk about shoes. So that I too can talk about shoes. Shoes are very important to a happy and elegant life. When deciding on an outfit I often choose my shoes first.
Last week, for instance, I decided on rather natty purple suede shoes and the dress later for lunch with a handsome lawyer friend. Yesterday it was suede ankle boots for another lunch. And so on.
I wore a pair of shoes today that I bought 20 years ago in April.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I went to what is now a Russell Group University. I was as much an idiot then as I am now, and they let me in, so I shoot your argument down in flames.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
Anyone who thinks the Russel Group has any real proof of ‘being the best’ in terms of Unis is somewhat deluded. Certainly they tend to have medical schools, be research focussed etc and in general tend to be higher up the rankings. But so what? My employer, Bath, is consistently a top 10 uni in most lists and isn’t RG. It boasts some very well regarded departments nationally. It’s high on the employability lists for graduates. I despair when I see the RG used as shorthand for quality. It’s not. It’s a smug collection of universities who formed an alliance at the Russel Hotel.
Which have - with it has to be said unfortunate effects - been granted special privileges by the government based on that misunderstanding.
And employers….
You only have to look at the number of paid internships available for graduates - but only from RG universities.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
Even within the politics faculty the consistency of "teaching" was patchy to say the least. At Cardiff I was "taught" by the wonderful (failed Labour and SDP candidate) Barry Jones and the (in my opinion) woeful (failed Tory candidate) Dr Ann Robinson who soon after became the mouthpiece for the IOD, a role to which she was much better suited.
When were you at Cardiff MexP? I was there 83-86. I know Welshowl formerly of this parish was there 83-87 as well.
'86 to ''89. I went to work as a Sales Rep after A levels (mine weren't that fantastic) the desire for a new Ford Cortina 1.6L was too much to resist. It worked for me as I was then one of the few students with a decent car- a 1985 Ford Capri, which served me well with prettier students requiring lifts back to University Hall.
I'm very happy to say that saying elderly people should die was extreme, didn't mean to cause any offence and it was clearly hyperbolic - but I really do stand by the fact we've been screwed over by these people and I think lockdowns were a big mistake when they're so ungrateful for it.
We'd have been much better off just letting nature take its course, that was what I was trying to say, although I went too far.
Younger people also contracted Covid, and died from it.
But so many people are now dying from ailments not caught during lockdown, or exacerbated by the pressure on hospitals because of lockdown, or because people are shunning A&E because of post-lockdown queues etc etc etc
Excess deaths are way up, across the world
@CorrectHorseBattery3 does not phrase it in a pretty way, but he has a point. Lockdowns were a grave decision and it is not at all clear to me that the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns in the UK were justified, given the economic cost, and now the cost in lives
Indeed, I am almost certain Lockdowns 2 and 3 were a catastrophic error, for which we will all be paying for many years. And all to protect the very old and the very fat (in the main). Tragic
There's an argument to be had that these lockdowns were a mistake.
But, that argument is not that it only affects the over 60's, who all deserve to die because they don't vote Labour.
The vast majority of deaths from Covid are in the over 70s, indeed the median age of Covid deaths in the UK is 83
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
Over to you: photos or it didn’t happen
I was (finally) in the best pub in the UK a few weeks ago, they had toilet cakes the shape and colour of gold nuggets.
I'm wondering if CHB will have second thoughts on trans rights in the GRR in about a years time - ISTR it took that long from him parroting 'lockdown now' to question whether lockdowns were a good idea at all...
Reductivism doesn't age well.
Again, I don't support the GRR bill.
Lockdowns were a waste of time because the elderly are arseholes and ungrateful for everything we've done for them. Somehow though I don't think that is what most people who opposed them were saying.
And how about lockdowns?
I oppose lockdowns now because the elderly don't deserve to be prevented from dying. They're arrogant and out of touch and continually vote to fuck me and anyone under the age of 60 over.
So, would it be fair to characterise your views as having changed over the past year?
I always thought the elderly were a bunch of twats but I somehow naively thought things might change post COVID.
I got that wrong - but I don't see how I was supposed to predict the future when this all started. I stand by everything I said re the reasons for lockdown at the time in terms of preventing deaths, it was just a waste of time in hindsight because these people deserve to die.
CHB. As someone who has supported you in the past I would suggest you need to step away from PB for a while. Your views have veered away from merely forthright to outright offensive. Saying people deserve to die is borderline psychotic.
The poster above said I deserve to die.
I'm genuinely very annoyed about this issue, I put my life on hold to prevent the elderly dying and I've got nothing in return. I am sorry but I really stand by what I said, it would have been better to let these people die.
Horse I liked Richard's post because he said, more eloquently and kindly, what I wanted to say. I'm not sure you've taken a breath and heard and digested what he has said yet. I know I'm a minnow on here, but I would echo his sentiments wholeheartedly.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Didn't you start this? (14th best bar or some such?)
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
Even within the politics faculty the consistency of "teaching" was patchy to say the least. At Cardiff I was "taught" by the wonderful (failed Labour and SDP candidate) Barry Jones and the (in my opinion) woeful (failed Tory candidate) Dr Ann Robinson who soon after became the mouthpiece for the IOD, a role to which she was much better suited.
When were you at Cardiff MexP? I was there 83-86. I know Welshowl formerly of this parish was there 83-87 as well.
Happy to see so many Cardiff alumni! I was there 2005-2009, pointlessly I have a masters degree because all of my friends stuck around for the extra year so I did too.
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
No it isn't. My point virtually every student at a Russell Group university was in the top 10% for their subject remains correct.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
Huh? You were the one who mentioned research, not me! And since you have also been demonstrated to be wrong on exam grades, I can only admire your chutzpah (a la @Mexicanpete ) in bringing that back up!
I would refer to somebody you've probably never heard of, called Socrates. 'Admitting ignorance is the first step in acquiring wisdom.' If you admitted ignorance, perhaps you might sometimes demonstrate the intelligence you claim puts you in the top 10%.
No I am not wrong on exam grades. As pointed out virtually all Russell Group students have A* or at least A grades in the subjects they are studying at A level.
That puts them in the top 10% basically given only 40% of 18 year olds do A levels of which only 37% get A* or A grades
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
What's Oxfam's basic point? That we should have Scandinavian levels of taxation?
I think HYUFD is a good poster and often unfairly jumped on around these parts - but I also think he does unfortunately come across as a bit of a snob at times. And if something doesn't agree with how he has proceeded with life it almost doesn't compute in his head.
You see this with the exams, he's obviously a smart guy and has done well in his exams - but there are plenty of clever people that do awfully in exams.
I tend to consider myself somebody who exams don't reflect my ability. For example I got an A* in English Language because most of it was coursework but I did much more poorly in English Literature which wasn't
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
What's Oxfam's basic point? That we should have Scandinavian levels of taxation?
Well, I'm interesting in joining a Swedish model if one's available.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Didn't you start this? (14th best bar or some such?)
I did, and I was there, But I thought my capitalisation made it clear that I think this list is absurd. I mean, there is such a list, and it is significant to a small number of high quality cocktail bars around the world (especially in Asia, where status means so much) but the idea they have or can evaluate every bar in the world - and then rank them - is surreally daft
I do admire the UK PR group that started it all off tho. With “50 best restaurants”. It is now taken deeply seriously
They are doing the first “50 best hotels” this year
I will apologise again for my comments re elderly people, glad Leon was able to put it much better than I was able to. I am very sorry. Hope we can move past it.
Russel Group is a marketing exercise, it was setup for that purpose.
The 1987 or whatever the other group was doing better which is why they bribed a load of those unis to join.
Or you want to tell me that Queen Mary is a better university than say Hull or Leicester - really?
Or Hull and Leicester are better than Oxbridge, Imperial and UCL?
Most of the Russel Group though aren't those unis.
And it depends on the subject, Hull has/had one of the best Comp Sci departments in the country, not sure how it ranks now. I'd argue Cambridge's Comp Sci syllabus was a horrific course for anyone actually wanting to work in Software Engineering
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
No it isn't. My point virtually every student at a Russell Group university was in the top 10% for their subject remains correct.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
Huh? You were the one who mentioned research, not me! And since you have also been demonstrated to be wrong on exam grades, I can only admire your chutzpah (a la @Mexicanpete ) in bringing that back up!
I would refer to somebody you've probably never heard of, called Socrates. 'Admitting ignorance is the first step in acquiring wisdom.' If you admitted ignorance, perhaps you might sometimes demonstrate the intelligence you claim puts you in the top 10%.
No I am not wrong on exam grades. As pointed out virtually all Russell Group students have A* or at least A grades in the subjects they are studying at A level.
That puts them in the top 10% basically given only 40% of 18 year olds do A levels of which only 37% get A* or A grades
I think HYUFD is a good poster and often unfairly jumped on around these parts - but I also think he does unfortunately come across as a bit of a snob at times. And if something doesn't agree with how he has proceeded with life it almost doesn't compute in his head.
You see this with the exams, he's obviously a smart guy and has done well in his exams - but there are plenty of clever people that do awfully in exams.
I tend to consider myself somebody who exams don't reflect my ability. For example I got an A* in English Language because most of it was coursework but I did much more poorly in English Literature which wasn't
If you think I am a snob you should have seen Charles, late of this Parish. I am a mere oik in comparison to him!
I think HYUFD is a good poster and often unfairly jumped on around these parts - but I also think he does unfortunately come across as a bit of a snob at times. And if something doesn't agree with how he has proceeded with life it almost doesn't compute in his head.
You see this with the exams, he's obviously a smart guy and has done well in his exams - but there are plenty of clever people that do awfully in exams.
I tend to consider myself somebody who exams don't reflect my ability. For example I got an A* in English Language because most of it was coursework but I did much more poorly in English Literature which wasn't
If you think I am a snob you should have seen Charles, late of this Parish. I am a mere oik in comparison to him!
I said he was a complete snob. Only occasionally do you come across that way HYUFD. I do like you a lot so I tell you this as a friend good chap, I think sometimes perhaps just be a bit more open to other walks of life. I too myself find it hard at times - trying to do better
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
They are all of above average intelligence on any definition. You just dislike their politics.
The Russell Group make up about a quarter of universities and as about 40% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
Leaving aside politics and the use of the term "intelligence", the statement that "Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study" is interesting.
@HYUFD - what you said later doesn't support this, because some people never study economics, for example, to any level, and so it doesn't make much sense to include them in the denominator.
I am in the top 10% of three-ball jugglers if we include in the denominator people who don't know how to juggle with three balls. I may well be in the bottom 10% if we don't.
But if we just look at A levels, and we assume "virtually" means "more than 80%", then what *is* a reasonable estimate for x in the statement that "virtually every Russell Group student is in the top x% academically of the subject they study"?
Presumably not many students get admitted to RG universities to study a subject if they only got a B or C in it at A Level?
Yes virtually every Russell Group student will have A* or at least A grades in the subject they study at that university based on the entry grades to study it there.
So my statement that virtually every Russell Group student will be in the top 10% of the subject they study was absolutely correct
That's a brave conclusion from exam results.
No it isn't, only the top 10% get A* grades at A Level or got A* grades (now 9s) at GCSE.
Virtually every Russell Group student has an A* in the subject they study now
"top 10% of the subject they study"?
Any fule kno that A-levels are a poor predictor of actual Finals results, not to mention careers.
(If they are Russell Group students, they're not schoolchildren any more.)
What about a Gepard with a Doppler filter on the radar for anything moving faster than 10 mph?
President Z has first dibs on those.
You need to recondition the Ramillies and Resolution 15" guns at the Imperial War Museum, or hijack Belfast.
Marksman on a Challenger 1 hull? The prototype is kicking around somewhere and there is talk of getting Marksman back into production since it is the only Western SPAAG that is vaguely recently manufactured….
If we are going heavy calibre - what about the 18” railway gun at Fort Nelson? It’s in good nick, parked in shed.. would they miss it?
Does Fort Nelson have the range?
You could bring the one from France through the Chunnel.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
What about a Gepard with a Doppler filter on the radar for anything moving faster than 10 mph?
President Z has first dibs on those.
You need to recondition the Ramillies and Resolution 15" guns at the Imperial War Museum, or hijack Belfast.
Marksman on a Challenger 1 hull? The prototype is kicking around somewhere and there is talk of getting Marksman back into production since it is the only Western SPAAG that is vaguely recently manufactured….
If we are going heavy calibre - what about the 18” railway gun at Fort Nelson? It’s in good nick, parked in shed.. would they miss it?
Does Fort Nelson have the range?
You could bring the one from France through the Chunnel.
IIRC the 18" had been kept at Shoeburyness for special testing. There, they sure had the range ...
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
What's Oxfam's basic point? That we should have Scandinavian levels of taxation?
Oxfam's basic point is usually that we should do what Oxfam tell us, and give them more money.
Their calculations around wealth are always questionable at best.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
Been the case for years decades.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
My anecdotal experience is that all unis have strong and weak faculties. At Aber, politics was excellent, History was OK, Welsh was a bit of a joke.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
I think I mentioned previously when we were discussing this that when I was at Uni in the 80s the top places for Geology were Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Keele, Imperial and the polytechnics at Kingston and Portsmouth. The best overall course was the OU. Oxford and Cambridge didn't get close for geology.
My uncle taught (although he was not based there) geology at one of those unis...
I did some geology for my degree course (geological engineering), in part four or five hours of geology on a Friday afternoon. One lecturer was brilliant, and made the subject come alive (*) and the hours flew by. The other lecturer, a much younger man, made it as dull as dishwater.
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge.
The fact he won the Computer Science prize clearly put him in the top 10% for the subject he studied too didn't it!!
Yes you would be correct, but that wasn't the point was it. The point was you were wrong.
Yes that WAS the point.
My original point that virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied was correct.
As you just confirmed for your own son too
The main point, as has been shown ever since you posted here, but abundantly over the last few days, is that when you make a mistake you can never admit it.
I make loads of mistakes. I have made them here quite a lot also. When I do I put my hands up. You never do. Instead you squirm around it and move the goal posts.
I don't know why you do it because you would get a lot more respect for doing so. It also often deflects from the point you are making as people will now home in on your mistake, just like I did, so it devalues what might be a good argument by you.
And as you can see people are making fun of you now so the point is lost.
Wrong on both counts.
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
No they're not. For example, the top departments of economics in the land are first LSE (RG) and then Bath (non-Russell Group). The leading department of politics is at Aberystwyth, which is one reason why I went there. For many years one of the top ten history departments was Oxford Brookes.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
The fact some non Russell Group universities academics do some good research does not really change the point either.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
Not all of them. And many had degrees from before the Russell Group existed, which negates your point anyway.
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
No it isn't. My point virtually every student at a Russell Group university was in the top 10% for their subject remains correct.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
Huh? You were the one who mentioned research, not me! And since you have also been demonstrated to be wrong on exam grades, I can only admire your chutzpah (a la @Mexicanpete ) in bringing that back up!
I would refer to somebody you've probably never heard of, called Socrates. 'Admitting ignorance is the first step in acquiring wisdom.' If you admitted ignorance, perhaps you might sometimes demonstrate the intelligence you claim puts you in the top 10%.
No I am not wrong on exam grades. As pointed out virtually all Russell Group students have A* or at least A grades in the subjects they are studying at A level.
That puts them in the top 10% basically given only 40% of 18 year olds do A levels of which only 37% get A* or A grades
Wibbling old nonsense HY. The achievement of an A* A level proves nothing more (or less) that one can achieve an A* A level. I am not an advocate of exams anyway, but I find (and found) A levels the most pointless method of assessment on earth. They are simply a conduit to University, and not a particularly good one.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Knowing you, it could very well be diesel...
Not diesel. Look at that thick, organic, chocolatey quality
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
What's Oxfam's basic point? That we should have Scandinavian levels of taxation?
That !% of the planet's humans gathering in 2/3 of the wealth since the pandemic is not a sustainable approach to building and maintaining a harmonious global society (or rather, that's my take on the report, which presents the facts and, yes, calls for new taxes on the super-rich.
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Knowing you, it could very well be diesel...
Not diesel. Look at that thick, organic, chocolatey quality
Diarrhoea from civet cats forcefed on coffee beans with added spice?
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Didn't you start this? (14th best bar or some such?)
I did, and I was there, But I thought my capitalisation made it clear that I think this list is absurd. I mean, there is such a list, and it is significant to a small number of high quality cocktail bars around the world (especially in Asia, where status means so much) but the idea they have or can evaluate every bar in the world - and then rank them - is surreally daft
I do admire the UK PR group that started it all off tho. With “50 best restaurants”. It is now taken deeply seriously
They are doing the first “50 best hotels” this year
Ok, so best pub (or two) then?
Mine are;
Queens Head just outside Cambridge in Newton. (edit) Windsor Castle, Notting Hill Pig and Whistle, Kyoto
After avoiding this place all morning because of trans arguments and ChatPT/AI waffle, I had faint hopes a new thread would clear the decks. No, of course not, what Was I thinking. For the love of all that's holy, can we not just having a standing discussion thread for each of those and shunt them off there so non-obsessives can actually find the interesting topics.
You are one of the most boring, pointless, invisible posters on here. Why the fuck should anyone give a toss what you think?
Seriously. 306 comments, In total
You’re like a stranger bursting into a local boozer and shouting at the regulars: I DEMAND YOU STOP PLAYING DARTS
There is a world of difference to discussing things which are relevant to the thread and shoe horning your own agenda into every bloody discussion which is exactly what you do. You rarely engage with the thread subject but just bang on about you and your obsessions.
Did I mention I went to the FOURTEENTH BEST BAR IN THE WORLD, last night?
it’s such a cool bar, they serve you a free, welcoming “welcome to your drinks” drink. An aperitif aperitif. And it has an ice cube SHAPED LIKE A DIAMOND
Looking back, it might have actually been a diamond
Ironically, my lord, I have a diamond SHAPED LIKE AN ICE CUBE
Challenge accepted
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
OOOH. Value
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Knowing you, it could very well be diesel...
Not diesel. Look at that thick, organic, chocolatey quality
Diarrhoea from civet cats forcefed on coffee beans with added spice?
AAA if you have an A in computer science/computing
You are wrong!
The standard offer actually includes an A* and for most they will get an A* in Computer Science anyway if studying it
My son studied Computer Science at Cambridge where he is now doing his PhD. He did not do computer science at A level or GCSE and was not asked for a single A* by Cambridge in any subject. In fact Cambridge gave him his lowest offer of all the Unis he applied for. It might have something to do with him winning the Cambridge University Computer Science prize when he was in the lower sixth though.
And I expect he got mainly A* and As at GCSE and A level too didn't he?
If he got Cs and Ds he almost certainly wouldn't be at Cambridge
Are you one of these people that thinks exam results actually mean something?
They do.
How many professors, doctors and lawyers got Ds at GCSE and A level?
3 A grades at A level, 4A*, 3A, 2Bs at GCSE if you must ask.
Well done! To what extent did your school academic performance help your subsequent life and career? In my case, I felt as if I only started learning useful stuff once I left school. 1 AS, 2 Bs at A level (failed maths) and 9 O levels, at Grammar School. If anyone else wants to share their experience, instead of talking about Trans …….
I have always considered that exam results are a stepping stone to get to the next level and nothing more.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
I got rather good GCSE results, despite missing loads of school due to operations and other health matters. I then got terrible A-level results despite missing less (though not none) of school during those two years. I then abandoned my degree after two years because of health problems and deciding it was the wrong course for me.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
Are you still doing your walks round the country?
Not at the moment; my last one was before Covid. I'm finding having an eight year-old around too entertaining to escape for days, weeks or months, and Mrs J's been slightly unwell and mahoosively busy at work. So I'm doing a lot of running instead, as that only requires a few hours away from home.
Basically, priorities change.
But I want to get back to walking. I've done all the national trails except for the Southern Upland Way and Yorkshire Wolds way, and I'd love to get them done so I've done the list. I'd also love to do another lap of the coast , to see what's changed over the years.
Still, not bad for a boy who was told he'd never walk properly again...
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
Hey! That is MY job........
No. Your job is to talk about shoes. So that I too can talk about shoes. Shoes are very important to a happy and elegant life. When deciding on an outfit I often choose my shoes first.
Last week, for instance, I decided on rather natty purple suede shoes and the dress later for lunch with a handsome lawyer friend. Yesterday it was suede ankle boots for another lunch. And so on.
Have @TSE and @Cyclefree been seen in the same room at the same time?
Nesrine Malik tells us the system is rigged in favour of the 1% by wealth (Opinion, 23 January). Entry into the global 1%, by the definition used by Oxfam, requires $1m in assets. As the Office for National Statistics tells us, that’s around the 75th percentile of British households by wealth. In other words, 25% of British households are in the top 1% of the global wealth distribution. I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that 25% of the Guardian’s readership is too. As Pogo said in Walt Kelly’s strip cartoon for Earth Day in 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Tim Worstall Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
What's Oxfam's basic point? That we should have Scandinavian levels of taxation?
That the world would be better if the top 1% did not take an ever increasing share of wealth. Not sure why this is even vaguely controversial, a capitalist economy would function much better if the top 1% did not take two-thirds of wealth created.
There is a massive chasm between communism and a rigged kleptocratic game set up by politicians funded by oligarchs. We should aim somewhere into the chasm rather than be concerned any criticism of the status quo leads directly to communism......
Comments
I said to Horse earlier I made a mistake in terms of the requirement of A* entry grades for Russell Group courses. However my point virtually all Russell Group students are in the top 10% for the subject they studied stands.
Of course as I am one of the few loyal Tories on here still 'admit making a mistake' often really means follow the non Tory herd, which I won't do!
I have no issues with @JosiasJessop or @CorrectHorseBattery discussing this - or anyone else - even if they disagree because at least they engage politely and sometimes passionately and make me think about my views. And critique in my own mind why I think what I do. I have written elsewhere about some wider issues relating to this precisely because this is not the forum for those sorts of self-reflective or longer analyses. I have found some of the articles @Phil has posted quite interesting too.
You OTOH just come on, occasionally say that you know better than anyone else on this without ever engaging, smear and then flounce off.
After Rejoin…
Every Jobsworth has to present evidence, in order to receive promotion, of how he/she has interpreted an EU rule to advantage U.K.
If it is at the expense of the French, double points.
The other day I went to the SEVENTY FIRST BEST BAR IN THE WORLD and they literally put silver leaf on my cocktail
Over to you: photos or it didn’t happen
It's not hypocritical to be rich and also favour policies that hurt the rich. The system should favour the poor, but within the system it's my right as an individual - in fact my responsibility - to make as much money as I can.
This has nothing to do with politics. When you got your homework back at school marked wrong did you assume you were really right, but it was marked wrong because you were a Tory or did you ever accept you might get something wrong.
Last night you were wrong but wouldn't admit it. It was an easy mistake to make as it was a rubbish graph. @Richard_Tyndall made a mistake reading it also and he put his hands up. Why can't you?
There really is something wrong with someone who can never admit they get things wrong.
Hammersmith are in a mess on some of their technical definitions, though.
The best way to deal with too much somewhat quicker cycle traffic on a shared path (esp. commuting) is to provide a nearby, more convenient, quicker route - then they will use that, and still remove motor traffic / congestion from the roads by being on a 1m bike each not a 2m x 5m car with space all around it. The Thames Path is intricate enough that it is not a very quick route.
The irony of your posting on this subject is that in your desperation to prove your snobbery about having attended a 'top' university is justified you are demonstrating that you didn't actually get that good an education, certainly as far as basic research or logical reasoning goes.
Yes you have some steadfast ideas on the elite politics of Universities, Grammar schools, private schools and faith, all your views on which I largely disagree with. Nonetheless when it comes to checking the political weather vane you can read it a lot better than many of PBs partisan Tories. Your views on polling when you analyse more than just your preferred poll are worthy of a read. Although I was critical of your reliance on the Autumn 2019 Yougov mega poll, however you and it turned out to be right.
Keep on flying the Tory flag. I suspect most who disagree with you also have a quiet admiration for your steely determination. I know I do. You do need to change your view of Boris Johnson however, he is a walking national catastrophe, and if he ever returns to power we will all regret it, especially the Conservative Party.
WTF is keeping Sunak from appointing somebody now? Tory leaders can be and have been got rid of in various ways... Is telling him he won't be allowed to appoint the chairman by diktat the way Sunak will be removed?
I thought it was suspicious how long Zahawi held on for, even to the point where some serious commentators were saying he'd won for the time being. The question was what might unravel. That question may still be open.
Sunak looks weak.
When I was at Cowley Tech an engineer there admitted Hull had a better engineering department.
It is only you that keeps bringing it back to loo's when most I have seen comment have have specifically mentions jails, sports, wards and refuges.
I think the difference is people make assumptions about 'top' unis wihtout burrowing down into the detail.
https://www.worlds50bestbars.com/the-list/jigger-pony.html
I was staying in the hotel when they were awarded number 5 - and for that night their cocktails were $5. Memorable, well, as much of it as I remember, anyway.
That is the problem both with the Bill and that judgment. Until it is resolved single sex providers are not going to exclude people and risk being faced with a discrimination claim. The legal and practical consequences of that judgment are not at all easy and deserve more attention - politically - than they are AFAIK getting.
Legally there has been a lot of commentary on it and it is hard to know how the courts in E&W will rule should similar arguments be made.
From a legal perspective the legal arguments are very interesting.
I got mediocre O levels (2 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs) but they were enough to get me into A levels.
I got pretty good A levels (A,A,B,C) which were good enough to get me to the university of my choice, kind of.
I put my time at university to very good use, drank too much, screwed around, did lots of fun things and got a Desmond. At this point I was heart broken as I was dumb enough to have thought I was a high flyer and would sail through my degree and do a PhD.
I then went out into the real world and found that most people were easily as bright as me and often far more so. I spent a few years building roads and blowing things up in quarries and then went offshore. I needed my degree to get me my first job offshore. After that no one (apart from my kids) has EVER asked me again what degree I got.
Exams are stepping stones to where you want to get. Once you have reached the next level you don't ever have to think about them again.
Education on the other hand is truly wondrous. Given the choice I would have stayed in the educational environment my whole life. But that was another life and since I don't have any regrets over the one I have lived it is not a problem.
For starters many of the academics at Aberystwyth when I was there for postgrad had Russell Group undergraduate degrees too!!
And on top of that, we're now moving goalposts. You said anyone studying a subject at Russell Group would be in the top 10% of their subject. Your maths has been demonstrated to be wrong. I've now pointed out it was also based on a faulty premise. You immediately flip to talking about research. Which is important, don't get me wrong, but unless you concede that research is more important than teaching in the RG (which actually I would say it is, but is a separate point about different policy failures) and therefore the quality of degree is likely to be lower than at an ex-poly where teaching is the focus, isn't germane.
Whilst my life may have been diverted from the course it would have taken had it not been for those health problems, I'm rather happy as I am, and better exam results probably won't have increased my happiness one iota. I'm also slightly proud of having got as far as I did in my career despite having no degree.
You need to recondition the Ramillies and Resolution 15" guns at the Imperial War Museum, or hijack Belfast.
“50 best bars in the world” is the most ludicrous list. It’s like saying “the 50 best places to have a nice sit down” or “the 50 best places to be at 3pm”
ALSO it didn’t include THIS, the best drink I have had these last several years. But what is it?
Once I got to about 13 or 14 I started to really enjoy studying. I didn't before that. It was great being the best. And then I got to Uni and I wasn't anymore, by a long way, but still had to work hard. If I had my time again I would make life less challenging and spend more time on other activities. I did a lot more of that when I left Uni.
It was you who flipped to research (now teaching too) of non RG academics (many of whom have RG degrees anyway). Not the more relevant exam grades of those students admitted to RG courses as undergraduates
I would refer to somebody you've probably never heard of, called Socrates. 'Admitting ignorance is the first step in acquiring wisdom.' If you admitted ignorance, perhaps you might sometimes demonstrate the intelligence you claim puts you in the top 10%.
I despair when I see the RG used as shorthand for quality. It’s not. It’s a smug collection of universities who formed an alliance at the Russel Hotel.
If we are going heavy calibre - what about the 18” railway gun at Fort Nelson? It’s in good nick, parked in shed.. would they miss it?
If I were to demonstrate to you how to rebuild an SU carburettor the most efficient way to test your learning would be to get you to rebuild one for me. You could apply this to all sorts of learning. Instead of a dreary law exam a candidate could defend a realistic role play defendent in a realistic court setting.
A two hour long written exam to test a year or two of learning is inefficient. No one likes them except HY and Michael Gove.
Excess deaths are way up, across the world
@CorrectHorseBattery3 does not phrase it in a pretty way, but he has a point. Lockdowns were a grave decision and it is not at all clear to me that the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns in the UK were justified, given the economic cost, and now the cost in lives
Indeed, I am almost certain Lockdowns 2 and 3 were a catastrophic error, for which we will all be paying for many years. And all to protect the very old and the very fat (in the main). Tragic
There are lots of lucky people around today who have forgotten politicians who meddled in education...
But, that argument is not that it only affects the over 60's, who all deserve to die because they don't vote Labour.
Why? Because if they failed - well, they failed.
And if they succeeded, everyone would say they weren't needed and get mad at the govt.
Last week, for instance, I decided on rather natty purple suede shoes and the dress later for lunch with a handsome lawyer friend. Yesterday it was suede ankle boots for another lunch. And so on.
Thrice resoled, and still doing good service.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19
It was a mistake to impoverish the country, indeed the world, to protect the very elderly
Didn't you start this? (14th best bar or some such?)
The 1987 or whatever the other group was doing better which is why they bribed a load of those unis to join.
Or you want to tell me that Queen Mary is a better university than say Hull or Leicester - really?
Doesn't really change Oxfam's basic point, though, does it?
And rather charming that the Guardian is willing to alienate its audience so readily. Especially since they, quite literally, pay for it these days, rather than advertisers.
That puts them in the top 10% basically given only 40% of 18 year olds do A levels of which only 37% get A* or A grades
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49249684.amp
https://www.statista.com/statistics/282973/a-level-results-in-the-uk/#:~:text=In 2022,14.6 percent of,grade level in this year.
You see this with the exams, he's obviously a smart guy and has done well in his exams - but there are plenty of clever people that do awfully in exams.
I tend to consider myself somebody who exams don't reflect my ability. For example I got an A* in English Language because most of it was coursework but I did much more poorly in English Literature which wasn't
I do admire the UK PR group that started it all off tho. With “50 best restaurants”. It is now taken deeply seriously
They are doing the first “50 best hotels” this year
And it depends on the subject, Hull has/had one of the best Comp Sci departments in the country, not sure how it ranks now. I'd argue Cambridge's Comp Sci syllabus was a horrific course for anyone actually wanting to work in Software Engineering
You're now saying you were right.
So paradoxically, one of those posts must be, in itself, wrong.
Which one?
"top 10% of the subject they study"?
Any fule kno that A-levels are a poor predictor of actual Finals results, not to mention careers.
(If they are Russell Group students, they're not schoolchildren any more.)
You could bring the one from France through the Chunnel.
Their calculations around wealth are always questionable at best.
I did some geology for my degree course (geological engineering), in part four or five hours of geology on a Friday afternoon. One lecturer was brilliant, and made the subject come alive (*) and the hours flew by. The other lecturer, a much younger man, made it as dull as dishwater.
(*) This gent; https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/11/frank-middlemiss
ETA: link to guardian story on the report: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/jan/16/oxfam-calls-for-new-taxes-on-super-rich-pocket-dollar-26tn-start-of-pandemic-davos
Intelligent people don't get good exam results.
The common thread is intelligent people
Mine are;
Queens Head just outside Cambridge in Newton. (edit)
Windsor Castle, Notting Hill
Pig and Whistle, Kyoto
Basically, priorities change.
But I want to get back to walking. I've done all the national trails except for the Southern Upland Way and Yorkshire Wolds way, and I'd love to get them done so I've done the list. I'd also love to do another lap of the coast , to see what's changed over the years.
Still, not bad for a boy who was told he'd never walk properly again...
There is a massive chasm between communism and a rigged kleptocratic game set up by politicians funded by oligarchs. We should aim somewhere into the chasm rather than be concerned any criticism of the status quo leads directly to communism......