Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
Hmmm. Given that Leon is, I believe, only a few years younger than me, the chances are that when he went to university it was still at the time when only a small minority of teenagers had that opportunity. So saying we should go back to something closer to that, even if we disagree with it, is hardly the hypocrisy you accuse him of.
50% going to university was a ruse devised to keep school leavers off the unemployment figures. It has not been a success as a policy and has degraded the value of degrees whilst at the same time crreating a whole generation (or more) of young people who are now disastisfied as the promised benefits of higher education have failed to materialise whilst they are saddled with massive amounts of debt.
Pointing out these facts does not strike me as being unreasonable.
The whys and wherefores of whether 50% of the population should experience university life is a different debate.
Those who advocate for University being available only to the top 10% may have a point (I don't agree) and their argument that "there is nothing wrong with being a plumber, we need plumbers" is also valid. My point was, when opportunities are rationed, often those people advocating for less graduates and more chippies assume their children will remain on the university list and mine can go down the tech to complete an NVQ2 in manicuring . They won't lose out, it's business as usual.
The weird thing is with any target at all
Shouldn’t it be:
1. We should offer a full range of courses from academic to vocational 2. All courses should be designed to meet their objectives and be value added in that context (ie Nursing degrees should be judged to different criteria to Jurisprudence, for example) 3. Anyone who wants to attend university and would benefit from such a course should be able to do so 4. The government should be generous in funding those courses which are value added to society with a focus on people who would not otherwise be able to fund it themselves. But there should be qualification and performance criteria attached - this isn’t just a freebie 5. Anyone who snobbishly looks down on a “lesser” degree can go f*ck themselves
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
Hmmm. Given that Leon is, I believe, only a few years younger than me, the chances are that when he went to university it was still at the time when only a small minority of teenagers had that opportunity. So saying we should go back to something closer to that, even if we disagree with it, is hardly the hypocrisy you accuse him of.
50% going to university was a ruse devised to keep school leavers off the unemployment figures. It has not been a success as a policy and has degraded the value of degrees whilst at the same time crreating a whole generation (or more) of young people who are now disastisfied as the promised benefits of higher education have failed to materialise whilst they are saddled with massive amounts of debt.
Pointing out these facts does not strike me as being unreasonable.
The whys and wherefores of whether 50% of the population should experience university life is a different debate.
Those who advocate for University being available only to the top 10% may have a point (I don't agree) and their argument that "there is nothing wrong with being a plumber, we need plumbers" is also valid. My point was, when opportunities are rationed, often those people advocating for less graduates and more chippies assume their children will remain on the university list and mine can go down the tech to complete an NVQ2 in manicuring . They won't lose out, it's business as usual.
The weird thing is with any target at all
Shouldn’t it be:
1. We should offer a full range of courses from academic to vocational 2. All courses should be designed to meet their objectives and be value added in that context (ie Nursing degrees should be judged to different criteria to Jurisprudence, for example) 3. Anyone who wants to attend university and would benefit from such a course should be able to do so 4. The government should be generous in funding those courses which are value added to society with a focus on people who would not otherwise be able to fund it themselves. But there should be qualification and performance criteria attached - this isn’t just a freebie 5. Anyone who snobbishly looks down on a “lesser” degree can go f*ck themselves
I couldn't agree more. Which surprises me as I seldom agree with your point of view.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
The Royal Navy has been forced to use LinkedIn to advertise for a Rear-Admiral to be responsible for the nation’s nuclear deterrent amid a growing recruitment crisis.
18 year olds are fucking rubbish at building wells in Zambia.
Indeed, the one thing Africa doesn't lack it is underemployed young workers capable of digging wells
Such gap year experiences may well be beneficial for the Gappers, but much less so for the local people. Ditto middle aged Americans building schools. FFS employ local brickies then go and have an opening ceremony.
Ok then let them regrow coral in the Maldives. Anything
Offer them adventure and travel but also a chance to serve. This is exactly the sort of thing Labour should be all over. Mixing patriotism and altruism
If Starmerism is to mean anything: it might be this
How ab9ut picking up litter in their own street?
Yes. That too. Tho I’d probably make convicts do that
All sorts of safeguarding issues there
Put a group of convicts picking up litter by the side of a dual carriage way (as used to be done)
One of them gets hit and is killed/seriously injured. As is the driver.
Who is responsible? Arguably the state for creating a non-safe working environment
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
By contrast 49% of black pupils get a grade 5 or above at GCSE and 50% of black 18 year olds go to university
80% of Chinese pupils get a grade 5 or above and 71% go to university and 61% of South Asian ethnicity pupils get a grade 5 or above and 54% go to university. So white pupils have the biggest gap between percentage of GCSE passes and percentage going to university
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
Oh go on then. 1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024. 12%
2. Date of the next UK General Election. 12/12/2024
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called All as at present.
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%). Labour, majority 55.
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems. Sadly, I can't see either Trump nor Biden being toppled.
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner. Biden, just. Abortion will be the key issue that squeaks him over the line. He won't then complete his second term.
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024. 4.5%
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 3.9%). 3.7%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn). £122bn. Gvt in its final year has no interest in serious money-saving at this point and I expect urgent bribes to be contained in the March budget.
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64). 46. All it takes is for a sport such as cycling to go badly wrong....
Happy new year everyone, especially those hoping this might be the year where some significant corners are turned.
The Royal Navy has been forced to use LinkedIn to advertise for a Rear-Admiral to be responsible for the nation’s nuclear deterrent amid a growing recruitment crisis.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
The real problem is that, in many cases, they get to toil in the coal mines. After their degree in shagging.
Meanwhile we have a number of skill shortages, for well paid jobs, in the U.K.
I understand all that, but you will invest in your child's education to ensure they get their opportunity for a three year BSc (Econ) (Hons) in Applied Fornication.
The Tories accuse everyone else of "the politics of envy" but are adamant fun should be the reserve of the right sort of elite, and the peasantry should know their place and conclude their Shelf Stacking Apprenticeship whilst working nights at Tesco.
You will need to point out the place where I suggested awarding degree education on the basis of social class. “The elite”
I went to a comprehensive. And I went to UCL. I thoroughly approve of that sort of thing; if anything I can be quite chippy about public school kids getting an easy ride into uni via tuition and social polish, when it is much harder for state school children from tougher backgrounds
My objection is nothing to do with social class. I am saying we are encouraging kids with average intelligence to spend three years doing a tertiary education designed for people with higher intelligence, and this is a waste of their time and their money, as we now demand that they pay for it
it would be great if every child had an IQ of 130 and would deeply benefit from studying Medicine at Manchester Uni, or Classics at Cambridge, but it is not the case, and we are deluding ourselves - and our offspring - in thinking and pretending otherwise
One way of reading the data is to conclude that white working class males are the group who have spotted this as they intelligently eschew Aeschylus and the sociology of 8th century Mali in favour of the factory and white van man trades (and where I live, agricultural contracting) great and small.
Indeed, white males with only B grade or C grade average GCSEs are far more likely to get an apprenticeship or traineeship without uni tuition fees than do A levels and go to university (even though they probably could). Whereas most other groups, white women or ethnic minorities, would still do A levels and go to the university with those grades
Any evidence to back that complete codswallop up?
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
1 minor minor part of your original statement and even then you haven't provided the evidence to back that bit up.
By contrast 49% of black pupils get a grade 5 or above at GCSE and 50% of black 18 year olds go to university
It really doesn't - because you previously were talking about Graduates and now you are talking about Freshers arriving at Uni...
The percentage of white males who are university graduates compared to the percentage of white males with A*-C (or now I suppose 9-4 grade) GCSEs
Black students may be more likely to drop out than white students, 12% to 8% but still doesn't change the fact there are percentage wise more black graduates than white graduates of those with a GCSE pass or above in English and Maths https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9195/CBP-9195.pdf
“Exclusive from us this morning. The government is quietly advancing plans for a major loosening of council budget rules to allow them to sell assets en masse to avert a wave of bankruptcies”
Oh great! Forced sales. More opportunities for spivs.
Fuck it! Let's set up a PB company to do developments - unspecified. Find a friendly banker to lend us some money. Buy assets and use them to do something worthwhile.
Why should the spivs get everything?
What "assets" does central Government think local Councils possess? Presumably this is some notion there are millions of pounds locked up in land and buildings - here's the truth, there isn't.
What do Councils own in terms of property? Broadly speaking, land and buildings from which a service is provided (schools, fire stations, libraries, creamtoria, admin offices etc) and those from which there is no direct Service provided but which should provide an income stream (Investment properties, business centres, smallholdings).
In addition, land is required for the provision of additional SEN capacity or for residential care for older people or for dementia care etc.
Should a Council have to sell its Fire Stations to provide income - who would buy them since the provision of adequate fire cover remains a statutory function?
There's a stench of ignorance and a cheap headline - you'd better believe Councils short of cash are already looking at any and all means to achieve capital receipts - they don't need any help from that bunch of halfwits who allegedly run the country (though not for much longer with any luck).
The ability to print money by giving planning permission?
Two dogs here in the pub badly disciplined, controlled and behaved barking every few seconds with the owners seemingly powerless (or unwilling) to do anything about it aside from shouting the very occasional "enough!" at them. And looking for sympathy from others.
Pathetic. Another bad effect of Covid. Far too many people got far too many dogs they are ill qualified to look after, and everyone else has to suffer because of it.
The issue is the owners should leave (or be asked to leave). It’s selfishness on their part.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
Hmmm. Given that Leon is, I believe, only a few years younger than me, the chances are that when he went to university it was still at the time when only a small minority of teenagers had that opportunity. So saying we should go back to something closer to that, even if we disagree with it, is hardly the hypocrisy you accuse him of.
50% going to university was a ruse devised to keep school leavers off the unemployment figures. It has not been a success as a policy and has degraded the value of degrees whilst at the same time crreating a whole generation (or more) of young people who are now disastisfied as the promised benefits of higher education have failed to materialise whilst they are saddled with massive amounts of debt.
Pointing out these facts does not strike me as being unreasonable.
The whys and wherefores of whether 50% of the population should experience university life is a different debate.
Those who advocate for University being available only to the top 10% may have a point (I don't agree) and their argument that "there is nothing wrong with being a plumber, we need plumbers" is also valid. My point was, when opportunities are rationed, often those people advocating for less graduates and more chippies assume their children will remain on the university list and mine can go down the tech to complete an NVQ2 in manicuring . They won't lose out, it's business as usual.
The weird thing is with any target at all
Shouldn’t it be:
1. We should offer a full range of courses from academic to vocational 2. All courses should be designed to meet their objectives and be value added in that context (ie Nursing degrees should be judged to different criteria to Jurisprudence, for example) 3. Anyone who wants to attend university and would benefit from such a course should be able to do so 4. The government should be generous in funding those courses which are value added to society with a focus on people who 5. would not otherwise be able to fund it themselves. But there should be qualification and performance criteria attached - this isn’t just a freebie 6. Anyone who snobbishly looks down on a “lesser” degree can go f*ck themselves
I couldn't agree more. Which surprises me as I seldom agree with your point of view.
For the most part government targets are bullshit.
It’s a tactical management tool applied to a strategic setting.
Jodie Foster says generation Z can be ‘really annoying’ to work with
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/06/jodie-foster-generation-z-annoying-interview ..“They’re really annoying, especially in the workplace,” Foster joked*. “They’re like: ‘Nah, I’m not feeling it today, I’m gonna come in at 10.30am.’ Or in emails, I’ll tell them: this is all grammatically incorrect, did you not check your spelling? And they’re like: ‘Why would I do that, isn’t that kind of limiting?’”
*Not sure why the Guardian thought she was joking ?
I saw on TwiX yesterday that the average IQ of an undergraduate is now 102
We are trying to teach cats to dance. Someone with an IQ of 102 will not benefit in anyway, intellectually, from a proper degree level education. All they will accrue is debt
For your next PB alias, you should go with either Statler, or Waldorf.
On the other hand, I am entirely right, aren’t I?
We are giving expensive university education to people who cannot truly benefit from it (unless you think the social bonds and opportunities offered by uni are THAT valuable - and this I doubt). Yes, the Flynn Effect meant kids got smarter for a while, but they didn’t get vastly smarter, and anyway now the Flynn Effect is in reverse, so the mistake of trying to universalise university is graver
It’s a fundamental error. We are conning these kids, and saddling them with debt, for no reason whatsoever other than it makes us feel good that “50% of our young people are at university” - and it funds a large education sector. A great proportion of these youngsters would be far better off doing vocational courses, some kind of national/international service, or going straight to work
That is a classic case of "Conductor, being as I am on the bus you can now ring the bell, don't concern yourself with all those queued at the bus stop".
You enjoyed your three years at University College in what you have suggested was a glorious drunken, drug addled paradise, where in your moments of cogence you sired beautiful former public schoolgirls. And all as a freebie from HMG.
You are nonetheless demanding generations following you are deprived of this life, even if they have to pay for it themselves. They can toil down the coalmines!
Hmmm. Given that Leon is, I believe, only a few years younger than me, the chances are that when he went to university it was still at the time when only a small minority of teenagers had that opportunity. So saying we should go back to something closer to that, even if we disagree with it, is hardly the hypocrisy you accuse him of.
50% going to university was a ruse devised to keep school leavers off the unemployment figures. It has not been a success as a policy and has degraded the value of degrees whilst at the same time crreating a whole generation (or more) of young people who are now disastisfied as the promised benefits of higher education have failed to materialise whilst they are saddled with massive amounts of debt.
Pointing out these facts does not strike me as being unreasonable.
The whys and wherefores of whether 50% of the population should experience university life is a different debate.
Those who advocate for University being available only to the top 10% may have a point (I don't agree) and their argument that "there is nothing wrong with being a plumber, we need plumbers" is also valid. My point was, when opportunities are rationed, often those people advocating for less graduates and more chippies assume their children will remain on the university list and mine can go down the tech to complete an NVQ2 in manicuring . They won't lose out, it's business as usual.
The weird thing is with any target at all
Shouldn’t it be:
1. We should offer a full range of courses from academic to vocational 2. All courses should be designed to meet their objectives and be value added in that context (ie Nursing degrees should be judged to different criteria to Jurisprudence, for example) 3. Anyone who wants to attend university and would benefit from such a course should be able to do so 4. The government should be generous in funding those courses which are value added to society with a focus on people who 5. would not otherwise be able to fund it themselves. But there should be qualification and performance criteria attached - this isn’t just a freebie 6. Anyone who snobbishly looks down on a “lesser” degree can go f*ck themselves
I couldn't agree more. Which surprises me as I seldom agree with your point of view.
This is brilliant. Harvard academics are so angry at the right wing guy who “brought down” Harvard president Claudine Gay this is how they’ve responded:
“On Rufo: what do integrity police say about his claim to have “master’s degree from Harvard,” which is actually from the open-enrollment Extension School? Those students are great - I teach them- but they are not the same as what we normally think of as Harvard graduate students”
WTAF. Imagine if you are one of her students. She’s openly sneering at you as being inferior, despite Harvard selling these degrees as being entirely equal to normal Harvard degrees
Have they not heard of “Ratnering” in the USA?
They're all insane, this is just the rest of the world noticing.
All if them ? Seems unlikely, as this story suggests.
The Right Is Dancing on Claudine Gay’s Grave. But It Was the Center-Left That Did Her In. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/05/claudine-gay-resignation-battle-column-00133820 ...Rather than a monolith to be attacked by MAGA die-hards, elite higher ed is a world with significant existing tensions between the moderate and not-so-moderate left. Conservatives may have fanned the flames, but the divides that defined Gay’s tenure — over DEI, over Israel/Gaza, over speech and even over how seriously to take her plagiarism — were among folks well outside the far-right universe. As such, it’s a lesson for all sorts of other blue-state organizations, from think tanks to businesses to the Democratic Party.
Don’t take my word for it. Take it from Chris Rufo, the far-right critical race theory foe who DeSantis appointed to a state university board. Rufo, who helped publicize the plagiarism charges that ultimately doomed Gay, spent time this week taking credit for the media strategy that forced her out. But he actually laid out the strategy weeks ago:
“We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right,” Rufo wrote on December 19 on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze.”
That’s more or less what happened.
Revelations about Gay’s dubious citations began in far-right outlets — part of an ugly campaign that followed her disastrous appearance before Congress. It’s safe to say the campaign wasn’t motivated by any particular interest in Gay’s scholarly output. The hectoring from people like Harvard megadonor Bill Ackman appalled even critics of Gay’s leadership following the October 7 attacks. Harvard’s board also expressed support for Gay on academic-freedom grounds.
But it turned out that the plagiarism story had legs, and involved the sorts of missteps that could get an undergrad in deep trouble. By Christmas, calls for her resignation were coming from pillars of establishment liberalism like the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus. After an even more damning plagiarism complaint was reported on New Year’s Day, she stepped down...
Leaving aside the plagiarism issue, her academic profile seems rather thin for a professor, never mind head of one of the world's most prestigious universities.
May just be a website formatting thing. Some uni websites specify, for instance, only six recent significant publications per person on the departmental subsite.
Jesus Christ do some research. Its not a “formatting thing” as you’d realise if you spent 2 minutes reading the facts
Basic thing to check. Has it been done?
Remember the trans operations on children - turned out to be a website formatting thing too.
Secondary corporatese, like websites. That sort of distinction is very often lost in such things.
Just stop now. You’re wrong
On the contrary. I very often have to find where someone went wrong in a statement, and the sort of situation where the primary data get simplified for corporatese or a press release is a key reason.
And have you never heard of keeping a CV to two sides of a piece of A4?
Basically - you lot are drawing conclusions which may or may not be right but certainly cannot be validly drawn from the evidence you have submitted
Oh just fuck off and do some googling, you stupid Scottish twat
It will take you about 30 seconds to prove this one way or another. Fucked if we should keep spoon feeding you
Why should I spoonfeed you? You're the one building whole castles inh the air on something that may or may not be dodgy. Viewcode has even told you where to look.
And why should you use 'Scottish' as if it is an insult?
Because, to believe that the figure “11” is wrong you have to believe that
The BBC The Boston Globe The Wall Street journal The Washington post The Harvard crimson And Wikipedia
Have all got it wrong and she’s published many more papers. Because they all say “11 published works”
Additionally: Gay herself has had ample opportunity to rubbish the “11” number in various quotes and op-Eds she has written. She has not disputed it. On that basis I’m saying it is true
But knock yourself out if you can prove she’s actually written six books and published 98 papers
Because they are all journalists and almost c ertainly copied thje same single source ultimately and/or each other. And because she has more urgent things on her mind.
You're the one making the claims. You do the research. Doesn't matter if it makes a good story, doesn't matter if it is what you want. The discrepancy is so blatant that there is soemthing wrong - and there is a very obvious explanation, the 2 x A4 CV restriction, why your interpretation is inm fact wrong. It's up to you to disprove that when challenged.
1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024. = 13
2. Date of the next UK General Election. = November 14th 2024
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called = Same as current leaders
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).= Lab + majority 10.5% - 31
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems. = Trump > Biden
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner. = Biden (v. narrowly
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024. = 3.4%
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 3.9%). = 2.9%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn). = £125 billion
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64). = 59
I don't have insight on these and I've decided most of my predictions wouldn't be worth it, so I haven't done it. That said, all the Olympic predictions are for our medal tally to decrease, and I wonder if this is British pessimism. I know the woke brigade is doing its best to undermine our rowing etc., but I think we should stand a good chance in Paris. It's very close geographically, with very similar competing conditions, and that should advantage our athletes and horses. Sadly Ukraine will be sending less competitors I guess, Russia I doubt they've sent any of their Olympic team to Ukraine, but they might not have a great year either. I am not a great sport follower it must be said, so perhaps the predictors in the 50s have better reasons than I've given.
Several have predicted increases, just saying.
Sorry, I should have said 'that I've seen'. Biggles obviously felt the same as he predicts a hefty increase.
Comments
Shouldn’t it be:
1. We should offer a full range of courses from academic to vocational
2. All courses should be designed to meet their objectives and be value added in that context (ie Nursing degrees should be judged to different criteria to Jurisprudence, for example)
3. Anyone who wants to attend university and would benefit from such a course should be able to do so
4. The government should be generous in funding those courses which are value added to society with a focus on people who would not otherwise be able to fund it themselves. But there should be qualification and performance criteria attached - this isn’t just a freebie
5. Anyone who snobbishly looks down on a “lesser” degree can go f*ck themselves
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/a-to-c-in-english-and-maths-gcse-attainment-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/
Yet only 32% of white pupils in the UK go on to university at 18
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/higher-education/entry-rates-into-higher-education/latest/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/white-males-fall-behind-students-university-uk-gcse-a-level-results-2v6b2cc6k
By contrast 49% of black pupils get a grade 5 or above at GCSE and 50% of black 18 year olds go to university
If no one currently suitable is serving why not look to retired officers/members of the reserves?
I’d rather they did that than appoint someone not up to the job
Put a group of convicts picking up litter by the side of a dual carriage way (as used to be done)
One of them gets hit and is killed/seriously injured. As is the driver.
Who is responsible? Arguably the state for creating a non-safe working environment
1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024.
12%
2. Date of the next UK General Election.
12/12/2024
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called
All as at present.
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).
Labour, majority 55.
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems.
Sadly, I can't see either Trump nor Biden being toppled.
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner.
Biden, just. Abortion will be the key issue that squeaks him over the line. He won't then complete his second term.
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024.
4.5%
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 3.9%).
3.7%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn).
£122bn. Gvt in its final year has no interest in serious money-saving at this point and I expect urgent bribes to be contained in the March budget.
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64).
46. All it takes is for a sport such as cycling to go badly wrong....
Happy new year everyone, especially those hoping this might be the year where some significant corners are turned.
No deputies? What happens if Russia attacks while this chap is indisposed?
Why LinkedIn? They don't already know their retired admirals?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9195/CBP-9195.pdf
8 million properties are needed….
It’s a tactical management tool applied to a strategic setting.
And they always get gamed as a result.
You're the one making the claims. You do the research. Doesn't matter if it makes a good story, doesn't matter if it is what you want. The discrepancy is so blatant that there is soemthing wrong - and there is a very obvious explanation, the 2 x A4 CV restriction, why your interpretation is inm fact wrong. It's up to you to disprove that when challenged.
2 Date of next election 10 October 2024
3. Party leaders - unchanged
4. UK general election result - Labour majority 86
5. US election Trump/Biden
6. Winner Biden
7. UK base rate 4.25 %
8 CPI figure 3.4
9. 110 bn
10 GB medal haul 61