I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry, and General Studies. GS was like a qualification via a pub quiz.
It did mean that my love of history, sociology, geography, theology, literature, film, music and art were unspoiled by having to write essays or take examinations. I could just follow my interests.
As I near retirement I realise how important the humanities are in answering the only question in life which needs serious consideration: "How should we live?"
So did I. GS was the most bizarre subject - an apparently completely random mix of topics - but a pleasant diversion from the sciences.
We had a General Paper as part of O-Level History. Here are some of the questions:
2 Why does the British government insist that some of its records must be kept secret for up to eighty years? Can this policy be justified? 3 The Romans kept slaves and enjoyed watching criminals being eaten alive by wild animals. Is it right that historians should speak of Roman civilisation? 4 Are famines caused by men or nature? 5 What has marine archaeology contributed to our knowledge of the past? 6 A fine suit of armour, made by a medieval Italian craftsman for a German prince, was taken from his descendant's castle by one of Napoleon's generals and conveyed to Paris. Fifty years later it was sold to an English collector whose grandson now wishes to sell it to an American museum. Is it part of Britain's heritage? If not, whose? 7 Is childhood happier today than in the past? 8 What have popular films done for the appreciation of history? 9 History contains many unsolved mysteries. Give an account of one or more and offer your own solution. 10 "Those who live by the sword, shall perish by the sword.' Do they? 11 Explain two of the following and show their historical importance: pacifism; the class war; racialism; terrorism; minority rights; inflation; religious intolerance; the Third World. 12 Describe a country house which you have visited. What does its design, fittings and surroundings tell you about the lives of the people who lived there?
We had to do three in two hours.
My A-Level general studies paper was a blast. There was a section where you had to name the place from a photograph. I think I had the Taj Mahal and Iguazu falls among other things. The sort of thing you can now do in online quizzes like where-taken.
And I remember a great lesson (with videos) on the eras of music and art and how they reflected the same fashions: baroque, romantic, modernist, impressionist etc. I particularly liked Matisse dancers to the soundtrack of Stravinsky’s rite of spring. One of those eye opening moments that stick in the mind forever.
I am eternally grateful for A Level General Studies, without which I would never have gone to Cambridge.
I will always remember the map of the Middle East where you needed to name the countries. Indeed, I would suggest that the only exam that people should do should be General Studies.
I sarcastically told the teacher in charge of six form studies that General Studies was simply a test of middle-classness which cemented my reputation of being a sarky pain in the arse.
Middle classness, or maleness? In these days where girls outperform boys in almost all A-level subjects, isn’t general studies potentially a last redoubt for those whose brains are wired to “pub quiz”?
My son is one of them. His principal academic skill is random knowledge about stuff, but sadly that doesn’t count for much under current (or any era’s) marking schemes.
For A-Level, I did maths, physics, chemistry, geography, and politics and ended up doing a geography degree.
But... I only did that mix of subjects because I didn't know what PPE was until I was surrounded by posh ex-RGS boys at college. What I really ought to have done was: maths, further maths, politics, and economics.
Unfortunately, when you go to a crappy comp that only gives a shit about those on the C/D boundary, all they ever say is "do you want to be a doctor?" (no, and, even if the answer was yes, I'd have been too scared to apply for that because it's ultra-competitive). As @MaxPB points out, doctors/dentists are popular among the working classes because there's no hiding place.
If you're asking young people to graduate with £50k worth of debt then the consequence of that will be the laser focus on future earnings when picking their degree. I think this is an intended consequence of the policy introduced by Labour when they increased fees the first time.
I have no issue with young people shunning degree choices that won't result in a high earning career path, I think what needs to be addressed is why people with humanities degrees struggle to find higher paid jobs even 5-10 years after graduating. This has generally been my experience too among my friends from school and uni, those of us who chose STEM degrees or did medicine all had very well paid jobs within 5 years of graduating, those who chose arts or humanities were still stuck in various account management, call centre or other functionary job.
The key here is to figure out why the current jobs market doesn't value the skillset being taught in those degrees and how universities need to update the courses to start teaching those skills that are in demand within the context of what is being learned. History is the classic example for me, my wife studied history at UCL and she's now a lead AML investigator in financial services which on the face of it seems like something that would need a skillset from maths or law, but her history degree gave her the skills to be a brilliant investigator and spot needles in haystacks to protect her company from adverse regulatory outcomes.
If humanities and arts courses had properly kept up with the jobs market this wouldn't be an issue, I also think a lot of the jobs that people might get after a degree in one of those subjects are only available in closed shops like policy advice, think tanks, journalism etc... which heavily rely on who you know or who your parents/relatives know which puts off people who don't have that on their side. I think young people know that if they pick a course that has hard skills then they will only need to rely on themselves to get their first opening and that they won't be up against Olivia whose uncle knows the Editor and plays golf with him on the weekends etc...
TL;DR - it's rational
Depends on what kind of journalism. You won't get far on who your Dad is in B2B journalism. You'll probably also earn more money over the course of your career. The downside is that you are not going to be widely read.
More generally, I studied medieval history at university. The skillsets I learned were absolutely pivotal to my entire working life. My son studied history at university. Talking to him, he learned exactly the same skills. It's that finding the needle in a haystack kind of thing you talk about, the ability to evaluate evidence and data, to present an argument and so on that matters. What I think has changed is less what students learn but more how businesses recruit and how they present opportunities in the first place. People won't apply for jobs if they do not think they are meant for people like them.
There's also the filtering process - the stuff that humans used to do and AI does now. The best person I ever recruited got a 2:2 in philosophy from Sheffield and had been working as a hospital porter. There was something in his CV that piqued my interest and it all went from there. These days, I am not sure he would have made it to me. He would have been filtered out.
I’d be interested to see how the mix has changed over a longer time period. I’m fairly sure that when I was doing my A-levels back in the eighties there was almost no mixing with the possible exception of Geography which didn’t seem to know if it were a humanity or science.
One thing that has changed at the school I teach at over the last decade or so is that pupils are no longer asked to pick one subject from pre-populated columns, but rather they list their chosen three or four subjects and it is my job to put them into four groups that can be timetabled such that as many as possible can do what they want: we normally get about 99% satisfied.
At my grammar school in the early 1980s you could not do history and geography A level. It was either or.
I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry, and General Studies. GS was like a qualification via a pub quiz.
It did mean that my love of history, sociology, geography, theology, literature, film, music and art were unspoiled by having to write essays or take examinations. I could just follow my interests.
As I near retirement I realise how important the humanities are in answering the only question in life which needs serious consideration: "How should we live?"
In 1978 I did five A Levels along with two others at a Grammar School, now a Comprehensive. I did Maths, Further Maths, Traditional Physics, Nuffield Chemistry and General Studies - B, C, A, A and A. I also did S Level Maths getting a 2 and Use of English, a B I think. Then I became a Farmer and History Researcher, amateur but serious. I have often been told I am better at history research because I didn't do History A Level.
As we are being discursive about school subjects today, what ever happened to Nuffield Sciences ?
Killed off by the brutal coursework requirements: marking it was a nightmare.
I don't remember loads of coursework. I did Nuffield Physics in v early 80s. Maybe I have just forgotten?
It started with just a two week practical, but by the mid-nineties there was a research project as well. Two large pieces of coursework per pupil, both of which had to be marked by their teacher (without being paid to do so by the board).
I almost chose History as my fourth A-Level, but went for Chemistry in the end (With Maths, Further Maths and Physics). The great advantage of my choice is that it threw me into a readymade friendship group of the few of us who had done the same, and so had identical timetables. I'd have been pretty lost if I'd been the lone Maths/Further Maths/Physics student who combined that with History.
The Grammar School I attended 50 years ago didn't allow one to mix A levels in that way because of timetabling. I suspect History was probably taught at the same time as say Chemistry or Physics. If you did Science subjects then you couldn't do History so I did the same as you.
At my grammar school I did my O levels in 4 years. At the end of the 2nd year we had to make choices; History or Physics, Geography or Chemistry. So I only did 2 years of Physics and Chemistry.
On topic, more or less: I recently re-read Derek Bok's "Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More".
It is a useful discussion of what was wrong with humanities in the US, before DEI -- and might be useful for thinking about the subject in the UK, and elsewhere. But I found it just as interesting for what it leaves out, for example, our agriculure schools.
Key point: Much of the teaching in US colleges then (and almost certainly, now) is lousy.
I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry, and General Studies. GS was like a qualification via a pub quiz.
It did mean that my love of history, sociology, geography, theology, literature, film, music and art were unspoiled by having to write essays or take examinations. I could just follow my interests.
As I near retirement I realise how important the humanities are in answering the only question in life which needs serious consideration: "How should we live?"
In 1978 I did five A Levels along with two others at a Grammar School, now a Comprehensive. I did Maths, Further Maths, Traditional Physics, Nuffield Chemistry and General Studies - B, C, A, A and A. I also did S Level Maths getting a 2 and Use of English, a B I think. Then I became a Farmer and History Researcher, amateur but serious. I have often been told I am better at history research because I didn't do History A Level.
As we are being discursive about school subjects today, what ever happened to Nuffield Sciences ?
Killed off by the brutal coursework requirements: marking it was a nightmare.
I don't remember loads of coursework. I did Nuffield Physics in v early 80s. Maybe I have just forgotten?
It started with just a two week practical, but by the mid-nineties there was a research project as well. Two large pieces of coursework per pupil, both of which had to be marked by their teacher (without being paid to do so by the board).
And not just the marking load... Setting up all those open investigations must have been an absolute nightmare for the technicians. Plus the risk of picking a project that just didn't work very well.
A lovely learning experience, but not where schools and colleges are these days.
I’d be interested to see how the mix has changed over a longer time period. I’m fairly sure that when I was doing my A-levels back in the eighties there was almost no mixing with the possible exception of Geography which didn’t seem to know if it were a humanity or science.
One thing that has changed at the school I teach at over the last decade or so is that pupils are no longer asked to pick one subject from pre-populated columns, but rather they list their chosen three or four subjects and it is my job to put them into four groups that can be timetabled such that as many as possible can do what they want: we normally get about 99% satisfied.
Sadly, I was unable to take Physics A Level because I was the only person who wanted to do physics and economics. Instead I had to take maths, which meant being taught by my nemesis Mrs Sheldrick.
In retrospect, maths was more useful than physics, so the school's scheduling issues did me a favor.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry, and General Studies. GS was like a qualification via a pub quiz.
It did mean that my love of history, sociology, geography, theology, literature, film, music and art were unspoiled by having to write essays or take examinations. I could just follow my interests.
As I near retirement I realise how important the humanities are in answering the only question in life which needs serious consideration: "How should we live?"
In 1978 I did five A Levels along with two others at a Grammar School, now a Comprehensive. I did Maths, Further Maths, Traditional Physics, Nuffield Chemistry and General Studies - B, C, A, A and A. I also did S Level Maths getting a 2 and Use of English, a B I think. Then I became a Farmer and History Researcher, amateur but serious. I have often been told I am better at history research because I didn't do History A Level.
As we are being discursive about school subjects today, what ever happened to Nuffield Sciences ?
Killed off by the brutal coursework requirements: marking it was a nightmare.
I don't remember loads of coursework. I did Nuffield Physics in v early 80s. Maybe I have just forgotten?
It started with just a two week practical, but by the mid-nineties there was a research project as well. Two large pieces of coursework per pupil, both of which had to be marked by their teacher (without being paid to do so by the board).
And not just the marking load... Setting up all those open investigations must have been an absolute nightmare for the technicians. Plus the risk of picking a project that just didn't work very well.
A lovely learning experience, but not where schools and colleges are these days.
First rule of teaching Physics: keep the technician happy at all costs…
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
I’d be interested to see how the mix has changed over a longer time period. I’m fairly sure that when I was doing my A-levels back in the eighties there was almost no mixing with the possible exception of Geography which didn’t seem to know if it were a humanity or science.
One thing that has changed at the school I teach at over the last decade or so is that pupils are no longer asked to pick one subject from pre-populated columns, but rather they list their chosen three or four subjects and it is my job to put them into four groups that can be timetabled such that as many as possible can do what they want: we normally get about 99% satisfied.
Sadly, I was unable to take Physics A Level because I was the only person who wanted to do physics and economics. Instead I had to take maths, which meant being taught by my nemesis Mrs Sheldrick.
In retrospect, maths was more useful than physics, so the school's scheduling issues did me a favor.
I did Maths, Physics, Economics and French at A-level. Sometimes Physics clashed with French, usually chose the Physics lesson.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
I strongly agree (worth mentioning as I feel we seldom agree). I also think there would be greater social opportunities and these sixth form colleges could specialise, with some being uni incubators and some more like FE colleges offering 3 year vocational courses leading directly to work.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
True, but I think of some of the fingers-of-one-hand groups I have taught in school sixth forms... and it's not right. I once worked for a head who described his sixth form as the flagship, and he was right in the sense of 'expensive thing that it's nice to have but we don't really need'.
I suspect there are answers if we want them, in terms of consortia of schools, or joint school/college appointments, but it's not where the system is.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
I think your point is a good one. Looking back, I think I was fortunate that the teachers I had at my 11-16 secondary school were pretty good. My triple-award science class were a bit rowdy to say the least.
FPT: A little bit of data, possibly, on Musk. In my area (well-off Seattle suburbs), as far as I can tell most Teslas were owned by nice folks worried about global warming. If anything, they seem to be more careful around the pedestrians than the average driver here.
Not everyone here shares those sentiments about global warming and pedestrians, of course. For years I have been walking by a very large and expensive house that has been backing Trump with many, many signs.
Yesterday, I again saw two Teslas parked in front of it, one red, one blue.
I don't want to make too much of this. The cars may not even belong to the owners of the MAGA House (as I have been calling it). But I have begun to wonder whether those Teslas were there to make a political point.
(I'll try to find a photo of the MAGA House to share with you by the end of this week, or possibly even earlier.)
To this and @williamglenn comment earlier, we were discussing the point as a family yesterday. Musk is probably the only person who could get American right wingers driving EVs. He may single-handedly have prevented electric cars from becoming a culture war flashpoint. Credit where credit is due.
I had also wondered if that was the method behind Musk's apparent madness. He's already got the libs driving EVs; now he's playing to the right-wing gallery in order to get the rednecks on board too. That would really be a masterful plan, so long as he doesn't actually go and get Trump reelected.
The left want cars to be eco the right wants them fast. Simple as that. That may be Musk's thinking but he is smart enough to realise that to get the right he just has to arrange for the cybertruck to do 0 to 60 quicker than an F150. He doesn't have to interview trump on top of that.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
True, but I think of some of the fingers-of-one-hand groups I have taught in school sixth forms... and it's not right. I once worked for a head who described his sixth form as the flagship, and he was right in the sense of 'expensive thing that it's nice to have but we don't really need'.
I suspect there are answers if we want them, in terms of consortia of schools, or joint school/college appointments, but it's not where the system is.
In the town where I teach there are three secondary schools very close to each other (a boys’ grammar school, a girls’ grammar school, and a catholic school). They have co-ordinated their sixth-form timetables to allow pupils to study subjects at which ever school is best for their choice.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
Yes, but set aside your personal interests for a moment. In the abstract, do you think somebody teaching A-level physics and nothing else, for 24 hours a week to six groups, is likely to be more effective than somebody who teaches largely 11-16 but is 'rewarded' with one small A-level group?
David Packard got into computing at Cambridge, England writing programs to analyse grammatical cc constructions in Lucretius. He now funds the Packard humanities institute which does searchable databases of ancient inscriptions and Latin literature when he's not making WiFi printers which can't find a network.
He also gives lots of money to charity. He used to fund my stepmum. (No jokes please.)
Well, maybe he funds it by not giving pre-1998 pensioners more than a paltry couple of cost of living discretionary increases in 20 years. "Ethical" company? Peshawar.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
I strongly agree (worth mentioning as I feel we seldom agree). I also think there would be greater social opportunities and these sixth form colleges could specialise, with some being uni incubators and some more like FE colleges offering 3 year vocational courses leading directly to work.
Thanks. I think we did also agree on how useless Sunak was/is, if I recall!
David Packard got into computing at Cambridge, England writing programs to analyse grammatical cc constructions in Lucretius. He now funds the Packard humanities institute which does searchable databases of ancient inscriptions and Latin literature when he's not making WiFi printers which can't find a network.
He also gives lots of money to charity. He used to fund my stepmum. (No jokes please.)
Well, maybe he funds it by not giving pre-1998 pensioners more than a paltry couple of cost of living discretionary increases in 20 years. "Ethical" company? Peshawar.
That was meant to be 'pshaw' but never mind. Not that I am bitter.
I have a U in English Lit, which I'm quite proud of.
Conversely I got an A in the subject, without even properly reading the set texts.
I wrote a bunch of twatty stuff about themes of racism and sexism in Shakespeare for my main coursework, assuming cynically (and correctly) that the examiners would lap it up.
Learning what to say to pander to your boss/relevant authority is a viral workplace skill.
I’d be interested to see how the mix has changed over a longer time period. I’m fairly sure that when I was doing my A-levels back in the eighties there was almost no mixing with the possible exception of Geography which didn’t seem to know if it were a humanity or science.
One thing that has changed at the school I teach at over the last decade or so is that pupils are no longer asked to pick one subject from pre-populated columns, but rather they list their chosen three or four subjects and it is my job to put them into four groups that can be timetabled such that as many as possible can do what they want: we normally get about 99% satisfied.
Sadly, I was unable to take Physics A Level because I was the only person who wanted to do physics and economics. Instead I had to take maths, which meant being taught by my nemesis Mrs Sheldrick.
In retrospect, maths was more useful than physics, so the school's scheduling issues did me a favor.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
Yes, but set aside your personal interests for a moment. In the abstract, do you think somebody teaching A-level physics and nothing else, for 24 hours a week to six groups, is likely to be more effective than somebody who teaches largely 11-16 but is 'rewarded' with one small A-level group?
Anybody being asked to teach 24 hours a week is being asked to break the law: you should be getting 10% PPA time. To answer you question more directly: I find that two classes per year group is optimum: anything more than that and it becomes a bit of a blur as to what I have taught to whom.
FPT: A little bit of data, possibly, on Musk. In my area (well-off Seattle suburbs), as far as I can tell most Teslas were owned by nice folks worried about global warming. If anything, they seem to be more careful around the pedestrians than the average driver here.
Not everyone here shares those sentiments about global warming and pedestrians, of course. For years I have been walking by a very large and expensive house that has been backing Trump with many, many signs.
Yesterday, I again saw two Teslas parked in front of it, one red, one blue.
I don't want to make too much of this. The cars may not even belong to the owners of the MAGA House (as I have been calling it). But I have begun to wonder whether those Teslas were there to make a political point.
(I'll try to find a photo of the MAGA House to share with you by the end of this week, or possibly even earlier.)
To this and @williamglenn comment earlier, we were discussing the point as a family yesterday. Musk is probably the only person who could get American right wingers driving EVs. He may single-handedly have prevented electric cars from becoming a culture war flashpoint. Credit where credit is due.
I had also wondered if that was the method behind Musk's apparent madness. He's already got the libs driving EVs; now he's playing to the right-wing gallery in order to get the rednecks on board too. That would really be a masterful plan, so long as he doesn't actually go and get Trump reelected.
The left want cars to be eco the right wants them fast. Simple as that. That may be Musk's thinking but he is smart enough to realise that to get the right he just has to arrange for the cybertruck to do 0 to 60 quicker than an F150. He doesn't have to interview trump on top of that.
The original idea behind Tesla was this
1) for upwards of 250k, a custom shop in LA can convert your sports car into an electric car 2) if we produce a run of a few hundred on a custom chassis, we can make a car that is a cheaper and better. (Tesla Roadster) 3) there is a market for a just sub 6 figure figure electric car that does 0-60 in sub 4 seconds. 4) doing 3 will raise the money to set up a production line for a high end car (Model S/X). Selling point - an electric saloon car that is a 4 second car. 5) enables a mass market production line car (Model 3/Y)
Edit: at this point someone always asks if you could make the car more economical in miles per joule if it was slower. The answer is not much - it’s about capacity for regen braking as much as acceleration.
I got my masters' equivalent in mathematics with computing from Copenhagen, which included a mandatory philosophy course. That wasn't very popular, but the essence of it has remained with me 50 years later, whereas the rest of the course is long-outdated. I went on to a PhD in maths (point-set topology) in London, which arguably taught me how to analyse effectively (otherwise a complete waste of 3 years).
Intuitively I think university studies should be more job-related, but there's a case for some general mind-broadening courses.
"Police solve no burglaries in half of the country Charging rate across England and Wales continues to fall despite forces’ pledge to attend every scene"
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
Yes, but set aside your personal interests for a moment. In the abstract, do you think somebody teaching A-level physics and nothing else, for 24 hours a week to six groups, is likely to be more effective than somebody who teaches largely 11-16 but is 'rewarded' with one small A-level group?
Thinking about it a bit more: we have some subjects (like Economics) that are sixth-form only. Those subjects don’t do noticeably better at A-level than those taught by those with a more mixed set of classes. In fact some of our smaller groups do very well indeed.
I did Maths, Physics and Chemistry, and General Studies. GS was like a qualification via a pub quiz.
It did mean that my love of history, sociology, geography, theology, literature, film, music and art were unspoiled by having to write essays or take examinations. I could just follow my interests.
As I near retirement I realise how important the humanities are in answering the only question in life which needs serious consideration: "How should we live?"
In 1978 I did five A Levels along with two others at a Grammar School, now a Comprehensive. I did Maths, Further Maths, Traditional Physics, Nuffield Chemistry and General Studies - B, C, A, A and A. I also did S Level Maths getting a 2 and Use of English, a B I think. Then I became a Farmer and History Researcher, amateur but serious. I have often been told I am better at history research because I didn't do History A Level.
As we are being discursive about school subjects today, what ever happened to Nuffield Sciences ?
Some of their spirit morphed into projects like Slaters Chemistry, Advancing Physics at A Level and 21st Century Science at GCSE. My impression is that they are all struggling for numbers these days. They're all a bit quirky, and schools tend to prefer something they can get students through more reliably. They're also quite practical-heavy, which makes them expensive to run.
I dimly recall a letter in Chemistry in Britain hoping that Baron Mercedes and Viscount Datsun were likewise damaging science education for our competitors.
ETA for younger PBers, Nuffield Science came from the thinktank of Lord Nuffield aka Morris cars.
Lord Nuffield also funded the initial (1945) & (IIRC) subsequent volumes of "The British General Election" series.
I have a U in English Lit, which I'm quite proud of.
Conversely I got an A in the subject, without even properly reading the set texts.
I wrote a bunch of twatty stuff about themes of racism and sexism in Shakespeare for my main coursework, assuming cynically (and correctly) that the examiners would lap it up.
Learning what to say to pander to your boss/relevant authority is a viral workplace skill.
A Russian colleague pulled my leg, because in a diversity and inclusiveness course, I parroted the right lines back to the teacher.
Apparently it reminded him, very much, of political classes when he was in the Red Airforce. And the approach taken by those who wanted to be seen as politically reliable.
I have a U in English Lit, which I'm quite proud of.
Conversely I got an A in the subject, without even properly reading the set texts.
I wrote a bunch of twatty stuff about themes of racism and sexism in Shakespeare for my main coursework, assuming cynically (and correctly) that the examiners would lap it up.
Learning what to say to pander to your boss/relevant authority is a viral workplace skill.
I got my masters' equivalent in mathematics with computing from Copenhagen, which included a mandatory philosophy course. That wasn't very popular, but the essence of it has remained with me 50 years later, whereas the rest of the course is long-outdated. I went on to a PhD in maths (point-set topology) in London, which arguably taught me how to analyse effectively (otherwise a complete waste of 3 years).
Intuitively I think university studies should be more job-related, but there's a case for some general mind-broadening courses.
I think it should be both job related and broad.
Hence Poetry with a minor in Welding as a BA. And Welding with a minor in Poetry as a BA.
Merge vocational and academic systems together. Bring the quality of vocational training up. Use modular degrees to encourage mix and match.
If you're asking young people to graduate with £50k worth of debt then the consequence of that will be the laser focus on future earnings when picking their degree. I think this is an intended consequence of the policy introduced by Labour when they increased fees the first time.
I have no issue with young people shunning degree choices that won't result in a high earning career path, I think what needs to be addressed is why people with humanities degrees struggle to find higher paid jobs even 5-10 years after graduating. This has generally been my experience too among my friends from school and uni, those of us who chose STEM degrees or did medicine all had very well paid jobs within 5 years of graduating, those who chose arts or humanities were still stuck in various account management, call centre or other functionary job.
The key here is to figure out why the current jobs market doesn't value the skillset being taught in those degrees and how universities need to update the courses to start teaching those skills that are in demand within the context of what is being learned. History is the classic example for me, my wife studied history at UCL and she's now a lead AML investigator in financial services which on the face of it seems like something that would need a skillset from maths or law, but her history degree gave her the skills to be a brilliant investigator and spot needles in haystacks to protect her company from adverse regulatory outcomes.
If humanities and arts courses had properly kept up with the jobs market this wouldn't be an issue, I also think a lot of the jobs that people might get after a degree in one of those subjects are only available in closed shops like policy advice, think tanks, journalism etc... which heavily rely on who you know or who your parents/relatives know which puts off people who don't have that on their side. I think young people know that if they pick a course that has hard skills then they will only need to rely on themselves to get their first opening and that they won't be up against Olivia whose uncle knows the Editor and plays golf with him on the weekends etc...
TL;DR - it's rational
It may also be that different types of pupil self-select into different options. Well and good to refocus a humanities course at a university, but if it still attracts relatively more people looking for a writerly or leisurely way of life, average outcomes may not change a lot. However, it could bring great benefits for the well-motivated people who do want to study that course.
David Packard got into computing at Cambridge, England writing programs to analyse grammatical cc constructions in Lucretius. He now funds the Packard humanities institute which does searchable databases of ancient inscriptions and Latin literature when he's not making WiFi printers which can't find a network.
He also gives lots of money to charity. He used to fund my stepmum. (No jokes please.)
Well, maybe he funds it by not giving pre-1998 pensioners more than a paltry couple of cost of living discretionary increases in 20 years. "Ethical" company? Peshawar.
That was meant to be 'pshaw' but never mind. Not that I am bitter.
Peshawar was more evocative.
Unethical people often give lots to charity. It doesn’t make them more ethical, but the money can still do good as well.
Back on the original topic: my English teacher for O-level did two years of Natural Science before switching to English for his third year. That seemed to be quite a good mix.
Okay I keep seeing this argument degrees teach you critical thinking etc. I agree a good thing....so why instead are we not running a course on it in sixth form colleges instead, you know the place everyone has to attend....don't pass critical thinking 101 then no point you going to uni.
Frankly I also think a lot of people claiming degrees teach you critical thinking are remembering from long ago. Most graduates these days and met quite a few who got employed were pretty much flummoxed if it was something outside stuff they had already done, not self starters, no idea how to go see how they might work out what they had been handed
Am still nonplussed - and also revolted - that J.D. Vance, the Recovering Hillbilly, Barefoot Boy of Silicon Valley AND Donald Trump's Mini-Me VP pick, has gone out of his way to ignorantly insult the ethnic heritage of 70% or more of the American electorate.
How? By claiming that immigrants from "Ireland, Italy and Germany" constuted a criminal class, festering in "ethnic enclaves" which bred degeneracy like a hillbilly's dog attracts fleas.
Based upon JDV's detailed analysis of . . . wait for it . . . the movie "Gangs of New York".
This alleged intellectual has revealed that he's not just a 21st-century Know Nothing, but is also echoing the beliefs AND rhetoric of the original 19th-century Know Nothings aka the "American Party".
AND since HE brought it up, an advocate the infamous anti-immigrate laws enacted in the 1920s in a (similar) spasm of anti-American xenophobia by those who even back then wanted to "make America great again" lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Ku Klux Klan.
Note that the KKK of the 1920s was even more anti-Catholic than anti-Black. Rahter ironic that Vance is a famous (or is it nortorius) Catholic convert!
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
That begs the question of whether an unfettered choice of A-level subjects really is best for pupils. That said, there are probably other advantages to sixth form colleges, like less riot control because by and large pupils are self-motivated (especially before Labour raised the school leaving age to 21).
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
That begs the question of whether an unfettered choice of A-level subjects really is best for pupils. That said, there are probably other advantages to sixth form colleges, like less riot control because by and large pupils are self-motivated (especially before Labour raised the school leaving age to 21).
Not often I agree with northern al but when you tailor what you offer for teachers then you are putting the cart before the horse. The point of education is to educate students not give teachers a cushy life and teachers who think the latter should fuck off as they are probably bad teachers in anycase
For what it's worth, the PBS "walking tour" of the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago (see upthread) is VERY similar to the setup yours truly saw and navigated at the 2004 DNC in Boston.
As I've posted previously, in 2004 I was a humble volunteer sign-schlepper for the Kerry campaign.
Actually Kerry-Edwards however less said about the latter, the better!
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
That is not an argument for humanities, plenty of people have humanities degrees such as Boris Johnson doesn't make them less of a fuck up managing stuff.
I’d be interested to see how the mix has changed over a longer time period. I’m fairly sure that when I was doing my A-levels back in the eighties there was almost no mixing with the possible exception of Geography which didn’t seem to know if it were a humanity or science.
One thing that has changed at the school I teach at over the last decade or so is that pupils are no longer asked to pick one subject from pre-populated columns, but rather they list their chosen three or four subjects and it is my job to put them into four groups that can be timetabled such that as many as possible can do what they want: we normally get about 99% satisfied.
Sadly, I was unable to take Physics A Level because I was the only person who wanted to do physics and economics. Instead I had to take maths, which meant being taught by my nemesis Mrs Sheldrick.
In retrospect, maths was more useful than physics, so the school's scheduling issues did me a favor.
Am still nonplussed - and also revolted - that J.D. Vance, the Recovering Hillbilly, Barefoot Boy of Silicon Valley AND Donald Trump's Mini-Me VP pick, has gone out of his way to ignorantly insult the ethnic heritage of 70% or more of the American electorate.
How? By claiming that immigrants from "Ireland, Italy and Germany" constuted a criminal class, festering in "ethnic enclaves" which bred degeneracy like a hillbilly's dog attracts fleas.
Based upon JDV's detailed analysis of . . . wait for it . . . the movie "Gangs of New York".
This alleged intellectual has revealed that he's not just a 21st-century Know Nothing, but is also echoing the beliefs AND rhetoric of the original 19th-century Know Nothings aka the "American Party".
AND since HE brought it up, an advocate the infamous anti-immigrate laws enacted in the 1920s in a (similar) spasm of anti-American xenophobia by those who even back then wanted to "make America great again" lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Ku Klux Klan.
Note that the KKK of the 1920s was even more anti-Catholic than anti-Black. Rahter ironic that Vance is a famous (or is it nortorius) Catholic convert!
He wasn't insulting anyone's ethnic heritage but making the incontrovertible point that integration is hard, even when their isn't much of a cultural divide.
Wish I had a proper choice. So long ago that there wasnt much six form at my school and it was almost impossible due to timetabling and teacher availability to do an "odd" combination like history, physics and maths. There were basically two streams - all STEM or all Humanities.
I reluctantly dropped history and did another STEM.
One of the disadvantages of small schools, particularly small sixth-forms.
I suspect that's the key issue in relation to the header. In the old days, small school sixth forms could afford to run tiny A-level classes, sometimes with just a handful of students, to maintain a wide choice. They can't now - it's not economic.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
But then you would run up against the problem that many secondary school teachers view A-level teaching as a reward for putting up with double Year 9 on a Friday afternoon. Take that away and moral amongst teachers would drop even more.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
Sympathies, but I had in mind more what's best for the students than what's best for the teachers.
Surely having some teachers is a bit of a prerequisite?
Yes, but set aside your personal interests for a moment. In the abstract, do you think somebody teaching A-level physics and nothing else, for 24 hours a week to six groups, is likely to be more effective than somebody who teaches largely 11-16 but is 'rewarded' with one small A-level group?
Quite possibly not.
One good reason as to why - the time and results pressure of A-level makes it hard to test new ways of teaching with them. A key difficulty I had when I was in charge of academic performance in a school was trying to persuade those who only taught upper school to keep reflecting on their curriculum and trying new things out. Those who taught Year 7 could try things there with much less risk.
Another good reason - might it not be a concern that the best teachers would gravitate to sixth form colleges, and therefore the quality of education lower down would suffer and it would be harder to teach sixth formers?
I don't need an iPad. Don't currently have a tablet (last one was a Galaxy Tab thingy about 5 years ago). MacBook does a mega job with video rendering, iPhone Pro Max is good. If I get an iPad it will sit in-between the two and take some work off both.
But. I like the Sidecar idea - extra screen space when I am away (c. 40-50 nights a year on business. And the business justification is there. I've even had approval from wifey (Director of Spending). So why am I hesitating? Perhaps PB Apple obsessives can guide me as to why I absolutely need an iPad Pro because reasons...
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Am still nonplussed - and also revolted - that J.D. Vance, the Recovering Hillbilly, Barefoot Boy of Silicon Valley AND Donald Trump's Mini-Me VP pick, has gone out of his way to ignorantly insult the ethnic heritage of 70% or more of the American electorate.
How? By claiming that immigrants from "Ireland, Italy and Germany" constuted a criminal class, festering in "ethnic enclaves" which bred degeneracy like a hillbilly's dog attracts fleas.
Based upon JDV's detailed analysis of . . . wait for it . . . the movie "Gangs of New York".
This alleged intellectual has revealed that he's not just a 21st-century Know Nothing, but is also echoing the beliefs AND rhetoric of the original 19th-century Know Nothings aka the "American Party".
AND since HE brought it up, an advocate the infamous anti-immigrate laws enacted in the 1920s in a (similar) spasm of anti-American xenophobia by those who even back then wanted to "make America great again" lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Ku Klux Klan.
Note that the KKK of the 1920s was even more anti-Catholic than anti-Black. Rahter ironic that Vance is a famous (or is it nortorius) Catholic convert!
He wasn't insulting anyone's ethnic heritage but making the incontrovertible point that integration is hard, even when their isn't much of a cultural divide.
Aren't his beloved Scot-Irish hillbillies "festering" in their Appalachian enclave?
I don't need an iPad. Don't currently have a tablet (last one was a Galaxy Tab thingy about 5 years ago). MacBook does a mega job with video rendering, iPhone Pro Max is good. If I get an iPad it will sit in-between the two and take some work off both.
But. I like the Sidecar idea - extra screen space when I am away (c. 40-50 nights a year on business. And the business justification is there. I've even had approval from wifey (Director of Spending). So why am I hesitating? Perhaps PB Apple obsessives can guide me as to why I absolutely need an iPad Pro because reasons...
My experience of Sidecar is it's a bit of a joke. Doesn't work half the time, and when it does has a tendency to freeze on you.
@TSE should instantly ban people wot post articles that are paywalled!
Should he also ban people who post twitter threads as those that haven't drunk the cool aid and got a twitter account cant see anything but the top post?
Thanks to Omnium for the welcome back, by the way - I had a stroke 3 months ago but have recovered fully except for some increased vagueness about names.
Am still nonplussed - and also revolted - that J.D. Vance, the Recovering Hillbilly, Barefoot Boy of Silicon Valley AND Donald Trump's Mini-Me VP pick, has gone out of his way to ignorantly insult the ethnic heritage of 70% or more of the American electorate.
How? By claiming that immigrants from "Ireland, Italy and Germany" constuted a criminal class, festering in "ethnic enclaves" which bred degeneracy like a hillbilly's dog attracts fleas.
Based upon JDV's detailed analysis of . . . wait for it . . . the movie "Gangs of New York".
This alleged intellectual has revealed that he's not just a 21st-century Know Nothing, but is also echoing the beliefs AND rhetoric of the original 19th-century Know Nothings aka the "American Party".
AND since HE brought it up, an advocate the infamous anti-immigrate laws enacted in the 1920s in a (similar) spasm of anti-American xenophobia by those who even back then wanted to "make America great again" lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Ku Klux Klan.
Note that the KKK of the 1920s was even more anti-Catholic than anti-Black. Rahter ironic that Vance is a famous (or is it nortorius) Catholic convert!
Golly
Mind you the historical context may sanitise it. If I were a contemporary middle class US citizen of Irish or Italian descent I would be quite flattered by the suggestion my great great grandad was Leonardo di caprio. But he is a Sarah Palin level of disaster.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
I don't need an iPad. Don't currently have a tablet (last one was a Galaxy Tab thingy about 5 years ago). MacBook does a mega job with video rendering, iPhone Pro Max is good. If I get an iPad it will sit in-between the two and take some work off both.
But. I like the Sidecar idea - extra screen space when I am away (c. 40-50 nights a year on business. And the business justification is there. I've even had approval from wifey (Director of Spending). So why am I hesitating? Perhaps PB Apple obsessives can guide me as to why I absolutely need an iPad Pro because reasons...
My experience of Sidecar is it's a bit of a joke. Doesn't work half the time, and when it does has a tendency to freeze on you.
I don't need an iPad. Don't currently have a tablet (last one was a Galaxy Tab thingy about 5 years ago). MacBook does a mega job with video rendering, iPhone Pro Max is good. If I get an iPad it will sit in-between the two and take some work off both.
But. I like the Sidecar idea - extra screen space when I am away (c. 40-50 nights a year on business. And the business justification is there. I've even had approval from wifey (Director of Spending). So why am I hesitating? Perhaps PB Apple obsessives can guide me as to why I absolutely need an iPad Pro because reasons...
If it's mainly the sidecar idea you like, you can get portable usb-c displays very cheaply now.
Thanks to Omnium for the welcome back, by the way - I had a stroke 3 months ago but have recovered fully except for some increased vagueness about names.
Thanks to Omnium for the welcome back, by the way - I had a stroke 3 months ago but have recovered fully except for some increased vagueness about names.
Feel free to call me anything . . . EXCEPT late for dinner!
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
Ted bundy for example studied a humanities degree, psychology....not sure it did much to stop him killing women
Thanks to Omnium for the welcome back, by the way - I had a stroke 3 months ago but have recovered fully except for some increased vagueness about names.
Sorry to hear you've been through the ringer, great to see you back!
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had more chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what influenced him. Breadth of influence and varied environment helps - as can be seen equally in some youngsters in uniformed or other organisations, whether it's Sea Cadets or CCF or Duke of Edinburgh or another form of community service.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Thanks to Omnium for the welcome back, by the way - I had a stroke 3 months ago but have recovered fully except for some increased vagueness about names.
Glad to see you're back Nick and you've mostly recovered.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
Hitler, Johnson, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Napoleon. Spot the odd one out.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is about making the best of a bad job after he was held to a bid he made at two or three times a reasonable price while pissed and/or stoned one night. There is no deviously clever rationale behind it.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
Hitler, Johnson, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Napoleon. Spot the odd one out.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
Indeed. That's why we talk about "some" and "possible".
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
It's possible that he could have been redirected from being some version of an incel if he had had chance to deal with people, rather than computers ... if that's what happened to him.
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
Well plenty of humanities style people it hasn't helped, for example hitler dabbled as a painter, johnson was an humanities student, Stalin was training as a priest, mao studies both law and economics, pol pot was in a buddhist monastery studying for a year, napolean read widely in geography , history and literature at the ecole francaise......humanities works out so well
Indeed. That's why we talk about "some" and "possible".
Positing humanities would have helped musk when most of the most vicious dictators in living memory have been humanites type people is a reach
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is about making the best of a bad job after he was held to a bid he made at two or three times a reasonable price while pissed and/or stoned one night. There is no deviously clever rationale behind it.
Its rationally irrational. Musk wants to create the Everything App, a WeChat for the rest. Buying Twitter was cheaper and more effective than starting from scratch. Supposedly.
So buying Twitter to speed up the Everything App? Rational. Wanting to create the Everything App? Irrational.
In WA State 2024 "Top Two" Primary, in the race for state Commissioner of Public Lands, the margin separating current 2nd place Democrat Dave Upthegrove from current 3rd place Republican Sue Kuehl Pederson is now +6 votes our of 1.9 million counted for CPL.
Most counties still to report their final numbers; all are required to certify their part of the primary by end of business today.
For what it's worth, think that Upthegrove will be slightly above water upon certification, while Pederson will be doing the equivalent of drowning in a couple of inches of bathwater.
UPDATE on WA State Lands Commissioner race: Republican Pederson now leading by +4 over Democrat Upthegrove for 2nd-place & spot on general election ballot, along with Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is about making the best of a bad job after he was held to a bid he made at two or three times a reasonable price while pissed and/or stoned one night. There is no deviously clever rationale behind it.
Its rationally irrational. Musk wants to create the Everything App, a WeChat for the rest. Buying Twitter was cheaper and more effective than starting from scratch. Supposedly.
So buying Twitter to speed up the Everything App? Rational. Wanting to create the Everything App? Irrational.
As stated, true Musko motivation is to curry favor with dicators like Putin, and would-be dictators like Trump.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
Ted bundy for example studied a humanities degree, psychology....not sure it did much to stop him killing women
Ted Bundy was also a Republican Party activist in WA State. Knew couple of folks who actually worked with him, including one guy for whom Bundy was his campaign manager. In that case, the candidate was a well-know advocate for Asian communities in Seattle's Internation District/Chinatown.
Who was pissed off with the Democratic establishment, and decided to run for the legislature as a GOPer; when he requested assistance, the state Republican Party sent Ted Bundy to help out. The candidate lost, but then he never expected to win, just to send a message to the Dems.
Both of my sources - extremely prominent in WA State politics then & for decades afterwards, told me that Ted Bundy was very competent AND (came across as) a nice guy.
In interests of balance, will also point out that notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacey was a Democratic activist in Chicago, indeed a precinct captain for the Cook Co. Democratic organization.
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
Musk's purchase of Twitter is likely about buying political influence rather than making money from ads or building a pristine managed community for bored journalists.
True, but Twitter only provides political influence if it keeps its users and keeps its advertisers. Musk's cack handed stewardship of the platform is a threat to this, and I agree with the poster quoted that Musk is by nature a sociopath who thinks people make decisions by logic flow
Do you believe having a humanities degree would have made him less of a sociopath?
Ted bundy for example studied a humanities degree, psychology....not sure it did much to stop him killing women
Ted Bundy was also a Republican Party activist in WA State. Knew couple of folks who actually worked with him, including one guy for whom Bundy was his campaign manager. In that case, the candidate was a well-know advocate for Asian communities in Seattle's Internation District/Chinatown.
Who was pissed off with the Democratic establishment, and decided to run for the legislature as a GOPer; when he requested assistance, the state Republican Party sent Ted Bundy to help out. The candidate lost, but then he never expected to win, just to send a message to the Dems.
Both of my sources - extremely prominent in WA State politics then & for decades afterwards, told me that Ted Bundy was very competent AND (came across as) a nice guy.
In interests of balance, will also point out that notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacey was a Democratic activist in Chicago, indeed a precinct captain for the Cook Co. Democratic organization.
I don't think either your political proclivities or what you study makes a difference personally and wasn't the one arguing it. An arsehole is an arsehole who ever they vote for or what they study
When I was in 5th year at school (16) I did 6 highers. Most people in my school did 5. I did physics, chemistry and maths, English, Latin and history.
The only reason I could do 6 was because the classics department were willing to fit me in whenever I had a spare period, they were great and Latin was probably my favourite, closely followed by chemistry. It was, I thought at the time and since, a proper rounded education.
Move forward 40 odd years and Advanced highers were the thing. My son did 4, also an unusual thing. They were Maths, statistics, modern studies and economics. He did modern studies from scratch, not having done it at either Nat 5s or Higher but he wanted to show he could do an essay based subject for PPE.
Both of these seem to me to offer a proper mix of both maths and the arts, mine perhaps more than my son's. I completely agree with the thread header that is a good thing.
Comments
My son is one of them. His principal academic skill is random knowledge about stuff, but sadly that doesn’t count for much under current (or any era’s) marking schemes.
But... I only did that mix of subjects because I didn't know what PPE was until I was surrounded by posh ex-RGS boys at college. What I really ought to have done was: maths, further maths, politics, and economics.
Unfortunately, when you go to a crappy comp that only gives a shit about those on the C/D boundary, all they ever say is "do you want to be a doctor?" (no, and, even if the answer was yes, I'd have been too scared to apply for that because it's ultra-competitive). As @MaxPB points out, doctors/dentists are popular among the working classes because there's no hiding place.
More generally, I studied medieval history at university. The skillsets I learned were absolutely pivotal to my entire working life. My son studied history at university. Talking to him, he learned exactly the same skills. It's that finding the needle in a haystack kind of thing you talk about, the ability to evaluate evidence and data, to present an argument and so on that matters. What I think has changed is less what students learn but more how businesses recruit and how they present opportunities in the first place. People won't apply for jobs if they do not think they are meant for people like them.
There's also the filtering process - the stuff that humans used to do and AI does now. The best person I ever recruited got a 2:2 in philosophy from Sheffield and had been working as a hospital porter. There was something in his CV that piqued my interest and it all went from there. These days, I am not sure he would have made it to me. He would have been filtered out.
It is a useful discussion of what was wrong with humanities in the US, before DEI -- and might be useful for thinking about the subject in the UK, and elsewhere. But I found it just as interesting for what it leaves out, for example, our agriculure schools.
Key point: Much of the teaching in US colleges then (and almost certainly, now) is lousy.
(Bok was twice president of Harvard, so he has more right to criticize our colleges and universities than most: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bok
And, feeling mischievous, I'll mention that his wife, Sissela Bok, wrote a book on lying, after spending much of her life in academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_(Bok_book) )
A lovely learning experience, but not where schools and colleges are these days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-curriculum-and-assessment-review
She is the CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation.
In retrospect, maths was more useful than physics, so the school's scheduling issues did me a favor.
A brave government (yes, I know) would close down all small state school sixth forms (say, less than 300 students) and open more sixth-form colleges specialising in post-16 education, offering both academic and vocational routes. Sixth-form colleges, most of which have well over 1,000 students, can run a timetable that can offer virtually any combination of subject choices, thus encouraging a mix of arts, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They also offer a broader range of subjects at A level.
Sixth-form colleges operate on their own rules and are also unpopular with many teachers for that reason.
Give me the choice between a 11-16 school and a sixth form college, and I’m taking early retirement.
I suspect there are answers if we want them, in terms of consortia of schools, or joint school/college appointments, but it's not where the system is.
https://x.com/GabrielVanca/status/1825806294986440971/photo/1
I think we did also agree on how useless Sunak was/is, if I recall!
To answer you question more directly: I find that two classes per year group is optimum: anything more than that and it becomes a bit of a blur as to what I have taught to whom.
1) for upwards of 250k, a custom shop in LA can convert your sports car into an electric car
2) if we produce a run of a few hundred on a custom chassis, we can make a car that is a cheaper and better. (Tesla Roadster)
3) there is a market for a just sub 6 figure figure electric car that does 0-60 in sub 4 seconds.
4) doing 3 will raise the money to set up a production line for a high end car (Model S/X). Selling point - an electric saloon car that is a 4 second car.
5) enables a mass market production line car (Model 3/Y)
See - https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me
Edit: at this point someone always asks if you could make the car more economical in miles per joule if it was slower. The answer is not much - it’s about capacity for regen braking as much as acceleration.
Intuitively I think university studies should be more job-related, but there's a case for some general mind-broadening courses.
Edited for poor wording.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-20/keir-starmer-s-labour-has-it-out-for-middle-england?srnd=homepage-uk&embedded-checkout=true
But you have to circumvent a paywall
Apparently it reminded him, very much, of political classes when he was in the Red Airforce. And the approach taken by those who wanted to be seen as politically reliable.
Hence Poetry with a minor in Welding as a BA.
And Welding with a minor in Poetry as a BA.
Merge vocational and academic systems together. Bring the quality of vocational training up. Use modular degrees to encourage mix and match.
Unethical people often give lots to charity. It doesn’t make them more ethical, but the money can still do good as well.
Frankly I also think a lot of people claiming degrees teach you critical thinking are remembering from long ago. Most graduates these days and met quite a few who got employed were pretty much flummoxed if it was something outside stuff they had already done, not self starters, no idea how to go see how they might work out what they had been handed
How? By claiming that immigrants from "Ireland, Italy and Germany" constuted a criminal class, festering in "ethnic enclaves" which bred degeneracy like a hillbilly's dog attracts fleas.
Based upon JDV's detailed analysis of . . . wait for it . . . the movie "Gangs of New York".
This alleged intellectual has revealed that he's not just a 21st-century Know Nothing, but is also echoing the beliefs AND rhetoric of the original 19th-century Know Nothings aka the "American Party".
AND since HE brought it up, an advocate the infamous anti-immigrate laws enacted in the 1920s in a (similar) spasm of anti-American xenophobia by those who even back then wanted to "make America great again" lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Ku Klux Klan.
Note that the KKK of the 1920s was even more anti-Catholic than anti-Black. Rahter ironic that Vance is a famous (or is it nortorius) Catholic convert!
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
As I've posted previously, in 2004 I was a humble volunteer sign-schlepper for the Kerry campaign.
Actually Kerry-Edwards however less said about the latter, the better!
One good reason as to why - the time and results pressure of A-level makes it hard to test new ways of teaching with them. A key difficulty I had when I was in charge of academic performance in a school was trying to persuade those who only taught upper school to keep reflecting on their curriculum and trying new things out. Those who taught Year 7 could try things there with much less risk.
Another good reason - might it not be a concern that the best teachers would gravitate to sixth form colleges, and therefore the quality of education lower down would suffer and it would be harder to teach sixth formers?
But. I like the Sidecar idea - extra screen space when I am away (c. 40-50 nights a year on business. And the business justification is there. I've even had approval from wifey (Director of Spending). So why am I hesitating? Perhaps PB Apple obsessives can guide me as to why I absolutely need an iPad Pro because reasons...
That's certainly how it sounds in his own book.
Mind you the historical context may sanitise it. If I were a contemporary middle class US citizen of Irish or Italian descent I would be quite flattered by the suggestion my great great grandad was Leonardo di caprio. But he is a Sarah Palin level of disaster.
This is "Camilo Diaz - Colombian National Underwater Rugby Team (photography) 2017"
Art and similar is known to be effective in some cases for rehabilitation, or education to help in some conditions. I have a young relative who's parents helped considerably by sending him to Stagecoach for a number of years.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl_zum_21._Deutschen_Bundestag/Umfragen_und_Prognosen#Monatliche_Mittelwerte
So buying Twitter to speed up the Everything App? Rational. Wanting to create the Everything App? Irrational.
Most counties still to report their final numbers; all are required to certify their part of the primary by end of business today.
For what it's worth, think that Upthegrove will be slightly above water upon certification, while Pederson will be doing the equivalent of drowning in a couple of inches of bathwater.
For both fun AND profit.
Who was pissed off with the Democratic establishment, and decided to run for the legislature as a GOPer; when he requested assistance, the state Republican Party sent Ted Bundy to help out. The candidate lost, but then he never expected to win, just to send a message to the Dems.
Both of my sources - extremely prominent in WA State politics then & for decades afterwards, told me that Ted Bundy was very competent AND (came across as) a nice guy.
In interests of balance, will also point out that notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacey was a Democratic activist in Chicago, indeed a precinct captain for the Cook Co. Democratic organization.
The only reason I could do 6 was because the classics department were willing to fit me in whenever I had a spare period, they were great and Latin was probably my favourite, closely followed by chemistry. It was, I thought at the time and since, a proper rounded education.
Move forward 40 odd years and Advanced highers were the thing. My son did 4, also an unusual thing. They were Maths, statistics, modern studies and economics. He did modern studies from scratch, not having done it at either Nat 5s or Higher but he wanted to show he could do an essay based subject for PPE.
Both of these seem to me to offer a proper mix of both maths and the arts, mine perhaps more than my son's. I completely agree with the thread header that is a good thing.