Never got into WW1 airplanes, always only really been interested in WW2 designs.
However, for battleships, I've always been interested in both WW1 and WW2.
I find the 'battle' between airships and aircraft in the 1920s to be fascinating. With hindsight, we all knew there was only going to be one winner, but many governments invested vast amounts of treasure in building massive Zeppelins that had very limited usefulness.
O/T but just came across this which as a pensioner who likes his wine I appreciate. It is from the Arthur Waley translation of a poem by Bai Juyi. "On the rules of Superannuation, is there any clause that bars the subsequent singing of mad songs or reeling in a drunken dance." As a former public official Bai retired with a hundred days of sick leave on full pay, and then to half his final salary for the rest of his life. That was in 9th century China!
Bells and jade and feasts and drums are all esteemed in vain Just let me be forever drunk, and never be sober again
Li Bai, China, 8th century
Why has China produced so many good poets but also so much death and destruction? Are they related?
Being an intellectual is absolutely no bar to being a purveyor of death on a gigantic scale.
Babur was a gifted poet and miniaturist, whose poems now form the basis for many central Asian songs. And, he left towers of skulls in his wake.
Stalin was an autodictat with a huge personal library, which he annotated heavily.
Louis Gabriel Suchet was an eminent scholar who routinely massacred Spanish civilians, during the Peninsular War.
Caesar was philosopher, historian, and lawyer, who conducted genocide.
The 16th and 17th centuries saw a great growth in literacy, and the production of great works of art, architecture, literature, alongside witch-hunts, heresy hunts, and barbarous warfare in Europe (for good measure, matched by the wars of Arungzeb and the Manchu conquest of China, which likewise cost the lives of millions).
What China had was a huge population and (at the time), a huge birthrate. It meant you could use young men as cannon fodder in war, and slaughter your enemies on a huge scale, secure in the knowledge that the population would bounce back within a generation.
O/T but just came across this which as a pensioner who likes his wine I appreciate. It is from the Arthur Waley translation of a poem by Bai Juyi. "On the rules of Superannuation, is there any clause that bars the subsequent singing of mad songs or reeling in a drunken dance." As a former public official Bai retired with a hundred days of sick leave on full pay, and then to half his final salary for the rest of his life. That was in 9th century China!
Bells and jade and feasts and drums are all esteemed in vain Just let me be forever drunk, and never be sober again
Li Bai, China, 8th century
Why has China produced so many good poets but also so much death and destruction? Are they related?
Great art and terror go together. The greatest symphony of the 20th century was written during the seige of Leningrad. It took WWI to turn Edward Thomas into a genius. The list is endless.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
University was far harder than A Levels, for me. I cruised through school, had to actually work at uni Still plenty of fun, but I went to most lectures and had to do some reading up on the side, which wasn't at all necessary at school.
Mind you, I am in a completely different bit of science now and don't use much of my degree, in all honesty. But that was more due to a pivot post-PhD. I did use my degree knowledge quite extensively for about eight years up until then. Most of my PhD learning never got any use after PhD, except for the general bit on how to do science without hand-holding, which was obviously quite important.
Similar for me though I'm in the same field as I was. Indeed in retirement I'm writing up a paper based on an anomaly I spotted as a student but didn't think through until more recently.
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
I'm also getting a bit pissed off with the opportunism of the LDs and on the verge of cancelling my membership. Labour under SKS is looking increasingly appealing.
I must say I was very surprised with the pro-car agitation of their Scottish leader in recent months in opposition to SG policies.
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
I'm also getting a bit pissed off with the opportunism of the LDs and on the verge of cancelling my membership. Labour under SKS is looking increasingly appealing.
I must say I was very surprised with the pro-car agitation of their Scottish leader in recent months in opposition to SG policies.
I’ve got a solution to IHT on farms. Will offer policies for cash….
O/T but just came across this which as a pensioner who likes his wine I appreciate. It is from the Arthur Waley translation of a poem by Bai Juyi. "On the rules of Superannuation, is there any clause that bars the subsequent singing of mad songs or reeling in a drunken dance." As a former public official Bai retired with a hundred days of sick leave on full pay, and then to half his final salary for the rest of his life. That was in 9th century China!
Bells and jade and feasts and drums are all esteemed in vain Just let me be forever drunk, and never be sober again
Li Bai, China, 8th century
Why has China produced so many good poets but also so much death and destruction? Are they related?
Yes - they have LOTS of people, so doing a lot of anything is easier.
Wifi connection on Avanti trains is shocking. Forever dro
I use Avanti a bit too.
In this week's Economist, in the World Ahead 2025 section (recommended), it has a article on wildcard possibilities for next year. One of them is the installation of 4G Mobile Netwerk on the moon.
Question: will this happen before or after decent wifi on Avanti?
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
The Invisible Man We see right through the unshowered soul living in a car by the beach, or by the Walmart, or by the side of the road. But he’s there, and he used to be somebody. He still is. A firsthand account of homelessness in America.
She doesn’t say who these “concerned” people are, but the only ones who can see me are the owners of large beachfront houses. Maybe they’re looking out their $3 million windows and seeing the consequences of their avarice.
“What are your plans for the day?” she says.
She’s trying to get me to move along, but the lot is open to the public from dawn to dusk. I have every right to be here.
“Write,” I say.
“What do you write?”
“Literary fiction. I was a reporter.”
“Anywhere I know?”
“The Boston Globe.”
Her eyes open wide and she tosses her head back in recognition. She realizes I’m not dissolute and not a threat. She asks for my license and calls it in. Dispatch lets her know I have no criminal record or outstanding warrants.
“Do you need anything?” she says.
“Do you know if the homeless shelter will let me take a shower?”
She asks dispatch to call the shelter. Dispatch comes back. She says, “Yes.”
“Good,” I say. “Thanks.”
“You can’t stay here at night,” she says. “You can stay at Walmart, in the back parking lot.”
“Okay.”
She gives me her card. She leaves. I stay. I have every right to be here.
I go to Walmart that night and will sleep there every night. But the police will continue to come as if I’m some kind of one-man crime wave. Before I’m chased out of Westerly, I will meet, stand my ground, and lose ground to a dozen different officers, often at night, banging on my window and waking me just to ask, “Are you all right?” The question begins to sound like a pretense.
The officers are civil, but every encounter causes me apprehension and stress. I’m innocent of any wrongdoing, but the interaction between a citizen and law enforcement is unbalanced by nature. They are part of an apparatus that can take away a person’s freedom. I know it, and they certainly know it...
Hmm...It is an offence to be drunk or indeed high on drugs in charge of a car, even if they can't prove any intention to drive it. A person apparently sleeping in a car is going to alert law enforcement about that possible offence. A medical emergency is another possibility. As is someone kerb crawling. I am not sure I see a lot wrong with what the officers are doing.
That's not really the point of the article, which is rather bleaker than just the detail of his interactions with the police. But to address it: ...The police are the ones who told me to go the Walmart parking lot. I park where they instructed. They know I’m here and see me in the same spot every day and night. Chief Gingerella knows who I am, that I have no criminal record, am a professional and productively engaged, am not a threat and keep to myself. When I’m asleep, I’m not visible, and my car is parked among other cars. They know which car is mine and come, and come, and come, systematically robbing me of peace and a sense of well-being...
Wifi connection on Avanti trains is shocking. Forever dro
I use Avanti a bit too.
In this week's Economist, in the World Ahead 2025 section (recommended), it has a article on wildcard possibilities for next year. One of them is the installation of 4G Mobile Netwerk on the moon.
Question: will this happen before or after decent wifi on Avanti?
IIRC SpaceX is bidding/proposing a very advanced upgrade to the Deep Space Network. Which is the system that NASA uses for talking to remote probes. Very bandwidth constrained at the moment.
This has options for the Moon and Mars. Including a set of Starlink satellites for Mars, connected by laser link to Earth.
Never got into WW1 airplanes, always only really been interested in WW2 designs.
However, for battleships, I've always been interested in both WW1 and WW2.
I find the 'battle' between airships and aircraft in the 1920s to be fascinating. With hindsight, we all knew there was only going to be one winner, but many governments invested vast amounts of treasure in building massive Zeppelins that had very limited usefulness.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Spare Wednesday afternoons at Imperial (1994-1997), instead of getting drunk at the Union like most of my classmates, I just went off to explore the Tube network! By the end of season 1994/5, I had been everywhere by Tube and Rail within Zone 4
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
I don't think my second grandson had a 'fantastic' time at Manchester. In fact his father, who went to Coventry in the 80's, was rather disappointed at his son's reports of his social life.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
University was far harder than A Levels, for me. I cruised through school, had to actually work at uni Still plenty of fun, but I went to most lectures and had to do some reading up on the side, which wasn't at all necessary at school.
Mind you, I am in a completely different bit of science now and don't use much of my degree, in all honesty. But that was more due to a pivot post-PhD. I did use my degree knowledge quite extensively for about eight years up until then. Most of my PhD learning never got any use after PhD, except for the general bit on how to do science without hand-holding, which was obviously quite important.
Similar for me though I'm in the same field as I was. Indeed in retirement I'm writing up a paper based on an anomaly I spotted as a student but didn't think through until more recently.
This week's occurence of a pb poster being considerably older than I had previously thought.
O/T but just came across this which as a pensioner who likes his wine I appreciate. It is from the Arthur Waley translation of a poem by Bai Juyi. "On the rules of Superannuation, is there any clause that bars the subsequent singing of mad songs or reeling in a drunken dance." As a former public official Bai retired with a hundred days of sick leave on full pay, and then to half his final salary for the rest of his life. That was in 9th century China!
Bells and jade and feasts and drums are all esteemed in vain Just let me be forever drunk, and never be sober again
Li Bai, China, 8th century
Why has China produced so many good poets but also so much death and destruction? Are they related?
Great art and terror go together. The greatest symphony of the 20th century was written during the seige of Leningrad. It took WWI to turn Edward Thomas into a genius. The list is endless.
Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony is certainly a thing but not generally considered one of his best. Rather bombastic. The next two, certainly, are superior.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Spare Wednesday afternoons at Imperial (1994-1997), instead of getting drunk at the Union like most of my classmates, I just went off to explore the Tube network! By the end of season 1994/5, I had been everywhere by Tube and Rail within Zone 4
Ha we must be the same age! As well as sharing an interest in all things train related.
He was strongly in support of 20mph limits if I recall, as was most of the Senedd Conservative contingent.
(Did someone just comment on Lib Dems and opportunism?)
(Somewhere on Lib Dem Voice there's a long reply to a comment I made suggesting that Lib Dem aspiring MPs should all be consistent about housebuilding, giving me a thorough going over as to why this is NOT possible.)
O/T but just came across this which as a pensioner who likes his wine I appreciate. It is from the Arthur Waley translation of a poem by Bai Juyi. "On the rules of Superannuation, is there any clause that bars the subsequent singing of mad songs or reeling in a drunken dance." As a former public official Bai retired with a hundred days of sick leave on full pay, and then to half his final salary for the rest of his life. That was in 9th century China!
Bells and jade and feasts and drums are all esteemed in vain Just let me be forever drunk, and never be sober again
Li Bai, China, 8th century
Why has China produced so many good poets but also so much death and destruction? Are they related?
Great art and terror go together. The greatest symphony of the 20th century was written during the seige of Leningrad. It took WWI to turn Edward Thomas into a genius. The list is endless.
Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony is certainly a thing but not generally considered one of his best. Rather bombastic. The next two, certainly, are superior.
Noted! My view is a minority one. For me it is a very special work; nothing quite like it. For myself, I would not say 'bombastic' is the word. It is just right - first movement - in its unique historic context.
Wifi connection on Avanti trains is shocking. Forever dro
I use Avanti a bit too.
In this week's Economist, in the World Ahead 2025 section (recommended), it has a article on wildcard possibilities for next year. One of them is the installation of 4G Mobile Netwerk on the moon.
Question: will this happen before or after decent wifi on Avanti?
IIRC SpaceX is bidding/proposing a very advanced upgrade to the Deep Space Network. Which is the system that NASA uses for talking to remote probes. Very bandwidth constrained at the moment.
This has options for the Moon and Mars. Including a set of Starlink satellites for Mars, connected by laser link to Earth.
I've bene saying they should be doing that for yonks. DSN's bandwidth is far too low, even for existing Martian probes and landers.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
I don't think my second grandson had a 'fantastic' time at Manchester. In fact his father, who went to Coventry in the 80's, was rather disappointed at his son's reports of his social life.
Yes, it's not always great. The first time I went to uni, I was actually quite miserable, spending most of my time out of my head and negelecting my studies so much that I got thown out after my second year. Then I worked for a bit before sorting myself out and going back to uni and doing it properly, this time coming out with a first and my future wife. That's why I'm so pleased that my lad is enjoying it so much; I know it's not a given.
I read that initially as MRD - Mandy Rice-Davies (applies) - although I guess that would be MRDA!
As long as it's not the group that produced intelligence on Iraq's WMDs then we're all good. Although I guess even that group had a tendency to overstate risk, so maybe all good then, too.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
I agree with all that, I just don't think the uni system CAN continue as is, because for many people it will be a huge waste of money. All that debt and quite likely no "graduate-level job" at the end of it? The Uni system is already wildly bloated, it was gonna shrink anyway, now it will implode, slowly then quickly
So, how will young people have those socially-expanding late teen years? Some kind of volunteering/working abroad seems like a good option
Bear in mind the local/regional economic significance of universities. How would, say, Hull or Sunderland, or Bradford, do if they lost their unis?
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
I'm also getting a bit pissed off with the opportunism of the LDs and on the verge of cancelling my membership. Labour under SKS is looking increasingly appealing.
I must say I was very surprised with the pro-car agitation of their Scottish leader in recent months in opposition to SG policies.
They've worked out that Conservative voters are lower hanging fruit than students and green voters, particularly in the rich central belt suburbs.
I read that initially as MRD - Mandy Rice-Davies (applies) - although I guess that would be MRDA!
As long as it's not the group that produced intelligence on Iraq's WMDs then we're all good. Although I guess even that group had a tendency to overstate risk, so maybe all good then, too.
Shocking attrition rate - worse than the Russian Army in Ukraine:
The project has been a labour of love for the group of aviation enthusiasts and has been running so long, only two of the original 20 men who started Sophie are still alive.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Shocking attrition rate - worse than the Russian Army in Ukraine:
The project has been a labour of love for the group of aviation enthusiasts and has been running so long, only two of the original 20 men who started Sophie are still alive.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Lots of free time? PPE, then...
No, E&M, which apparently stands for easy and manageable.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Lots of free time? PPE, then...
No, E&M, which apparently stands for easy and manageable.
In my day there was an extra E, though since nobody makes anything these days, I suppose that's redundant.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
I agree with all that, I just don't think the uni system CAN continue as is, because for many people it will be a huge waste of money. All that debt and quite likely no "graduate-level job" at the end of it? The Uni system is already wildly bloated, it was gonna shrink anyway, now it will implode, slowly then quickly
So, how will young people have those socially-expanding late teen years? Some kind of volunteering/working abroad seems like a good option
Bear in mind the local/regional economic significance of universities. How would, say, Hull or Sunderland, or Bradford, do if they lost their unis?
True. But this is a zero sum game. In the last 30 years university towns have done well at the expense of non-university towns. There's no reason why Hull should flourish but Doncaster should not.
Voters don't like reality. They want the fantasy of low taxes and functional public services. Next.
Next is a far right Government unless functional Public Services without increased taxes is achieved.
Of course higher taxes are allowed if its on the Super rich although I know thats ruled out by SKS as thats where all his donors sit.
Inheritance tax is on the very rich, less than 4% of deaths, but the public are still very clearly against it. They are not in favour of taxing the rich particularly. They just want to pay low taxes and magically get good services.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Lots of free time? PPE, then...
No, E&M, which apparently stands for easy and manageable.
In my day there was an extra E, though since nobody makes anything these days, I suppose that's redundant.
I know a number of PBers have been predicting Russia's imminent financial collapse for over 1000 days now due to Western sanctions.
I saw a Ukraine win from the outset as impossible as Putin couldn't survive if that happened and he was therefore always certain to get something he could sell as a victory
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
What's the opposite of open borders?
"Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose: to turn Britain into a one nation experiment in open borders. 'Global Britain' - Remember that slogan? That is what they meant. A policy with no support and which they then pretended wasn't happening."
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
The net migration figures are simply astonishing and completely undermine my support for the Conservatives.
They shouldn't be if you were paying attention to the detail rather than the rhetoric.
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year. Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
I'm also getting a bit pissed off with the opportunism of the LDs and on the verge of cancelling my membership. Labour under SKS is looking increasingly appealing.
LDs, opportunistic, who would ever have heard of such a thing?
Britain and Iraq have agreed an unprecedented joint plan to tackle people smuggling gangs responsible for thousands of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
On a three-day visit to the country, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also signed a new agreement to ensure failed Iraqi asylum seekers are returned home more "swiftly".
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
What's the opposite of open borders?
"Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose: to turn Britain into a one nation experiment in open borders. 'Global Britain' - Remember that slogan? That is what they meant. A policy with no support and which they then pretended wasn't happening."
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
The net migration figures are simply astonishing and completely undermine my support for the Conservatives.
They shouldn't be if you were paying attention to the detail rather than the rhetoric.
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year. Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
Make your mind up. Was it a failed policy or a successful policy?
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
My lad's been having a fantastic time at Oxford. Judging by how much free time he seems to have, getting into the place appears to be by far the biggest hurdle; once you're there the hard part is done. And it's not as though he's neglecting his studies; he's been getting excellent grades and has already accepted an offer of a ridiculously well-paid job in the city after he graduates next year.
Lots of free time? PPE, then...
No, E&M, which apparently stands for easy and manageable.
In my day there was an extra E, though since nobody makes anything these days, I suppose that's redundant.
What was the other E? Engineering?
Yes, although mostly just the first year of it if I recall.
They still got the 9am practicals though, the bane of Science students everywhere.
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
The net migration figures are simply astonishing and completely undermine my support for the Conservatives.
They shouldn't be if you were paying attention to the detail rather than the rhetoric.
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year. Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
Make your mind up. Was it a failed policy or a successful policy?
It is mixed. The main failures are infrastructure, especially housing, and the gap between communication and reality.
Getting students in is a good policy, probably expanded too quickly and should have been tied to universities building (or arranging the building of) additional local homes. But it is definitely something we should be doing to get some £££ in.
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
The net migration figures are simply astonishing and completely undermine my support for the Conservatives.
They shouldn't be if you were paying attention to the detail rather than the rhetoric.
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year. Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
Make your mind up. Was it a failed policy or a successful policy?
It is mixed. The main failures are infrastructure, especially housing, and the gap between communication and reality.
Getting students in is a good policy, probably expanded too quickly and should have been tied to universities building (or arranging the building of) additional local homes. But it is definitely something we should be doing to get some £££ in.
You must be livid with Starmer then. Even if you don't think he's making an anti-immigration pitch himself, he's certainly preparing the ground for someone who will.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
I went to Cambridge. Water under the bridge now, but I think my daughter had a better time at Bath, even with the pandemic.
I didn't fit in with the private school kids, the staff were more interested in the postgraduates, the academic atmosphere was pretty brutal. I remember one student asked a question during one of the undergraduate Maths lectures in first year, in front of a couple of hundred people who had all been the smartest person in their school, and the ridicule made sure I never dared to ask a question. Definitely wasn't for me. Though I did get a daughter out of it, so worth the three years of torment.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
But they cost far too much for the student and increasingly the degrees are useless and pointless. Cheaper ways of nourishing the 18 year old brain will be found
Yes - but I'm just saying don't forget that bit. It's not all about research, teaching and jobs.
I would argue that they could leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults by ... leaving home, making new friends, expand and mature a bit and generally transition into young adults. My Dad did all that when he moved to London aged 18 to get a job (you couldn't do that nowadays, of course, but I would argue that you could still easily as an 18 year old move to Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle or Glasgow and have a splendid time, whether you were studying or working). Getting into debt to the tune of two years' salary in order to also know about glaciation and/or the Spanish civil war on top of that strikes me as a sub-optimal arrangement.
The advice I will give my daughters is only to go to university if you have very clear ideas about why you want to go.
That's sound advice (to your daughters) but on the general point I don’t think you’re quite feeling me. A big point of uni is you don’t have a job. Being 18 and just left home is challenging enough without having to cope with a job as well. Also, more importantly, a job would get in the way of what you’re meant to be doing, which is expanding and maturing into a young adult. You need a bit of space to do this properly. Eg how can you hang out into the early hours with a stimulating new acquaintance, discussing whether there’s such a thing as free will, if you have to go to work the next morning? You’ll be working soon enough and long enough as it is. This time (18 to 21) is for other things. Perhaps it is on its way out, for tech and financial reasons, but I for one won’t be cheering if it is.
It always seemed quite generous to give middle class kids a three-year party as a reward for getting good A Levels, even when they stopped paying you to have it. Bill Bryson noted this in Notes from a Small Island back in the early 90s, I think.
When I went through it I found it a little bleak. I was, on the face of it, having a very good time - the best friends I could ever have, alcohol, sex and live music - but it was all so existentially unsatisfying. What was the point of it all? Intellectually it all seemed rather less rigorous than A Levels. So much woolly thinking went on in universities for so little purpose.
Out of interest, where did you go?
From my experience, it REALLY mattered which uni you went to, as to whether you had a good/rewarding time. eg in the 1980s UCL was brilliant socially - we got strays from Imperial and LSE coming to our Union bar all the time, because theirs was shite, and that expanded into parties and friendship networks
A friend of mine went to Middlesex Poly at exactly the same time and was miserable, and only cheered up when he met my UCL friendship group AFTER Uni
Sheffield Uni. Brilliant socially, brilliant for nightlife. Wonderful city. Academically undemanding, which to my surprise turned out to be surprisingly frustating. I was encouraged to go for Oxbridge, but it seemed needlessly hard work in small towns far away. 'Just go to uni, it doesn't matter which one'. Turned out it does. However, had I gone to Oxbridge I'd have probably found it differently unenjoyable. Intellectually demanding but socially unstimulating. A couple of years out to decide what I wanted to do, then something vocational-ish at, say, Edinburgh. That would have been the way. Still, Sheffield led, indirectly, to the life I have now, which is pretty good. So can't complain.
I went to Cambridge. Water under the bridge now, but I think my daughter had a better time at Bath, even with the pandemic.
I didn't fit in with the private school kids, the staff were more interested in the postgraduates, the academic atmosphere was pretty brutal. I remember one student asked a question during one of the undergraduate Maths lectures in first year, in front of a couple of hundred people who had all been the smartest person in their school, and the ridicule made sure I never dared to ask a question. Definitely wasn't for me. Though I did get a daughter out of it, so worth the three years of torment.
Pretty sure you didn't miss anything.
We might have been in the same lectures. I remember one person asking a question and the lecturer silently glared at him before saying, "No," and joking that it was a demonstration of the 'proof by intimidation' method.
How is that anti-immigration? It is anti failed Tory immigration policies, sure, but even the Tories are against those now.
The net migration figures are simply astonishing and completely undermine my support for the Conservatives.
They shouldn't be if you were paying attention to the detail rather than the rhetoric.
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year. Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
Make your mind up. Was it a failed policy or a successful policy?
It is mixed. The main failures are infrastructure, especially housing, and the gap between communication and reality.
Getting students in is a good policy, probably expanded too quickly and should have been tied to universities building (or arranging the building of) additional local homes. But it is definitely something we should be doing to get some £££ in.
You must be livid with Starmer then. Even if you don't think he's making an anti-immigration pitch himself, he's certainly preparing the ground for someone who will.
I'm disappointed with Labour on housing, infrastructure and ambition, sure. But will give them credit for taking some tough choices and being willing to admit when things are difficult rather than endless promises of sunny uplands, quick fixes and scapegoating the weak.
Voters don't like reality. They want the fantasy of low taxes and functional public services. Next.
Next is a far right Government unless functional Public Services without increased taxes is achieved.
Of course higher taxes are allowed if its on the Super rich although I know thats ruled out by SKS as thats where all his donors sit.
Inheritance tax is on the very rich, less than 4% of deaths, but the public are still very clearly against it. They are not in favour of taxing the rich particularly. They just want to pay low taxes and magically get good services.
IHT is of course a wealth tax, unlike most of our taxes, and is sorted in the wrongest ways possible. It has two gigantic flaws. One, it hits once a generation, and when it hits, it does so bigly. Two, it is avoidable by most potential taxees most of the time with the help of lawyers and accountants and planning; but occasionally the tragedy of bad luck - eg dad dying very young, will be compounded by a massive tax he didn't have time to plan the avoidance of.
It raises little and gets the plucked goose hissing loudly.
A million times better would be wealth taxes, applied gently and more frequently, at a much lower rate, and more or less impossible to avoid with few if any exemptions.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.
That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.
To support this bill is grossly illiberal
Since personal autonomy is at the heart of the bill, to describe what is being proposed as the state "putting citizens to death" is more than a slight mischaracterisation.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
The resources of the state should not be used to put citizens to death.
That upends the power relationship between the state and the citizen.
To support this bill is grossly illiberal
Since personal autonomy is at the heart of the bill, to describe what is being proposed as the state "putting citizens to death" is more than a slight mischaracterisation.
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
I'm also getting a bit pissed off with the opportunism of the LDs and on the verge of cancelling my membership. Labour under SKS is looking increasingly appealing.
I think both the LDs and the Conservatives have got into an "oppose for the sake of it" mindset which is understandable given how powerless the Opposition is in Parliament against a Labour Party with more than 400 MPs. Tomorrow's vote notwithstanding, unless they can prize open a split in Labour ranks, the opposition are impotent until the next election.
The fact is, petitions notwithstanding, we are nowhere near an election so the issue of "what would you do?" doesn't have the weight it would six months before an election. Indeed, noone complaining has offered a coherent alternative to what Reeves has done other than to tax someone else - a form of economic NIMBYism.
There's a point when thet should and will have to - this isn't it.
It will be interesting to hear what our Scottish contributors think of the SNP reintroducing universal WFP
Just rejoice at that news. If you fancy moving up here to enjoy our social democratic nirvana. I'm happy to offer you mate's rates on my one-bed flat, only £1,400 PCM.
Also, not universal WFP as was, as BigG implies (perhaps inadvertently). Differently structured, £100 for all, but £200/300 for the folk on the dole (which at least saves money on bureaucracy).
Just what is needed to keep a Tory person happy (not nec. Big G I hasten to add) who can't bear to see pensioners not get a bung, but doesn't want civil servants to exist or money to be spent.
I'm mystified and irritated by the Tory opposition to the abolition of WFP.
Reform and the LDs, the Greens and SNP also oppose the WFP cut
Yes, something that isn't endearing the LDs to me at present, along with their blanket opposition to the farming IHT changes. As discussed on here, there are clear issues with the Labour farming IHT changes, but the LDs don't seem to have proposed a better approach (also discussed on here) that would still close the 'buy farmland' IHT loophole.
Yep as a LD I am not against the WFP nor Farming IHT changes in principle (so not in line with my party), although I don't know the details of the borderline cases i.e. people being put in to poverty who can't claim WFH or farmers being forced to sell up because the IHT prevents the farm being passed down through a farming family.
So I am open minded about opposing both, but in principle I am in favour of both.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Why do you think the current model of teaching is doomed? I'm intrigued. What do you think the time at Uni is adding to students? It certainly isn't just 3/4 years of facts (facts can be googled). What do Pharmacy students learn over 4 years? Arguably they learn to be a pharmacist and thats a lot more than most people realise.
I'd say Pharmacy ought to be one of the relatively few things to survive. But come on, four years? It shouldn't really take four years and, what, £60k of debt to get into pharmacy. A friend of mine's son has just come back from Aberystwyth, where he did geography; he is now an apprentice pharmacist - which he will be for a year, before becoming a pharmacist. I would argue that this is a much more effective way of learning to become a pharmacist, and that it also shows that his geography degree was largely pointless (though no doubt there is some stuff in there of general relevance).
I very much doubt this "he is now an apprentice pharmacist - which he will be for a year, before becoming a pharmacist". As far as I know you need to have a GPHC registered pharmacy degree and then pass the pre-reg to be a pharmacist. Are you sure he is not training as a dispenser?
In all honesty I was rather taken aback by this. I'd assumed to get to this position he'd have taken a pharmacy degree, but, no, geography. So if you're telling me this is likely bollocks I'm not massively surprised.
On your other point: I don't want to be rude about your career, which is clearly one you need a lot of technical knowledge for - but I would have thought if a doctor could be one after 5 years of studenting, a pharmacist would need - what - half that? And that is still more than most professions: accountants, lawyers, town planners: the three years of whatever undergraduate degree they do before training in their particular profession is almost entirely superfluous. I would argue that, for example, the lawyer who does a three year history degree before doing a two year law conversion course could just as well have skipped the history degree. The expectation of some sort of generic degree is an expensive hangover from another era. Sadly it's not one I expect to see rectified before my daughters get to 18.
I think you have been mis-informed about his training.
On your point about doctors vs pharmacists. The training to be a pharmacist is fours years of MPharm plus one year or pre-reg training (on the job) after which you must pass the professional exam (only get three goes at this). So five year. Doctors I think are longer to reach the finished training stage. Typically it will be 4 to 6 years followed by FY1 and FY2 years, so more like6 to 8 years.
Comments
Babur was a gifted poet and miniaturist, whose poems now form the basis for many central Asian songs. And, he left towers of skulls in his wake.
Stalin was an autodictat with a huge personal library, which he annotated heavily.
Louis Gabriel Suchet was an eminent scholar who routinely massacred Spanish civilians, during the Peninsular War.
Caesar was philosopher, historian, and lawyer, who conducted genocide.
The 16th and 17th centuries saw a great growth in literacy, and the production of great works of art, architecture, literature, alongside witch-hunts, heresy hunts, and barbarous warfare in Europe (for good measure, matched by the wars of Arungzeb and the Manchu conquest of China, which likewise cost the lives of millions).
What China had was a huge population and (at the time), a huge birthrate. It meant you could use young men as cannon fodder in war, and slaughter your enemies on a huge scale, secure in the knowledge that the population would bounce back within a generation.
In this week's Economist, in the World Ahead 2025 section (recommended), it has a article on wildcard possibilities for next year. One of them is the installation of 4G Mobile Netwerk on the moon.
Question: will this happen before or after decent wifi on Avanti?
But to address it:
...The police are the ones who told me to go the Walmart parking lot. I park where they instructed. They know I’m here and see me in the same spot every day and night. Chief Gingerella knows who I am, that I have no criminal record, am a professional and productively engaged, am not a threat and keep to myself. When I’m asleep, I’m not visible, and my car is parked among other cars. They know which car is mine and come, and come, and come, systematically robbing me of peace and a sense of well-being...
This has options for the Moon and Mars. Including a set of Starlink satellites for Mars, connected by laser link to Earth.
https://nation.cymru/news/andrew-rt-davies-asked-to-step-down-as-leader-of-the-welsh-conservatives-by-mss/
Nuclear attack unlikely despite Putin's warnings, US intelligence says
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nuclear-attack-unlikely-despite-putins-warnings-us-intelligence-says-2024-11-27/
Westminster Voting Intention:
CON: 27% (+3)
LAB: 25% (-10)
RFM: 22% (+7)
LDM: 12% (-1)
GRN: 9% (+2)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via
@FindoutnowUK
, 27 Nov.
Changes w/ GE2024.
(Did someone just comment on Lib Dems and opportunism?)
(Somewhere on Lib Dem Voice there's a long reply to a comment I made suggesting that Lib Dem aspiring MPs should all be consistent about housebuilding, giving me a thorough going over as to why this is NOT possible.)
As long as it's not the group that produced intelligence on Iraq's WMDs then we're all good. Although I guess even that group had a tendency to overstate risk, so maybe all good then, too.
The project has been a labour of love for the group of aviation enthusiasts and has been running so long, only two of the original 20 men who started Sophie are still alive.
Of course higher taxes are allowed if its on the Super rich although I know thats ruled out by SKS as thats where all his donors sit.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1862162911902240822
Dozens of people gathered near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to scream from the shore of Lake Michigan'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/28/watch-distraught-liberals-hold-group-scream-on-beach/
I know a number of PBers have been predicting Russia's imminent financial collapse for over 1000 days now due to Western sanctions.
I saw a Ukraine win from the outset as impossible as Putin couldn't survive if that happened and he was therefore always certain to get something he could sell as a victory
Has Ukraine won yet?
What will winning look like?
What outcome are we expecting?
Where will Zelensky live after early 2025?
Has SKS got anymore plans to provoke WW3
"Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose: to turn Britain into a one nation experiment in open borders. 'Global Britain' - Remember that slogan? That is what they meant. A policy with no support and which they then pretended wasn't happening."
BBC Scotland News
@BBCScotlandNews
·
2h
New winter fuel payment for all Scottish pensioners
Their plan was to boost balance of payments by attracting 500k overseas students per year.
Then Ukraine and Hong Kong issues came along and there was widespread support on the right for generous and welcoming offers for those fleeing there.
That is the clear majority of the numbers. Most of the rest is NHS and care which would be even worse without the migrant workers.
NEW THREAD
Britain and Iraq have agreed an unprecedented joint plan to tackle people smuggling gangs responsible for thousands of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
On a three-day visit to the country, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also signed a new agreement to ensure failed Iraqi asylum seekers are returned home more "swiftly".
She met ministers from the federal government in Baghdad and regional leaders in Kurdistan in the north where many smuggling gangs are based.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nj8g8xn0o
They still got the 9am practicals though, the bane of Science students everywhere.
Getting students in is a good policy, probably expanded too quickly and should have been tied to universities building (or arranging the building of) additional local homes. But it is definitely something we should be doing to get some £££ in.
I didn't fit in with the private school kids, the staff were more interested in the postgraduates, the academic atmosphere was pretty brutal. I remember one student asked a question during one of the undergraduate Maths lectures in first year, in front of a couple of hundred people who had all been the smartest person in their school, and the ridicule made sure I never dared to ask a question. Definitely wasn't for me. Though I did get a daughter out of it, so worth the three years of torment.
Pretty sure you didn't miss anything.
It raises little and gets the plucked goose hissing loudly.
A million times better would be wealth taxes, applied gently and more frequently, at a much lower rate, and more or less impossible to avoid with few if any exemptions.
The fact is, petitions notwithstanding, we are nowhere near an election so the issue of "what would you do?" doesn't have the weight it would six months before an election. Indeed, noone complaining has offered a coherent alternative to what Reeves has done other than to tax someone else - a form of economic NIMBYism.
There's a point when thet should and will have to - this isn't it.
So I am open minded about opposing both, but in principle I am in favour of both.
On your point about doctors vs pharmacists. The training to be a pharmacist is fours years of MPharm plus one year or pre-reg training (on the job) after which you must pass the professional exam (only get three goes at this). So five year.
Doctors I think are longer to reach the finished training stage. Typically it will be 4 to 6 years followed by FY1 and FY2 years, so more like6 to 8 years.