Labour's Current Shadow Cabinet going by WIki entries. Family background generally derived from parental occupation or school listed on Wiki. Feel free to correct any errors and/or fill in the Unknowns. (ignoring the Peers in cabinet)
H
snip
This does not look like the profile you would excpect of a Labour Party.
Liz Kendalls mum was a school teacher, her dad left school at 16, before working for the Bank of England and taking occupational qualifications. She went to a non selective school .
Andy Burnham's father was a telephone engineer and his mum a receptionist, he went to a Catholic Comprehensive.
Etc etc
Only in La- La land of the SNP are those "posh backgrounds". Perhaps having a job at all makes you posh in Dairs world...
My mum was a school teacher; my father left school at 17 with only a couple of O levels.
What conclusions would you like to draw about me?
Did you go to a non selective state school?
There is a world of difference between being brought up on an Estate and being brought up on an estate!
A non-academically selective foundation school
I come from solid middle class stock on both sides. The shadow cabinet in large part do too, as indeed do most of the Conservative bench.
Dair's conception that these are "posh" backgrounds is rather perverse, unless you consider the UK to be majority posh. It is rather curious that the MP that the SNP have chosen as their target is the oldest and most working class Labour MP. It shows their character.
The definition of poshness is simple. It's nothing to do with background or education: it's whether you hold, or attend, four or more dinner parties a month. Soiree's earn double points.
;-)
Funny thing with dinner parties - people have them at tea time rather than dinner time.
Dinner is the principle meal of the day, which often but not exclusively is usually at teA time. Dinner time is not a fixed time, imo.
I do enjoy slightly obscure historical episodes, and they're valuable.
Agathocles of Syracuse invaded Africa when the Carthaginians seemed on the verge of depriving him of his Sicilian possessions, forcing them onto the back foot. Agathocles, son of Lysimachus, was killed by his father due to a jealous conspiracy [not entirely dissimilar to the death of Crispus, son of Constantine].
The former was like Blair parking his tanks on Conservative lawns. The latter was like umpteen Labour leadership contenders cut down by Brown, leaving Labour bereft of top notch people.
I managed to solve it after dredging my mind for knowledge last used 30 years ago with no great difficulty. If such knowledge wasn't on the curriculum, I'd have sympathy with the children being tested (though I would want to know why it wasn't).
Why was that supposed to be difficult? n^2-n-90=0 n^2-n=90 so n is obviously 10
with 6 orange sweets, and 4 others, the probability of an orange sweet first is 6/10 and an orange sweet again second time is 5/9. multiply together to give 30/90, or 1/3.
You have it the wrong way round. Of course you can "prove" the final equation. The issue is getting there.
Use: n = (6+y) p(O1) = 6/(6+y) p(O2) = 5/(5+y)
And you get: 90 = 30 + 11 (n-6) + (n-6)^2
and you simplify and you therefore prove the final equation.
Isn't this an unnecessary overcomplication? You don't need y at all.
n = total number of sweets 6 sweets are orange.
Chance of first sweet being orange = 6/n Chance of second sweet being orange = 5/(n-1) Chance of both being orange = 1/3 (given in question)
Therefore: 6/n x 5/(n-1) = 1/3
Simplifying: 30/(n^2-n) = 1/3 90 = n^2 - n n^2 - n - 90 = 0
Haven't done any formal maths for decades, by the way, and even then didn't take it beyond age 16. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious. Or that the students complaining are. Open to correction either way.
You are right of course, I just put y in there because I was setting up the problem for myself and I like to put as much info in front of me in as many ways before I start!!
Also, like @Sandpit my ego was keen to respond quickly!!
No worries; we both got the answer!
The greater issue is surely that students are complaining simply because an exam asked a question whose content was covered by the syllabus but the style of question in the current exam was different to how the topic was covered in past papers.
Even as a kid, even assuming the question was in any way actually particularly difficult (which this one clearly isn't if I can solve it without having done maths formally for decades), I would not have felt this was in any way unfair. Difficult, and perhaps a bit annoying? Yes, of course. But certainly not unfair.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
Danish update for punters: latest poll puts Thorning (centre-left) 1.5% and 3 seats ahead. She is still 6/5 against on Betfair. DYO but it looks like value to me (and I've put a tenner on) as the momentum so far is entirely in her favour.
Slightly better odds of 5/4 available from Laddies.
Have you ever laid bricks (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if you've done decorative pieces)
Have you ever driven a JCB or agricultural machinery (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if professionally)
Have you ever driven a white van (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if for a delivery job)
Does it take you five days to remove grease and dirt from under your nails before a special occasion? (10 pts)
Have you ever picked up the Economist, the Times, the Guardian, or the FT? (-10 pts)
Do you think page 3 is a laugh? (10 pts)
Does your job require skill but has low pay (5 pts, 10 pts if job is safety-critical)
Do you go to the pub every Friday night with your mates (5 pts, 10 pts if more than three nights a week, -10 pts if you describe them as 'friends' rather than 'mates').
culum, I'd have sympathy with the children being tested (though I would want to know why it wasn't).
Why was that supposed to be difficult? n^2-n-90=0 n^2-n=90 so n is obviously 10
with 6 onge sweet first is 6/10 and an orange sweet again second time is 5/9. multiply together to give 30/90, or 1/3.
You have it the wrong way round. Of course you can "prove" the final equation. The issue is getting there.
Use: n = (6+y) p(O1) = 6/(6+y) p(O2) = 5/(5+y)
And you get: 90 = 30 + 11 (n-6) + (n-6)^2
and you simplify and you therefore prove the final equation.
Isn't this an unnecessary overcomplication? You don't need y at all.
n = total number of sweets 6 sweets are orange.
Chance of first sweet being orange = 6/n Chance of second sweet being orange = 5/(n-1) Chance of both being orange = 1/3 (given in question)
Therefore: 6/n x 5/(n-1) = 1/3
Simplifying: 30/(n^2-n) = 1/3 90 = n^2 - n n^2 - n - 90 = 0
Haven't done any formal maths for decades, by the way, and even then didn't take it beyond age 16. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious. Or that the students complaining are. Open to correction either way.
You are right of course, I just put y in there because I was setting up the problem for myself and I like to put as much info in front of me in as many ways before I start!!
Also, like @Sandpit my ego was keen to respond quickly!!
No worries; we both got the answer!
The greater issue is surely that students are complaining simply because an exam asked a question whose content was covered by the syllabus but the style of question in the current exam was different to how the topic was covered in past papers.
Even as a kid, even assuming the question was in any way actually particularly difficult (which this one clearly isn't if I can solve it without having done maths formally for decades), I would not have felt this was in any way unfair. Difficult, and perhaps a bit annoying? Yes, of course. But certainly not unfair.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
Yes and - as I believe Nick P said - perhaps part of the challenge was to see through the obfuscation to the actual question, which is arguably the more useful life skill.
Our sixth form prefects was responsible for school discipline in the lunch hour - especially if it was wet and so the school playing fields were out of bounds.
Other benefits, as head boy, had my own study and the permission to approach the head girl in our sister school (both schools were single sex) to arrange mixed hockey on the beach at weekends/after school. This later developed into mixed tennis and badminton. Somehow the girls were not that keen on cross-country running!
Upper Sixth - We got to cast off the old school blazer and wear a suit instead – free run of the common room was pretty cool to. - twas simple times back then to be sure.
The fuss created about journalistic corruption – and the money spent investigating it – now stand in grotesque contrast to hard evidence of actual criminality. We have had the most expensive investigation in British history, and for what? It is, of course, crucial that Britain has a justice system capable of following the evidence wherever it leads. But it’s also crucial that Britain has a justice system capable of standing up to political hysteria, rather than becoming part of it. Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions, was so taken with political drama that he became a Labour MP at the last election.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
Martin Kettle seeks to persuade the Guardian readership that David Cameron is not evil incarnate:
Kudos to him for trying, but that doesn't strike me as an article by someone who really understands what the government is about. And some of it is just plain wrong - I don't imagine for a moment that Osborne and Cameron thought that completing the Royal Mail privatisation wouldn't happen if they were in government in a hung parliament, and even less that they are reluctant to do it.
He also underestimates Jeremy Hunt.
Where he is most right is this bit: It might be better if all of us started from the assumption that Cameron means what he says, rather than meaning something else, let alone the very opposite.
I managed to solve it after dredging my mind for knowledge last used 30 years ago with no great difficulty. If such knowledge wasn't on the curriculum, I'd have sympathy with the children being tested (though I would want to know why it wasn't).
Why was that supposed to be difficult? n^2-n-90=0 n^2-n=90 so n is obviously 10
with 6 orange sweets, and 4 others, the probability of an orange sweet first is 6/10 and an orange sweet again second time is 5/9. multiply together to give 30/90, or 1/3.
You have it the wrong way round. Of course you can "prove" the final equation. The issue is getting there.
Use: n = (6+y) p(O1) = 6/(6+y) p(O2) = 5/(5+y)
And you get: 90 = 30 + 11 (n-6) + (n-6)^2
and you simplify and you therefore prove the final equation.
Isn't this an unnecessary overcomplication? You don't need y at all.
n = total number of sweets 6 sweets are orange.
Chance of first sweet being orange = 6/n Chance of second sweet being orange = 5/(n-1) Chance of both being orange = 1/3 (given in question)
Therefore: 6/n x 5/(n-1) = 1/3
Simplifying: 30/(n^2-n) = 1/3 90 = n^2 - n n^2 - n - 90 = 0
Haven't done any formal maths for decades, by the way, and even then didn't take it beyond age 16. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious. Or that the students complaining are. Open to correction either way.
Only scored 18 on the Nabavi poshness scale though...
this way is right. It's a pretty easy question, amazed it is being complained about. How easy were the other questions exactly!?
I got 0 on the Nabavi scale! I know some people who would have scored 5 on the first q, maybe the 2nd (no idea), but the other questions are from another planet...
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
Where he is most right is this bit: It might be better if all of us started from the assumption that Cameron means what he says, rather than meaning something else, let alone the very opposite.
One of the more preposterous parts of Labour's election campaign was being on the inside track on all those secret plans the Tories had.
So secret, even the Tories didn't know about them....
Since there seems to be some confusion as to what it means to be posh, here is my handy questionnaire for judging. This version only applies to English males. For English females, the same questions can be used by applying them to the lady's husband or, if unmarried, to her father:
1) Did you attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
2) Did your father attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
3) Do you own your own dinner jacket (3 points)?
4) Can you tie a proper bow-tie, not one of those clip-on jobs (10 points)?
5) Do you have tickets for Glyndebourne this season (2 points), or for Grange Opera (10 points)?
6) Do you have a proper wine cellar (5 points)?
7) Does your wine cellar contain clarets of the 2000, 1990, 1982 vintage, or any vintage earlier than 1982? (3 points, 10 points for 1945)
8) Have you ever been invited to a friend's pheasant shoot (5 points) or grouse shoot (10 points)? 50 points if you were the one doing the inviting.
Guide to scoring:
0: Have you considered trying the 'Am I a chav?' questionnaire? 1 to 10: No, you're certainly not posh. 11 to 30: You move in posh circles, but further investigation is required to figure out if you're really posh, or an interloper 30 to 50: You're definitely posh Over 50: Is that you, Dave?
(The Nabavi score is 18)
Life is too short to learn how to tie a bow tie.
Indeed. Just the 3 points for me by virtue of having a dinner jacket (indeed, suit).
-10 on the working class one by virtue of me being a Times reader.
Maybe I'm just classless?
Though as noon approaches, I will soon be nipping out to get myself a butty for me dinner....
Where he is most right is this bit: It might be better if all of us started from the assumption that Cameron means what he says, rather than meaning something else, let alone the very opposite.
One of the more preposterous parts of Labour's election campaign was being on the inside track on all those secret plans the Tories had.
So secret, even the Tories didn't know about them....
Miss Plato, in James May's Toy Stories, it was revealed that in the 60s (or possibly 50s) Meccano[sp] instructions were deliberately wrong, so that children had to use their intelligence to make what they wanted.
Reminds me, writ large, of my French teacher, who made deliberate mistakes when writing on the blackboard, and chastised the class if we didn't correct him promptly enough.
One of the more preposterous parts of Labour's election campaign was being on the inside track on all those secret plans the Tories had.
So secret, even the Tories didn't know about them....
it was funnier yesterday when Chris Leslie was outraged that Osborne had the temerity to announce spending cuts in the chamber of the House of Commons without briefing them first...
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
When I was at school many did put the effort in - we did a whole load of past papers. The trouble is not the effort, but the approach. If you're geared to expect, and to simply learn how to answer a particular kind of exam question, as opposed to developing problem-solving skills, then you're going to have issues. When we did past papers, I recall seeing questions on topics, that we hadn't even covered all that much, or even at all. Everyone is different, and while some will have a natural ability to problem solve, for others it's going to be more difficult, and they'll need more help.
Miss Plato, in James May's Toy Stories, it was revealed that in the 60s (or possibly 50s) Meccano[sp] instructions were deliberately wrong, so that children had to use their intelligence to make what they wanted.
Reminds me, writ large, of my French teacher, who made deliberate mistakes when writing on the blackboard, and chastised the class if we didn't correct him promptly enough.
Did your history teacher also make mistakes, because it would explain a lot
I can't help feeling it can be largely split into those who want to aspire/have some gumption and those who are either happy with their lot or want to cruise along relying on others.
One can be well off and lazy, poor off and lazy. It doesn't make either superior to the other. I dislike inverted snobbery as much as I dislike common or garden snobbery. But the self-righteousness and name calling of people as Posh just makes my hackles rise. It's a social culture tax on aspiration, which is poisonous and insidious.
Labour's Current Shadow Cabinet going by WIki entries. Family background generally derived from parental occupation or school listed on Wiki. Feel free to correct any errors and/or fill in the Unknowns. (ignoring the Peers in cabinet)
H
So out of 25 Labour MPs in their cabinet, at least 15 are from well off backgrounds, 5 uncertain and 5 Working Class (although I'm not convinced about the Eagle twins, in fact any of them other than Murray are open to question).
Of the 25, there are 10 from posh London/Home Counties backgrounds of which 6 are parachuted into Northern Seats, one into a safe Midlands Seat and one into a safe Welsh Seat albeit he was born in Wales but brought up in the Home Counties.
This does not look like the profile you would excpect of a Labour Party.
snip
My mum was a school teacher; my father left school at 17 with only a couple of O levels.
What conclusions would you like to draw about me?
Did you go to a non selective state school?
There is a world of difference between being brought up on an Estate and being brought up on an estate!
A non-academically selective foundation school
Social class is an interesting cocktail. School and Parents being important, and of course money. To a certain extent it is also self assessed.
I come from solid middle class stock on both sides. The shadow cabinet in large part do too, as indeed do most of the Conservative bench.
Dair's conception that these are "posh" backgrounds is rather perverse, unless you consider the UK to be majority posh. It is rather curious that the MP that the SNP have chosen as their target is the oldest and most working class Labour MP. It shows their character.
Same here: solidly middle class (possibly upper middle class): my father and brother work in the family shop; my sister and I are both "professionals" whatever that means!
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
I only started reading instructions in my late 40s - even now I still tend to just rely on my brains and fiddle about for 45 mins before accepting defeat. And even then I am very reluctant to read them. It's a most peculiar form of personal torture.
I suspect many years of assembling MFI furniture/others' cat stands etc/playing with Meccano as a little kid/dismantling car engines had just made me too resistant!
Miss Plato, in James May's Toy Stories, it was revealed that in the 60s (or possibly 50s) Meccano[sp] instructions were deliberately wrong, so that children had to use their intelligence to make what they wanted.
Reminds me, writ large, of my French teacher, who made deliberate mistakes when writing on the blackboard, and chastised the class if we didn't correct him promptly enough.
Martin Kettle seeks to persuade the Guardian readership that David Cameron is not evil incarnate:
Judging by the comments, he's got his work cut out.
Yes - the most amusing ones are those who think the Guardian should not have allowed Martin Kettle to write it.
However, I did come across this comment by someone posting as 'edmundberk', which I thought was very astute:
A noble and commendable effort to cut through tribalism. However in the context of this effort it is worth granting that Cameron's loose rein may not be just management style but rooted in his political philosophy.
Remember of my A Level Chemistry we had to do a 3 hours analysis - without any crib sheets on analytical methods and results. It as the same for S Level.
For my build up to Chem Eng degree we had to do an 6 hour chemistry analysis and prove it with making other salts with recorded melting points. (we ate our lunch during the analysis). A girl on the bench next to me dropped all her physical results in the sink and was unconsolable.
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
Jez he can? By my reckoning, the numbers are there for Jeremy Corbyn to make it to the ballot: http://bit.ly/1dRGDVu
If he gets on the ballot paper, he doesn't win - but he may well change who does. Yes I know it is under AV, but humans aren't 100% rational when faced with an AV ballot paper I suspect.
He may well cause monotonicity or condorcet issues for the other candidates, certainly his presence changes the dynamics.
Jez he can? By my reckoning, the numbers are there for Jeremy Corbyn to make it to the ballot: http://bit.ly/1dRGDVu
If he gets on the ballot paper, he doesn't win - but he may well change who does. Yes I know it is under AV, but humans aren't 100% rational when faced with an AV ballot paper I suspect.
He may well cause monotonicity or condorcet issues for the other candidates, certainly his presence changes the dynamics.
I'd have thought it helps Burnham as it makes him look more of a moderate/centrist candidate.
Well quite. You've a family trade. My grandparents ran a grocers, my father started selling records from a shop, then moved onto TVs and other brown goods. And eventually became an asset millionaire in the 80s. That was an enormous sum by Newcastle standards.
It's all trade. Just different products and skills/market knowledge. One doesn't have to talk like Jimmy Nail or claim to own whippets or bet on pigeons. Aspiring to wall-to-wall carpet was more our thing when I was a kid.
Labour's Current Shadow Cabinet going by WIki entries. Family background generally derived from parental occupation or school listed on Wiki. Feel free to correct any errors and/or fill in the Unknowns. (ignoring the Peers in cabinet)
H
So out of 25 Labour MPs in their cabinet, at least 15 are from well off backgrounds, 5 uncertain and 5 Working Class (although I'm not convinced about the Eagle twins, in fact any of them other than Murray are open to question).
Of the 25, there are 10 from posh London/Home Counties backgrounds of which 6 are parachuted into Northern Seats, one into a safe Midlands Seat and one into a safe Welsh Seat albeit he was born in Wales but brought up in the Home Counties.
This does not look like the profile you would excpect of a Labour Party.
snip
My mum was a school teacher; my father left school at 17 with only a couple of O levels.
What conclusions would you like to draw about me?
Did you go to a non selective state school?
There is a world of difference between being brought up on an Estate and being brought up on an estate!
A non-academically selective foundation school
Social class is an interesting cocktail. School and Parents being important, and of course money. To a certain extent it is also self assessed.
I come from solid middle class stock on both sides. The shadow cabinet in large part do too, as indeed do most of the Conservative bench.
Dair's conception that these are "posh" backgrounds is rather perverse, unless you consider the UK to be majority posh. It is rather curious that the MP that the SNP have chosen as their target is the oldest and most working class Labour MP. It shows their character.
Same here: solidly middle class (possibly upper middle class): my father and brother work in the family shop; my sister and I are both "professionals" whatever that means!
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
Have you ever laid bricks (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if you've done decorative pieces)
Have you ever driven a JCB or agricultural machinery (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if professionally)
Have you ever driven a white van (5 pts for yes, 10 pts if for a delivery job)
Does it take you five days to remove grease and dirt from under your nails before a special occasion? (10 pts)
Have you ever picked up the Economist, the Times, the Guardian, or the FT? (-10 pts)
Do you think page 3 is a laugh? (10 pts)
Does your job require skill but has low pay (5 pts, 10 pts if job is safety-critical)
Do you go to the pub every Friday night with your mates (5 pts, 10 pts if more than three nights a week, -10 pts if you describe them as 'friends' rather than 'mates').
Guilty except for the last two. Also know my way around a betting shop as well as well as on-course bookies.
Charles: "Same here: solidly middle class (possibly upper middle class): my father and brother work in the family shop; my sister and I are both "professionals" whatever that means!"
It may have more connotations in your sister's case....
Earlier today there were a few remarks about the quality of the shadow cabinet. Now on BBC 1 DP prog we have Shabana Mahmood stating concern that UK productivity would be harmed by the £4.5bn budget improvements. She cited some part of the £450m lower spending in Education hitting Higher level education....
Now the link between that and productivity improvements of any meaningful % this side of 2020 or even 2025 is very remote. Labour still sticking with the "all spending is investment" mantra. Having her and Chris Leslie speaking on Govt finance matters are a pair of robotic speak your weight machines.
I only started reading instructions in my late 40s - even now I still tend to just rely on my brains and fiddle about for 45 mins before accepting defeat. And even then I am very reluctant to read them. It's a most peculiar form of personal torture.
You're way more modern than me. I always want to read the instructions - even for a toaster! - and my gaming life has focused on games with rulebooks running to a couple of hundred pages. I'm annoyed by most modern computer games that don't sell you a manual and other nice bits to explore in the box and just put a half-arsed thing online plus a tutorial which is either too detailed or too slow (with a manual you can read it at the speed that you want). Of course, the whole idea of buying games physically is dying anyway - most people just download. Bah.
I tossed my A Level Chemistry physical test down the sink by accident. 3hrs of effort literally down the drain. It was one of those moments where you put the sweetie wrapper in your mouth and toffee in the bin.
I fell about laughing as it was beyond absurd - fortunately I didn't need the grade so it was high comedy - the rest of the exam lab looked on horrified and couldn't understand why I wasn't throwing myself on a Bunsen burner. [No one knew I had an unconditional offer, that'd be REALLY bad form bragging].
Remember of my A Level Chemistry we had to do a 3 hours analysis - without any crib sheets on analytical methods and results. It as the same for S Level.
For my build up to Chem Eng degree we had to do an 6 hour chemistry analysis and prove it with making other salts with recorded melting points. (we ate our lunch during the analysis). A girl on the bench next to me dropped all her physical results in the sink and was unconsolable.
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm totally ignorant of modern teaching practice, but the results seem to be sorely lacking [and that's without grade inflation which just recreates a false economy].
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
I have to say, aged 16 I would have not realised the bit above. The message we got were that grade boundaries were pretty fixed.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
Earlier today there were a few remarks about the quality of the shadow cabinet. Now on BBC 1 DP prog we have Shabana Mahmood stating concern that UK productivity would be harmed by the £4.5bn budget improvements. She cited some part of the £450m lower spending in Education hitting Higher level education....
Now the link between that and productivity improvements of any meaningful % this side of 2020 or even 2025 is very remote. Labour still sticking with the "all spending is investment" mantra. Having her and Chris Leslie speaking on Govt finance matters are a pair of robotic speak your weight machines.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
This is a huge issue. Ask anybody who deals with first year undergrads in STEM subjects. The questions overwhelming revolve around where is the syllabus, where is the crib book to accompanies this course, where are the previous papers so I can work out what I need to know.
The positive is kids wanting to do well. The negative, when you tell them none of the above exist or aren't of any real use because each year the exam will be different and you will be expected to solve problems in the exam you might not have seen before, the reaction goes from NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR, to sheer panic.
The idea of learning about a subject with the primary focus on learning new things and to learn everything you can about it is really alien. In the real world of the knowledge economy, you are required to work it out.
I remember back when I had a Mega Drive. The Road Rash manual was a weighty tome (a few languages, but still, it must've been a hundred pages or more).
Dragon Age: Inquisition didn't even have one, I think. The Witcher 3's was minimal [although it gets points back for including, free, the soundtrack and some other stuff].
I like leafing through the instruction book, and sometimes you could find useful things and lore. And they stop the tedium of in-game tutorials.
Since there seems to be some confusion as to what it means to be posh, here is my handy questionnaire for judging. This version only applies to English males. For English females, the same questions can be used by applying them to the lady's husband or, if unmarried, to her father:
1) Did you attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
2) Did your father attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
3) Do you own your own dinner jacket (3 points)?
4) Can you tie a proper bow-tie, not one of those clip-on jobs (10 points)?
5) Do you have tickets for Glyndebourne this season (2 points), or for Grange Opera (10 points)?
6) Do you have a proper wine cellar (5 points)?
7) Does your wine cellar contain clarets of the 2000, 1990, 1982 vintage, or any vintage earlier than 1982? (3 points, 10 points for 1945)
8) Have you ever been invited to a friend's pheasant shoot (5 points) or grouse shoot (10 points)? 50 points if you were the one doing the inviting.
Guide to scoring:
0: Have you considered trying the 'Am I a chav?' questionnaire? 1 to 10: No, you're certainly not posh. 11 to 30: You move in posh circles, but further investigation is required to figure out if you're really posh, or an interloper 30 to 50: You're definitely posh Over 50: Is that you, Dave?
I've never made a strimmer work properly - the wire gets all tangled and that's it. I bought a brush cutter instead and risked slicing off my feet instead.
Scott P..As I watch as many HOC debates as I can,when not working, I am really looking forward to seeing this opposition front bench in action...it is possibly the weakest one I have ever seen
I only started reading instructions in my late 40s - even now I still tend to just rely on my brains and fiddle about for 45 mins before accepting defeat. And even then I am very reluctant to read them. It's a most peculiar form of personal torture.
You're way more modern than me. I always want to read the instructions - even for a toaster! - and my gaming life has focused on games with rulebooks running to a couple of hundred pages. I'm annoyed by most modern computer games that don't sell you a manual and other nice bits to explore in the box and just put a half-arsed thing online plus a tutorial which is either too detailed or too slow (with a manual you can read it at the speed that you want). Of course, the whole idea of buying games physically is dying anyway - most people just download. Bah.
As a lawyer, I always read the instructions - not because i lack the technical nous to figure something out for myself, but because I want to review the drafting, identify loopholes and omissions, and see where the manufacturer has left themselves exposed to potential liability.
I'm the same with guarantees and terms & conditions - i'm the saddo who unboxes a new toy and first scrutinises the small print in the enclosed booklet when normal people immediately plug it in and fire it up, or who reviews the exclusion of liability notice on the back of a hotel bedroom door on arrival, and so on...
Exactly, and why our Chemistry teacher set us literally hundreds of calculation questions in the two years before the Mocks. We couldn't crib them and HAD to understand the principles and apply them.
We only did past papers in the 6 weeks beforehand to get a feel for the conditions - not to learn the possible answers by rote.
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
This is a huge issue. Ask anybody who deals with first year undergrads in STEM subjects. The questions overwhelming revolve around where is the syllabus, where is the crib book to accompanies this course, where are the previous papers so I can work out what I need to know.
The positive is kids wanting to do well. The negative, when you tell them none of the above exist or aren't of any real use because each year the exam will be different and you will be expected to solve problems in the exam you might not have seen before, the reaction goes from NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR, to sheer panic.
The idea of learning about a subject with the primary focus on learning new things and to learn everything you can about it is really alien. In the real world of the knowledge economy, you are required to work it out.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Miss Plato, on learning by rote, a bio-psychology exam had about 40 multiple guess questions, and we knew they'd be taken from about 210 or so in a textbook. So, I just memorised them. Not really educational, as I just focused on a key word in the question and one in the correct answer. Except that social insects have a larger corpus pedunculatum, I can't remember any of that stuff.
So, each and every Internet user, were they to read every privacy policy on every website they visit would spend 25 days out of the year just reading privacy policies! If it was your job to read privacy policies for 8 hours per day, it would take you 76 work days to complete the task. Nationalized, that’s 53.8 BILLION HOURS of time required to read privacy policies.
I only started reading instructions in my late 40s - even now I still tend to just rely on my brains and fiddle about for 45 mins before accepting defeat. And even then I am very reluctant to read them. It's a most peculiar form of personal torture.
You're way more modern than me. I always want to read the instructions - even for a toaster! - and my gaming life has focused on games with rulebooks running to a couple of hundred pages. I'm annoyed by most modern computer games that don't sell you a manual and other nice bits to explore in the box and just put a half-arsed thing online plus a tutorial which is either too detailed or too slow (with a manual you can read it at the speed that you want). Of course, the whole idea of buying games physically is dying anyway - most people just download. Bah.
As a lawyer, I always read the instructions - not because i lack the technical nous to figure something out for myself, but because I want to review the drafting, identify loopholes and omissions, and see where the manufacturer has left themselves exposed to potential liability.
I'm the same with guarantees and terms & conditions - i'm the saddo who unboxes a new toy and first scrutinises the small print in the enclosed booklet when normal people immediately plug it in and fire it up, or who reviews the exclusion of liability notice on the back of a hotel bedroom door on arrival, and so on...
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
This is a huge issue. Ask anybody who deals with first year undergrads in STEM subjects. The questions overwhelming revolve around where is the syllabus, where is the crib book to accompanies this course, where are the previous papers so I can work out what I need to know.
The positive is kids wanting to do well. The negative, when you tell them none of the above exist or aren't of any real use because each year the exam will be different and you will be expected to solve problems in the exam you might not have seen before, the reaction goes from NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR, to sheer panic.
The idea of learning about a subject with the primary focus on learning new things and to learn everything you can about it is really alien. In the real world of the knowledge economy, you are required to work it out.
Wow, it's even affecting STEM undergrads? This proves more than anything how the system is failing so many people. It's not even those who struggle, and who don't pass Maths who have these issues, but even STEM undergrads???!!
There is a huge discrepancy, I have found even between curriculum and the exam. You spend the whole year with much of your learning based on answering text book questions, which are not even related to problem solving. It's all very much applying a formula. Then, all of a sudden many of those text book style questions, will not even be within the exam. It'll be generally be problem solving stuff, much of which is only covered briefly. Really, problem-solving skills need to be focus of Maths in education, starting right from 4 and 5 years of age. Teachers need to help children develop these skills, and gain confidence in them. That, I think would really be great.
I really think the education system leaves many unprepared for life outside of school. That's why many feel it's not 'fair', and 'panic'. They simply haven't be equipped well by the system.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Poundshop Russell Brand....is she still banging on about government cutting funding for the NHS? Can probably add her to this list...
Sensible and credible opposition is vital to a healthy democracy. Blair got through stuff that has been really bad, because the Tories were so useless and the media far too accepting.
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Exactly, and why our Chemistry teacher set us literally hundreds of calculation questions in the two years before the Mocks. We couldn't crib them and HAD to understand the principles and apply them.
We only did past papers in the 6 weeks beforehand to get a feel for the conditions - not to learn the possible answers by rote.
I think it needs to go back to that - getting a feel for what doing an exam actually feels like, as opposed to seeing a past paper like it's a blue-print for your answers.
Since there seems to be some confusion as to what it means to be posh, here is my handy questionnaire for judging. This version only applies to English males. For English females, the same questions can be used by applying them to the lady's husband or, if unmarried, to her father:
1) Did you attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
2) Did your father attend a public school? If yes, 5 points, 10 points for Eton or Harrow.
3) Do you own your own dinner jacket (3 points)?
4) Can you tie a proper bow-tie, not one of those clip-on jobs (10 points)?
5) Do you have tickets for Glyndebourne this season (2 points), or for Grange Opera (10 points)?
6) Do you have a proper wine cellar (5 points)?
7) Does your wine cellar contain clarets of the 2000, 1990, 1982 vintage, or any vintage earlier than 1982? (3 points, 10 points for 1945)
8) Have you ever been invited to a friend's pheasant shoot (5 points) or grouse shoot (10 points)? 50 points if you were the one doing the inviting.
Guide to scoring:
0: Have you considered trying the 'Am I a chav?' questionnaire? 1 to 10: No, you're certainly not posh. 11 to 30: You move in posh circles, but further investigation is required to figure out if you're really posh, or an interloper 30 to 50: You're definitely posh Over 50: Is that you, Dave?
(The Nabavi score is 18)
Crikey: I score 0 on this and the Chav one. I will have to tell all my titled relatives (going back to the 16th century, if you please) that we're simply not posh enough for the English!
Mind you, I used to own a camper van. What score do I get for that?
Just to cheer you up, saw on Twitter that a selfie taken by an ISIS fighter actually revealed the whereabouts of an ISIS HQ. Which was promptly bombed. Presumably from a ROFLCOPTER.
Plato We had to employ a lawyer to draw up our Tand C,s for our Student website, Reelshow International.com I still remember wincing at the invoice.and I bet no one has ever read them.
Exactly, and why our Chemistry teacher set us literally hundreds of calculation questions in the two years before the Mocks. We couldn't crib them and HAD to understand the principles and apply them.
We only did past papers in the 6 weeks beforehand to get a feel for the conditions - not to learn the possible answers by rote.
I think it needs to go back to that - getting a feel for what doing an exam actually feels like, as opposed to seeing a past paper like it's a blue-print for your answers.
Wow, it's even affecting STEM undergrads? This proves more than anything how the system is failing so many people. It's not even those who struggle, and who don't pass Maths who have these issues, but even STEM undergrads???!!
There is a huge discrepancy, I have found even between curriculum and the exam. You spend the whole year with much of your learning based on answering text book questions, which are not even related to problem solving. It's all very much applying a formula. Then, all of a sudden many of those text book style questions, will not even be within the exam. It'll be generally be problem solving stuff, much of which is only covered briefly. Really, problem-solving skills need to be focus of Maths in education, starting right from 4 and 5 years of age. Teachers need to help children develop these skills, and gain confidence in them. That, I think would really be great.
I really think the education system leaves many unprepared for life outside of school. That's why many feel it's not 'fair', and 'panic'. They simply haven't be equipped well by the system.
You have hit the nail on the head there, the crucial thing that is missing is problem solving. When I studied for my A-Levels, especially subjects like Maths and Further Maths, that was where all the marks where. Each Further Maths paper was only a handful of questions, a problem was stated and the question was simply "solve"....You were required to understand what the problem was actually about, state assumptions you were going to make, and then solve using a number of interconnected techniques. The marks were heavily weighted to the problem solving and showing of working aspects, with the correct answer only being part of this.
Now, many questions are very guided. This is a huge issue. When people say standards haven't slipped, kids learn just the same stuff as 20-30 years ago. What they don't talk about his
a) A narrow focus on specific parts of a subject b) How repetitive the tests are from year to year c) How guided the questions are.
The problems are broken down in to lots of small sub-parts, where they are so guided there isn't any requirement to problem solve or work out which of the fundamental principles are required. It either states what you need to use or it is blindingly obvious.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Leave them be. It's fun watching them fight with the Scotch Nats over seating arrangements, whilst trying to figure out how the electorate got it so wrong at the GE.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Leave them be. It's fun watching them fight with the Scotch Nats over seating arrangements, whilst trying to figure out how the electorate got it so wrong at the GE.
I strongly believe that a good opposition is a healthy thing.
I can imagine. I'm no lawyer, but used to always end up dealing with our Legal and Compliance teams whenever delivering major bids [north of £50m]. I'd do the initial/final readings to catch the obvious stuff and make sure the legal eagles hadn't gone too far in the last.
I rather like Compliance in a statutory environment - it can be great fun arguing the toss about new product rules, the pricing et al with regulators.
Plato We had to employ a lawyer to draw up our Tand C,s for our Student website, Reelshow International.com I still remember wincing at the invoice.and I bet no one has ever read them.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Leave them be. It's fun watching them fight with the Scotch Nats over seating arrangements, whilst trying to figure out how the electorate got it so wrong at the GE.
I strongly believe that an good opposition is a healthy thing.
Indeed. 'Good' being the operative word; unfortunately Labour are utterly, flocking useless at the moment, and will be for quite some time.
O/T - CiF is going into meltdown on the Charlotte Church article today. Well over 4,000 comments.
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Leave them be. It's fun watching them fight with the Scotch Nats over seating arrangements, whilst trying to figure out how the electorate got it so wrong at the GE.
I strongly believe that a good opposition is a healthy thing.
Sepp Blatter is named as a former lover of Cristiano Ronaldo's ex girlfriend model Irina Shayk in bizarre claims made by Spanish media
Outgoing FIFA chief allegedly had a relationship with the Russian model The unlikely pair are said to have dated some time between 2002 and 2014 Sensational claims emerged in an article titled: 'All the women in Blatter's life', which appeared in respected Spanish newspaper El Mundo Disgraced 79-year-old is known to have had a string of younger lovers Many of Blatter's ex partners are believed to be friends of his daughter
You have hit the nail on the head there, the crucial thing that is missing is problem solving. When I studied for my A-Levels, especially subjects like Maths and Further Maths, that was where all the marks where. Each Further Maths paper was only a handful of questions, a problem was stated and the question was simply "solve"....You were required to understand what the problem was actually about, state assumptions you were going to make, and then solve using a number of interconnected techniques. The marks were heavily weighted to the problem solving and showing of working aspects, with the correct answer only being part of this.
Now, many questions are very guided. This is a huge issue. When people say standards haven't slipped, kids learn just the same stuff as 20-30 years ago. What they don't talk about his
a) A narrow focus on specific parts of a subject b) How repetitive the tests are from year to year c) How guided the questions are.
The problems are broken down in to lots of small sub-parts, where they are so guided there isn't any requirement to problem solve or work out which of the fundamental principles are required. It either states what you need to use or it is blindingly obvious.
The exam past papers really are repetitive. They love questions such as:
- on driving, figuring out the average speed/how many miles someone went et al - a question on ingredients 'does xyz have enough ingredients to make say, 16 cakes' - tangent to a circle - nth term -stratified sampling - cumulative frequency -box plots
You know that these kinds of questions are a dead on certainty to come up in the exam. It's like other topics are invisible to examiners.
Algebra is one of the biggest topics, where you are encouraged to see factorisation, quadratics, substitution, expressions etc. all as unique little subjects, rather than interconnected. It's why, I suspect many get the basics of all Maths topics - but understanding the more advanced stuff is where they fall down.
I only started reading instructions in my late 40s - even now I still tend to just rely on my brains and fiddle about for 45 mins before accepting defeat. And even then I am very reluctant to read them. It's a most peculiar form of personal torture.
You're way more modern than me. I always want to read the instructions - even for a toaster! - and my gaming life has focused on games with rulebooks running to a couple of hundred pages. I'm annoyed by most modern computer games that don't sell you a manual and other nice bits to explore in the box and just put a half-arsed thing online plus a tutorial which is either too detailed or too slow (with a manual you can read it at the speed that you want). Of course, the whole idea of buying games physically is dying anyway - most people just download. Bah.
Ah! The simple pleasures of determining line of sight in Cross of Iron, or Out of Supply in Drang Nach Osten...
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/04/what-is-cameronism-david-cameron-tories
Judging by the comments, he's got his work cut out.
The most revolting *teatime* I had was at my MiL's. She made lamb lard sandwiches.
URGH. On white bread to just make it visually less enticing.
Perhaps we can be PB-normals.
I do enjoy slightly obscure historical episodes, and they're valuable.
Agathocles of Syracuse invaded Africa when the Carthaginians seemed on the verge of depriving him of his Sicilian possessions, forcing them onto the back foot. Agathocles, son of Lysimachus, was killed by his father due to a jealous conspiracy [not entirely dissimilar to the death of Crispus, son of Constantine].
The former was like Blair parking his tanks on Conservative lawns. The latter was like umpteen Labour leadership contenders cut down by Brown, leaving Labour bereft of top notch people.
The greater issue is surely that students are complaining simply because an exam asked a question whose content was covered by the syllabus but the style of question in the current exam was different to how the topic was covered in past papers.
Even as a kid, even assuming the question was in any way actually particularly difficult (which this one clearly isn't if I can solve it without having done maths formally for decades), I would not have felt this was in any way unfair. Difficult, and perhaps a bit annoying? Yes, of course. But certainly not unfair.
And I also realised by their age that if I found a question difficult, so would most candidates and therefore it would automatically be taken into account when grading by the exam board. And that by taking the time to complain about it, I was distracting myself from the next exam...
Jez he can? By my reckoning, the numbers are there for Jeremy Corbyn to make it to the ballot: http://bit.ly/1dRGDVu
- Have you placed a bet in a shop?
Do you grease your nipples daily? (10 pts if yes; 50 pts if you know I'm talking about.)
;-)
EDIT: Although, thinking about it, someone at my school could probably have readily sourced a firearm....
I think part of the issue for students, is that past papers are used in such a way, where people expect a type of question, in a type of format to come up. Maths is not taught in a way that is should be 'understood', but rather as something to apply a fixed formula to. Thus, when it comes to question where it's not that simple, it's an issue for many.
He also underestimates Jeremy Hunt.
Where he is most right is this bit: It might be better if all of us started from the assumption that Cameron means what he says, rather than meaning something else, let alone the very opposite.
I got 0 on the Nabavi scale! I know some people who would have scored 5 on the first q, maybe the 2nd (no idea), but the other questions are from another planet...
I vividly recall my O Level Chemistry lessons being filled with what appeared to be impossible calculations. We knew we had 15 mins to complete each one in the exam room, and there'd be four on the paper. We practiced weekly until we moved from WTF to Okay to Got It. I regularly spent 4 HOURS on a Sunday trying to answer those set our teacher. Only by practicing would the penny drop. And finally it became second nature and barely needed more than a bit of thinking.
Trying old papers from the 60/70s - we were glad even back in the 80s that we didn't face those. Nowadays, the notion of applying such effort to solving problems seems inconceivable. Yet pupils are expected to get arm fulls of A****** grades. It's all volume over quality.
So secret, even the Tories didn't know about them....
-10 on the working class one by virtue of me being a Times reader.
Maybe I'm just classless?
Though as noon approaches, I will soon be nipping out to get myself a butty for me dinner....
And Labourites claim Tories ran a scare campaign. At least the SNP weren't a hologram...
Reminds me, writ large, of my French teacher, who made deliberate mistakes when writing on the blackboard, and chastised the class if we didn't correct him promptly enough.
I suspect many years of assembling MFI furniture/others' cat stands etc/playing with Meccano as a little kid/dismantling car engines had just made me too resistant!
However, I did come across this comment by someone posting as 'edmundberk', which I thought was very astute:
A noble and commendable effort to cut through tribalism. However in the context of this effort it is worth granting that Cameron's loose rein may not be just management style but rooted in his political philosophy.
For my build up to Chem Eng degree we had to do an 6 hour chemistry analysis and prove it with making other salts with recorded melting points. (we ate our lunch during the analysis). A girl on the bench next to me dropped all her physical results in the sink and was unconsolable.
Miss Plato, I often read instructions, because I have all the technical aptitude and instincts of a drunk kangaroo.
He may well cause monotonicity or condorcet issues for the other candidates, certainly his presence changes the dynamics.
It's all trade. Just different products and skills/market knowledge. One doesn't have to talk like Jimmy Nail or claim to own whippets or bet on pigeons. Aspiring to wall-to-wall carpet was more our thing when I was a kid.
I thought you were being delicate - and read that as Arsehole grades....!
It may have more connotations in your sister's case....
Now the link between that and productivity improvements of any meaningful % this side of 2020 or even 2025 is very remote. Labour still sticking with the "all spending is investment" mantra. Having her and Chris Leslie speaking on Govt finance matters are a pair of robotic speak your weight machines.
I fell about laughing as it was beyond absurd - fortunately I didn't need the grade so it was high comedy - the rest of the exam lab looked on horrified and couldn't understand why I wasn't throwing myself on a Bunsen burner. [No one knew I had an unconditional offer, that'd be REALLY bad form bragging].
"Ummmm"
The positive is kids wanting to do well. The negative, when you tell them none of the above exist or aren't of any real use because each year the exam will be different and you will be expected to solve problems in the exam you might not have seen before, the reaction goes from NOT FAIR, NOT FAIR, to sheer panic.
The idea of learning about a subject with the primary focus on learning new things and to learn everything you can about it is really alien. In the real world of the knowledge economy, you are required to work it out.
@BBCNewsnight: Labour's manifesto launch revisited by @AllegraStratton http://t.co/lGOM4XZtrm
I remember back when I had a Mega Drive. The Road Rash manual was a weighty tome (a few languages, but still, it must've been a hundred pages or more).
Dragon Age: Inquisition didn't even have one, I think. The Witcher 3's was minimal [although it gets points back for including, free, the soundtrack and some other stuff].
I like leafing through the instruction book, and sometimes you could find useful things and lore. And they stop the tedium of in-game tutorials.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/04/04/2956877600000578-3110240-Roger_lives_in_The_Kangaroo_Sanctuary_Alice_Springs_in_the_North-a-68_1433387077486.jpg
I'm the same with guarantees and terms & conditions - i'm the saddo who unboxes a new toy and first scrutinises the small print in the enclosed booklet when normal people immediately plug it in and fire it up, or who reviews the exclusion of liability notice on the back of a hotel bedroom door on arrival, and so on...
We only did past papers in the 6 weeks beforehand to get a feel for the conditions - not to learn the possible answers by rote.
Also known as Sluff Comprehensive
This is my favourite with over 240 'likes':
"Kublai_Khan
Marxism has never been tried...the 'communist' states were actually modelled on 'state capitalism'. Lenin was right wing. You should be idolising him."
I'm not a fan of multiple guess questions.
Did you ever read the T&Cs of an Apple Licence? http://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-to-read-all-your-privacy-policies-each-year/ I just press Accept.
There is a huge discrepancy, I have found even between curriculum and the exam. You spend the whole year with much of your learning based on answering text book questions, which are not even related to problem solving. It's all very much applying a formula. Then, all of a sudden many of those text book style questions, will not even be within the exam. It'll be generally be problem solving stuff, much of which is only covered briefly. Really, problem-solving skills need to be focus of Maths in education, starting right from 4 and 5 years of age. Teachers need to help children develop these skills, and gain confidence in them. That, I think would really be great.
I really think the education system leaves many unprepared for life outside of school. That's why many feel it's not 'fair', and 'panic'. They simply haven't be equipped well by the system.
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/nick-booth-dont-shout-at-lefties-like-owen-jones-he-is-secretly-working-for-us/
Sensible and credible opposition is vital to a healthy democracy. Blair got through stuff that has been really bad, because the Tories were so useless and the media far too accepting.
Labour are currently a waste of space, just watch Chris (If you got a £100k to donate, I'm all ears to your policy suggestions) Leslie's response to Osborne yesterday, and instead we just have the loons screaming at the top of their lungs.
Mind you, I used to own a camper van. What score do I get for that?
Now, many questions are very guided. This is a huge issue. When people say standards haven't slipped, kids learn just the same stuff as 20-30 years ago. What they don't talk about his
a) A narrow focus on specific parts of a subject
b) How repetitive the tests are from year to year
c) How guided the questions are.
The problems are broken down in to lots of small sub-parts, where they are so guided there isn't any requirement to problem solve or work out which of the fundamental principles are required. It either states what you need to use or it is blindingly obvious.
I rather like Compliance in a statutory environment - it can be great fun arguing the toss about new product rules, the pricing et al with regulators.
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/582316/HSBC-swiss-bank-Geneva
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33020571
Sad to hear.
I think one version of me is more than enough for the world! The exam past papers really are repetitive. They love questions such as:
- on driving, figuring out the average speed/how many miles someone went et al
- a question on ingredients 'does xyz have enough ingredients to make say, 16 cakes'
- tangent to a circle
- nth term
-stratified sampling
- cumulative frequency
-box plots
You know that these kinds of questions are a dead on certainty to come up in the exam. It's like other topics are invisible to examiners.
Algebra is one of the biggest topics, where you are encouraged to see factorisation, quadratics, substitution, expressions etc. all as unique little subjects, rather than interconnected. It's why, I suspect many get the basics of all Maths topics - but understanding the more advanced stuff is where they fall down.