Incidentally, I have no idea where that stat that that less than half of current Lab supporters would prefer Corbyn to be PM over Osborne came from.
The dataset shows Corbyn leading with Lab voters by 61% to Osborne's 7%. Among the whole electorate, Osborne is ahead 33-24, with 43% saying "not sure". (From memory, I think that is a smaller lead than Cameron ever had over Miliband).
I don't deny that @MyBurningEars comments on O-Levels being harder isn't academic fact. .... Even if it is when we are older it feels vengeful and also pointless - almost that we are at fault for the way the system is and that we mustn't be too happy when we do well, at GCSE, A-Level, or degree level otherwise we are getting too 'cocky' and whatnot. That is what I was getting upset about and how does feel that whenever young people are mentioned on this website, its' always in a negative manner - that our grades, and degrees are worthless. That can be a bit demoralising, from my POV.
My dear old thing, please don't take it personally. There's no need for a chip on your shoulder - you got your grades under the system you did, and they were good enough for what you wanted to do, so well done. I got my grades under the system I did, and I am enough of a dilettante in educational history to be well aware of previous generations undertaking a system of study very different from my own, and in some ways more rigorous.*
It's a mistake to read into someone's professional or personal experience, some kind of direct personal attack on you and your generation, and particularly to read in any kind of blame. Obviously you are in an unusual position in this forum, whereby your studies, and your admirable drive to attain higher qualifications, have largely defined the present course of your life. As such, exam grades and degree certificates right now seem really really important, and criticism unduly personal. But once time distances us from these things, perspectives shift. Pieces of paper, no matter how hard-won, have very little value except as box-ticking exercises. They gather dust. There comes a time when you have to dig your original certificates out for a job application because you can't remember what boards you sat; later you need it to establish what grade you got. There are exams where, eventually, you need to see the grade sheet to remember that you sat that exam at all.
Skills, attitudes, experience and employability, though, are vital, ever-current and fluid. They are far more important than mere qualifications, and their development is something we tend to underinvest in (this underinvestment is not just a generalisation from personal experience, there are some very interesting econometric papers to this effect). As such you should probably care less about your degree certificate, and rather more about the mind-opening and prospect-enhancing opportunities that your time at university presents you with.
For what it's worth, much of the substantive content of my own degrees has long lapsed from memory, though some skills and concepts remain. Moreover I can't even recall what papers I sat (you'd call them "modules" in this brave new age of Bologna-transferable credits), and for my first degree this information was not put on my transcript. Not only do I no longer remember what I learned, but from now to my dying day I will likely never even discern what is was that I studied. Every few years I try counting papers on my fingers; on average I can recall probably between half and two-thirds of them - hard to know for sure as I can't remember how many papers there were. This troubles me not one jot, which shows just how much a degree really matters. (Disclaimer: personal opinion only. Your opinion may differ. After a few decades, it might not differ quite so much.)
* As for the educational undertakings of those who had gone before, this applies on a generational level - I have, as some PBers are aware, an interest in old textbooks (if anyone has some going spare, do let me know) and some interesting stuff was scrubbed from the syllabuses probably well before any PBers even reached school age. At teacher training college we had to teach a mock lesson to our fellow trainees - preferably something high school level but which they wouldn't be familiar with. I went with the traditional "by hand" method for finding square roots, and nobody there knew it, even the wise old heads who were training us - I guess any of them who had to find square roots manually at school in pre-calculator days used log tables or a slide rule, rather than the algorithm (which resembles a particularly tortu[r]ous form of long division). Apparently it was taught in the USA until more recently, certainly as late as the 1940s and perhaps to the 1960s.
But also applies on a historic scale. My first Director of Studies at Oxbridge was a theoretical physicist, an expert in certain theories about gravitational fields. A very specialist domain, that left her unable to communicate at a serious mathematical level with the college's resident pure mathematician (who had his own curious little niche). One thing I used to discuss with her is how people like Leibniz came to be world-leading experts in so many fields (Gottfried was a multilingual philogist, innovative mathematician, natural scientist, moral philosopher, logician, librarian and systematiser... I could go on). Clearly part of the answer is we know much more now, so it is no longer possible to be "a man who knows everything". But that's only a partial answer: that breadth and depth of thought, easily equivalent to a dozen modern university degrees, can only be explained by someone who read and studied a hell of a lot. Where are his like today? Utterly sobering. Yet in the age of Leibniz, the vast majority of children couldn't read and never went to school, so only an oaf could deny social progress.
That is really offensive and Banks should be expelled from UKIP.
It is things like this which have made my decision to rejoin the Tories that little bit easier.
Every party's major donors have been embarrassing lately. Lord Ashcroft was bad but the worst offenders were probably Unite what with the whole Corbyn thing.
Yougov has Leave ahead by 41:38%. There are the usual splits by age, class, and political party.
Conservative voters are supporting Leave by almost 2:1. Is there insight here about betting on Cameron's successor. If the thing is as acrimonious as the Scottish referendum, isn't it quite likely the Tories will want to elect someone that backed the Leave campaign?
Whatever happens now, I don't think Cameron can risk a full-throated endorsement of our future as an EU member: he'd risk splitting his own party.
I expect he'll recommend we Remain as the balance of our interests still favours remaining on these renegotiated terms for now, but with caveats and a green-light to ministers who disagree to campaign diffferently.
Thanks for the insightful reply @MyBurningEars.You're certainly right that for me (and I think a lot of other young people as well) that exam success and qualifications are pretty big parts of our identities, and how we see ourselves.
And on UKIP - wow those comments are really unnecessary.
Mr. Pulpstar, pre-Singapore I bet on Merhi not to be classified in that race (a confident bet, given he wasn't driving in it). It initially returned as a lost bet.
All I can say is that my parents are working class swing voters who voted Tory last time. They were repelled by Miliband's weirdness. They were initially appalled by Corbyn - they read the Express and bought the whole scare story. But after a brief chat with me they changed their minds and decided to give Corbyn a go. I have a feeling Corbyn is a lot more saleable than Miliband ever was to the uncommitted. Let's face it, how many people know somebody like Miliband? Whereas most people have a slightly eccentric member of their family who resembles Corbyn.
If my parents were worried about my feelings they wouldn't keep going on about that bloody sander I borrowed once and unknowingly returned broken.
It was just an anecdote. It has been such a widely held notion that Labour can't win with a left wing leader, and one I have always held myself, that seeing anything that contradicts it seems notable.
Recidivist
I think your anecdote about your parents provides some insight. Too many on here are underestimating Corbyn's potential electoral appeal. Namely, that he is demonstrably not 'like all the rest'. For people who would like to vote for someone who is in their mind authentic and not a hypocrite, I can see that he potentially appeals in a way that Ed Miliband never did.
However, on the other hand there is the history: the links with the IRA, Hammas etc. which the press and the Tories will certainly go to town with. The question is are the Labour-inclined voters who will be repelled by all that stuff more in number than the Labour-inclined voters who are basically anti-Politician, and to whom Corbyn might appeal. Corbyn's personal abstemiousness, the fact that he is one of the few MPs to have come out well from the expenses investigations will be attractive to some (it's why he succeeded in the leadership election, in a way that Diane Abbot could never have done). And the more he gets attacked, the more the view that he is a victim of the establishment will be reinforced.
Finally and personally, I might add that as someone who has always been a Labour supporter, and who voted for Ed Miliband's Labour after some hesitation, I definitely would not vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party. Like Manchester Kurt my vote is with the LDs for the time being. And in my case that matters, because I live in a constituency in which the Labour majority over the Tories is only around 250 votes.
As it happens my parents live in a marginal too. I live in a Tory seat so blue it makes no difference whatever how I vote, so influencing my old folk is the only way I can have any impact on the outcome of an election. I don' I think the reality is that we won't know for some time what the effect of Corbyn is. We really haven't had this situation before.
I went with the traditional "by hand" method for finding square roots, and nobody there knew it, even the wise old heads who were training us - I guess any of them who had to find square roots manually at school in pre-calculator days used log tables or a slide rule, rather than the algorithm (which resembles a particularly tortu[r]ous form of long division).
Interesting. We had a lesson on that at the end of our 4th Year when we did O Level Maths, after we had finished the course a year early. Just possibly it was 12 months later when we had done Additional Maths during that year.
This was early 1980s in the Cambridge Syllabus, which also included some calculus iirc.
Independent School top stream, and Ed Davey was a classmate.
Comments
The dataset shows Corbyn leading with Lab voters by 61% to Osborne's 7%. Among the whole electorate, Osborne is ahead 33-24, with 43% saying "not sure". (From memory, I think that is a smaller lead than Cameron ever had over Miliband).
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ii9ytqtjhm/NStables_150917_W5.pdf
It's a mistake to read into someone's professional or personal experience, some kind of direct personal attack on you and your generation, and particularly to read in any kind of blame. Obviously you are in an unusual position in this forum, whereby your studies, and your admirable drive to attain higher qualifications, have largely defined the present course of your life. As such, exam grades and degree certificates right now seem really really important, and criticism unduly personal. But once time distances us from these things, perspectives shift. Pieces of paper, no matter how hard-won, have very little value except as box-ticking exercises. They gather dust. There comes a time when you have to dig your original certificates out for a job application because you can't remember what boards you sat; later you need it to establish what grade you got. There are exams where, eventually, you need to see the grade sheet to remember that you sat that exam at all.
Skills, attitudes, experience and employability, though, are vital, ever-current and fluid. They are far more important than mere qualifications, and their development is something we tend to underinvest in (this underinvestment is not just a generalisation from personal experience, there are some very interesting econometric papers to this effect). As such you should probably care less about your degree certificate, and rather more about the mind-opening and prospect-enhancing opportunities that your time at university presents you with.
* As for the educational undertakings of those who had gone before, this applies on a generational level - I have, as some PBers are aware, an interest in old textbooks (if anyone has some going spare, do let me know) and some interesting stuff was scrubbed from the syllabuses probably well before any PBers even reached school age. At teacher training college we had to teach a mock lesson to our fellow trainees - preferably something high school level but which they wouldn't be familiar with. I went with the traditional "by hand" method for finding square roots, and nobody there knew it, even the wise old heads who were training us - I guess any of them who had to find square roots manually at school in pre-calculator days used log tables or a slide rule, rather than the algorithm (which resembles a particularly tortu[r]ous form of long division). Apparently it was taught in the USA until more recently, certainly as late as the 1940s and perhaps to the 1960s.
But also applies on a historic scale. My first Director of Studies at Oxbridge was a theoretical physicist, an expert in certain theories about gravitational fields. A very specialist domain, that left her unable to communicate at a serious mathematical level with the college's resident pure mathematician (who had his own curious little niche). One thing I used to discuss with her is how people like Leibniz came to be world-leading experts in so many fields (Gottfried was a multilingual philogist, innovative mathematician, natural scientist, moral philosopher, logician, librarian and systematiser... I could go on). Clearly part of the answer is we know much more now, so it is no longer possible to be "a man who knows everything". But that's only a partial answer: that breadth and depth of thought, easily equivalent to a dozen modern university degrees, can only be explained by someone who read and studied a hell of a lot. Where are his like today? Utterly sobering. Yet in the age of Leibniz, the vast majority of children couldn't read and never went to school, so only an oaf could deny social progress.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/major-ukip-donor-says-partys-only-mp-is-borderline-autistic?utm_term=.wavRL4vVE#.wdVp8v0Pd
See also Update 2 here:
At a press briefing, Nigel Farage has accused Carswell of having some ‘residual loyalty’ to his former colleagues Conservative party.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/exclusive-ukip-split-widens-as-douglas-carswell-backs-other-leave-campaign/
https://twitter.com/dmccaffreysky/status/647447517286809601
It is things like this which have made my decision to rejoin the Tories that little bit easier.
Since when is that an ok thing to say about someone?
I expect he'll recommend we Remain as the balance of our interests still favours remaining on these renegotiated terms for now, but with caveats and a green-light to ministers who disagree to campaign diffferently.
Bigotry, vanity and jealousy.
The UKIP Spitfire is ablaze, and about to crash into the White Cliffs.
And on UKIP - wow those comments are really unnecessary.
If my parents were worried about my feelings they wouldn't keep going on about that bloody sander I borrowed once and unknowingly returned broken.
It was just an anecdote. It has been such a widely held notion that Labour can't win with a left wing leader, and one I have always held myself, that seeing anything that contradicts it seems notable.
Recidivist
I think your anecdote about your parents provides some insight. Too many on here are underestimating Corbyn's potential electoral appeal. Namely, that he is demonstrably not 'like all the rest'. For people who would like to vote for someone who is in their mind authentic and not a hypocrite, I can see that he potentially appeals in a way that Ed Miliband never did.
However, on the other hand there is the history: the links with the IRA, Hammas etc. which the press and the Tories will certainly go to town with. The question is are the Labour-inclined voters who will be repelled by all that stuff more in number than the Labour-inclined voters who are basically anti-Politician, and to whom Corbyn might appeal. Corbyn's personal abstemiousness, the fact that he is one of the few MPs to have come out well from the expenses investigations will be attractive to some (it's why he succeeded in the leadership election, in a way that Diane Abbot could never have done). And the more he gets attacked, the more the view that he is a victim of the establishment will be reinforced.
Finally and personally, I might add that as someone who has always been a Labour supporter, and who voted for Ed Miliband's Labour after some hesitation, I definitely would not vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party. Like Manchester Kurt my vote is with the LDs for the time being. And in my case that matters, because I live in a constituency in which the Labour majority over the Tories is only around 250 votes.
As it happens my parents live in a marginal too. I live in a Tory seat so blue it makes no difference whatever how I vote, so influencing my old folk is the only way I can have any impact on the outcome of an election. I don' I think the reality is that we won't know for some time what the effect of Corbyn is. We really haven't had this situation before.
This was early 1980s in the Cambridge Syllabus, which also included some calculus iirc.
Independent School top stream, and Ed Davey was a classmate.
Good fun.
And yes, probably the most satisfying outcome.