Since South Africa scored 421 v West Indies on January 3rd/4th, their totals are: 124-2, 248, 61-0, 184, 109, 214, 79, 185, 121, 143, 214. Any betting that if England get 180 in their 2nd innings, South Africa will feel confident of chasing them?
The no. 1 side in the world not getting over 250 in a calendar year? That's not very impressive. Do I get the feeling that Jacques Kallis is becoming more appreciated for his adhesive qualities the longer the Saffers are without him?
England surely hot favourites to win the match from here - 100 would probably be enough to put it out of SA's reach. Very useful, thanks. England 1.6 (8/13) now on Betfair, slowly shortening as the runs go on. Looks like value still at that price
In some ways, the US system of being able to transfer between colleges part way through a degree helps to level the playing field. For example, in my county in MD, the local community college is good. Thus people with no money, or from lower performing high schools can get a year or two under their belt at Montgomery College, and then transfer to an Ivy League school if they have the grades to do so.
Of course, this does not help out so much in poorer areas were the community college is not so excellent as Montgomery College, but the same principle of getting into somewhere within the aspiration range, doing well, getting broader horizons and trading up is a model that is very widely followed here.
US system also allows that flexibility because you don't start off from day one in college doing a particular major. You do your 2 years of pre-rec's, so transferring isn't such a big deal.
I actually quite like the thought that at least initially you have some flexibility. It is a huge ask for a 17 year old to decide what they will be studying for 3-4 years in 12 months and from that decision they will be rather tied down to take path until 21/22.
US allows people to actually start college, try a few things and then decide. Perhaps a different major, perhaps even a different college.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
Agree entirely and most of the remaining grammars i.e. in Kent or Bucks are in the South East. No reason could not at least be selection at 16 as in Finland
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
Last year's president of the Royal Historical Society, whose name I forget, had a very interesting series of articles on the abolition of secondary education, where the suggestion was that comprehensive education would offer 'grammar schools for all'. One reason for its introduction was a tendency to pigeonhole students very early on - there was so far as I am aware no movement between secondary moderns and grammars, so any late flowerers were stuck.
One solution would have been selection at 14, rather than 11, with a proper middle-school system to compensate. But that would have been expensive. Transfers would have been feasible in theory - but imagine the fuss of parents of children transferred to a secondary modern. So eventually, with the support of the NUT who wanted to level themselves up with the NAS, comprehensives were born.
The irony is of course that we continue to have a selective system at post-16 - I have entry requirements for A-level history. But by then, it's usually rather too late to undo any damage caused to their prospects by poor GCSE grades.
What amazes me about the US system is that the high school level of education is pretty damn poor. The knowledge of kids on day one at even the best colleges is below that of say kids from the UK. But the ramp up in required knowledge for particularly science subjects at the top colleges is incredible, far more than here in the UK.
In some ways, the US system of being able to transfer between colleges part way through a degree helps to level the playing field. For example, in my county in MD, the local community college is good. Thus people with no money, or from lower performing high schools can get a year or two under their belt at Montgomery College, and then transfer to an Ivy League school if they have the grades to do so.
Of course, this does not help out so much in poorer areas were the community college is not so excellent as Montgomery College, but the same principle of getting into somewhere within the aspiration range, doing well, getting broader horizons and trading up is a model that is very widely followed here.
US system also allows that flexibility because you don't start off from day one in college doing a particular major. You do your 2 years of pre-rec's, so transferring isn't such a big deal.
I actually quite like the thought that at least initially you have some flexibility. It is a huge ask for a 17 year old to decide what they will be studying for 3-4 years in 12 months and from that decision they will be rather tied down to take path until 21/22.
US allows people to actually start college, try a few things and then decide. Perhaps a different major, perhaps even a different college.
What age does 'college' start in America for students?
Oxbridge difference, at least in history, is about the level of preparation work required, writing 2-3k words a week, and contact time.
I don't think I went to more than 1 hour of lectures in most weeks, but had consistently between 3 and 5 hours a fortnight discursive access, at BA level and mostly 1:1, with some of the leading experts in modern history. One of my highlights was a term with Martin Conway, who is editor of the EHR.
My contemporaries who studied the same subject at other universities wrote 2000 words a term, and had 15/20:1 seminars......
Mortimer, I hate to disillusion you but I had to write a minimum one essay a week at BA level - it varied from 2,500 words for a short one to 4,000 words for a long one. That, again, was at Aberystwyth (although they have reduced the requirements now).
Contact time I will agree about - but from my own experience as a lecturer, teacher and private tutor I would have thought that would make it easier, not more difficult, to get good grades. You get the opportunity to discuss and clarify matters with the experts. I had to get it right on my own first time.
Eh? Of course it would make it easier to get good grades with more contact time. It is a better system. Lectures are really quite a poor way of learning discursive subjects.
Incidentally, a pal from school, who was the keenest of our form and is now a history teacher went to Aber too - he loved it. I was shocked on hearing of low output from many Southern unis - that said, I expect these reportss were often based on the person and their own motivation/egos/work avoidance skills....
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
Last year's president of the Royal Historical Society, whose name I forget, had a very interesting series of articles on the abolition of secondary education, where the suggestion was that comprehensive education would offer 'grammar schools for all'. One reason for its introduction was a tendency to pigeonhole students very early on - there was so far as I am aware no movement between secondary moderns and grammars, so any late flowerers were stuck.
One solution would have been selection at 14, rather than 11, with a proper middle-school system to compensate. But that would have been expensive. Transfers would have been feasible in theory - but imagine the fuss of parents of children transferred to a secondary modern. So eventually, with the support of the NUT who wanted to level themselves up with the NAS, comprehensives were born.
The irony is of course that we continue to have a selective system at post-16 - I have entry requirements for A-level history. But by then, it's usually rather too late to undo any damage caused to their prospects by poor GCSE grades.
What amazes me about the US system is that the high school level of education is pretty damn poor. The knowledge of kids on day one at even the best colleges is below that of say kids from the UK. But the ramp up in required knowledge for particularly science subjects at the top colleges is incredible, far more than here in the UK.
When I was at Cardiff in the 80s they had a system which allowed that as well. I originally went to do a BSc in Archaeology - Cardiff was one of only 2 unis in the UK offering it as a science rather than arts degree. I also had to choose 2 supplementary subjects to study - in my case Geology and Zoology. At the end of the first year I realised that job prospects in Geology were far better than in Archaeology (this was prior to the revolution in Archaeology provided by Maggie's wonderful PPG16 rules in planning law). So I switched to Geology for my main degree. Now of course I combine both Geology and Archaeology as a career.
The main point about the 4 times a year return issue is the extra burden of time put on both businesses and HMRC.
For HMRC if it's all automated then it should be less work not more.
For businesses it's a quarter of the work done four times as often, not much extra time and good practice to know sooner than later your results anyway.
Sorry but that is rubbish. When they moved to monthly PAYE notifications it was a load more work and certainly a lot more cost. Exactly the same will happen this time. Accountants will love it but everyone else will end up worse off.
I'm sorry but what extra work? Do you mean with the current real time information or a previous system? I use the real time information for reporting to HMRC and it is zero extra work. I press a button on my software to upload the data and it does all the work for me, the whole process is automated. Honestly calculating the payroll data is infinitely more of a headache than reporting the completed data to HMRC.
As for the cost/benefits of real time reporting, it has shown tremendous benefits to my business. When we get a new starter and put them on a tax code that isn't correct (eg if they've filled in a P46 rather than brought a P45) then rather than being stuck on that tax code until after the following April like previously, the real time reporting send back a message with the correct tax code by their second payroll run which the software then automatically changes for me and they are paid correctly going forwards.
Which is why for me as I've said before it is the complexity of the system and the actual requirements as well as benefits themselves that matter more than the frequency.
Presently for my small business I run on a July-June tax year with submissions due by end of March of the following year. Meaning that the data HMRC currently has for my business until the end of March 2016 is from July 2014 ... nearly two years obsolete. I can understand why they want that changing.
I just assumed it was God's way of saying that being Anglican was the way to go
Can't really compete on the low end of the temperature spectrum. But on the high end ... Djibouti, 56 celsius, near 100% humidity. Definitely four-showers-a-day weather. Or the Empty Quarter, 55 Celsius, below 10% humidity so no visible sweating, just your arms going white with residue salt. Then 0 Celsius that night.
Every August a load of British tourists turn up at Dubai's beach hotels without thinking why it it so much cheaper in the summer than the winter! Not quite as bad as Djibouti, but let's call it three showers a day weather. The temperature is usually 49 officially for a few weeks, as 50 leads to a temporary state of emergency that prevents anyone working outside. Humidity around 80%, sunglasses steam up in seconds as you walk outside and within a couple of minutes your shirt is soaking wet. Worse is that 35C is a cold night, 40 is more usual.
I thought Dubai was in the desert? I really enjoyed living in Phoenix, 40+C and very dry. Lovely!
In the desert but also on the coast. Hot and humid and generally horrible from May to September.
Lovely today though, 21C at 9am, clear blue sky with a few fluffy cumulus, rising to about 26'in the early afternoon. Like a nice British Summer's day
I can recommend southern India at this time of year. Dubai was damp and overcast when we flew through.
Afternoon of Boxing Day by any chance? That was wet and windy, it does happen a handful of days a year. Usually when you've booked a table outside for lunch!
BTW an open invitation to any PBers passing through the sandpit who would like a drink or several during their stay, PM me a few days before.
It was indeed Boxing Day early afternoon! Not sure we'd have had time to meet up - we only had time for a quick coffee and even then made the gate just as the final call was going out. At least the luggage arrived with us in Manchester, unlike on the way out!
Glad you and your bags made it safely home! I blamed my parents for bringing a couple of days of British weather with them as they visited over Christmas. Back to warm and sunny now!
What's your view of putting lower achievers with higher ones - to encourage better standards? IME, this levels down rather than up.
I find it works with lower achievers who want to learn and higher achievers who can teach without showing off. Not otherwise, and since this combination is pretty rare I don't find it an effective teaching method. In fact, I've seen it tried in inner-city schools where it just led to systematic bullying of the brighter one because of the anti-intellectual nature of the school.
Better to split the classes by ability range and teach them that way (which is what I do - I usually have 3-4 groups with different resources going in any one lesson). This was of course also the original idea of comprehensives, but the egalitarianism of the NUT again put paid to it.
A very interesting essay on this subject, by C. S. Lewis, may be found in 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast', where he links it to the ancient Greek idea of total mediocrity enforced by the ancient dictators of Athens, so they would have no rivals to their pre-eminence. Far be it from me to accuse the Civil Servants of Whitehall in the late 1960s, spooked by the loss of their intellectual pre-eminence, of having a similar idea...
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
Last year's president of the Royal Historical Society, whose name I forget, had a very interesting series of articles on the abolition of secondary education, where the suggestion was that comprehensive education would offer 'grammar schools for all'. One reason for its introduction was a tendency to pigeonhole students very early on - there was so far as I am aware no movement between secondary moderns and grammars, so any late flowerers were stuck.
One solution would have been selection at 14, rather than 11, with a proper middle-school system to compensate. But that would have been expensive. Transfers would have been feasible in theory - but imagine the fuss of parents of children transferred to a secondary modern. So eventually, with the support of the NUT who wanted to level themselves up with the NAS, comprehensives were born.
The irony is of course that we continue to have a selective system at post-16 - I have entry requirements for A-level history. But by then, it's usually rather too late to undo any damage caused to their prospects by poor GCSE grades.
Vested interests and the politics of envy were sadly the reason behind the destruction of our secondary selective system.
You're right that there was little transfer - and from an anecdotal family example it was more often out of grammars into sec-mod. This happened to my uncle, one of the few Grammar school lads from his North Wales council estates, largely as a result of his larking around and desire to be with his mates at the sec-mod
Middle schools are an unnecessary complication in an education system and involve two school switches in formative years. But you've put your finger on it with the transfer system. With today's standardised tests (KS3 especially) it wouldn't be impossible to move the more academic from comps to grammars at 14.
Again: are you sure you've followed all regulations all of the time? As a matter of interest, what sector are you in?
Technical consultancy working mainly for the property sector. Although I don't see that as relevant. To read some comments on here it would seem impossible to put pen to paper, finger to keyboard or die to widget without contravening some UK or EU diktat.
That's not what I'm saying, and I wasn't trying to make a political point out of it. Although I'd argue that a 'technical consultancy' is very different from a company that actually does something.
Miss Plato, they tried that at my school. I believe the net result was the clever kids being distracted, and one idiot teacher asking me if I smoked when the pupil next to me was wearing a jacket reeking of tobacco.
What amazes me about the US system is that the high school level of education is pretty damn poor. The knowledge of kids on day one at even the best colleges is below that of say kids from the UK. But the ramp up in required knowledge for particularly science subjects at the top colleges is incredible, far more than here in the UK.
When I was at Cardiff in the 80s they had a system which allowed that as well. I originally went to do a BSc in Archaeology - Cardiff was one of only 2 unis in the UK offering it as a science rather than arts degree. I also had to choose 2 supplementary subjects to study - in my case Geology and Zoology. At the end of the first year I realised that job prospects in Geology were far better than in Archaeology (this was prior to the revolution in Archaeology provided by Maggie's wonderful PPG16 rules in planning law). So I switched to Geology for my main degree. Now of course I combine both Geology and Archaeology as a career.
There are quite a few UK unis that do have some element of that and means you can make some change e.g engineering is another one that some unis let kids do 2 years of "general engineering" and then they choose if they are going to do civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.
But the US you don't even decide on your "major" until after the 2 years of pre-recs. Yes you might doing the science track of pre-recs, but they try not to tie you down too much too early, meaning you have a huge amount of flexibility in what subject your final degree might actually be.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
So you would campaign for a return to secondary moderns?
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
Agree entirely and most of the remaining grammars i.e. in Kent or Bucks are in the South East. No reason could not at least be selection at 16 as in Finland
In some ways, the US system of being able to transfer between colleges part way through a degree helps to level the playing field. For example, in my county in MD, the local community college is good. Thus people with no money, or from lower performing high schools can get a year or two under their belt at Montgomery College, and then transfer to an Ivy League school if they have the grades to do so.
Of course, this does not help out so much in poorer areas were the community college is not so excellent as Montgomery College, but the same principle of getting into somewhere within the aspiration range, doing well, getting broader horizons and trading up is a model that is very widely followed here.
US system also allows that flexibility because you don't start off from day one in college doing a particular major. You do your 2 years of pre-rec's, so transferring isn't such a big deal.
I actually quite like the thought that at least initially you have some flexibility. It is a huge ask for a 17 year old to decide what they will be studying for 3-4 years in 12 months and from that decision they will be rather tied down to take path until 21/22.
US allows people to actually start college, try a few things and then decide. Perhaps a different major, perhaps even a different college.
What age does 'college' start in America for students?
Vested interests and the politics of envy were sadly the reason behind the destruction of our secondary selective system.
You're right that there was little transfer - and from an anecdotal family example it was more often out of grammars into sec-mod. This happened to my uncle, one of the few Grammar school lads from his North Wales council estates, largely as a result of his larking around and desire to be with his mates at the sec-mod
Middle schools are an unnecessary complication in an education system and involve two school switches in formative years. But you've put your finger on it with the transfer system. With today's standardised tests (KS3 especially) it wouldn't be impossible to move the more academic from comps to grammars at 14.
I switched schools twice - in Newent until less than five years ago you had a primary and junior school. Generally, middle schools are years 5-9, leaving enlarged infant schools and shrunken secondary schools. However, a number of models exist.
The problem with KS3 tests is that they have been scrapped. They were never popular anyway. So they would have to be brought back before we had re-selection.
The big problem with selection in many counties (e.g. Gloucestershire) is it is not universal. So the grammars get those that are not so much intelligent as have pushy parents.
Crowdfunding can be a little deceiving these days when you see the big numbers.
It started out as "mad inventor in shed seeks £50k to bring idea to market". Now it is much more "existing business with good track record requires extra capital to take working product to mass market" e.g. the people behind Trunki just launched a kickstarter for new adult luggage.
Miss Plato, the Banner Saga, a crowd-funded videogame, is coming to consoles on 12 January, and next year also sees the crowd-funded Kingdom Come:Deliverance released for PC. Both look very interesting.
I believe if you donate £30 the price of the e-books you get sent actually exceed that sum (ie, you effectively get the books for a discount, as well as donating to the kickstarter).
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
...
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
So you would campaign for a return to secondary moderns?
A modernised equiv. yes. Not everyone is academic. Beyond literacy and numeracy it would make more sense to treat people differently, and equip individuals with an education that suits their likely future employment.
Having a surplus of individuals with humanities degrees is a nonsense when we have a practical skills shortage.
Miss Plato, the Banner Saga, a crowd-funded videogame, is coming to consoles on 12 January, and next year also sees the crowd-funded Kingdom Come:Deliverance released for PC. Both look very interesting.
I believe if you donate £30 the price of the e-books you get sent actually exceed that sum (ie, you effectively get the books for a discount, as well as donating to the kickstarter).
Miss Plato, the Banner Saga, a crowd-funded videogame, is coming to consoles on 12 January, and next year also sees the crowd-funded Kingdom Come:Deliverance released for PC. Both look very interesting.
I believe if you donate £30 the price of the e-books you get sent actually exceed that sum (ie, you effectively get the books for a discount, as well as donating to the kickstarter).
The games market have done very well out of "crowd funding" e.g. Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, etc etc etc.
I notice that there is now a move to a slightly different model, which is more akin to crowd investment in new games, whereby you not only pledge to fund it, but you get a stake in the profits as well.
I have to say I don't really get KickStarter. I risk my money and I might get the product and perhaps a t-shirt and that is it. If it is a roaring success, I don't see any of the profits and also they can just use that initial success to make v2.0 and again I see none of the benefits of that.
Oculus RIFT being the classic example. All those people put the money in and won't see any of the benefits of Facebook having shelled out big bucks for it.
Vested interests and the politics of envy were sadly the reason behind the destruction of our secondary selective system.
You're right that there was little transfer - and from an anecdotal family example it was more often out of grammars into sec-mod. This happened to my uncle, one of the few Grammar school lads from his North Wales council estates, largely as a result of his larking around and desire to be with his mates at the sec-mod
Middle schools are an unnecessary complication in an education system and involve two school switches in formative years. But you've put your finger on it with the transfer system. With today's standardised tests (KS3 especially) it wouldn't be impossible to move the more academic from comps to grammars at 14.
I switched schools twice - in Newent until less than five years ago you had a primary and junior school. Generally, middle schools are years 5-9, leaving enlarged infant schools and shrunken secondary schools. However, a number of models exist.
The problem with KS3 tests is that they have been scrapped. They were never popular anyway. So they would have to be brought back before we had re-selection.
The big problem with selection in many counties (e.g. Gloucestershire) is it is not universal. So the grammars get those that are not so much intelligent as have pushy parents.
Your pushy parents are my parents who want their child to get on educationally. That is not exclusively a class nor a financially motivated position.
Universality would be great - but until then the fact that grammar schools exist at all is because of the political abilities (mostly at council and school governor levels) of the middle classes.
I didn't know KS3 tests have been scrapped. What a waste!
Miss Plato, aye, crowd-funding for certain things makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Urquhart, not to mention getting some merchandise for your cash, and stretch goals (for the publisher it's about putting more books on shelves, for games it's often adding more features).
Some dodgy persons have fleeced people through crowd-funding, but hopefully the success of The Banner Saga et al. will help ensure that those with a genuine prospect of producing something good can get crowd-funded.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
What amazes me about the US system is that the high school level of education is pretty damn poor. The knowledge of kids on day one at even the best colleges is below that of say kids from the UK. But the ramp up in required knowledge for particularly science subjects at the top colleges is incredible, far more than here in the UK.
When I was at Cardiff in the 80s they had a system which allowed that as well. I originally went to do a BSc in Archaeology - Cardiff was one of only 2 unis in the UK offering it as a science rather than arts degree. I also had to choose 2 supplementary subjects to study - in my case Geology and Zoology. At the end of the first year I realised that job prospects in Geology were far better than in Archaeology (this was prior to the revolution in Archaeology provided by Maggie's wonderful PPG16 rules in planning law). So I switched to Geology for my main degree. Now of course I combine both Geology and Archaeology as a career.
There are quite a few UK unis that do have some element of that and means you can make some change e.g engineering is another one that some unis let kids do 2 years of "general engineering" and then they choose if they are going to do civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.
But the US you don't even decide on your "major" until after the 2 years of pre-recs. Yes you might doing the science track of pre-recs, but they try not to tie you down too much too early, meaning you have a huge amount of flexibility in what subject your final degree might actually be.
The sciences are the one area in the US system where there is somewhat less flexibility. For example, if you want to include Organic Chemistry II in your undergrad degree, you must (at least at my daughter's college) do inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry and organic chemistry I first. Given the way kids have to bid for classes and may not get all the classes they want in the semester they want, this can mean that those intending to major in organic chemistry must be organizing their classes for that from their first semester.
That said, science graduates here at good schools get very good science educations, and much more besides (a minimum number of humanities classes, for example) than their peers in UK universities get. My daughter and wife find it incomprehensible that I basically studied only three subjects at university (cell biology/pathology, microbiology, and biochemistry).
"3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting."
The last government bottled a great chance to change this. Gove was on to something, but backed down when the universities kicked up a stink.
The biggest change would be to apply to uni once you have got your results. Yes it would require exam being taken a bit earlier and universities to process application during the summer, but it is certainly possible if the will was there.
Unfortunately, unis like to spend their summers raking it in from the conference seasons and academics to go off attending them (and vacations).
It is a total nonsense that basically people put down predicted grades when only half the course has been completed and those are used as gospel.
Leicester Medical School has a preference for post A level students, rather than predicted grades. My experience of interviewing is that this helps state school students significantly. Gritty strivers do well in the interviews too, which reward persistence.
Your pushy parents are my parents who want their child to get on educationally. That is not exclusively a class nor a financially motivated position.
Universality would be great - but until then the fact that grammar schools exist at all is because of the political abilities (mostly at council and school governor levels) of the middle classes.
I didn't know KS3 tests have been scrapped. What a waste!
Yes, quite. Merely because they want their children to get on educationally does not make said children intelligent. I've taught children in grammar schools who would have been far happier elsewhere.
As for KS3 tests - not really. They weren't very effective and nobody was actually using them for anything, so they were rather an expensive luxury that the government decided it didn't need. Has to be said teachers were thrilled to see them go as well, because they were absolutely stifling (particularly in English). It allows for much more flexibility - including the ability to start GCSEs early if that would help with a class or year group.
Oculus RIFT being the classic example. All those people put the money in and won't see any of the benefits of Facebook having shelled out big bucks for it....In fact, all the initial backers got was the Rift DK1, which was pretty shitty and a million miles away from what the Facebook backed RIFT will be.
Your pushy parents are my parents who want their child to get on educationally. That is not exclusively a class nor a financially motivated position.
Universality would be great - but until then the fact that grammar schools exist at all is because of the political abilities (mostly at council and school governor levels) of the middle classes.
I didn't know KS3 tests have been scrapped. What a waste!
Yes, quite. Merely because they want their children to get on educationally does not make said children intelligent. I've taught children in grammar schools who would have been far happier elsewhere.
As for KS3 tests - not really. They weren't very effective and nobody was actually using them for anything, so they were rather an expensive luxury that the government decided it didn't need. Has to be said teachers were thrilled to see them go as well, because they were absolutely stifling (particularly in English). It allows for much more flexibility - including the ability to start GCSEs early if that would help with a class or year group.
Quite possibly a grammar school perspective, but we were very competitive in our seeking of achievement. After the entrance test, they were the first externally determined test results.
From an exam practice point of view, they were followed by annual testing in the 4th, 5th and 6th forms that really mattered, and then again in 1st and final year of uni. Good practice I'd have thought - particularly for English....
The sciences are the one area in the US system where there is somewhat less flexibility. For example, if you want to include Organic Chemistry II in your undergrad degree, you must (at least at my daughter's college) do inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry and organic chemistry I first. Given the way kids have to bid for classes and may not get all the classes they want in the semester they want, this can mean that those intending to major in organic chemistry must be organizing their classes for that from their first semester.
That said, science graduates here at good schools get very good science educations, and much more besides (a minimum number of humanities classes, for example) than their peers in UK universities get. My daughter and wife find it incomprehensible that I basically studied only three subjects at university (cell biology/pathology, microbiology, and biochemistry).
What I found was that when I went on did my PhD, the lack of breadth hurt my initial understanding of research papers. I hadn't covered all the maths as part of my degree, as all the maths I had been taught was focused purely upon whatever the module being taken required.
It would have been a huge benefit in the first two years of undergraduate to have taken to general maths pre-recs. Instead I found during my PhD, I ended up spending a lot of time teaching myself undergrad maths courses. Not the most effective use of time for me or the department.
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
The question for Mike, is why did the LDs stay with Nick Clegg and how can Labour avoid that fate.
By the end the LDs seemed a bit cultish.
I don't think, on the evidence we've seen (polling, local by-elections, Oldham) that Labour is facing an LD-esque wipeout, so one answer to your question could be "nothing". Ie, Labour will lose in 2020, sure, but it won't be vaporised.
That said, I think one should consider that Corbyn is uncharted territory. No mainstream party has ever had so unmainstream a leader. Perhaps he can confound the polls and achieve total annihilation of his party.
What to do? Replace him. OK, can't do that. Drink then.
Uncharted territory is the correct expression. What happens if Labout loses 3% with the conventional voting electorate but gains 5% from the 33% who do not vote.
Has anyone done any analysis on this at Oldham ? OK one by-election is not a proper sample.
My initial view is that would result in Labour going backwards in places of high turnout (marginal seats) while advancing in places of low turnout (safe Labour seats).
The floods have had me thinking back to a rather excellent documentary by Iain Stewart called "Scotland's Water" (not currently on iPlayer, sadly). One of the striking messages I learned from it is that there is practically not one drop of water in Scotland which is not managed from the moment it falls by Scottish Water.
This includes being able to reroute rainfall between different Watersheds using artificial (tunnels and dug trenches/canals) and natural links (dry rivers) and how much of Scotland's farmland is, basically, bog which shouldn't have people on it at all but due to good management, not only is productive land but seldom floods.
Does anyone know how much of this sort of management happens in England, particularly in the areas which seem to be washing away. Floods do occur in Scotland but seem far less prevalent and you never see any of the violent events which occur elsewhere.
Also, do the Privatised water companies in England have an environmental remit at all? Scottish Water is still a publicly owned corporation and management of environmental water is a key part of it's function.
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
South Africa pace bowler Dale Steyn will have a scan after injuring a shoulder on the third afternoon of the first Test against England.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
....
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
So you would campaign for a return to secondary moderns?
A modernised equiv. yes. Not everyone is academic. Beyond literacy and numeracy it would make more sense to treat people differently, and equip individuals with an education that suits their likely future employment. Having a surplus of individuals with humanities degrees is a nonsense when we have a practical skills shortage.
I'm not sure what having a surplus of humanities degrees has got to do with a return to grammars and studying latin and greek. Practical skills are or should be taught on the job via apprenticeships or by attending a (as used to be so called) technical college. It strikes me that say, accountancy, is something of a practical skill, useful to all and can be taught at a comprehensive. But if accountancy teachers, not least the good ones, are syphoned off to grammars then where does that leave this new secondary modern? The industrial world has changed which once used to be served by secondary moderns and the the technical schools (such as ever were opened) - coal and steel is mostly no more and manufacturing is more automated and employs nothing like the previous numbers. I do not see it realistic to turn our education system upside down again. If I were heaven forbid to stand as an MP it would be good and hard working education I would want to see a return to (if that is needed).
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
South Africa pace bowler Dale Steyn will have a scan after injuring a shoulder on the third afternoon of the first Test against England.
Which is also bad news for the Saffers as he was also by some distance their third-best batsman...
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
....
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
So you would campaign for a return to secondary moderns?
A modernised equiv. yes. Not everyone is academic. Beyond literacy and numeracy it would make more sense to treat people differently, and equip individuals with an education that suits their likely future employment. Having a surplus of individuals with humanities degrees is a nonsense when we have a practical skills shortage.
I'm not sure what having a surplus of humanities degrees has got to do with a return to grammars and studying latin and greek. Practical skills are or should be taught on the job via apprenticeships or by attending a (as used to be so called) technical college. It strikes me that say, accountancy, is something of a practical skill, useful to all and can be taught at a comprehensive. But if accountancy teachers, not least the good ones, are syphoned off to grammars then where does that leave this new secondary modern? The industrial world has changed which once used to be served by secondary moderns and the the technical schools (such as ever were opened) - coal and steel is mostly no more and manufacturing is more automated and employs nothing like the previous numbers. I do not see it realistic to turn our education system upside down again. If I were heaven forbid to stand as an MP it would be good and hard working education I would want to see a return to (if that is needed).
I studied neither Latin nor Greek at grammar school (although the former is really quite useful for both scientific and humanities, and I wish I had!).
The problem with selective schools was generally, as you've demonstrated here, that they were objected to on dubious political rather than educational grounds by people who didn't understand that students have differing abilities and skills.
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all. Sure I can apply others - but Latin is weirdly handly. I don't think I've ever used it in a Yes Minister context either
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
....
snip
So you would campaign for a return to secondary moderns?
A modernised equiv. yes. Not everyone is academic. Beyond literacy and numeracy it would make more sense to treat people differently, and equip individuals with an education that suits their likely future employment. Having a surplus of individuals with humanities degrees is a nonsense when we have a practical skills shortage.
I'm not sure what having a surplus of humanities degrees has got to do with a return to grammars and studying latin and greek. Practical skills are or should be taught on the job via apprenticeships or by attending a (as used to be so called) technical college. It strikes me that say, accountancy, is something of a practical skill, useful to all and can be taught at a comprehensive. But if accountancy teachers, not least the good ones, are syphoned off to grammars then where does that leave this new secondary modern? The industrial world has changed which once used to be served by secondary moderns and the the technical schools (such as ever were opened) - coal and steel is mostly no more and manufacturing is more automated and employs nothing like the previous numbers. I do not see it realistic to turn our education system upside down again. If I were heaven forbid to stand as an MP it would be good and hard working education I would want to see a return to (if that is needed).
I studied neither Latin nor Greek at grammar school (although the former is really quite useful for both scientific and humanities, and I wish I had!).
The problem with selective education was generally, as you've demonstrated here, that they were objected to on dubious political rather than educational grounds by people who didn't understand that students have differing abilities and skills.
"3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting."
The last government bottled a great chance to change this. Gove was on to something, but backed down when the universities kicked up a stink.
The biggest change would be to apply to uni once you have got your results. Yes it would require exam being taken a bit earlier and universities to process application during the summer, but it is certainly possible if the will was there.
Unfortunately, unis like to spend their summers raking it in from the conference seasons and academics to go off attending them (and vacations).
There would have been an even easier way to do it - put the start of the university year back to January, or November, which it already is for some postgraduate courses. Then have the long vacation from the start of August to the start of November, which would be ample for research/family holidays/exam boards etc. It would also have allowed prospective students to spend time working, earning money, or travelling if they could afford it.
But that was bottled as well. As you say, a great opportunity missed, and I look forward to the day a government has another go at it.
Easier still would be to get rid of interviews which favour the articulate and well-prepared middle classes (and likewise personal statements) and key university admission directly from A-level (and GCSE) results and any other objective factors that research shows should be included. University admission could be done and dusted within a week of the papers filling their front pages with attractive schoolgirls jumping into the air. (And if Michael Gove was really serious about education reforms, why didn't he let boys sit A-levels?)
Admittedly your scheme would allow time for thousands of appeals to filter through the system.
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
South Africa pace bowler Dale Steyn will have a scan after injuring a shoulder on the third afternoon of the first Test against England.
Which is also bad news for the Saffers as he was also by some distance their third-best batsman...
catches dropped left right and centre. A more cynical man than me would be asking questions...
There was a classic Scot. Parliament moment when an MSP reffered to the 3 R's as Reading, writing and adding up ; presumably in an attempt at faux Scots. #trufacts
I use Maths and English taught post primary school barely at all. My mother was a primary teacher and I had a hard taskmaster. I can't think of a single occasion when I applied a cosine or used a differential equation beyond my A Levels.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
First mistake in the fourth paragraph - at the start of April 1982 (so before Galtieri's little stunt) Labour were third in the polls, not 'steadily in the lead'. The figures were SDP 37, Con 31, Lab 29. Indeed, at one point (December 1981) they were joint second with the Tories on a remarkable 23% as the SDP nudged 50%. Labour did not have a lead in a single opinion poll after September 1981, and was twice third during that winter.
Whoever the good Michelle Ryan is (is it the Eastenders actress?) she knows nothing whatever about history or politics. She is anxious to try and prove Corbyn will not lose votes, and of course she selects one example, gets it completely wrong (in a way that happens to confirm her prejudices) and then says the world is flat after all.
It is both instructive and frightening to see how a desperation to ignore facts leads to a rewriting of history on such a grand scale. Even David Irving would have blenched at some of the falsehoods in that post if they are deliberate. However, let's be charitable and assume she simply doesn't know what she's talking about. Unfortunately, ignorance in a political party is just as dangerous as dishonesty.
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
Maybe if England want to be a little silly they should play the next 30 overs like its a one dayer, get another 150 on the board and declare to leave the Saffa openers 3 or 4 overs in the fading light, facing a score they've not come close to in a year...
They won't play it like that of course, but fun to think about none the less. They will probably declare around lunch tomorrow with the target about 350 and five sessions remaining.
What do you teachers think of the University Technical Colleges that have started to open up... start at 14, major on technical subjects but with minimum national curriculum, linked with university? Sounds ideal for my son (11), but we don't have one close enough yet.
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
Maybe if England want to be a little silly they should play the next 30 overs like its a one dayer, get another 150 on the board and declare to leave the Saffa openers 3 or 4 overs in the fading light, facing a score they've not come close to in a year...
They won't play it like that of course, but fun to think about none the less. They will probably declare around lunch tomorrow with the target about 350 and five sessions remaining.
I don't know - even Compton's hitting the ball to the boundary!
I use Maths and English taught post primary school barely at all. My mother was a primary teacher and I had a hard taskmaster. I can't think of a single occasion when I applied a cosine or used a differential equation beyond my A Levels.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all.
Eh, as opposed to Maths ??????
*Raises the club marked 'History' in a threatening manner* I'm sure you didn't mean that about 'filler' Plato, or how could I debunk the rubbish you just cross-posted to?
I'm sure you will on reflection want to say that Latin is less important than History. After all, without history we would not have Latin (or science, or maths, or anything else).
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all.
Eh, as opposed to Maths ??????
As Buffy asked (in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a worthy successor to Tom Brown's Schooldays and Goodbye Mr Chips) "when in the real world am I ever gonna need chemistry or history or math or the English language?"
England effectively 147/2 at tea, it's their game to lose now, another 100 should be more than enough.
If South Africa bat as badly as they did last time, another 10 would be more than enough! Bearing in mind Dean Elgar should have been out for 58, in which case it's not hard to imagine SA would have made less than 150 in total...
Maybe if England want to be a little silly they should play the next 30 overs like its a one dayer, get another 150 on the board and declare to leave the Saffa openers 3 or 4 overs in the fading light, facing a score they've not come close to in a year...
They won't play it like that of course, but fun to think about none the less. They will probably declare around lunch tomorrow with the target about 350 and five sessions remaining.
I don't know - even Compton's hitting the ball to the boundary!
Indeed, stranger things have happened. My wanting an exciting final session is completely unrelated to the fact that work is now finished for the day and the next two hours are happy hour in the local! Cheers!
I find History interesting in a TV docu way - but I like subjects that are more practical to my everyday life. I've found Latin something I've used again and again in all sorts of odd places from getting the gist of a article in another related tongue to other sciences.
AFAIC, I'm a live and let live sort when it comes to personal passions - after all - most of the population would find our interest in politics totally pointless - yet we could argue for hours about how vital it was.
I use Maths and English taught post primary school barely at all. My mother was a primary teacher and I had a hard taskmaster. I can't think of a single occasion when I applied a cosine or used a differential equation beyond my A Levels.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all.
Eh, as opposed to Maths ??????
*Raises the club marked 'History' in a threatening manner* I'm sure you didn't mean that about 'filler' Plato, or how could I debunk the rubbish you just cross-posted to?
I'm sure you will on reflection want to say that Latin is less important than History. After all, without history we would not have Latin (or science, or maths, or anything else).
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
Err, good point. I'd need time to think about it to do it properly. But I guess no over-emphasis on the 3 R's and let the less brighter get on with learning something different as a bit of a gamble at success somehow. I was referring to the thread btw, lols
I use Maths and English taught post primary school barely at all. My mother was a primary teacher and I had a hard taskmaster. I can't think of a single occasion when I applied a cosine or used a differential equation beyond my A Levels.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all.
Eh, as opposed to Maths ??????
*Raises the club marked 'History' in a threatening manner* I'm sure you didn't mean that about 'filler' Plato, or how could I debunk the rubbish you just cross-posted to?
I'm sure you will on reflection want to say that Latin is less important than History. After all, without history we would not have Latin (or science, or maths, or anything else).
If I had to distill it down - it's *I'll make you look good* factor. If you intersect with enough people who aren't scared of your brains or your willingness to go the extra mile - your chances are transformed. They see you as an asset/someone like them and want to see you flourish.
It's the small minded and insecure who don't recruit tall poppies. All my biggest careers leaps were down to my bosses trusting me to never let them down or making them look stupid for pushing me ahead.
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
I use Maths and English taught post primary school barely at all. My mother was a primary teacher and I had a hard taskmaster. I can't think of a single occasion when I applied a cosine or used a differential equation beyond my A Levels.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
I studied Latin up to O Level and I honestly find it the most useful subject of them all.
Eh, as opposed to Maths ??????
*Raises the club marked 'History' in a threatening manner* I'm sure you didn't mean that about 'filler' Plato, or how could I debunk the rubbish you just cross-posted to?
I'm sure you will on reflection want to say that Latin is less important than History. After all, without history we would not have Latin (or science, or maths, or anything else).
Never one to do down my own subject, but without Latin we wouldn't have much history, either...
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
One of my absolute favorite quotes: "Fortune favours the prepared mind."
First mistake in the fourth paragraph - at the start of April 1982 (so before Galtieri's little stunt) Labour were third in the polls, not 'steadily in the lead'. The figures were SDP 37, Con 31, Lab 29. Indeed, at one point (December 1981) they were joint second with the Tories on a remarkable 23% as the SDP nudged 50%. Labour did not have a lead in a single opinion poll after September 1981, and was twice third during that winter.
Whoever the good Michelle Ryan is (is it the Eastenders actress?) she knows nothing whatever about history or politics. She is anxious to try and prove Corbyn will not lose votes, and of course she selects one example, gets it completely wrong (in a way that happens to confirm her prejudices) and then says the world is flat after all.
It is both instructive and frightening to see how a desperation to ignore facts leads to a rewriting of history on such a grand scale. Even David Irving would have blenched at some of the falsehoods in that post if they are deliberate. However, let's be charitable and assume she simply doesn't know what she's talking about. Unfortunately, ignorance in a political party is just as dangerous as dishonesty.
And here's another shocker:
" Blair was of his time – just as Foot was of his – a unique time when Britain was bouncing along happily inside a credit and housing bubble, a bubble none of us could imagine would burst in the spectacular way that it did a decade later, a bubble that made people feel falsely well off. "
There was no credit and housing bubble in 1997 ** - that came later and was continually pumped up by Gordon Brown.
I'll also point out there are people on PB who were warning of the fundamental weakness of the economy before 2007.
** In fact its possible that houses have never been as relatively cheap as they were in 1996/7:
What do you teachers think of the University Technical Colleges that have started to open up... start at 14, major on technical subjects but with minimum national curriculum, linked with university? Sounds ideal for my son (11), but we don't have one close enough yet.
First thought is that it depends on which children these new colleges are aimed at. If they are going to go out and attract the bright children who would normally go on to A Levels and Uni. then I think they will be a waste of time and possibly counter-productive. However, if they are going to target the children the school system writes off as not academically gifted then I think they should be massively encouraged.
One hopes in other words that they are another go at introducing the missing technical education that the '44 Act failed to deliver and which had been recommended as essential as long ago as the Parliamentary Commission in the 1870s.
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
It certainly does.
For most people on this site they got very lucky when they were born - into middle class families in the UK.
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
It certainly does.
For most people on this site they got very lucky when they were born - into middle class families in the UK.
Isn't that sort of the point we started from - social mobility in the UK is dreadful and, despite his fine speeches, Cameron seems to be doing nothing about it.
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
It certainly does.
For most people on this site they got very lucky when they were born - into middle class families in the UK.
Isn't that sort of the point we started from - social mobility in the UK is dreadful and, despite his fine speeches, Cameron seems to be doing nothing about it.
People are all in favour of social mobility in principle, where it falls down is when their own offspring look downwardly mobile. At that point all the strings get pulled.
If you think Jobs and Wozniak are ordinary, I'd like to know who you think is extraordinary
They were ordinary and lucky, as are most entrepreneurs. Don't fall for the mythology.
IME where entrepreneurs differ from the 'average' member of the public is in their capabilities to work hard, take managed risks and focus. Many people (the majority?) do the former; the luck comes in with the second, and the third is perhaps the hardest to achieve.
Most of us have skills that are not common amongst other members of the general public. That does not make us any less ordinary.
You make your own luck ...
No. You can position yourself in such a way that you can make the most of opportunities that come your way. But you still need luck for those opportunities to come along for you, and not your competitors.
The skill is in the positioning.
Certainly if you wait for opportunities to "come along to you" then you'll need more "luck" than if you work hard trying to create and find opportunities .
But that's not what I'm saying. The 'positioning' is the last clause of your sentence: the working hard so you can take advantage of opportunities.
Take politics. *Anyone* who has been PM has had luck to get into that position, if only in timing. For instance, if Smith had not died then Blair might never have become PM: the opportunity would have passed. But he had developed skills and networked so that when the opportunity came, he was in prime position.
He didn't make the luck (unless you think he killed Smith).
Blair might well have succeded Smith anyway as the age gap would still have been right. Alternatively, as you say, he could have been an addition to the long list of former future PMs. Certainly, Labour's priorities at the leadership election would have beendifferent had Smith already led Labour back to office.
Perceptions can change very quickly. I recall at the 1992 election that Blair was scheduled to address a Labour election meeting here in Norwich but at the last minute he was replaced by Bryan Gould. At the time - barely two years before Smith's death - we were all delighted because Gould appeared to be the 'bigger' and more high profile name.
The floods have had me thinking back to a rather excellent documentary by Iain Stewart called "Scotland's Water" (not currently on iPlayer, sadly). One of the striking messages I learned from it is that there is practically not one drop of water in Scotland which is not managed from the moment it falls by Scottish Water.
This includes being able to reroute rainfall between different Watersheds using artificial (tunnels and dug trenches/canals) and natural links (dry rivers) and how much of Scotland's farmland is, basically, bog which shouldn't have people on it at all but due to good management, not only is productive land but seldom floods.
Does anyone know how much of this sort of management happens in England, particularly in the areas which seem to be washing away. Floods do occur in Scotland but seem far less prevalent and you never see any of the violent events which occur elsewhere.
Also, do the Privatised water companies in England have an environmental remit at all? Scottish Water is still a publicly owned corporation and management of environmental water is a key part of it's function.
The level of water management in Scotland is astronomical. The country would be a damp unlivable bog if it were not for all the engineering.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
Agree entirely and most of the remaining grammars i.e. in Kent or Bucks are in the South East. No reason could not at least be selection at 16 as in Finland
What do you teachers think of the University Technical Colleges that have started to open up... start at 14, major on technical subjects but with minimum national curriculum, linked with university? Sounds ideal for my son (11), but we don't have one close enough yet.
First thought is that it depends on which children these new colleges are aimed at. If they are going to go out and attract the bright children who would normally go on to A Levels and Uni. then I think they will be a waste of time and possibly counter-productive. However, if they are going to target the children the school system writes off as not academically gifted then I think they should be massively encouraged.
One hopes in other words that they are another go at introducing the missing technical education that the '44 Act failed to deliver and which had been recommended as essential as long ago as the Parliamentary Commission in the 1870s.
I have only just seen Baskerville's comment (apologies). I agree with that analysis by HL. Only snag is, my guess is that they will certainly try to attract just those bright and able students who would otherwise do A-levels, and leave the comprehensive schools to try and cope with the rest. In other words, creating a worse misfit than we have already. That's based on personal experience of them so far, and I hope people will forgive me if I don't go into detail (because obviously I can't give specific examples).
I'm not blaming them, incidentally - it's easier to work with those who want to do well and get on in life, and who understand concepts quickly. Just a warning that it might be a case of best intentions gone awry.
Perceptions can change very quickly. I recall at the 1992 election that Blair was scheduled to address a Labour election meeting here in Norwich but at the last minute he was replaced by Bryan Gould. At the time - barely two years before Smith's death - we were all delighted because Gould appeared to be the 'bigger' and more high profile name.
The only thing I can remember about Bryan Gould is that wonderfully waspish comment about him in John O'Farrell's memoirs: 'Smith won easily with 86% of the vote. Bryan Gould took his overwhelming defeat very well, apart from resigning his seat and going to live in New Zealand.'
As you say, it's remarkable to think he was once rated more highly than Blair!
Can I just add the Josias was absolutely right about the role of luck earlier.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
It certainly does.
For most people on this site they got very lucky when they were born - into middle class families in the UK.
Isn't that sort of the point we started from - social mobility in the UK is dreadful and, despite his fine speeches, Cameron seems to be doing nothing about it.
People are all in favour of social mobility in principle, where it falls down is when their own offspring look downwardly mobile. At that point all the strings get pulled.
Fair go, Doc, and no more than should be expected - any sentient being wants the best for their offspring. However, that does not mean our politicians (and existing middle-class generally) should be allowed to get away with pulling up the drawbridge after them.
I'll say it again, Cameron made some very good noises about this issue before the last election. He just doesn't seem to be actually doing anything.
The floods have had me thinking back to a rather excellent documentary by Iain Stewart called "Scotland's Water" (not currently on iPlayer, sadly). One of the striking messages I learned from it is that there is practically not one drop of water in Scotland which is not managed from the moment it falls by Scottish Water.
This includes being able to reroute rainfall between different Watersheds using artificial (tunnels and dug trenches/canals) and natural links (dry rivers) and how much of Scotland's farmland is, basically, bog which shouldn't have people on it at all but due to good management, not only is productive land but seldom floods.
Does anyone know how much of this sort of management happens in England, particularly in the areas which seem to be washing away. Floods do occur in Scotland but seem far less prevalent and you never see any of the violent events which occur elsewhere.
Also, do the Privatised water companies in England have an environmental remit at all? Scottish Water is still a publicly owned corporation and management of environmental water is a key part of it's function.
The level of water management in Scotland is astronomical. The country would be a damp unlivable bog if it were not for all the engineering.
Dair seems to be suggesting that this is due to Scottish water still being publicly owned but I would be interested in knowing when all those drainage and water transfer systems were originally put in place. Given that so much of the UK infrastructure (railways, canals, sewage systems etc) was originally devised and built long before public ownership of the resources I wonder how much of this can really be due to the continuation of public ownership.
I do think there is a real need for a large scale transfer system of water from the northern and western parts of England to the south and east which suffer severely in times of drought not least due to the excess development causing too much use of the local aquifers.
The floods have had me thinking back to a rather excellent documentary by Iain Stewart called "Scotland's Water" (not currently on iPlayer, sadly). One of the striking messages I learned from it is that there is practically not one drop of water in Scotland which is not managed from the moment it falls by Scottish Water.
This includes being able to reroute rainfall between different Watersheds using artificial (tunnels and dug trenches/canals) and natural links (dry rivers) and how much of Scotland's farmland is, basically, bog which shouldn't have people on it at all but due to good management, not only is productive land but seldom floods.
Does anyone know how much of this sort of management happens in England, particularly in the areas which seem to be washing away. Floods do occur in Scotland but seem far less prevalent and you never see any of the violent events which occur elsewhere.
Also, do the Privatised water companies in England have an environmental remit at all? Scottish Water is still a publicly owned corporation and management of environmental water is a key part of it's function.
The level of water management in Scotland is astronomical. The country would be a damp unlivable bog if it were not for all the engineering.
Dair seems to be suggesting that this is due to Scottish water still being publicly owned but I would be interested in knowing when all those drainage and water transfer systems were originally put in place. Given that so much of the UK infrastructure (railways, canals, sewage systems etc) was originally devised and built long before public ownership of the resources I wonder how much of this can really be due to the continuation of public ownership.
I do think there is a real need for a large scale transfer system of water from the northern and western parts of England to the south and east which suffer severely in times of drought not least due to the excess development causing too much use of the local aquifers.
There already are such schemes in places. The West Country and Wales gets much of its water from North Wales via 100+ km of aqueduct.
What do you teachers think of the University Technical Colleges that have started to open up... start at 14, major on technical subjects but with minimum national curriculum, linked with university? Sounds ideal for my son (11), but we don't have one close enough yet.
First thought is that it depends on which children these new colleges are aimed at. If they are going to go out and attract the bright children who would normally go on to A Levels and Uni. then I think they will be a waste of time and possibly counter-productive. However, if they are going to target the children the school system writes off as not academically gifted then I think they should be massively encouraged.
One hopes in other words that they are another go at introducing the missing technical education that the '44 Act failed to deliver and which had been recommended as essential as long ago as the Parliamentary Commission in the 1870s.
I have only just seen Baskerville's comment (apologies). I agree with that analysis by HL. Only snag is, my guess is that they will certainly try to attract just those bright and able students who would otherwise do A-levels, and leave the comprehensive schools to try and cope with the rest. In other words, creating a worse misfit than we have already. That's based on personal experience of them so far, and I hope people will forgive me if I don't go into detail (because obviously I can't give specific examples).
I'm not blaming them, incidentally - it's easier to work with those who want to do well and get on in life, and who understand concepts quickly. Just a warning that it might be a case of best intentions gone awry.
Thanks for the responses. My son is bright but totally unengaged by traditional teaching. For me this looks like a good chance of sparking interest in him and giving him the tools to prosper in fields that are less humanities or book science based. But, then again I'm a middle class PPE grad, so come under the headings of 'snowplough', pushy or just plain annoying parent.
Dair seems to be suggesting that this is due to Scottish water still being publicly owned but I would be interested in knowing when all those drainage and water transfer systems were originally put in place. Given that so much of the UK infrastructure (railways, canals, sewage systems etc) was originally devised and built long before public ownership of the resources I wonder how much of this can really be due to the continuation of public ownership.
I do think there is a real need for a large scale transfer system of water from the northern and western parts of England to the south and east which suffer severely in times of drought not least due to the excess development causing too much use of the local aquifers.
Water transfer is a topic that has surfaced from time to time over the past thirty years and people warning about the lack of water compared to the ever rising demand in the South East has been going on for about as long.
Our politicians continue as ever to ignore the matter. Unless there is a crisis when do they ever get a grip of long-term planning. The water companies (some foreign owned) will not invest a penny more than they are forced to and why should they - their directors have a statutory duty to maximise their shareholders benefits.
It may well be that when Scotland's water infrastructure was created it was done by private companies and individuals but if so I bet they did it primarily for their own benefit. Furthermore they did it an age very different from our own where the interest of the water company was not primarily, for example, maximising dividends for an Australian investment vehicle.
When water companies were privatised the one bit that did not happen was to remove their immunity to contract law. I pay my water company for a service, if it decides to suspend that service so that I have no water, I have no redress in law. Change that and we might see some real investment.
Thanks for the responses. My son is bright but totally unengaged by traditional teaching. For me this looks like a good chance of sparking interest in him and giving him the tools to prosper in fields that are less humanities or book science based. But, then again I'm a middle class PPE grad, so come under the headings of 'snowplough', pushy or just plain annoying parent.
I quite understand where you are coming from on this, Mr. Baskerville, having been through the a similar experience with my own son.
Once, not that long ago, the middle-class (by which I mean solicitor's, doctors, and such like professionals) could find the solution in the public schools and the armed services. Now that the public schools (even those designed for the children who unengaged by traditional teaching) have priced themselves out of range of all except the seriously wealthy and the armed services have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former selves, those traditional routes are closed.
Bad news for parents such a you and I, but maybe there is a spark of hope in the wider sense. If the middle-classes are forced to rely on state provision they could have the voice to force the politicians to take action and actually do something about our appalling education system.
Comments
England surely hot favourites to win the match from here - 100 would probably be enough to put it out of SA's reach.
Very useful, thanks. England 1.6 (8/13) now on Betfair, slowly shortening as the runs go on. Looks like value still at that price
I actually quite like the thought that at least initially you have some flexibility. It is a huge ask for a 17 year old to decide what they will be studying for 3-4 years in 12 months and from that decision they will be rather tied down to take path until 21/22.
US allows people to actually start college, try a few things and then decide. Perhaps a different major, perhaps even a different college.
One solution would have been selection at 14, rather than 11, with a proper middle-school system to compensate. But that would have been expensive. Transfers would have been feasible in theory - but imagine the fuss of parents of children transferred to a secondary modern. So eventually, with the support of the NUT who wanted to level themselves up with the NAS, comprehensives were born.
The irony is of course that we continue to have a selective system at post-16 - I have entry requirements for A-level history. But by then, it's usually rather too late to undo any damage caused to their prospects by poor GCSE grades.
Incidentally, a pal from school, who was the keenest of our form and is now a history teacher went to Aber too - he loved it. I was shocked on hearing of low output from many Southern unis - that said, I expect these reportss were often based on the person and their own motivation/egos/work avoidance skills....
As for the cost/benefits of real time reporting, it has shown tremendous benefits to my business. When we get a new starter and put them on a tax code that isn't correct (eg if they've filled in a P46 rather than brought a P45) then rather than being stuck on that tax code until after the following April like previously, the real time reporting send back a message with the correct tax code by their second payroll run which the software then automatically changes for me and they are paid correctly going forwards.
Which is why for me as I've said before it is the complexity of the system and the actual requirements as well as benefits themselves that matter more than the frequency.
Presently for my small business I run on a July-June tax year with submissions due by end of March of the following year. Meaning that the data HMRC currently has for my business until the end of March 2016 is from July 2014 ... nearly two years obsolete. I can understand why they want that changing.
Better to split the classes by ability range and teach them that way (which is what I do - I usually have 3-4 groups with different resources going in any one lesson). This was of course also the original idea of comprehensives, but the egalitarianism of the NUT again put paid to it.
A very interesting essay on this subject, by C. S. Lewis, may be found in 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast', where he links it to the ancient Greek idea of total mediocrity enforced by the ancient dictators of Athens, so they would have no rivals to their pre-eminence. Far be it from me to accuse the Civil Servants of Whitehall in the late 1960s, spooked by the loss of their intellectual pre-eminence, of having a similar idea...
You're right that there was little transfer - and from an anecdotal family example it was more often out of grammars into sec-mod. This happened to my uncle, one of the few Grammar school lads from his North Wales council estates, largely as a result of his larking around and desire to be with his mates at the sec-mod
Middle schools are an unnecessary complication in an education system and involve two school switches in formative years. But you've put your finger on it with the transfer system. With today's standardised tests (KS3 especially) it wouldn't be impossible to move the more academic from comps to grammars at 14.
But the US you don't even decide on your "major" until after the 2 years of pre-recs. Yes you might doing the science track of pre-recs, but they try not to tie you down too much too early, meaning you have a huge amount of flexibility in what subject your final degree might actually be.
From beehives to movie sequels, the biggest US crowdfunding campaigns of 2015 https://t.co/mFwukxqfQa https://t.co/8oRUwXY6oc
Edit. Scratch that. 18 for most kids, some at 17.
The problem with KS3 tests is that they have been scrapped. They were never popular anyway. So they would have to be brought back before we had re-selection.
The big problem with selection in many counties (e.g. Gloucestershire) is it is not universal. So the grammars get those that are not so much intelligent as have pushy parents.
It started out as "mad inventor in shed seeks £50k to bring idea to market". Now it is much more "existing business with good track record requires extra capital to take working product to mass market" e.g. the people behind Trunki just launched a kickstarter for new adult luggage.
Those into sci-fi/fantasy might find it of value to donate to this kickstarter, by my publisher:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ticketyboopress/launch-tickety-boo-press-titles-into-bookshops-in
I believe if you donate £30 the price of the e-books you get sent actually exceed that sum (ie, you effectively get the books for a discount, as well as donating to the kickstarter).
Having a surplus of individuals with humanities degrees is a nonsense when we have a practical skills shortage.
I notice that there is now a move to a slightly different model, which is more akin to crowd investment in new games, whereby you not only pledge to fund it, but you get a stake in the profits as well.
I have to say I don't really get KickStarter. I risk my money and I might get the product and perhaps a t-shirt and that is it. If it is a roaring success, I don't see any of the profits and also they can just use that initial success to make v2.0 and again I see none of the benefits of that.
Oculus RIFT being the classic example. All those people put the money in and won't see any of the benefits of Facebook having shelled out big bucks for it.
Map of Medieval #York alongside todays #flood map. https://t.co/Bd84F3v0Js
Universality would be great - but until then the fact that grammar schools exist at all is because of the political abilities (mostly at council and school governor levels) of the middle classes.
I didn't know KS3 tests have been scrapped. What a waste!
Mr. Urquhart, not to mention getting some merchandise for your cash, and stretch goals (for the publisher it's about putting more books on shelves, for games it's often adding more features).
Some dodgy persons have fleeced people through crowd-funding, but hopefully the success of The Banner Saga et al. will help ensure that those with a genuine prospect of producing something good can get crowd-funded.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
That said, science graduates here at good schools get very good science educations, and much more besides (a minimum number of humanities classes, for example) than their peers in UK universities get. My daughter and wife find it incomprehensible that I basically studied only three subjects at university (cell biology/pathology, microbiology, and biochemistry).
As for KS3 tests - not really. They weren't very effective and nobody was actually using them for anything, so they were rather an expensive luxury that the government decided it didn't need. Has to be said teachers were thrilled to see them go as well, because they were absolutely stifling (particularly in English). It allows for much more flexibility - including the ability to start GCSEs early if that would help with a class or year group.
Oculus RIFT being the classic example. All those people put the money in and won't see any of the benefits of Facebook having shelled out big bucks for it....In fact, all the initial backers got was the Rift DK1, which was pretty shitty and a million miles away from what the Facebook backed RIFT will be.
From an exam practice point of view, they were followed by annual testing in the 4th, 5th and 6th forms that really mattered, and then again in 1st and final year of uni. Good practice I'd have thought - particularly for English....
It would have been a huge benefit in the first two years of undergraduate to have taken to general maths pre-recs. Instead I found during my PhD, I ended up spending a lot of time teaching myself undergrad maths courses. Not the most effective use of time for me or the department.
This includes being able to reroute rainfall between different Watersheds using artificial (tunnels and dug trenches/canals) and natural links (dry rivers) and how much of Scotland's farmland is, basically, bog which shouldn't have people on it at all but due to good management, not only is productive land but seldom floods.
Does anyone know how much of this sort of management happens in England, particularly in the areas which seem to be washing away. Floods do occur in Scotland but seem far less prevalent and you never see any of the violent events which occur elsewhere.
Also, do the Privatised water companies in England have an environmental remit at all? Scottish Water is still a publicly owned corporation and management of environmental water is a key part of it's function.
Practical skills are or should be taught on the job via apprenticeships or by attending a (as used to be so called) technical college.
It strikes me that say, accountancy, is something of a practical skill, useful to all and can be taught at a comprehensive. But if accountancy teachers, not least the good ones, are syphoned off to grammars then where does that leave this new secondary modern?
The industrial world has changed which once used to be served by secondary moderns and the the technical schools (such as ever were opened) - coal and steel is mostly no more and manufacturing is more automated and employs nothing like the previous numbers. I do not see it realistic to turn our education system upside down again. If I were heaven forbid to stand as an MP it would be good and hard working education I would want to see a return to (if that is needed).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35189189
Don't know what they are complaining about...Geoffrey's mum opened the batting on far worse pitches in her time...
Afternoon all,
I've been working all day on this-
To replace Ed is Crap can we have Corbyn is Pants
Always happy to help
In this blog post, Chelley Ryan debunks the myth that Michael Foot cost Labour the 1983 General Election.
https://t.co/iPkIvh4V6W
The problem with selective schools was generally, as you've demonstrated here, that they were objected to on dubious political rather than educational grounds by people who didn't understand that students have differing abilities and skills.
Admittedly your scheme would allow time for thousands of appeals to filter through the system.
After Latin, I'd say Chemistry, Biology then Geography. The rest is filler.
Whoever the good Michelle Ryan is (is it the Eastenders actress?) she knows nothing whatever about history or politics. She is anxious to try and prove Corbyn will not lose votes, and of course she selects one example, gets it completely wrong (in a way that happens to confirm her prejudices) and then says the world is flat after all.
It is both instructive and frightening to see how a desperation to ignore facts leads to a rewriting of history on such a grand scale. Even David Irving would have blenched at some of the falsehoods in that post if they are deliberate. However, let's be charitable and assume she simply doesn't know what she's talking about. Unfortunately, ignorance in a political party is just as dangerous as dishonesty.
They won't play it like that of course, but fun to think about none the less. They will probably declare around lunch tomorrow with the target about 350 and five sessions remaining.
I'm sure you will on reflection want to say that Latin is less important than History. After all, without history we would not have Latin (or science, or maths, or anything else).
AFAIC, I'm a live and let live sort when it comes to personal passions - after all - most of the population would find our interest in politics totally pointless - yet we could argue for hours about how vital it was.
Take me.
When I was 21, I was not doing very well at a company called Datamonitor. I sent off a bunch of notes I'd written on why Netscape shares were overvalued to a bunch of investment banks. Only Goldman Sachs got back to me, because they were looking to get a junior person on their newly formed technology research team. And they hired me. If I'd sent that mail a month earlier or a month later, I would never have ended up at Goldman Sachs.
When at Goldman, as a junior analyst (really spreadsheet filler in), I was very lucky to have two bosses who actually taught me the ropes. Other junior analysts were expected to work until 11pm and Saturdays and Sundays, but never got taken to company or investor meetings. I was very lucky to get the two analysts at Goldman who seemed genuinely interested in teaching me.
Around the end of the millennium, my boss decided we should leave and set up our own independent research firm. If he hadn't done that, when the technology downturn came, I would almost certainly have found myself out of a job. Luck, really, that he fell out with the powers that be at Goldman Sachs.
I could go on. And - of course - the harder you work the luckier you get. While skill and hard work are necessary conditions for success, on their own they are not enough. Luck matters.
It's the small minded and insecure who don't recruit tall poppies. All my biggest careers leaps were down to my bosses trusting me to never let them down or making them look stupid for pushing me ahead.
" Blair was of his time – just as Foot was of his – a unique time when Britain was bouncing along happily inside a credit and housing bubble, a bubble none of us could imagine would burst in the spectacular way that it did a decade later, a bubble that made people feel falsely well off. "
There was no credit and housing bubble in 1997 ** - that came later and was continually pumped up by Gordon Brown.
I'll also point out there are people on PB who were warning of the fundamental weakness of the economy before 2007.
** In fact its possible that houses have never been as relatively cheap as they were in 1996/7:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5709/housing/housing-market-stats-and-graphs/
One hopes in other words that they are another go at introducing the missing technical education that the '44 Act failed to deliver and which had been recommended as essential as long ago as the Parliamentary Commission in the 1870s.
For most people on this site they got very lucky when they were born - into middle class families in the UK.
I'm not blaming them, incidentally - it's easier to work with those who want to do well and get on in life, and who understand concepts quickly. Just a warning that it might be a case of best intentions gone awry.
As you say, it's remarkable to think he was once rated more highly than Blair!
I'll say it again, Cameron made some very good noises about this issue before the last election. He just doesn't seem to be actually doing anything.
I do think there is a real need for a large scale transfer system of water from the northern and western parts of England to the south and east which suffer severely in times of drought not least due to the excess development causing too much use of the local aquifers.
http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water
Likewise, Kielder reservoir was built to provide the northeast's industry with water, just in time for that industry to collapse.
And within Scotland, Glasgow gets much of its water from 'opp north' via an aqueduct.
http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1244
afaiaa these were both built by public corps.
My son is bright but totally unengaged by traditional teaching. For me this looks like a good chance of sparking interest in him and giving him the tools to prosper in fields that are less humanities or book science based.
But, then again I'm a middle class PPE grad, so come under the headings of 'snowplough', pushy or just plain annoying parent.
Our politicians continue as ever to ignore the matter. Unless there is a crisis when do they ever get a grip of long-term planning. The water companies (some foreign owned) will not invest a penny more than they are forced to and why should they - their directors have a statutory duty to maximise their shareholders benefits.
It may well be that when Scotland's water infrastructure was created it was done by private companies and individuals but if so I bet they did it primarily for their own benefit. Furthermore they did it an age very different from our own where the interest of the water company was not primarily, for example, maximising dividends for an Australian investment vehicle.
When water companies were privatised the one bit that did not happen was to remove their immunity to contract law. I pay my water company for a service, if it decides to suspend that service so that I have no water, I have no redress in law. Change that and we might see some real investment.
Once, not that long ago, the middle-class (by which I mean solicitor's, doctors, and such like professionals) could find the solution in the public schools and the armed services. Now that the public schools (even those designed for the children who unengaged by traditional teaching) have priced themselves out of range of all except the seriously wealthy and the armed services have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former selves, those traditional routes are closed.
Bad news for parents such a you and I, but maybe there is a spark of hope in the wider sense. If the middle-classes are forced to rely on state provision they could have the voice to force the politicians to take action and actually do something about our appalling education system.