Mr. M, I'll have you know I live very near an internet.
Mr. glw, yes but even PB diverges into wonderful tangents such as classical history, Formula 1, trains and so forth.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
I suspect there are a lot of adults in the UK who wouldn't know what the cold war was either even though they lived through it.
The fault in any case is with an education system which ensures everyone knows about WWII and the Tudors, Romans and then that's it.
Complete and utter nonsense. The whole problem with the old GCSE in modern world history is that it was entirely concentrated on the 20th century. It was killing history before 1870 as an academic discipline.
The majority of schools teach nothing about the Romans. The Norman Conquest is the normal starting point. The Tudors are overprized but the Industrial Revolution is included.
Maybe my experience was atypical. But I thought everyone covered the Romans in primary school - that it was compulsory?
GCSE history is not compulsory.
Nope. It was due to be made compulsory but they dropped the idea.
My point is that arguing that people not knowing about the Cold War shows history is badly taught is a nonsense. The Cold War is still covered by politics departments at university. The fact it dominated the history curriculum at GCSE said a lot about the Marxist inclinations of those who wrote it in the 1970s, as much as anything else.
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
I can believe they know less facts - I think schools/education policies have moved away from focusing on facts to focusing on critical thinking etc.
RE these days for GCSE has to have two religions I think.
Combine that with English, and that is two GCSE subjects where you study fiction, rather than facts.
A fair bit of the science curriculum for GCSE turns out not to be true when you do A level?
What should worry people about the religion of polls is its undue influence on the media and campaigns, especially given they are usually utter nonsense
This actually suits TMay quite nicely. At the beginning of the campaign her claim, 'vote for me, or otherwise Corbyn will win' were met with guffaws. Now, the claim is taken a lot more seriously.
Mr. M, I'll have you know I live very near an internet.
Mr. glw, yes but even PB diverges into wonderful tangents such as classical history, Formula 1, trains and so forth.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
I suspect there are a lot of adults in the UK who wouldn't know what the cold war was either even though they lived through it.
The fault in any case is with an education system which ensures everyone knows about WWII and the Tudors, Romans and then that's it.
Complete and utter nonsense. The whole problem with the old GCSE in modern world history is that it was entirely concentrated on the 20th century. It was killing history before 1870 as an academic discipline.
The majority of schools teach nothing about the Romans. The Norman Conquest is the normal starting point. The Tudors are overprized but the Industrial Revolution is included.
The period addressed in GCSE is irrelevant.
Surely the point of teaching history is to teach the critical thinking skills to look at a series of events and understand cause and effect?
I imagine the rise of Nazism in interwar Germany is popular as a module because it's very easy to teach/grasp the cause and effect of the sequence of events in a group of average 14 year olds.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
Reading history books is a terrible habit, I'm always left thinking "I didn't know, that I didn't know that".
You are ahead of Donald Rumsfeld in that case....
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
I was always confused by why people were critical of that statement. Logically it is spot on and even more so when applied to geopolitics.
It is also rather poetic - time to trot this out again - well it still makes me smile anyway:
Indeed it has those agreements with countries around the world - negotiated on our behalf by the EU, and which will also need renegotiation after Brexit. We have a very deep and profitable integration with the EU that needs replacement with an almost certainly shallower and less profitable agreement. It will happen.
Sometimes the mind boggles as to how thick you are. Do you honestly believe that if we leave the EU with no deal that we won't be able to import medicine or flights will stop running? Are you actually that stupid or just being obtuse to try and make a ridiculous point?
The danger is that lots of countries realise we're under the gun to replace existing treaties, and use the opportunity to make changes that are not entirely to our advantage.
Which is why, as I've said a hundred times already, it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and not as a big bang 22 months away.
Yes, that's why I've always been on the EFTA train, it gives us a transitional period in which we can sort out our global positioning wrt to the WTO and other international trading treaties.
I think there's even a case for keeping the customs union for two years, followed by five in EFTA/EEA, followed by a more bespoke agreement.
As an aside, what do you pay for your (compulsory) health insurance in Switzerland? £200/month?
This might be more relevant if they started fighting/winning the election first....
In every poll the Tories will get a majority bar Yougov but of course Yougov still have the Tories ahead whereas in 2015 they had it tied and the Tories won by 7%
I'm not worried about the polls; it's just that this sort of story feeds the narrative that the Tories are taking the voters for granted and, as a democrat, I find that really annoying.
It is a Times story not a Tory press release
Which quotes 'senior Tory sources'; they should just shut up and get on with the campaign in my opinion.
After watching the wafflers and non-wafflers of the Labour and Tory leadership, the only regret the British people should truly have is that neither Sturgeon or the soon to be re-elected Robertson can ever (realistically, there are theories) become PM :-)
On present Scottish polls Robertson may well lose his seat
See the front page of today's Herald...
12-18 May poll !
Interestingly it almost perfectly matches the YouGov from the same time.
I think Yougov found 15% tactical ready then as well - but as many anti-Tory as anti-SNP !
New BMG polling for Electoral Reform Soc finds 20% saying they'll be voting tactically. This compares with 9% at GE2015
There may we'll be some LDs and Blairites tactically voting against Corbyn as PM in that.
A diminishing number I suspect.
The 20% saying they'll vote tactically must be mainly LibDem for Lab and Lab for LibDem (plus the Scottish but that is small in a UK context). It must be mainly LibDem Perhaps this is the explanation of the missing LibDem surge. The are voting tactically for Labour.
Of course many might see their definition of tactical voting as choosing the Lib Dems where they can't win because they are shit scared of Corbyn but can't bring themselves to vote Tory. I certainly know a few people that would apply to.
Going into the election that was basically my position. Problem is that in my constituency (Ealing Central & Acton) the LD candidate is so crap that I'm going to have to end up voting Tory. Don't know whether that counts as a tactical vote or not.
I have been saying for months that Corbyn should be flogging the peoples Brexit vs the Bosses Brexit, but I think that message has got through unspoken.
I am expecting a Tory majority, but it is going to be a pyrric victory. They are settingthemselves up for a 97 style Labour landslide in 22.
No this is 1987 with Corbyn doing well enough to survive like Kinnock. That means 2022 is 1992 not 1997
Kinnock conceded a majority of over 100 to the Tories. I'm not sure that was that great a result.
Kinnock gained 20 seats and increased Labour's voteshare by 3% in 1987
Against Thatcher. But he came unstuck against the political Colossus that was John Major....
How ironic that our current selection of politicians make "The Grey Man" look like a colossus in hindsight.
Contrast John Major on a soapbox arguing with real voters to Theresa May with a couple of dozen party members and journalists in front of a bus.
Indeed. How did we ever come to this?
Risk aversion. The chances of a gaffe/heckle etc are much much higher in than in the past. Especially as everything these days is on camera and can be shared on the internet in seconds.
Mr. M, I'll have you know I live very near an internet.
Mr. glw, yes but even PB diverges into wonderful tangents such as classical history, Formula 1, trains and so forth.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
I suspect there are a lot of adults in the UK who wouldn't know what the cold war was either even though they lived through it.
The fault in any case is with an education system which ensures everyone knows about WWII and the Tudors, Romans and then that's it.
Complete and utter nonsense. The whole problem with the old GCSE in modern world history is that it was entirely concentrated on the 20th century. It was killing history before 1870 as an academic discipline.
The majority of schools teach nothing about the Romans. The Norman Conquest is the normal starting point. The Tudors are overprized but the Industrial Revolution is included.
Maybe my experience was atypical. But I thought everyone covered the Romans in primary school - that it was compulsory?
GCSE history is not compulsory.
Nope. It was due to be made compulsory but they dropped the idea.
My point is that arguing that people not knowing about the Cold War shows history is badly taught is a nonsense. The Cold War is still covered by politics departments at university. The fact it dominated the history curriculum at GCSE said a lot about the Marxist inclinations of those who wrote it in the 1970s, as much as anything else.
Not badly taught. That the curriculum doesn't include/require it.
Key stage 1/2 says pupils 'should' be taught about Roman empire and its impact on Britain. you're right that it's not compulsory but I'd be surprised if most schools don't teach about the Romans.
It's a funny set of events when the three party leaders are pretty much derided by their own MP's....
BTW...Graham Brady was one of the two sixth form classmate studying Latin. He was painfully shy and a funny looking chap with a huge gap in his nashers. We had a girl who came to join whom Brady could barely bring himself to look at such was his shyness.
Aside from the equality issues, my main critique of single sexed grammar schools (and schools in general) is that it makes boys even more inadequate than they actually are in relating to women. I would be a thousand percent certain that Brady still finds it difficult to relate to women much like many of the other male politicians who went to a single sex school
What a small world...
At one stage he had the Prince Andrew look-a-like competition sewn up. That seems to be behind him now. When I last had a good long chat with him at an election count (over at the leisure centre in Davyhulme) he was personable enough and, as an MP, he is prompt in responding to letters and such like. I have nothing against him personally.
As regards single sex schools, I understand your point about lack of social skills and I think it is a valid point. The flipside of the coin is that girls seem to do better in singe sex schools because they do not have to put up with the boys' competitiveness. My own daughters went to mixed schools and what they mainly learned about boys was how to ignore their comments and "suggestions"
I have been saying for months that Corbyn should be flogging the peoples Brexit vs the Bosses Brexit, but I think that message has got through unspoken.
I am expecting a Tory majority, but it is going to be a pyrric victory. They are settingthemselves up for a 97 style Labour landslide in 22.
No this is 1987 with Corbyn doing well enough to survive like Kinnock. That means 2022 is 1992 not 1997
Kinnock conceded a majority of over 100 to the Tories. I'm not sure that was that great a result.
Kinnock gained 20 seats and increased Labour's voteshare by 3% in 1987
Against Thatcher. But he came unstuck against the political Colossus that was John Major....
How ironic that our current selection of politicians make "The Grey Man" look like a colossus in hindsight.
Contrast John Major on a soapbox arguing with real voters to Theresa May with a couple of dozen party members and journalists in front of a bus.
Indeed. How did we ever come to this?
Risk aversion. The chances of a gaffe/heckle etc are much much higher in than in the past. Especially as everything these days is on camera and can be shared on the internet in seconds.
Which is a mistake because it's partly the novelty value that gives 'gaffes' their currency. If people are used to unguarded moments being filmed and shared they rapidly lose their impact unless they genuinely reveal something profound.
Fucking hell. What next? Waldegrave as Home Secretary?
That has to be a rumour put around by her opponents. The one chance they have now is to peel off the UKIP support and Gummer is a genuine hate figure to UKIP and its supporters.
Replacing Davis with Gummer is a disaster for Brexiteers. He's an arch Remainer, and if memory serves has helped to keep Leavers off the Tory candidate list this time round.
Did Gummer not also lead the drafting of the manifesto? He's clearly a tool of the first water.
The first draft was fine. It only went to shit when Nick Timothy got his hands on it.
Really? Interesting. He's also a tool it would appear. The manifesto utterly didsappointed me as it seems we have, again, a PM with no real vision. Dave thought he was going to be good at the job but I never really knew what his vision was - other than to fellate Juncker. Please can we have a Tory PM who spells out a clear and compelling vision for a small state, competitive, independent, free and open country and delivers policies to make that happen. But energy caps? FFS! I'll 100% certain vote Tory on Thu but I'm cooling on May pretty rapidly. Plese can she channel her inner Maggie a bit.
Beginning to go all Clinton. Planning her Cabinet on the campaign aeroplane in final few days of the campaign, while Donald toured rust-belt states she didn't ever visit.
RE these days for GCSE has to have two religions I think.
Isn't RE just an option for GCSE these days ? We had to do it for the first three years of high school as a mandatory subject and then either drop it or continue with it at O'level.
Again, as somebody who has been head of RS I do not recognise this description of it. In both schools where I have taught it it has been compulsory to GCSE and covers at least five religions plus major ethical and theological issues.
I might be wrong but I dont recall seeing it on my son's schedule. Presumeably it is not a mandatory subject in his LEA.
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
I can believe they know less facts - I think schools/education policies have moved away from focusing on facts to focusing on critical thinking etc.
RE these days for GCSE has to have two religions I think.
Combine that with English, and that is two GCSE subjects where you study fiction, rather than facts.
A fair bit of the science curriculum for GCSE turns out not to be true when you do A level?
You mean simple models are replaced by more rigorous models? Newtonian mechanics is 'true' most of the time, and simple atomic models work for basic chemistry. Heck, you can approximate Pi = 3 for most everyday purposes - 'close enough for government work', as an American once said to me.
Indeed it has those agreements with countries around the world - negotiated on our behalf by the EU, and which will also need renegotiation after Brexit. We have a very deep and profitable integration with the EU that needs replacement with an almost certainly shallower and less profitable agreement. It will happen.
Sometimes the mind boggles as to how thick you are. Do you honestly believe that if we leave the EU with no deal that we won't be able to import medicine or flights will stop running? Are you actually that stupid or just being obtuse to try and make a ridiculous point?
The danger is that lots of countries realise we're under the gun to replace existing treaties, and use the opportunity to make changes that are not entirely to our advantage.
Which is why, as I've said a hundred times already, it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and not as a big bang 22 months away.
Yes, that's why I've always been on the EFTA train, it gives us a transitional period in which we can sort out our global positioning wrt to the WTO and other international trading treaties.
I think there's even a case for keeping the customs union for two years, followed by five in EFTA/EEA, followed by a more bespoke agreement.
Why would EFTA or the EU let us into the EEA on the basis that it's only a temporary arrangement? The 'flexit' plan only works in theory but not in practice.
Because until we leave the EU we remain a part of the EEA and if ewe move directly to EFTA we would still remain a member of the EEA.
The EEA treaty is signed by the individual countries and by the EU as a separate member. Leaving the EU does not mean leaving the EEA unless we are in breach of their terms or we choose to leave.
Unfortunately the Government is currently selling Brexit as all abut immigration which precludes EEA membership.
It does because all treaties between the EU and the leaving member lapse under Article 50 of the TFEU, unless agreed otherwise. That includes the EEA.
Nope because the only way that could happen is if the EEA treaty itself lapsed for all members. The UK is not a signatory via the EU but in its own right.
For the same reason the separate Le Touquet treaty between France and the UK does not lapse at Brexit.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
Reading history books is a terrible habit, I'm always left thinking "I didn't know, that I didn't know that".
You are ahead of Donald Rumsfeld in that case....
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
I was always confused by why people were critical of that statement. Logically it is spot on and even more so when applied to geopolitics.
I suspect most people were dumbfounded into silence by the sheer logic of it.
But, yes, it is spot on. That is probably what confused them.
Which quotes 'senior Tory sources'; they should just shut up and get on with the campaign in my opinion.
Objectively yes. If the main story in a leading broadsheet a week from the election was that Corbyn was probably going to replace X by Y I'd be very annoyed, even if I actually agreed with it. Win first, then worry about your cabinet.
From a Labour perspective, though: another day without the Tories thinking of any positive policies that they really want to push is another gain. If May wins by say 30 seats, people are just going to feel morose - and that's the Tory supporters...
Mr. M, I'll have you know I live very near an internet.
Mr. glw, yes but even PB diverges into wonderful tangents such as classical history, Formula 1, trains and so forth.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
I suspect there are a lot of adults in the UK who wouldn't know what the cold war was either even though they lived through it.
The fault in any case is with an education system which ensures everyone knows about WWII and the Tudors, Romans and then that's it.
Complete and utter nonsense. The whole problem with the old GCSE in modern world history is that it was entirely concentrated on the 20th century. It was killing history before 1870 as an academic discipline.
The majority of schools teach nothing about the Romans. The Norman Conquest is the normal starting point. The Tudors are overprized but the Industrial Revolution is included.
Maybe my experience was atypical. But I thought everyone covered the Romans in primary school - that it was compulsory?
GCSE history is not compulsory.
GCSE History is not compulsory but history is a compulsory subject from years 7-9 (school years not age).
Surely the point of teaching history is to teach the critical thinking skills to look at a series of events and understand cause and effect?
I agree with that, but my point that has kicked this off was that people aren't exposed to a wide range of knowledge and views. The internet and other trends that were meant to bring about the fruition of the global village have instead created a world where it is trivially easy to avoid views or subjects you dislike, or have no interest in. The sheer abundance of choice makes it all too easy to choose the things you like all day long.
So you can have all the skills in the world, but if you spend most of your time on social media communicating with like-minded people you will never need to apply those skills. That's what most people do, and they think that they are "well informed".
Indeed it has those agreements with countries around the world - negotiated on our behalf by the EU, and which will also need renegotiation after Brexit. We have a very deep and profitable integration with the EU that needs replacement with an almost certainly shallower and less profitable agreement. It will happen.
Sometimes the mind boggles as to how thick you are. Do you honestly believe that if we leave the EU with no deal that we won't be able to import medicine or flights will stop running? Are you actually that stupid or just being obtuse to try and make a ridiculous point?
The danger is that lots of countries realise we're under the gun to replace existing treaties, and use the opportunity to make changes that are not entirely to our advantage.
Which is why, as I've said a hundred times already, it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and not as a big bang 22 months away.
Yes, that's why I've always been on the EFTA train, it gives us a transitional period in which we can sort out our global positioning wrt to the WTO and other international trading treaties.
I think there's even a case for keeping the customs union for two years, followed by five in EFTA/EEA, followed by a more bespoke agreement.
As an aside, what do you pay for your (compulsory) health insurance in Switzerland? £200/month?
This might be more relevant if they started fighting/winning the election first....
In every poll the Tories will get a majority bar Yougov but of course Yougov still have the Tories ahead whereas in 2015 they had it tied and the Tories won by 7%
I'm not worried about the polls; it's just that this sort of story feeds the narrative that the Tories are taking the voters for granted and, as a democrat, I find that really annoying.
What should worry people about the religion of polls is its undue influence on the media and campaigns, especially given they are usually utter nonsense
Mrs C, there can be weird things between genders in education. I remember being very surprised at university when a small group (me and about six others, they were all female) ended up having most of the group deferring to me. Given I'm quiet, it was perplexing, and the only difference was that I possessed manly stubble.
Similarly, during a seminar we were split into small groups. I was with two girls (one a good friend, the other a stranger). They gassed a lot about the subject, but when it came time to talk about our collective view to the rest, they suddenly became mute and I had to do it.
Indeed it has those agreements with countries around the world - negotiated on our behalf by the EU, and which will also need renegotiation after Brexit. We have a very deep and profitable integration with the EU that needs replacement with an almost certainly shallower and less profitable agreement. It will happen.
Sometimes the mind boggles as to how thick you are. Do you honestly believe that if we leave the EU with no deal that we won't be able to import medicine or flights will stop running? Are you actually that stupid or just being obtuse to try and make a ridiculous point?
The danger is that lots of countries realise we're under the gun to replace existing treaties, and use the opportunity to make changes that are not entirely to our advantage.
Which is why, as I've said a hundred times already, it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and not as a big bang 22 months away.
Yes, that's why I've always been on the EFTA train, it gives us a transitional period in which we can sort out our global positioning wrt to the WTO and other international trading treaties.
I think there's even a case for keeping the customs union for two years, followed by five in EFTA/EEA, followed by a more bespoke agreement.
As an aside, what do you pay for your (compulsory) health insurance in Switzerland? £200/month?
This might be more relevant if they started fighting/winning the election first....
In every poll the Tories will get a majority bar Yougov but of course Yougov still have the Tories ahead whereas in 2015 they had it tied and the Tories won by 7%
I'm not worried about the polls; it's just that this sort of story feeds the narrative that the Tories are taking the voters for granted and, as a democrat, I find that really annoying.
What should worry people about the religion of polls is its undue influence on the media and campaigns, especially given they are usually utter nonsense
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
Reading history books is a terrible habit, I'm always left thinking "I didn't know, that I didn't know that".
You are ahead of Donald Rumsfeld in that case....
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
I was always confused by why people were critical of that statement. Logically it is spot on and even more so when applied to geopolitics.
Still it was it was a less than satisfactory explanation of why Donald Rumsfeld had royally screwed up. Particularly as the "unknown unknowns" had already been predicted by other people.
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
I can believe they know less facts - I think schools/education policies have moved away from focusing on facts to focusing on critical thinking etc.
RE these days for GCSE has to have two religions I think.
Yes.
@SandyRentool you study the facts about a religion rather than training people in it. Don't confuse Religious Studies and theology.
If you want a subject dominated by fiction, try economics...
Grandson 2 starts RE for GCSE next term. Wonder which two religions he will be ‘compfring & contrasting’. If that’s what they do. 'Compare and contrast' essays were, I seem to recall, the staple of biological subjects when I did A levels.
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
Again, as somebody who has been head of RS I do not recognise this description of it. In both schools where I have taught it it has been compulsory to GCSE and covers at least five religions plus major ethical and theological issues.
I can qualify that however by saying in the LEA school I worked in (and didn't teach it) although it had two specialist teachers who were very good takeup beyond year 9 was low. It's not considered 'fashionable' by the children. The problem may be less that it's badly taught than that they simply tune it out?
My daughter is just sitting her GCSEs and RE was indeed compulsory.
From what I understand the compulsories are
Maths English (Only one unlike my day when it was Language and Lit) RE Foreign Language
Meanwhile, a Chancellor who should be easily eviscerating Labour's wretched tax grab - and a manifesto that would kill millions of jobs as business leaves for lower Corporation taxes - is absent the field of battle, invisible, sulking.....
What is apparent is that the relationship between Theresa May and Philip Hammond has broken down. He's been invisible in this election campaign.
She could have done with his input, frankly.
Does anyone know the reason why? I assume it's largely due to the NI u-turn, but given the healthy polling leads after the event I wonder if it's something more personal, such as a leak or briefing against TM.
Mr. M, I'll have you know I live very near an internet.
Mr. glw, yes but even PB diverges into wonderful tangents such as classical history, Formula 1, trains and so forth.
I felt I had been like someone who didn't realise other planets existed after finishing Norwich's three volume history on the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of not knowing what the sodding Cold War was is baffling in its ignorance.
I suspect there are a lot of adults in the UK who wouldn't know what the cold war was either even though they lived through it.
The fault in any case is with an education system which ensures everyone knows about WWII and the Tudors, Romans and then that's it.
Complete and utter nonsense. The whole problem with the old GCSE in modern world history is that it was entirely concentrated on the 20th century. It was killing history before 1870 as an academic discipline.
The majority of schools teach nothing about the Romans. The Norman Conquest is the normal starting point. The Tudors are overprized but the Industrial Revolution is included.
The period addressed in GCSE is irrelevant.
Surely the point of teaching history is to teach the critical thinking skills to look at a series of events and understand cause and effect?
I imagine the rise of Nazism in interwar Germany is popular as a module because it's very easy to teach/grasp the cause and effect of the sequence of events in a group of average 14 year olds.
Believe it or not, that is not one of the things prized by the DfE, who prefer source criticism past the point of reason. Pleas by the university sector that this is taught in English anyway are ignored!
I find Nazism very user unfriendly to teach at that age level, actually, because the causes, effects and influences are extraordinarily complex. It's made worse by the fact that they look superficially simple to the uninitiated. It has to be done for a number of reasons, but it causes me far more angst than teaching Russia and the USSR.
Why do you think with takeup over 40% and generally rising (admittedly with a dip last year) the content of the History GCSE is irrelevant? It seems highly relevant to me, especially as that's where more knowledge will be retained. How many people can honestly remember what they learned in Year 7?
Unfortunately I have to go to a funeral so I can't stay and discuss further. I hope the few comments I have been able to give are useful in dispelling some myths.
Crazy theory conspiracy whack job klaxon the Lib Dem decline...... it's because their leader is called Tim. It's a weak and wobbly name. It conjures up images of Herman, and the inescapable truth of being a choker and loser (however unfairly), especially when he was superceded by a man mountain like Murray. I agree with Tim..... sounds like you're agreeing the best day out would be to the exhibition of garden sheds rather than the fun fair. I've lost it. I know. And my apologies to all the Tims out there. It's not your fault!
Thinking over the Tims I have known (which is few, I admit), they were rarely what I would call decisive...
Another data point for your crazy theory conspiracy whack job
Well I think that has clinched it, I'm publishing!
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
Again, as somebody who has been head of RS I do not recognise this description of it. In both schools where I have taught it it has been compulsory to GCSE and covers at least five religions plus major ethical and theological issues.
I can qualify that however by saying in the LEA school I worked in (and didn't teach it) although it had two specialist teachers who were very good takeup beyond year 9 was low. It's not considered 'fashionable' by the children. The problem may be less that it's badly taught than that they simply tune it out?
My daughter is just sitting her GCSEs and RE was indeed compulsory.
From what I understand the compulsories are
Maths English (Only one unlike my day when it was Language and Lit) RE Foreign Language
Plus 5 choices
If only that was the case with my twins
They have
Maths English (both) RE Foreign Language Core science (2 GCSES) Geography or History
And just 2 options - one of which gives you separate sciences
One is doing Separate Sciences and Computer Science the other Computer Science and Music.
Its worth noting that the GCSE computer science course is brand new for next year and virtually identical to the existing A-level course - I'm very impressed by the practical side of it - the background side isn't that great.
Beginning to go all Clinton. Planning her Cabinet on the campaign aeroplane in final few days of the campaign, while Donald toured rust-belt states she didn't ever visit.
Perhaps somewhere there's an Excel spreadsheet mapping all those recent big donations to ambassadorships.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I see that the most read BBC news article is 'My son cut off his penis while high'.... I'm not sure the voters are taking this election seriously enough!!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I see that the most read BBC news article is 'My son cut off his penis while high'.... I'm not sure the voters are taking this election seriously enough!!
Looks like Tim chose a bad week to be wibbling about legalising cannabis.
It's the election of no chancellors. Where is McDonnell?
Does anyone know who even has the shadow shadow Chancellor role for the LibDems?
According to their website its Uncle Vince, which is a bit odd since he wasnt in parliament in the last session, and has a less than spectacular chance of being in it next session. Have they had a post-dissolution reshuffle ?
Maths English (both) RE Foreign Language Core science (2 GCSES) Geography or History
And just 2 options - one of which gives you separate sciences
One is doing Separate Sciences and Computer Science the other Computer Science and Music.
Its worth noting that the GCSE computer science course is brand new for next year and virtually identical to the existing A-level course - I'm very impressed by the practical side of it - the background side isn't that great.
Hmm. Looking at that list it may be I have misunderstood how the choices were made by my daughter. Although we certainly don't have a core science GCSE and she is doing the three separates.
She is doing
Maths English RE Foreign Language Biology Chemistry Physics History Economics Music ( I forgot this one in the previous list)
So 10 in total and she has 2 or 3 exams in each I believe. She is doing a total of 26 exams.
What is apparent is that the relationship between Theresa May and Philip Hammond has broken down. He's been invisible in this election campaign.
She could have done with his input, frankly.
Does anyone know the reason why? I assume it's largely due to the NI u-turn, but given the healthy polling leads after the event I wonder if it's something more personal, such as a leak or briefing against TM.
I suspect you might be right. Someone pointed out last September that the Prime Minister prizes loyalty and being outside the circle of trust is fatal.
Nope because the only way that could happen is if the EEA treaty itself lapsed for all members. The UK is not a signatory via the EU but in its own right.
For the same reason the separate Le Touquet treaty between France and the UK does not lapse at Brexit.
Precisely, the EEA is a bilateral agreement between a consortium consisting of the EU and named member states and a set of named EFTA members. The respective obligations of the EU and the member states towards the consortium's side of the agreement is determined by the treaties between the EU and the member state. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems a massive stretch to assume the UK could participate in the EEA while not a member of the EU and without amending the EEA treaty.
What is apparent is that the relationship between Theresa May and Philip Hammond has broken down. He's been invisible in this election campaign.
She could have done with his input, frankly.
Does anyone know the reason why? I assume it's largely due to the NI u-turn, but given the healthy polling leads after the event I wonder if it's something more personal, such as a leak or briefing against TM.
The Conservatives have an uncosted manifesto, have dropped the pledge not to raise taxes, and just a few weeks ago tried and failed to raise NI. I'd imagine CCHQ is anxious to avoid the Chancellor being asked what taxes will be raised and by how much.
Is anyone else is a marginal surprised by the low level of ground activity? I'm within Dewsbury, albeit one of the Conservative leaning wards (that has been passed between Dewsbury and Wakefield). I've had the mailshot from both Lab and Cons, and one hand delivered leaflet each. No door knocking. Nothing at all from the minor parties. Fewer posters around than previous years. I'm led to believe Lab are concentrating their efforts on their core wards, and that the rise in membership over the last couple of years hasn't translated fully into feet on the ground.
A similar story from what I see / hear in other nearby constituencies I visit: Wakefield, Halifax, Colne Valley, Calder Valley (although in the latter, the usual Liberal posters are reduced, and the legacy of hallucinogenic drug use in Hebden Bridge was evident in concentrated pockets of Corbymania).
I have a good friend in Croydon Central, normally a LibDem voter and genuinely undecided, who is utterly besieged by Labour and Tory leaflets, canvassers and phone calls - she says she's never seen anything like it. Unlike some she enjoys it - she feels properly wooed. She'd still like to vote LibDem really, she dislikes the Tories over Brexit but really likes her Tory MP, she feels Labour offers hope and the Tories offer gloom. I have no idea how she'll decide.
If 20 MPs had been charged, the CPS's decision might have affected the election directly. I expect that one MP being charged will not do so and instead its effects will be indirect: taking away oxygen from other stories today and preventing the Conservatives re-establishing any kind of momentum.
Surely young people are exposed to a far wider range of culture than ever before?
They watch cartoons from Japan, TV shows from America, play video games against people from all around the world... They are far more likely to have been abroad, met someone from a different religion etc...
And yet chatting with my son's 16 year old girlfriend the other day, a supposed high flyer at the top of their year, she has no idea where the Pacific Ocean is, further talking showed similar glaring holes in fairly basic factual knowledge. While they seems have have a lot of experience of a range of cultural matters in the way you describe, the number of hard facts in which they are in posession seems woeful.
They might have met someone from a different religion, but they now learn almost nothing about different religions. In my day we did several years of RE, which was to all intents a course in comparitive theology, and explored in some depth the teachings of most of the world major religions, that appears to have all but disappeared because a white english woman teaching people about Islam or Buddism appears to be too controversial.
Again, as somebody who has been head of RS I do not recognise this description of it. In both schools where I have taught it it has been compulsory to GCSE and covers at least five religions plus major ethical and theological issues.
I can qualify that however by saying in the LEA school I worked in (and didn't teach it) although it had two specialist teachers who were very good takeup beyond year 9 was low. It's not considered 'fashionable' by the children. The problem may be less that it's badly taught than that they simply tune it out?
My daughter is just sitting her GCSEs and RE was indeed compulsory.
From what I understand the compulsories are
Maths English (Only one unlike my day when it was Language and Lit) RE Foreign Language
Plus 5 choices
RE was compulsory at my school because it was CofE. Can't imagine why it would be otherwise, it's completely pointless. They put it on Friday afternoon which meant everyone bunked.
Only positive for May is it all happened under Cameron's watch. I don't think it will be helpful with regards solidifying the purple to blue switchers.
Lol. Mckinley stuffing the Tories. HAVING SAID THAT, Sky have merely reported the breaking news and moved on, I imagine there has been some reminding of sub judice rules to the press.
Only positive for May is it all happened under Cameron's watch. I don't think it will be helpful with regards solidifying the purple to blue switchers.
Mr. Max, RE/RS was the best subject I took. The teacher and discussions were excellent, and I learnt a lot beyond just religion in it. Won't be the same for everyone, of course, but I'm very glad I took it.
Maths English (both) RE Foreign Language Core science (2 GCSES) Geography or History
And just 2 options - one of which gives you separate sciences
One is doing Separate Sciences and Computer Science the other Computer Science and Music.
Its worth noting that the GCSE computer science course is brand new for next year and virtually identical to the existing A-level course - I'm very impressed by the practical side of it - the background side isn't that great.
Hmm. Looking at that list it may be I have misunderstood how the choices were made by my daughter. Although we certainly don't have a core science GCSE and she is doing the three separates.
She is doing
Maths English RE Foreign Language Biology Chemistry Physics History Economics Music ( I forgot this one in the previous list)
So 10 in total and she has 2 or 3 exams in each I believe. She is doing a total of 26 exams.
Grandson 2 has a similar mix, except that his options are Design & Technology and History. I somewhat suspect that the latter will be 20th Century based, so since I’m approaching 80 .....
This year, in what I still call the Third Form, he ‘did’ the Great Dictators and was amazed when I told him that in my youth many British people had a high opinion of Stalin!
@rowenamason: Wow. Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, his agent and CCHQ official charged with election offences
urgh, great timing.
And now we have our Comey moment.
Comparing the charging of a candidate and two officials with dramatic allegations levelled directly at the Democratic Presidential candidate is a bit of an over reaction.
I'm sure it'll make headlines and seem like a major event (awaiting the twitter storm now) but it's hardly the "15 evil tory mps going to prison" event that the far lefties were loudly proclaiming, a few weeks ago, as the entire reason for May calling the election in the first place.
Comments
My point is that arguing that people not knowing about the Cold War shows history is badly taught is a nonsense. The Cold War is still covered by politics departments at university. The fact it dominated the history curriculum at GCSE said a lot about the Marxist inclinations of those who wrote it in the 1970s, as much as anything else.
What should worry people about the religion of polls is its undue influence on the media and campaigns, especially given they are usually utter nonsense
https://twitter.com/edballs/status/869675189465952256
This actually suits TMay quite nicely. At the beginning of the campaign her claim, 'vote for me, or otherwise Corbyn will win' were met with guffaws. Now, the claim is taken a lot more seriously.
Mr. Patrick, ah, the Book of Changes. Still on my to-buy list.
Surely the point of teaching history is to teach the critical thinking skills to look at a series of events and understand cause and effect?
I imagine the rise of Nazism in interwar Germany is popular as a module because it's very easy to teach/grasp the cause and effect of the sequence of events in a group of average 14 year olds.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/low_concept/2003/04/the_poetry_of_dh_rumsfeld.html
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/870565518104834049
Key stage 1/2 says pupils 'should' be taught about Roman empire and its impact on Britain. you're right that it's not compulsory but I'd be surprised if most schools don't teach about the Romans.
At one stage he had the Prince Andrew look-a-like competition sewn up. That seems to be behind him now. When I last had a good long chat with him at an election count (over at the leisure centre in Davyhulme) he was personable enough and, as an MP, he is prompt in responding to letters and such like. I have nothing against him personally.
As regards single sex schools, I understand your point about lack of social skills and I think it is a valid point. The flipside of the coin is that girls seem to do better in singe sex schools because they do not have to put up with the boys' competitiveness. My own daughters went to mixed schools and what they mainly learned about boys was how to ignore their comments and "suggestions"
I am glad I do not work in education
https://twitter.com/jsinclair29/status/870512472490352640
The manifesto utterly didsappointed me as it seems we have, again, a PM with no real vision. Dave thought he was going to be good at the job but I never really knew what his vision was - other than to fellate Juncker. Please can we have a Tory PM who spells out a clear and compelling vision for a small state, competitive, independent, free and open country and delivers policies to make that happen. But energy caps? FFS!
I'll 100% certain vote Tory on Thu but I'm cooling on May pretty rapidly. Plese can she channel her inner Maggie a bit.
https://twitter.com/milesbriggsmsp/status/870350802174586881
https://twitter.com/JohnRalfe1/status/860314307191611393
For the same reason the separate Le Touquet treaty between France and the UK does not lapse at Brexit.
But, yes, it is spot on. That is probably what confused them.
From a Labour perspective, though: another day without the Tories thinking of any positive policies that they really want to push is another gain. If May wins by say 30 seats, people are just going to feel morose - and that's the Tory supporters...
So you can have all the skills in the world, but if you spend most of your time on social media communicating with like-minded people you will never need to apply those skills. That's what most people do, and they think that they are "well informed".
I still like Ed Balls and would like to see him back in Parliament.
Plus all those years carrying the sword of truth and the shield of fair play have taken their toll on him.
Similarly, during a seminar we were split into small groups. I was with two girls (one a good friend, the other a stranger). They gassed a lot about the subject, but when it came time to talk about our collective view to the rest, they suddenly became mute and I had to do it.
If that’s what they do.
'Compare and contrast' essays were, I seem to recall, the staple of biological subjects when I did A levels.
She could have done with his input, frankly.
From what I understand the compulsories are
Maths
English (Only one unlike my day when it was Language and Lit)
RE
Foreign Language
Plus 5 choices
I find Nazism very user unfriendly to teach at that age level, actually, because the causes, effects and influences are extraordinarily complex. It's made worse by the fact that they look superficially simple to the uninitiated. It has to be done for a number of reasons, but it causes me far more angst than teaching Russia and the USSR.
Why do you think with takeup over 40% and generally rising (admittedly with a dip last year) the content of the History GCSE is irrelevant? It seems highly relevant to me, especially as that's where more knowledge will be retained. How many people can honestly remember what they learned in Year 7?
Unfortunately I have to go to a funeral so I can't stay and discuss further. I hope the few comments I have been able to give are useful in dispelling some myths.
They have
Maths
English (both)
RE
Foreign Language
Core science (2 GCSES)
Geography or History
And just 2 options - one of which gives you separate sciences
One is doing Separate Sciences and Computer Science the other Computer Science and Music.
Its worth noting that the GCSE computer science course is brand new for next year and virtually identical to the existing A-level course - I'm very impressed by the practical side of it - the background side isn't that great.
https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/870572201304633345
Agent, & MP charged.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/spokespeople
She is doing
Maths
English
RE
Foreign Language
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
History
Economics
Music ( I forgot this one in the previous list)
So 10 in total and she has 2 or 3 exams in each I believe. She is doing a total of 26 exams.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/11/meet-the-new-boss/
He also pointed out that she likes to micromanage, dithers and isn't a tactician. Those judgements are looking quite good today.
It will be a sad day for this country when a leading politician cannot spend his election expenses in any way he sees fit.
HAVING SAID THAT, Sky have merely reported the breaking news and moved on, I imagine there has been some reminding of sub judice rules to the press.
This year, in what I still call the Third Form, he ‘did’ the Great Dictators and was amazed when I told him that in my youth many British people had a high opinion of Stalin!
I'm sure it'll make headlines and seem like a major event (awaiting the twitter storm now) but it's hardly the "15 evil tory mps going to prison" event that the far lefties were loudly proclaiming, a few weeks ago, as the entire reason for May calling the election in the first place.
WillS