Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
One thing with excess deaths is not every nation even measures that the same.
EG I believe in the UK excess deaths are simply deaths above the average, whereas in the US the CDC measures excess deaths as deaths above the 95 CI upper threshold. The difference for that averages as about 2k deaths per week or about 100k deaths per year difference.
However, I assume (hope!) that the FT and similar analyses are using the same rules for each country and doing their own calculations for deaths this year compared to deaths in the previous 5 years.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
It wasn't particularly good or funny, but I didn't see what was racist about it.
Possibly as a Hindu the representation as a bull or cow is very insulting. But I'm not sure.
That image - Hindu as a large, aggressive bull/cow - is a standard trope in some extremely racist* anti-Hindu propaganda.
Bit like the Jews being associated with rats thing.
*I'm talking Der Sturmer grade filth here.
You learn something new every day. It's quite reasonable to imagine that Bell was unaware of this, although you could argue that as a political cartoonist perhaps he should make sure he is more aware of these things than the general public would be. In his defence as I recall the offending picture depicted Johnson in exactly the same way, and as far as I know he is not a Hindu. For me Bell is quite hit and miss, at his best he can be absolutely brilliant but he's a bit too misanthropic for my tastes overall. He should have withdrawn this cartoon once its offensive connotations were made clear to him.
The cartoon, which I won't reproduce here, depicted Boris as fat, blond and with tiny eyes.
The image for Patel was interesting to the point, that I would ask where he got the idea. I have seen similar in extremist leaflets at a local place of worship.
It portrays Johnson as a bull too, with horns, a ring through his nose and hooves for hands. He has no eyes, because his face is portrayed as a giant arse, as I believe is a long running theme in Bell's cartoons. Perhaps we are thinking of different pictures.
That's the one I recvall too. Was it not said to be a response to some comment by Mr Johnson about bulling along, or similar?
But very easily interpreted differently ...
I think it is more likely than not an honest mistake (I'm pretty PC and am married to a South Asian woman but I have never heard of this anti Hindu stuff) but once it was pointed out he should have withdrawn the cartoon.
Mr Eagles was probably concentrating on irrelevant skills in the interview - legal, accounting, IT, managerial etc
He probably didn't even bother to ask the vital questions - such as their views on proportion representation.....
I ask the really important questions like 'do you think pineapple is an acceptable topping on pizza?'
I have to admit my fellow interviewer was shocked with the hire, she said you expect milk in firsters to be Southerners who water their shandies, not from a girl from Bolton! It really wasn't on her radar.
Anyhoo, a peace deal was negotiated. Milk in firsters made their own tea.
Eventually the milk in firster stopped being a milk in firster.
Personally I expect milk-in firsters to use a teapot or be defenestrated on the spot.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
It's just posh people hiring posh people, innit. It's how Britain rolls.
#MeToo campaigner saying The Sun distorted her words and she didn't back the article calling Johnny Depp a wife beater. That's the first pretty explosive thing I've heard from this whole nonsense. I hope The Sun lose this case, hateful rag.
Mr Eagles was probably concentrating on irrelevant skills in the interview - legal, accounting, IT, managerial etc
He probably didn't even bother to ask the vital questions - such as their views on proportion representation.....
I ask the really important questions like 'do you think pineapple is an acceptable topping on pizza?'
I have to admit my fellow interviewer was shocked with the hire, she said you expect milk in firsters to be Southerners who water their shandies, not from a girl from Bolton! It really wasn't on her radar.
Anyhoo, a peace deal was negotiated. Milk in firsters made their own tea.
Eventually the milk in firster stopped being a milk in firster.
Personally I expect milk-in firsters to use a teapot or be defenestrated on the spot.
If I hadn't intervened I think the latter would have happened.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
But it's fine to post freely that Jeremy Corbyn and anyone supporting him is a raging antisemite.
Yes just like its fine to say that Jimmy Saville abused children.
Truth is an absolute defence.
On this topic I'm afraid you ARE a troll.
No, you're blinded by faux loyalty.
I have no reason to troll Corbyn, he's history and helped give us a massive majority. Why would I want to troll him? And doing so now only makes Starmer look better in context, so what possible reason would I have to do that?
I attack Corbyn for being an antisemite not to score partisan points, but because he is an antisemite. So are Rebecca Long Bailey, Chris Williamson etc . . . none of them now on the Labour Front Bench so what partisan reason would I have to troll that?
I don't know. But then I don't know what caused you to say that Boris Johnson was quite muscly.
Sometimes you troll. Not often - hence why I defended you yesterday against that charge - but just now and again you do.
And needless to say I can usually spot it and hence can cut my cloth accordingly.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
Im surprised they do as well. But the research says they do:
"The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. "
Mr Eagles was probably concentrating on irrelevant skills in the interview - legal, accounting, IT, managerial etc
He probably didn't even bother to ask the vital questions - such as their views on proportion representation.....
I ask the really important questions like 'do you think pineapple is an acceptable topping on pizza?'
I have to admit my fellow interviewer was shocked with the hire, she said you expect milk in firsters to be Southerners who water their shandies, not from a girl from Bolton! It really wasn't on her radar.
Anyhoo, a peace deal was negotiated. Milk in firsters made their own tea.
Eventually the milk in firster stopped being a milk in firster.
Personally I expect milk-in firsters to use a teapot or be defenestrated on the spot.
Whatever, without tea-leaves in the cup, how can you tell what's going to happen next?
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
A question to ask is about the examining boards.
Remember the whole A levels examining board scandal - some examining boards were marketing their A levels as not being like those "terribly hard ones the private schools use"?
Guess who work on examine boards - yes, university staff. They know the ins and outs.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily what is happening, but it would interesting to see.
One thing with excess deaths is not every nation even measures that the same.
EG I believe in the UK excess deaths are simply deaths above the average, whereas in the US the CDC measures excess deaths as deaths above the 95 CI upper threshold. The difference for that averages as about 2k deaths per week or about 100k deaths per year difference.
However, I assume (hope!) that the FT and similar analyses are using the same rules for each country and doing their own calculations for deaths this year compared to deaths in the previous 5 years.
Given the Spanish found 12,000 deaths down the back of the sofa, I wouldn't be so sure...
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
Im surprised they do as well. But the research says they do:
"The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. "
Thats quite specific.
My point was that it may be a consequence of other factors, not a requirement.
Interesting, isn;t it, that the estimable Professor Gupta's Oxford study is all of a sudden front page news in the Mail, when her views on Corona and T-cell immunity have been known for a while.
Just as the government desperately need people to go back to work!
The 'if' in the abstract is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I'm all in favour of analyses like these, but we need some evidence of significant numbers of people who actually are immune for reasons other than being previously infected before taking this as anything more than an interesting 'what-if' exercise. Also, this is the same prof who was pushing an IFR that would imply, from known deaths, that almost all the population to several times the population had already been infected a couple of months back, isn't it?
Yes. The same prof who is fond of publishing a pre-print speculating "if A then B", where A either has no evidence or is even contradicted by data, and then giving a press conference in which she states B.
I notice that her paper on "68% of the population have already had it" (not a quote) back in March is still a pre-print, not yet accepted for publication several months later. The most recent paper on consequences of pre-existing immunity is so weak, mathematically, that I wouldn't expect it to be published anywhere good.
One thing with excess deaths is not every nation even measures that the same.
EG I believe in the UK excess deaths are simply deaths above the average, whereas in the US the CDC measures excess deaths as deaths above the 95 CI upper threshold. The difference for that averages as about 2k deaths per week or about 100k deaths per year difference.
However, I assume (hope!) that the FT and similar analyses are using the same rules for each country and doing their own calculations for deaths this year compared to deaths in the previous 5 years.
Given the Spanish found 12,000 deaths down the back of the sofa, I wouldn't be so sure...
The biggest problem is that the numbers have to come from the countries in question, themselves. So the FT has to rely on the national equivalents to the ONS, Who all do things differently.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
A question to ask is about the examining boards.
Remember the whole A levels examining board scandal - some examining boards were marketing their A levels as not being like those "terribly hard ones the private schools use"?
Guess who work on examine boards - yes, university staff. They know the ins and outs.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily what is happening, but it would interesting to see.
Don't public schools have history in gaming the exam boards. The large uptake of the IGCSE is but one example.
One thing with excess deaths is not every nation even measures that the same.
EG I believe in the UK excess deaths are simply deaths above the average, whereas in the US the CDC measures excess deaths as deaths above the 95 CI upper threshold. The difference for that averages as about 2k deaths per week or about 100k deaths per year difference.
However, I assume (hope!) that the FT and similar analyses are using the same rules for each country and doing their own calculations for deaths this year compared to deaths in the previous 5 years.
Given the Spanish found 12,000 deaths down the back of the sofa, I wouldn't be so sure...
The number of deaths are a political football so that is why Government's are hiding figures.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
Im surprised they do as well. But the research says they do:
"The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. "
Thats quite specific.
My point was that it may be a consequence of other factors, not a requirement.
Maybe Im being dim but I dont follow. Candidates get told before taking their exam what grades they need to get in. Poorer students get told higher grades than richer students. It is by definition a requirement.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
But it's fine to post freely that Jeremy Corbyn and anyone supporting him is a raging antisemite.
Yes just like its fine to say that Jimmy Saville abused children.
Truth is an absolute defence.
On this topic I'm afraid you ARE a troll.
No, you're blinded by faux loyalty.
I have no reason to troll Corbyn, he's history and helped give us a massive majority. Why would I want to troll him? And doing so now only makes Starmer look better in context, so what possible reason would I have to do that?
I attack Corbyn for being an antisemite not to score partisan points, but because he is an antisemite. So are Rebecca Long Bailey, Chris Williamson etc . . . none of them now on the Labour Front Bench so what partisan reason would I have to troll that?
I don't know. But then I don't know what caused you to say that Boris Johnson was quite muscly.
Sometimes you troll. Not often - hence why I defended you yesterday against that charge - but just now and again you do.
And needless to say I can usually spot it and hence can cut my cloth accordingly.
I didn't say he was "quite muscly". I said he was active and a cyclist so would have more muscles than a 17 stone couch potato, making the idea he was 17 stone entirely plausible to me.
You can be both fat and have muscles - in fact many very fat people do have considerable muscles because eg a 17 stone person's legs is carrying another seven stones of weight than what a 10 stone person's legs are carrying. Imagine loading a seven stone backpack onto a 10 stone person and telling them to carry that at all times whenever they're walking around.
That you still don't understand that shows your own ignorance not mine.
Very clear explanation and I certainly do understand it. Boris has good strong legs - is the gist of what you're saying.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
No one is arguing that there have not been excess deaths and quite a lot of them. What is being discussed is how many. This will be significant if there remains a much larger death toll in the UK than equivalent countries like France or Germany. Why did that happen? Are we more obese, less fit, more ethnic minorities, are our hospitals less competent, etc?
Spain has a smaller population than us but has had 305k cases to our 295k. Despite that we are recording 45k deaths compared to their 28k. This is a massive difference. We need to find out why, ideally before there is a second wave.
The European figures are far from accurate. In Italy the death toll is at least double that being reported.
I don't think that is the case. Italy is reporting fewer excess deaths than us. From the FT:
That's from ages ago.
Yes, it flatters the UK because most of those countries had the virus under control by the end of May, whereas we didn't.
Interesting, isn;t it, that the estimable Professor Gupta's Oxford study is all of a sudden front page news in the Mail, when her views on Corona and T-cell immunity have been known for a while.
Just as the government desperately need people to go back to work!
One thing with excess deaths is not every nation even measures that the same.
EG I believe in the UK excess deaths are simply deaths above the average, whereas in the US the CDC measures excess deaths as deaths above the 95 CI upper threshold. The difference for that averages as about 2k deaths per week or about 100k deaths per year difference.
However, I assume (hope!) that the FT and similar analyses are using the same rules for each country and doing their own calculations for deaths this year compared to deaths in the previous 5 years.
Given the Spanish found 12,000 deaths down the back of the sofa, I wouldn't be so sure...
The biggest problem is that the numbers have to come from the countries in question, themselves. So the FT has to rely on the national equivalents to the ONS, Who all do things differently.
The only numbers that are going to make sense are total deaths.
Too many other variables to rely on any other stats, Western states generally record gross numbers of deaths with some accuracy! (Russia, China or India might not have the same level of data).
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
The comparison would be telling overt 3 million UK residents that they probably can't vote, the authorities won't confirm for sure if they can or can't, and if they do try, they risk being charged with a crime and banged up again.
Mr Eagles was probably concentrating on irrelevant skills in the interview - legal, accounting, IT, managerial etc
He probably didn't even bother to ask the vital questions - such as their views on proportion representation.....
I ask the really important questions like 'do you think pineapple is an acceptable topping on pizza?'
I have to admit my fellow interviewer was shocked with the hire, she said you expect milk in firsters to be Southerners who water their shandies, not from a girl from Bolton! It really wasn't on her radar.
Anyhoo, a peace deal was negotiated. Milk in firsters made their own tea.
Eventually the milk in firster stopped being a milk in firster.
Personally I expect milk-in firsters to use a teapot or be defenestrated on the spot.
Whatever, without tea-leaves in the cup, how can you tell what's going to happen next?
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
But it's fine to post freely that Jeremy Corbyn and anyone supporting him is a raging antisemite.
Yes just like its fine to say that Jimmy Saville abused children.
Truth is an absolute defence.
On this topic I'm afraid you ARE a troll.
No, you're blinded by faux loyalty.
I have no reason to troll Corbyn, he's history and helped give us a massive majority. Why would I want to troll him? And doing so now only makes Starmer look better in context, so what possible reason would I have to do that?
I attack Corbyn for being an antisemite not to score partisan points, but because he is an antisemite. So are Rebecca Long Bailey, Chris Williamson etc . . . none of them now on the Labour Front Bench so what partisan reason would I have to troll that?
I don't know. But then I don't know what caused you to say that Boris Johnson was quite muscly.
Sometimes you troll. Not often - hence why I defended you yesterday against that charge - but just now and again you do.
And needless to say I can usually spot it and hence can cut my cloth accordingly.
I didn't say he was "quite muscly". I said he was active and a cyclist so would have more muscles than a 17 stone couch potato, making the idea he was 17 stone entirely plausible to me.
You can be both fat and have muscles - in fact many very fat people do have considerable muscles because eg a 17 stone person's legs is carrying another seven stones of weight than what a 10 stone person's legs are carrying. Imagine loading a seven stone backpack onto a 10 stone person and telling them to carry that at all times whenever they're walking around.
That you still don't understand that shows your own ignorance not mine.
Very clear explanation and I certainly do understand it. Boris has good strong legs - is the gist of what you're saying.
Ok. So perhaps he does. But we should move on.
Indeed and those strong legs will weigh more than a fat, lazy couch potato with the same amount of belly fat.
That is why active but fat people can weigh surprisingly more than people sometimes realise. Because its possible to be both fat and muscular and it all adds up. Johnson is definitely fat, but the idea he can't be 17 stone is silly . . . given how big he is and how active he is I'd be surprised at his heaviest if he was much lower than that.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
It's just posh people hiring posh people, innit. It's how Britain rolls.
I once saw a small ad (1980s) in The Telegraph vacancies section, "only first class honours graduates OR those with a Headmasters Conference school education need apply".
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
I don't think they do. It is just that if there are two students with the same grades, they are more likely to pick the one from the more well off background. Perhaps extracurricular activities playing a role here?
It's just posh people hiring posh people, innit. It's how Britain rolls.
All interviews are self replicating oligarchs, in that there is a strong bias to panels picking candidates who are likely to be leaders in their profession, therefore like the appointing panel.
There are ways of reducing such biases, and we certainly try to do so at my Medical School.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
Yes - and the answer is try and create a common standard.
The next problem is that at the moment, state educated children will do worse on an objective standard.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
My tongue may have been in the vicinity of cheek in my original post.
I am after all the privately educated son of a doctor. #ManOfThePeople.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
It's all a bit painfully manufactured in Sunak's case though. The whole Yorkshire Tea thing is cringeworthy. Clinton only became well of after he was President, for a US politician he was not rich at all, and he really came from nothing in a way that would probably be next to impossible in this country (off the top of my head only Alan Johnson is maybe comparable). Sunak's bio (head boy at Winchester, married to the daughter of a billionaire) isn't really comparable. He has the competent and human side covered, personally I think he should leave the man of the people schtick alone, it just makes him look daft.
I'm not sure what is objectionable about a Yorkshire MP drinking Yorkshire tea.
Seemed to be a case of some twitter baboons doing some trolling just because they could.
I've never been a fan of my former MP Denis Skinner, but I certainly would have no objection to him taking PR opportunities with Thorntons Toffee or Denby Pottery.
Point taken. I've never really understood the whole Yorkshire Tea thing - naming a product after a place whose role in its creation is utterly marginal. But then I'm not a Yorkshireman, and my impression is that Yorkshiremen take the whole Yorkshire thing quite seriously (as of course they have every right to).
While a coffee drinker, I'v noticed many tea drinkers become fanatical about which tea they drink. Interestingly, this doesn't often end up in wine-snobbery-style exotic, expensive, hard to find stuff. Just "I must have x tea. Or else."
I'm a tea drinker - found coffee too physically addictive so don't touch it any more. I don't really care what tea I drink as long as it's not bloody Earl Grey and it's not adulterated with milk. We get Clipper because it's Fair Trade and for fancy stuff loose leaf Sri Lankan tea, owing to family loyalties.
Tea can be physically addictive as well - plenty of caffeine in there.
A certain pipe smoking politician used to get... problematic... if he didn't have tea to hand. Non stop.
Yes that's true. Tea is kind of like methadone to coffee's heroin. As long as I limit myself to three cups a day then I can go without with no accute withdrawal symptoms. That was impossible for coffee so I've not touched it for years.
I tend to have ~12 coffees a day.
Fuxake. I hesitate to say that explains a lot, but...
This was another source of contention amongst the tea drinkers.
So PB tea drinkers, which group are you in?
IIRC, if you choose any of the 4s, then you're not a tea drinker, but a milk drinker.
D2. The others all look quite unpleasant. B3 may be acceptable at a push.
Agree. My boss is definitely a D4. Suffice to say that while she does not consider tea making part of my duties, I do try and make sure that I'm the person making the tea as much as possible! Not a problem at present, of course.
As an aside, making a D4 is hard. Best I've managed is adapting the Americano approach, making a weak tea, discarding most of it,. then topping up with milk and water. Still hard to get beyond a B4.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
Yes - and the answer is try and create a common standard.
The next problem is that at the moment, state educated children will do worse on an objective standard.
Hence the calls to adjust the system for that.
So state educated pupils simultaneously underachieve and are required to meet a higher standard for further study?
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
It's all a bit painfully manufactured in Sunak's case though. The whole Yorkshire Tea thing is cringeworthy. Clinton only became well of after he was President, for a US politician he was not rich at all, and he really came from nothing in a way that would probably be next to impossible in this country (off the top of my head only Alan Johnson is maybe comparable). Sunak's bio (head boy at Winchester, married to the daughter of a billionaire) isn't really comparable. He has the competent and human side covered, personally I think he should leave the man of the people schtick alone, it just makes him look daft.
I'm not sure what is objectionable about a Yorkshire MP drinking Yorkshire tea.
Seemed to be a case of some twitter baboons doing some trolling just because they could.
I've never been a fan of my former MP Denis Skinner, but I certainly would have no objection to him taking PR opportunities with Thorntons Toffee or Denby Pottery.
Point taken. I've never really understood the whole Yorkshire Tea thing - naming a product after a place whose role in its creation is utterly marginal. But then I'm not a Yorkshireman, and my impression is that Yorkshiremen take the whole Yorkshire thing quite seriously (as of course they have every right to).
While a coffee drinker, I'v noticed many tea drinkers become fanatical about which tea they drink. Interestingly, this doesn't often end up in wine-snobbery-style exotic, expensive, hard to find stuff. Just "I must have x tea. Or else."
I'm a tea drinker - found coffee too physically addictive so don't touch it any more. I don't really care what tea I drink as long as it's not bloody Earl Grey and it's not adulterated with milk. We get Clipper because it's Fair Trade and for fancy stuff loose leaf Sri Lankan tea, owing to family loyalties.
Tea can be physically addictive as well - plenty of caffeine in there.
A certain pipe smoking politician used to get... problematic... if he didn't have tea to hand. Non stop.
Yes that's true. Tea is kind of like methadone to coffee's heroin. As long as I limit myself to three cups a day then I can go without with no accute withdrawal symptoms. That was impossible for coffee so I've not touched it for years.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
It's all a bit painfully manufactured in Sunak's case though. The whole Yorkshire Tea thing is cringeworthy. Clinton only became well of after he was President, for a US politician he was not rich at all, and he really came from nothing in a way that would probably be next to impossible in this country (off the top of my head only Alan Johnson is maybe comparable). Sunak's bio (head boy at Winchester, married to the daughter of a billionaire) isn't really comparable. He has the competent and human side covered, personally I think he should leave the man of the people schtick alone, it just makes him look daft.
I'm not sure what is objectionable about a Yorkshire MP drinking Yorkshire tea.
Seemed to be a case of some twitter baboons doing some trolling just because they could.
I've never been a fan of my former MP Denis Skinner, but I certainly would have no objection to him taking PR opportunities with Thorntons Toffee or Denby Pottery.
Point taken. I've never really understood the whole Yorkshire Tea thing - naming a product after a place whose role in its creation is utterly marginal. But then I'm not a Yorkshireman, and my impression is that Yorkshiremen take the whole Yorkshire thing quite seriously (as of course they have every right to).
While a coffee drinker, I'v noticed many tea drinkers become fanatical about which tea they drink. Interestingly, this doesn't often end up in wine-snobbery-style exotic, expensive, hard to find stuff. Just "I must have x tea. Or else."
I'm a tea drinker - found coffee too physically addictive so don't touch it any more. I don't really care what tea I drink as long as it's not bloody Earl Grey and it's not adulterated with milk. We get Clipper because it's Fair Trade and for fancy stuff loose leaf Sri Lankan tea, owing to family loyalties.
Tea can be physically addictive as well - plenty of caffeine in there.
A certain pipe smoking politician used to get... problematic... if he didn't have tea to hand. Non stop.
Yes that's true. Tea is kind of like methadone to coffee's heroin. As long as I limit myself to three cups a day then I can go without with no accute withdrawal symptoms. That was impossible for coffee so I've not touched it for years.
One advantage I think the coalition had is that because of the delicate balance of power, it was tricky for the quad to keep changing ministers too often. Ministers had the time to get on top of their brief.
The first Cameron govt wasn't actually successful though. It just looks better better than what followed.
Johnson is doing a good job like Cameron in keeping his Ministers so they can get on top of their brief rather than dropping them at the first hint of trouble.
Erm… when he became PM he cleared out the old lot. Fair enough.
But *since* he became PM he's swapped his Chancellor, Attorney General, SoS for Defra, Business, Northern Ireland, DFID, Culture, Minister for Housing, Treasury Secretary.
That's all in less than a year!
I think it’s unfair to judge vs July last year. The constraints of small majority / fractious party are very different in terms of creating the cabinet he would have wanted. Reasonable to start from the reshuffle post election in this case
The 3 great economic powers are basically the USA, EU and China right now. China is right out, we're doing our best to annoy the EU so chlorinated chicken it is. The UK Gov't must be praying for a Biden win in November
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Saratoga/Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
The Euromomo links I posted are based on all cause deaths.
Only problem with them is the variable amount of lag in each countries figures.
The problem with that is the national comparisons are of z-score, excess deaths per million is the best metric. Again, not saying that the UK will do better on that, just that it's a better measure.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
Surely that was Suez?
No, that was just a way point on the route to being a damp offshore island off the West Coast of Eurasia.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
Owen Paterson earns £8,333 a month for 16 hours a week as a consultant for Randox (Register of Members' Interests). That's £100k a year for c. 4 hours a week. He has other paid work as well. Oh, and he's paid to be an MP.
Do you not see any potential conflict of interest here? Presumably not.
If he was involved in the allocation of contracts then clearly yes. If not then it’s less obvious.
Dividing £100k into an hour wage is meaningless analysis The going rate for an NED is £65k for a day a month. It’s not much work. Until it’s a lot of work.
I suspect that he’s paid £100k a year for whatever is needed and the 16 hours a month is made up
Discussed briefly last night. At first I didn't believe it.
So how will we explain away the greater differential between the amended figures and excess deaths over the soon to be revised figure?
I doubt we'll have to, it'll be a tiny change on the overall number. More significant now that deaths are so low.
Why is Hancock so excited by the development?
He is?
He's called for an urgent review.
Because its been flagged by an academic that there's a problem in the data that may account for more than 10% of current daily deaths (and logically will continue to account for an ever higher proportion of daily deaths).
Should he not call for an urgent review after its revealed there's a problem in the data?
Not quite sure what to make of the Prime Minister's comments this morning. Hardly a clarion call to return to the office desk.
The logistics are not pleasant - let's assume your 50,000 square foot (5000 square metres) office has 500 desks (workstations if you want) as well as accompanying meeting rooms.
The desk are arranged in banks of say twelve with six on each side facing. With social distancing that's down by 50% as nobody can sit facing and take out every other desk and you end up with five useable desks (two on one sidem three on the other). Put up a screen between the rows and that goes up to six.
Then there's the questions of toilets, lift access (if applicable), fire escapes, appropriate signage and equipping an office for post-Covid becomes expensive and time consuming.
The cost of office space varies enormously - north of £100 per square foot in the West End of London down to say £50 per square foot in Docklands and maybe £30 per square foot elsewhere (very crude guesstimates).
The elephant in the room is utilisation - many offices are not full all the time or even most of the time. Indeed, many offices on Fridays are quiet most weeks. Even so, how many companies are going to look at half or two thirds empty office spaces and ask themselves if they can or should be paying the rental.
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Saratoga/Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
We still had Canada for 150 years after Yorktown.
We still held India and Burma and Malaysia until after WW2.
We made the conscious decision to leave the EU, there was no 'collapse of European policy'.
We remain a member of NATO and the UN Security council and have commitments to peacekeeping and security overseas our allies expect us to keep.
We also have the Falklands and Gibraltar to protect too
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Has @AlastairMeeks stopped writing and post here by the way?
Not quite sure what to make of the Prime Minister's comments this morning. Hardly a clarion call to return to the office desk.
The logistics are not pleasant - let's assume your 50,000 square foot (5000 square metres) office has 500 desks (workstations if you want) as well as accompanying meeting rooms.
The desk are arranged in banks of say twelve with six on each side facing. With social distancing that's down by 50% as nobody can sit facing and take out every other desk and you end up with five useable desks (two on one sidem three on the other). Put up a screen between the rows and that goes up to six.
Then there's the questions of toilets, lift access (if applicable), fire escapes, appropriate signage and equipping an office for post-Covid becomes expensive and time consuming.
The cost of office space varies enormously - north of £100 per square foot in the West End of London down to say £50 per square foot in Docklands and maybe £30 per square foot elsewhere (very crude guesstimates).
The elephant in the room is utilisation - many offices are not full all the time or even most of the time. Indeed, many offices on Fridays are quiet most weeks. Even so, how many companies are going to look at half or two thirds empty office spaces and ask themselves if they can or should be paying the rental.
I have seen studies that offices in Canary Wharf can only be occupied to 10% or less without breaking distancing rules.
A flurry of holiday bookings. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her mum in Essicks for 5 days next week. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her dad in Spain for 5 days at the beginning of August. Me? I'll (mostly) be working. As I'm part time at the moment me not going anywhere saves cash (they can stay with her dad without me, with me we'd need to rent somewhere so probably quadruple the very little cost they've paid for red eye flights). Frankly I need to work (when they'll let me) - we have a lot to do in little time and most of us are bloody part time which makes for long days.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
Keep your eye on the published outbreak spots in Alicante currently only Santa Pola and Benidorm, only small 3/4 cases but many more in Valencia province. Details on RTVE
I know. But needs to see the family, staying with family near El Campello. Will be OK. Or not...
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
Surely that was Suez?
No, that was just a way point on the route to being a damp offshore island off the West Coast of Eurasia.
When did France get to their final destination, then? Or do you think they played a blinder in getting the rest of Europe to pay for their lifestyle?
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
Owen Paterson earns £8,333 a month for 16 hours a week as a consultant for Randox (Register of Members' Interests). That's £100k a year for c. 4 hours a week. He has other paid work as well. Oh, and he's paid to be an MP.
Do you not see any potential conflict of interest here? Presumably not.
Apologies - I meant 16 hours a month.
Everything may be completely above board, and to be absolutely clear for the benefit of Charles I have no evidence to the contrary and am certainly not suggesting that, but the government needs to be careful to avoid even the impression of impropriety if the public is to have confidence that its money is being well spent. I think at a minimum any company that has made contributions to any political party in say the last five years should not be awarded public money in an uncontested procurement exercise. I don't see why that should be controversial.
Rules were - rightly - suspended during the pandemic
The Trump Administration is actually making true the "Black Helicopters" paranoid conspiracy theory about the government setting up an organisation, compounded from various federal agencies to secretly detain "undesirables"
Law schools ‘demand higher A-Level grades’ from poorer students.
Students from less advantaged backgrounds require higher A-level grades than their wealthier peers to attend the UK's top law schools, according to research carried out by Clifford Chance, York Law School and The Bridge Group consultancy.
The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. The report found that 80% of the top 20 law schools in the UK are less likely to accept those poorer students on their courses compared with their peers.
Less than a quarter of applicants to the top UK law schools come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which is "considerably lower" than the 40% proportion of people with that background, said the report. The research highlighted that only 65% of the top UK law schools would accept vocational qualifications (such as BTECs) rather than A- levels.
The research concluded that students from less advantaged households are half as likely to attend the UK's elite law schools than their peers. The researchers said admission and access to law school matters because "the legal profession remains dominated by people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, especially within leading law firms and in the judiciary."
Why does being poor require better grades for admission?
Why should evaluation be limited only to crude grade numbers? (On both up and down sides)
It shouldnt be. If its about being meritocratic though grades requirements should be the other way around. The one with the advantage of private tutors and guided through the exam process should have to do better not worse.
The problem with the approach of State requires B+, Private requires A, is that it assumes that the University can make up the difference. And there is a real difference.
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Thats a real argument and whilst I dont agree with it I understand it. Am curious as to why TSE cant find anything wrong with poorer students not only being at a disadvantage with schooling and especially exams, then needing to do better in exams.
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
The problem has been kicked around so many times.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
Private schools have manipulated the exam systems throughout their history. It is why we have so many highly paid Tim nice but dims over promoted amongst our elite.
A common thread between Brexit and the fall of Singapore ?
Yes. It is a common thread.
Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
Surely that was Suez?
No, that was just a way point on the route to being a damp offshore island off the West Coast of Eurasia.
When did France get to their final destination, then? Or do you think they played a blinder in getting the rest of Europe to pay for their lifestyle?
They had a few waypoints too: Quebec, Plassey, Sedan, Dien Bein Phu, Algeria, but their European policy is going strong.
Comments
Maybe Johnson rummaged around in his trousers and found a pair, after all. Quite a shift.
"The research paper said that students from lower socio-economic groups are required to have higher A-level grades (AAB+) compared with their contemporaries from richer backgrounds. "
Thats quite specific.
Remember the whole A levels examining board scandal - some examining boards were marketing their A levels as not being like those "terribly hard ones the private schools use"?
Guess who work on examine boards - yes, university staff. They know the ins and outs.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily what is happening, but it would interesting to see.
I notice that her paper on "68% of the population have already had it" (not a quote) back in March is still a pre-print, not yet accepted for publication several months later. The most recent paper on consequences of pre-existing immunity is so weak, mathematically, that I wouldn't expect it to be published anywhere good.
--AS
And people hesitate to call out China as evil . . .
All the talk about private school student "over stuffed with knowledge" is an attempt to shy away from the real problem. Which starts in nursery.
Ok. So perhaps he does. But we should move on.
China is eliminating subcultures. This is to create a fact-on-the-ground - a single, homogeneous culture. One people, one country, one party.
So PB tea drinkers, which group are you in?
IIRC, if you choose any of the 4s, then you're not a tea drinker, but a milk drinker.
https://twitter.com/Tom_the_Knowles/status/1284013953094496257
Only problem with them is the variable amount of lag in each countries figures.
Too many other variables to rely on any other stats, Western states generally record gross numbers of deaths with some accuracy! (Russia, China or India might not have the same level of data).
It would be like giving Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal ten points bonus at the start of each season.
Whatever happened to Thatcherite meritocracy?
All of the others are questionable.
I suspect row 1 is exclusively Radiohead fans
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/supreme-court-florida-felons-poll-tax.html
The comparison would be telling overt 3 million UK residents that they probably can't vote, the authorities won't confirm for sure if they can or can't, and if they do try, they risk being charged with a crime and banged up again.
That is why active but fat people can weigh surprisingly more than people sometimes realise. Because its possible to be both fat and muscular and it all adds up. Johnson is definitely fat, but the idea he can't be 17 stone is silly . . . given how big he is and how active he is I'd be surprised at his heaviest if he was much lower than that.
The others all look quite unpleasant. B3 may be acceptable at a push.
The fudging the A Levels thing was the system trying to react to give state school children better grades. Which look better.
The problem is that the people using the A level grades (the universities) know about the fudging. So are they "adjusting" for this?
As with many things, the first thing to do, is to stop lying to ourselves.
My "desmond" didn't meet the standard!
There are ways of reducing such biases, and we certainly try to do so at my Medical School.
The next problem is that at the moment, state educated children will do worse on an objective standard.
Hence the calls to adjust the system for that.
I am after all the privately educated son of a doctor. #ManOfThePeople.
Well, I asked for tea and this is what was served, in front of me right now.
I hesitate to say that explains a lot, but...
As an aside, making a D4 is hard. Best I've managed is adapting the Americano approach, making a weak tea, discarding most of it,. then topping up with milk and water. Still hard to get beyond a B4.
But it depends upon the tea, since many brews ought to be drunk without milk.
And milk in first is entirely reasonable, indeed preferable, if (& only if) the tea is to be poured from a teapot.
It was such a terrible military disaster that it was positively French.
The UK Gov't must be praying for a Biden win in November
Really looks ill.
Saratoga/Yorktown: collapse of our North America policy
Singapore: collapse of our Far East policy
Suez: collapse of our Near East and Africa policy
Brexit: collapse of our European policy
What I hope for from Brexit is that we realise that our overseas involvements belong in the past. It is the final nail in the coffin of our world power pretensions.
https://news.sky.com/story/princess-beatrice-gets-married-in-secret-ceremony-in-windsor-12030507
Dividing £100k into an hour wage is meaningless analysis The going rate for an NED is £65k for a day a month. It’s not much work. Until it’s a lot of work.
I suspect that he’s paid £100k a year for whatever is needed and the 16 hours a month is made up
Should he not call for an urgent review after its revealed there's a problem in the data?
Not quite sure what to make of the Prime Minister's comments this morning. Hardly a clarion call to return to the office desk.
The logistics are not pleasant - let's assume your 50,000 square foot (5000 square metres) office has 500 desks (workstations if you want) as well as accompanying meeting rooms.
The desk are arranged in banks of say twelve with six on each side facing. With social distancing that's down by 50% as nobody can sit facing and take out every other desk and you end up with five useable desks (two on one sidem three on the other). Put up a screen between the rows and that goes up to six.
Then there's the questions of toilets, lift access (if applicable), fire escapes, appropriate signage and equipping an office for post-Covid becomes expensive and time consuming.
The cost of office space varies enormously - north of £100 per square foot in the West End of London down to say £50 per square foot in Docklands and maybe £30 per square foot elsewhere (very crude guesstimates).
The elephant in the room is utilisation - many offices are not full all the time or even most of the time. Indeed, many offices on Fridays are quiet most weeks. Even so, how many companies are going to look at half or two thirds empty office spaces and ask themselves if they can or should be paying the rental.
We still held India and Burma and Malaysia until after WW2.
We made the conscious decision to leave the EU, there was no 'collapse of European policy'.
We remain a member of NATO and the UN Security council and have commitments to peacekeeping and security overseas our allies expect us to keep.
We also have the Falklands and Gibraltar to protect too
That would could under fair comment about someone in the public eye. But if he wants to sue me for libel... 😆
"British Airways retires entire 747 fleet after travel downturn"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53426886
The Trump Administration is actually making true the "Black Helicopters" paranoid conspiracy theory about the government setting up an organisation, compounded from various federal agencies to secretly detain "undesirables"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0UNxlTYADI