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.
Well aside from the bit where the *West* Germans were supposed to be the junior partners to the French in Europe.....
Although I'm (annoyingly) still part time at the moment an office meeting week after next gives me the chance to do a bit of normal. Drive down to the office. Morning in the factory planning online picking already in the diary, afternoon upstairs management meeting already in the diary. Then into town. Usual hotel. Takeaway curry and some Heinekens. Then day 2 in the office with easier access to our servers to download all the graphics files that I need and our VPN has fits of the vapours with.
WFH gets the job done, is cheaper, has a better work-life balance. But it can be lonely. Especially where my entire career has had me up and down the country to customers / other sites / conferences etc etc all the time. Zoom on a screen not a patch on face to face
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?
France at its final destination?
They change republics like other people change their socks. What are we on? Fifth Republic?
Sad but not unexpected, the end of the road for the Speedbird Queens of the Sky.
Amazing birds in their day, but now superseded by more modern craft and increasingly expensive to keep flying. Long live the Queen!
I've heard it suggested that many will be converted to freighters - apparently that is possible for a reasonable cost.
Yep, that’s what happens to most old 747s. They were designed to also be frightens, that’s why they have the hump back, and the maths of flying them around full of cargo is much better than trying to fill them with pax - self-loading freight, as the pilots call them
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.
Well aside from the bit where the *West* Germans were supposed to be the junior partners to the French in Europe.....
Well, with us out of the way, French influence in mainland Europe will be stronger than it has been for decades. De Gaulle has triumphed from the grave.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
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.
Well aside from the bit where the *West* Germans were supposed to be the junior partners to the French in Europe.....
Well, with us out of the way, French influence in mainland Europe will be stronger than it has been for decades. De Gaulle has triumphed from the grave.
And Churchill is turning in his at the pisspoor karaoke tribute act.
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.
Well aside from the bit where the *West* Germans were supposed to be the junior partners to the French in Europe.....
Well, with us out of the way, French influence in mainland Europe will be stronger than it has been for decades. De Gaulle has triumphed from the grave.
And Churchill is turning in his at the pisspoor karaoke tribute act.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
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"
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.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
So voters are not capable of understanding why they should leave the EU but are of course capable of understanding why Scotland should leave the UK then?
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
So voters are not capable of understanding why they should leave the EU but are of course capable of understanding why Scotland should leave the UK then?
Independence is a clear end result. We know what we are voting for or against.
But Brexiter voters voted for something very different, generally, than they are being forcefed now. Basically they expected the equivalent of EFTA without furriner immigration, and instant and easy trade deals, easiest thing in the world, and so on.
And remember the morning after the vote.
Was either the sign of an organised, conscious and efficient polity? No, it wasn't - unless one assumes it was a conspiracy rather than a massive screw-up. Or as well as one. ,
But I'm not going to comment on this issue further as I don't want to detail the thread.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
Is there a neat, tidy, decisive, non-rancorous method of involving the voting public in big decisions that you're aware of but I'm not? I think Churchill's words on democracy spring to mind.
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.
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.
You need teabags on a string, and dip it for 4 seconds.
There was a gag in a Morecambe and Wise sketch about it.
Although I'm (annoyingly) still part time at the moment an office meeting week after next gives me the chance to do a bit of normal. Drive down to the office. Morning in the factory planning online picking already in the diary, afternoon upstairs management meeting already in the diary. Then into town. Usual hotel. Takeaway curry and some Heinekens. Then day 2 in the office with easier access to our servers to download all the graphics files that I need and our VPN has fits of the vapours with.
WFH gets the job done, is cheaper, has a better work-life balance. But it can be lonely. Especially where my entire career has had me up and down the country to customers / other sites / conferences etc etc all the time. Zoom on a screen not a patch on face to face
That's amazing. How does online picking work - that's a technological breakthrough? So much for needing all that Eastern European cheap labour.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
Is there a neat, tidy, decisive, non-rancorous method of involving the voting public in big decisions that you're aware of but I'm not? I think Churchill's words on democracy spring to mind.
You misunderstand.
When the people agree with me, they are philosopher-saints. Obviously. When the people disagree with me, they are idiots. Obviously.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
Is there a neat, tidy, decisive, non-rancorous method of involving the voting public in big decisions that you're aware of but I'm not? I think Churchill's words on democracy spring to mind.
You misunderstand.
When the people agree with me, they are philosopher-saints. Obviously. When the people disagree with me, they are idiots. Obviously.
Well exactly. Carnyx is a v clever poster, and I'm surprised he doesn't realise that thinking the election was a farce, the other side lied, cheated and dissembled, the people were ignorant and ill-informed, etc., just translates as 'my side didn't win'.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
Is there a neat, tidy, decisive, non-rancorous method of involving the voting public in big decisions that you're aware of but I'm not? I think Churchill's words on democracy spring to mind.
You misunderstand.
When the people agree with me, they are philosopher-saints. Obviously. When the people disagree with me, they are idiots. Obviously.
Well exactly. Carnyx is a v clever poster, and I'm surprised he doesn't realise that thinking the election was a farce, the other side lied, cheated and dissembled, the people were ignorant and ill-informed, etc., just translates as 'my side didn't win'.
Point taken.
But look at the response from the leading politicians the next morning - on both sides.
And anyway we have a new thread to which we had better move promptly. Paint pots too. Like my new shed.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
Is there a neat, tidy, decisive, non-rancorous method of involving the voting public in big decisions that you're aware of but I'm not? I think Churchill's words on democracy spring to mind.
You misunderstand.
When the people agree with me, they are philosopher-saints. Obviously. When the people disagree with me, they are idiots. Obviously.
Well exactly. Carnyx is a v clever poster, and I'm surprised he doesn't realise that thinking the election was a farce, the other side lied, cheated and dissembled, the people were ignorant and ill-informed, etc., just translates as 'my side didn't win'.
Cameron negotiated a deal that I didn't want, but the only way to vote against it was to vote to leave. It was a farce.
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?
Except there is no "problem in the data" at all, according to PHE. One of their senior officials is directly quoted by The Guardian today, stating quite explicitly that they've decided to count Covid deaths in this way on purpose:
Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England’s incident director, said: “Although it may seem straightforward, there is no WHO agreed method of counting deaths from COVID-19. In England, we count all those that have died who had a positive COVID-19 test at any point, to ensure our data is as complete as possible.
This is total insanity. You might just as well rake through the life of Auntie Doris with a fine toothed comb after she kicks the bucket, discover that she had a minor shunt in her Austin Allegro in 1977, and add her to the road traffic death stats as a consequence.
There are no comprehensive statistics for this pandemic which can be trusted. The hospital Covid death numbers are probably reliable, but tell us nothing about deaths in other settings. Covid death stats outside of hospital are useless, first of all because of PHE's stupidity and secondly because many (probably a majority) of the Covid deaths were certified according to the best guesses of the relevant physicians and without being confirmed by a positive test result. The overall excess death numbers aren't a panacea either, because we've no idea what proportion of those were caused by Covid and what proportion may have been caused by the consequences of Covid (such as patients being denied treatment or being too scared to seek it.)
We know that Covid has been bad, but we've no idea exactly how bad, and we may never learn the truth. This will probably suit the authorities in the long run. If it could be conclusively established that we had torched the economy and condemned tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people to an early grave from other causes - mass poverty, undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and all the rest - such that the collateral damage turned out to be hugely worse than that from Covid itself, then a lot of very uncomfortable questions might have to be answered. As it is, we're left to shrug our shoulders and say "dunno."
The rise that had been forming in deaths has gone away and now continues to fall. Cases started rising on the 1st of June for this new super peak. Lagged deaths should be showing up by now.
According to news reports they are having to ship patients out of state so totally saturated is the hospital system but no rising deaths.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
So voters are not capable of understanding why they should leave the EU but are of course capable of understanding why Scotland should leave the UK then?
Independence is a clear end result. We know what we are voting for or against.
But Brexiter voters voted for something very different, generally, than they are being forcefed now. Basically they expected the equivalent of EFTA without furriner immigration, and instant and easy trade deals, easiest thing in the world, and so on.
And remember the morning after the vote.
Was either the sign of an organised, conscious and efficient polity? No, it wasn't - unless one assumes it was a conspiracy rather than a massive screw-up. Or as well as one. ,
But I'm not going to comment on this issue further as I don't want to detail the thread.
No you don't, post Brexit and the end of the transition period the future relationship of an independent Scotland with rUK and any rUK and Scotland trade deal would depend on what Westminster was prepared to give you, same as the UK is now finding with Brussels.
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
So voters are not capable of understanding why they should leave the EU but are of course capable of understanding why Scotland should leave the UK then?
Independence is a clear end result. We know what we are voting for or against.
But Brexiter voters voted for something very different, generally, than they are being forcefed now. Basically they expected the equivalent of EFTA without furriner immigration, and instant and easy trade deals, easiest thing in the world, and so on.
And remember the morning after the vote.
Was either the sign of an organised, conscious and efficient polity? No, it wasn't - unless one assumes it was a conspiracy rather than a massive screw-up. Or as well as one. ,
But I'm not going to comment on this issue further as I don't want to detail the thread.
No you don't, post Brexit and the end of the transition period the future relationship of an independent Scotland with rUK and any rUK and Scotland trade deal would depend on what Westminster was prepared to give you, same as the UK is now finding with Brussels.
Scotland would be on Brussels' side of the table, dictating terms to the Brexiteers.
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?
When the data is accepted to be on the low side, c.f. excess deaths we are now looking to reduce them further. Why don't we just use the most accurate data metric available, and one than can, without manipulation be compared across the nations. EXCESS DEATHS!
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
No, "we" did not hold Burma (most of it) and Malaya (not Malaysia) till after WW2. "We" ****ed up, lost them and had to reoccupy them.
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
Brexit is a very conscious and very deliberate decision, taken after decades of campaigning, a referendum and two subsequent General Elections.
What part of that was not deliberate?
The vote! The level of public understanding and discussion. £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus.
So voters are not capable of understanding why they should leave the EU but are of course capable of understanding why Scotland should leave the UK then?
Independence is a clear end result. We know what we are voting for or against.
But Brexiter voters voted for something very different, generally, than they are being forcefed now. Basically they expected the equivalent of EFTA without furriner immigration, and instant and easy trade deals, easiest thing in the world, and so on.
And remember the morning after the vote.
Was either the sign of an organised, conscious and efficient polity? No, it wasn't - unless one assumes it was a conspiracy rather than a massive screw-up. Or as well as one. ,
But I'm not going to comment on this issue further as I don't want to detail the thread.
No you don't, post Brexit and the end of the transition period the future relationship of an independent Scotland with rUK and any rUK and Scotland trade deal would depend on what Westminster was prepared to give you, same as the UK is now finding with Brussels.
Scotland would be on Brussels' side of the table, dictating terms to the Brexiteers.
It wouldn't as Scotland exports more to rUK than the UK does to the EU
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?
When the data is accepted to be on the low side, c.f. excess deaths we are now looking to reduce them further. Why don't we just use the most accurate data metric available, and one than can, without manipulation be compared across the nations. EXCESS DEATHS!
But there isn't an easy fix for the difference between deaths reported in hospitals vs. excess deaths, is there? That's something that will always take time to balance out. They aren't deliberately picking a favourable statistic, otherwise you wouldn't have the ONS numbers at all.
Comments
Amazing birds in their day, but now superseded by more modern craft and increasingly expensive to keep flying. Long live the Queen!
That would probably require a second wave.
WFH gets the job done, is cheaper, has a better work-life balance. But it can be lonely. Especially where my entire career has had me up and down the country to customers / other sites / conferences etc etc all the time. Zoom on a screen not a patch on face to face
They change republics like other people change their socks. What are we on? Fifth Republic?
And as for Brexit, if you call that a conscious decision ...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/17/donald-trump-long-losing-war-with-the-nfl-366000
...“I mean, at some point, people who are—and I’m using this word loosely—but who are bullied are fearful, and at some point they realize—you know what?—the bully is just kind of an empty suit.”...
We are in recession now (though its not official until Q2 figures get released).
There's not a snowballs chance in hell we will be in recession in 12 months time.
'The Self-Cancellation of Bari Weiss'
https://tinyurl.com/y5ldbhyc
What part of that was not deliberate?
Mind you, we live in a world where a Remainiac of my aquaintance wants to end ALL IMMIGRATION! NOW!
https://cnsnews.com/blog/cnsnewscom-staff/pelosi-shows-national-tv-audience-her-freezer-full-12-pint-ice-cream
Headline - 16 - very low
Seven days - 15
Yesterday - 2
But Brexiter voters voted for something very different, generally, than they are being forcefed now. Basically they expected the equivalent of EFTA without furriner immigration, and instant and easy trade deals, easiest thing in the world, and so on.
And remember the morning after the vote.
Was either the sign of an organised, conscious and efficient polity? No, it wasn't - unless one assumes it was a conspiracy rather than a massive screw-up. Or as well as one. ,
But I'm not going to comment on this issue further as I don't want to detail the thread.
There was a gag in a Morecambe and Wise sketch about it.
When the people agree with me, they are philosopher-saints. Obviously.
When the people disagree with me, they are idiots. Obviously.
But look at the response from the leading politicians the next morning - on both sides.
And anyway we have a new thread to which we had better move promptly. Paint pots too. Like my new shed.
NEW THREAD
Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England’s incident director, said: “Although it may seem straightforward, there is no WHO agreed method of counting deaths from COVID-19. In England, we count all those that have died who had a positive COVID-19 test at any point, to ensure our data is as complete as possible.
source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/matt-hancock-calls-urgent-inquiry-phe-covid-19-death-figures
This is total insanity. You might just as well rake through the life of Auntie Doris with a fine toothed comb after she kicks the bucket, discover that she had a minor shunt in her Austin Allegro in 1977, and add her to the road traffic death stats as a consequence.
There are no comprehensive statistics for this pandemic which can be trusted. The hospital Covid death numbers are probably reliable, but tell us nothing about deaths in other settings. Covid death stats outside of hospital are useless, first of all because of PHE's stupidity and secondly because many (probably a majority) of the Covid deaths were certified according to the best guesses of the relevant physicians and without being confirmed by a positive test result. The overall excess death numbers aren't a panacea either, because we've no idea what proportion of those were caused by Covid and what proportion may have been caused by the consequences of Covid (such as patients being denied treatment or being too scared to seek it.)
We know that Covid has been bad, but we've no idea exactly how bad, and we may never learn the truth. This will probably suit the authorities in the long run. If it could be conclusively established that we had torched the economy and condemned tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people to an early grave from other causes - mass poverty, undiagnosed and untreated cancers, and all the rest - such that the collateral damage turned out to be hugely worse than that from Covid itself, then a lot of very uncomfortable questions might have to be answered. As it is, we're left to shrug our shoulders and say "dunno."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/16/right-power-victim-britain-media-no-10-millennials-twitter?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594877592
The rise that had been forming in deaths has gone away and now continues to fall. Cases started rising on the 1st of June for this new super peak. Lagged deaths should be showing up by now.
According to news reports they are having to ship patients out of state so totally saturated is the hospital system but no rising deaths.