How is this for crazy - Republican members of Congress are insisting they should be able to carry their guns into Congress despite last weeks coup!
These people love their guns more than anything else in life. I know, it's part of the culture and plenty of democrats will have guns, but the level to which gun rights are the crux of the culture wars and symbolic of all that needs defending is startling.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
But there isn't the profit in it that there is if you do it all yourself.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
BBB is a ridiculously low offer for such places. If they were saying 3 As or AAB, rather than usual offer of AAA*, after considering a range of other factors, doesn't seem unreasonable. But BBB is miles below that.
Also remember the rules will be changing to post exam entry for unis in the near future, so all the predicted grade games will have gone away. It quite rightly will be based on what you actually achieved.
BBB is very low these days, no matter what the school. But one would hope that the candidates admitted with those grades also excelled in the subject-specific admissions tests set by the university, since those are often a finer discriminator than A-level grades.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Well, that particular Morrison's box isn't quite comparable because it doesn't contain any fresh veg or fruit, nor any dairy product, but it's certainly amazing value. I don't disagree with those who say it would be much more efficient to give out vouchers, but that's not the same point as making ludicrous accusations about 'Tory donors' or slagging off Compass. If the companies are including bottled water, then it's probably because they've been asked to in the specification, but if that's not the case then they are not fulfilling the contract properly. They have no axe to grind it terms of what goes into the packs.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
With apologies, but this really is a mile off reality. 1) The company makes virtually no money from this. They are packing £5 of food into a £10 package, or £15 into a £23 package. Thats a whole lot of profit. Yes they have to be packed, but they pack a lot of boxes all day every day. As do the supermarkets who actively make a loss on their operations 2) They don't need to consider nutritional needs whilst packing a list of products specified by the client. They just need someone to pack them into the box. Assume £9 per head per hour thats a pack rate of less than 2 boxes an hour. I've seen some padding on factory costs in my time but this is off the scale
The best case scenario in this operation is that the taxpayer is throwing money at contractors like Chartwells who are pocketing significant amounts of it. To deliver largely random food that barely makes meals at all never mind ones that the child its aimed at will eat.
All because Tory MPs think poor parents spend handouts on crack.
Remarkable why they keep bidding for these contracts here and abroad when they make "virtually no money" from it. Most curious from an "extremely well run company", what a bizarre use of capital.
Since any money they make comes from us, the taxpayers, isn't the fact that they are making "virtually no money" from it a good thing? It doesn't seem a terribly risky line of business and risk free rates of return are currently very low. The idea that this vast multinational business, which has donated money to the party that has given them this contract, are somehow doing us a favour by deigning to throw a few tins of beans into a box in exchange for taxpayers' money, seems absurd. I am sure there are many other groups willing and able to do this work. Our local mutual aid group delivers hundreds of food boxes to vulnerable people every week - I was part of a small choir group who raised over £500 for it over Christmas. There are lots of people helping out right now who don't have a £5mn Chief Exec salary to fund.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
The name is always female of course, because serious journalism should be left to the chaps.
n = 2, assumed p = 0.5, null hypothesis of chance occurrence of two females = 25%. Need more data.
Now I'll be keeping an eye open (so to speak) in the next issue of the Eye,. thanks to you ...
Private Eye is littered with casual sexism. The much more serious charge against it is that it's just not very funny. The state of satire in this country is abysmal right now, I'm not sure why. Good satire should be angry and funny, seems to me that right now people seem to manage only one of those at a time. The US does a much better job on this front although perhaps they have better material to work with.
Polly Filler is specifically a mockery of Polly Toynbee, I thought.
In one of the recent tributes to Katherine Whitehorn it was suggested that she was the original inspiration, somewhat unfairly I thought.
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
For the assurance of everyone, global giants like Compass have significant buying power when it comes to cost prices.
Also worth considering who the "middle company" is: A supermarket collates products from manufacturers and suppliers for boxed up delivery. A foodservice contractor collates products from manufacturers and suppliers for boxed up delivery. Both are "middle companies"
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
Doesn't Morrisons have overheads?
Free market competition really doesn't work with these big service companies because the consumer doesn't get to choose them.
Now that Philip has successfully defended the reputation of Tory donors, shall we go back to the issue of feeding deprived children?
The only reason we have this story at all is that the previous system - handing out vouchers to parents - was kiboshed by Tory MP moral outrage that poor parents spend the vouchers on "crack cocaine".
What is abundantly clear is that the most cost-effective way of getting cash for food to parents is a voucher. And the most reliable way of getting food to kids that can be turned into a meal that they will eat is a voucher.
ManCock was made a mess of this morning trying to justify why he is so happy that something he voted against is now being implemented. Local Teesside Tories - including the always resplendently morally outraged adulterer Simon Clarke - also voted against feeding these kids.
When I retweeted the clip of ManCock squirming and tagged in Clarke and Matt Vickers, a conversation about why they did so prompted me to reply "ve vere just obeying orders". Which got a like from Matt Vickers. Having met Matt I know that he isn't a Simon Clarke style degenerate, so his like feels like a sign that he knows he was only following orders as well...
Can we *please* go back to handing out vouchers?
It highlights the problem for thoughtful, principled small state libertarians. And such people clearly exist in significant numbers.
To get access to the corridors of power in the UK and US, they have allied themselves with the authoritarian populist element of the right wing. Again, that's a legitimate brand of politics, until you get to full-on-tonto Trumpism. (Not everything he said was intrinsically deplorable- just quite a lot of it.)
But once in power, thoughtful, principled small state libertarians have a problem. Disown the authoritarian bits, and your coalition is too small to win. Accept it, and seek to justify it, and you risk being dragged down by it. It's the old adage about tiger-riding being a brilliant idea, until you seek to dismount.
What's a thoughtful, principled small state libertarian to do?
Argue for thoughtful, principled small state libertarianism? If the numbers are too small, perhaps it hasn't been argued long enough or strongly enough? Jumping into bed with a knee jerk Authoritarian, who only believes in markets when they are rigged in his favour, and hoping for the best hasn't worked out so well.
- gets rid of Trump, - can possibly re-establish control of the party (but not certain); - can recover suburban voters (but not certain - trends have been shifting away from the Republicans)
Reasons why not to back impeachment
- Major risk of civil war in the party - RNC is controlled by Trump supporters and the WSJ poll showed well over half choosing Trump over the GOP if forced to choose; - limited support in the House - max 20 (<10% of base) GOP Congress members to vote for it, McCarthy has said he doesn't want a vote; - Rebellion in the Senate - not only from Hawley, Cruz et al but those who are up for re-election in 2022 who might feel this puts them at risk (e.g. Rubio); - Crucially, puts at risk a 2022 Senate Republican majority - 3 Republican seats (PA, WI, NC) are in very marginal states and incumbents are retiring. It's possible a backlash against the move puts Grassley's seat at risk also. In addition, McConnell probably hopeful he could pick up Arizona, Warlock's seat and possibly Nevada in a backlash year.
Jprobably trust his word on this than the NYT.</p>
On the pro-impeachment side you can add 'he hates the bastard'.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
With apologies, but this really is a mile off reality. 1) The company makes virtually no money from this. They are packing £5 of food into a £10 package, or £15 into a £23 package. Thats a whole lot of profit. Yes they have to be packed, but they pack a lot of boxes all day every day. As do the supermarkets who actively make a loss on their operations 2) They don't need to consider nutritional needs whilst packing a list of products specified by the client. They just need someone to pack them into the box. Assume £9 per head per hour thats a pack rate of less than 2 boxes an hour. I've seen some padding on factory costs in my time but this is off the scale
The best case scenario in this operation is that the taxpayer is throwing money at contractors like Chartwells who are pocketing significant amounts of it. To deliver largely random food that barely makes meals at all never mind ones that the child its aimed at will eat.
All because Tory MPs think poor parents spend handouts on crack.
You've never ran a business if you think COGS and Labour Costs are the only costs to a business.
£9 an hour doesn't even cover minimum wage.
They aren't but the point is that packing a box should be less than £2 max. And delivery to a central location probably another £1 max on top.
In all cases that means excessive profits are being taken especially when we are looking at £5 of food (at supermarket prices) in a £10.50 box.
It depends. I don't know the details on this operation but can say from experience that many businesses will be paying their suppliers more wholesale than the supermarkets charge retail. Why? Because the wholesalers who are delivering to them have to cover their costs in doing so. So that £5 of food could cost the business supplying it £6 wholesale rather than £5 retail. Paying someone to go shopping retail can mean the goods are bought cheaper but isn't really worth doing.
Add on all the incidental overheads - for just employing someone you have not just wages, but holiday pay, pensions, National Insurance and more - then other overheads like your Business Rates for the building you're operating from, rent, electricity (not cheap if you have coolers running 24/7) and so on.
Costs can add up quicker than people realise.
All the more reason the only logical thing to do is have parents go direct to the supermarket. They can buy what they need to buy while doing their weekly shop - minimum fuss, minimum overhead.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
If the govt objects to vouchers, why not buy however many of these boxes we need from Morrisons and simply pay for distribution (accepting Morrisons might not want that bit of the task)? Perhaps they didnt donate to the party.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
I watched the debate on local elections in the Commons. A few points; there will be a lot of new postal votes and turnout on the day will be very low; no mention of the nominations problem; 2 Conservative MPs mentioned Lib Dems were campaigning in Guildford (of course) and Wolverhampton (why?).
Just a comment on vaccination rates - I think they are highly variable by locality.
My 84 year old father in law lives in the same village in Bucks as us almost on the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border. He has not been vaccinated yet. The local surgery has grouped together with others in the Bucks area to vaccinate at a new dedicated site at a sports centre in Aylesbury (7 miles away). They are now saying they won't be doing their first shots until Friday having said previously it was going to be on Tuesday.
Bucks in my view is underperforming having given 12K vaccines so far. For the population size compared to the rest of England it should have done about 80K. I don't know whether being a mainly rural county comes into play.
For comparison my father in law's friend who lives in the town closest to us (2.5 miles away but in Oxfordshire) is younger than him, albeit still in her 80s, was vaccinated 2 weeks ago. Strangely the site she went to have it was in Bucks!
Given the disparity in vaccination rates it would not surprise me if they start vaccinating below 80s in some parts long before others have finished the 80+s. Whether that is just accepted or it causes consternation I do not know. The postcode lottery is not fair, but postcode lotteries have existed in many other aspects of life for a long time.
Poscode lottery = Bad Regional differences= neutral Local specialisation=good.
In reality we do not want there to be no variability that would be a disaster. What we do want is for the level in worst regions to be acceptable. I'm not claiming that Bucks is acceptable or unacceptable, just trying to point out that a "postcode lottery" is inevitable. I hope you father does get vaccinated on Friday and wish him well.
Here in North/Mid Essex we are in a similar position to Mr M's father. From the local Facebook page I've just learned that the local surgery, which is working with five others to get out the vaccine. They have apparently decided to work in descending age order, within the Over-80's, and the first appointments are tomorrow. Everybody will be phoned to make sure they can get to the site...... there's no public transport. I've not had a phone call yet, so assume that any appointment for me will be next week. Not sure about South Essex, which has been one of the worst affected areas. Our infection rate seems to have been falling slightly the last few days.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
The problem with this is it is just kicking the can down the road. Moving the teaching to the university. At which point why have A levels? Just make degrees 5 years from 16.....
I sometimes wonder if the answer might not be residential colleges for A levels for the disadvantaged. There are several private outfits like that in Oxford, for example. Schools with room & board included.....
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
Surely the correct answer to this is :.
"At the moment we're supply/manufacture constrained but once supply is no longer a bottleneck we envision our specialist vaccination centres will be going 24/7"
It is. Gordon Brittas knows that supply is the issue and trying to score cheap political point and Boris can't help himself and come up with some new moonshot.
Stratton comments yesterday about people not keen on getting vaccinated outside of 8am to 8pm was stupid.
When it comes to population wide vaccination programme you have to be willing to take what you are given (provided not some obvious issues). If you are fit, healthy and have access to a car, being asked to go 30 miles for 7am, you do it.
Its like masks, it isn't all about you, its about everybody.
If you're fit and healthy then why are you being asked to get vaccinated at the minute? Apart from healthcare workers who ought to be able to take whatever slot they're given at the minute.
How many octogenarians are keen to get a slot outside of 8am-8pm? If we're supply limited and we can get through the supply in those 12 hours its surely better to do so.
The problem with giving people a silly timeslot they don't want is they're more likely to not turn up for the slot, which then means you're potentially wasting the vaccine because it isn't getting used as expected and you only have 3 days to use it. Make sure you use it all, but make sure people turn up for their appointments to do so too.
That's why i caveated with fit and healthy, I am not talking about doing the 80 year olds.
As for people not turning up. Employ the airline ticketing model. You slightly overbook knowing not everybody will turn up. We can do that with Oxford and J&J vaccine, especially when plenty of supply. Also, we could do a "come between x and y", if we have any left, you can get one without an appointment.
I think given how long restrictions have been going on, the uptake will be significant, even if people are being asked to go for 7am or 9pm.
I think Francis is right - I know lots of people over 70 who are worried but not disabled and will be more than pleased to drive to a vaccination at any time - generally they are no longer working, and as one said to me, "I would rather go when not many people are around, and I can sleep in afterwards". The fact that you're older doesn't mean you can't stay up once for something that might save your life.
The answer, though, is simply a quick pilot, as I understand will now be tried in Manchester. Let's see what happens. Why rule it out in advance?
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
Good. This is a great example of "best practice" sharing.
Sorry: "Due to low % of vaccinators in the UK..." what does that mean? UK routine vaccinations are at world-leading levels.
Also: "Following these talks, the UK has put this week some of the methods of vaccinations in Israel into action with them, including the mass centers in the UK that allow vaccination within 4 minutes and will allow much more vaccination."
Amichai Stein has obviously never seen a UK flu vaccination clinic in operation.
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
- gets rid of Trump, - can possibly re-establish control of the party (but not certain); - can recover suburban voters (but not certain - trends have been shifting away from the Republicans)
Reasons why not to back impeachment
- Major risk of civil war in the party - RNC is controlled by Trump supporters and the WSJ poll showed well over half choosing Trump over the GOP if forced to choose; - limited support in the House - max 20 (<10% of base) GOP Congress members to vote for it, McCarthy has said he doesn't want a vote; - Rebellion in the Senate - not only from Hawley, Cruz et al but those who are up for re-election in 2022 who might feel this puts them at risk (e.g. Rubio); - Crucially, puts at risk a 2022 Senate Republican majority - 3 Republican seats (PA, WI, NC) are in very marginal states and incumbents are retiring. It's possible a backlash against the move puts Grassley's seat at risk also. In addition, McConnell probably hopeful he could pick up Arizona, Warlock's seat and possibly Nevada in a backlash year.
Jprobably trust his word on this than the NYT.</p>
On the pro-impeachment side you can add 'he hates the bastard'.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Seems like a decent analysis. Cold hard speculation on relative risks of convict vs not convict will sway the senators.
It is worth them remembering he would regard a lack of conviction as endorsement of his actions and that he did nothing wrong. Saying he did bad but not to convict would be a nonsense. Either you're a Trumpster or you ain't.
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
Surely the correct answer to this is :.
"At the moment we're supply/manufacture constrained but once supply is no longer a bottleneck we envision our specialist vaccination centres will be going 24/7"
It is. Gordon Brittas knows that supply is the issue and trying to score cheap political point and Boris can't help himself and come up with some new moonshot.
Stratton comments yesterday about people not keen on getting vaccinated outside of 8am to 8pm was stupid.
When it comes to population wide vaccination programme you have to be willing to take what you are given (provided not some obvious issues). If you are fit, healthy and have access to a car, being asked to go 30 miles for 7am, you do it.
Its like masks, it isn't all about you, its about everybody.
If you're fit and healthy then why are you being asked to get vaccinated at the minute? Apart from healthcare workers who ought to be able to take whatever slot they're given at the minute.
How many octogenarians are keen to get a slot outside of 8am-8pm? If we're supply limited and we can get through the supply in those 12 hours its surely better to do so.
The problem with giving people a silly timeslot they don't want is they're more likely to not turn up for the slot, which then means you're potentially wasting the vaccine because it isn't getting used as expected and you only have 3 days to use it. Make sure you use it all, but make sure people turn up for their appointments to do so too.
That's why i caveated with fit and healthy, I am not talking about doing the 80 year olds.
As for people not turning up. Employ the airline ticketing model. You slightly overbook knowing not everybody will turn up. We can do that with Oxford and J&J vaccine, especially when plenty of supply. Also, we could do a "come between x and y", if we have any left, you can get one without an appointment.
I think given how long restrictions have been going on, the uptake will be significant, even if people are being asked to go for 7am or 9pm.
I think Francis is right - I know lots of people over 70 who are worried but not disabled and will be more than pleased to drive to a vaccination at any time - generally they are no longer working, and as one said to me, "I would rather go when not many people are around, and I can sleep in afterwards". The fact that you're older doesn't mean you can't stay up once for something that might save your life.
The answer, though, is simply a quick pilot, as I understand will now be tried in Manchester. Let's see what happens. Why rule it out in advance?
A lesson from NASA history. Political "gotcha" on experiments/studies - "Look it failed! How stupid!" - leads to the elimination of innovation.
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
It's up to the Senate how long the trial takes. It certainly doesn't need to take months - Trump's trial last year was over in 2 weeks.
House Republicans mounting a rearguard argument that impeachment is an over reaction.
Preposterous. If this isn't impeachment worthy what is? He whipped them up, he told them to do 'something' and go to Congress. Covering their arses.
You don't think they are considering the arguments on their merits, do you? How quaint!
They are each assessing the view of their voters back home. 60% think the election was rigged. They will not understand why their representatives should vote to impeach rather than support the President's view.
The way out would be for them to admit they lied in telling the voters that the event was rigged, but that comes with a certain down side.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
If the govt objects to vouchers, why not buy however many of these boxes we need from Morrisons and simply pay for distribution (accepting Morrisons might not want that bit of the task)? Perhaps they didnt donate to the party.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
No. Yesterday I was saying that vouchers were better and praising Councils like Dixiedean's that have continued with the voucher scheme.
I hold no truck with Bradley, Clarke et al anymore than I do with HYUFD. Its one thing if the support was going to be stopped, then vote against and there's no cost. Such is life. But if the support is going to be there, then the best way to do so, unambiguously the best way, is vouchers.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I seem to recollect we did calculus for O level Maths. Maybe I am mis-remembering.
How is this for crazy - Republican members of Congress are insisting they should be able to carry their guns into Congress despite last weeks coup!
These people love their guns more than anything else in life. I know, it's part of the culture and plenty of democrats will have guns, but the level to which gun rights are the crux of the culture wars and symbolic of all that needs defending is startling.
I am not convinced they are any more than symbolic, though. There is a big leap from buying a rifle, shooting it at the range and posing for Look at Me Bearing Arms photos, to commiting murder with it and going to prison for the rest of your life. I suspect that if the Three Percenters try to start a shooting war they will ironically find that a max 3% of their number are really up for it.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
I trust you disapprove the record of the Education Secretary who closed the most (one M. Thatcher)?
Careful, we'll get the PB Tory magic formula that involves Thatch closing down more grammars than Labour being ok whereas more mines closed under Wilson than Thatch was terrible.
How is this for crazy - Republican members of Congress are insisting they should be able to carry their guns into Congress despite last weeks coup!
These people love their guns more than anything else in life. I know, it's part of the culture and plenty of democrats will have guns, but the level to which gun rights are the crux of the culture wars and symbolic of all that needs defending is startling.
I am not convinced they are any more than symbolic, though. There is a big leap from buying a rifle, shooting it at the range and posing for Look at Me Bearing Arms photos, to commiting murder with it and going to prison for the rest of your life. I suspect that if the Three Percenters try to start a shooting war they will ironically find that a max 3% of their number are really up for it.
I'm sure that's right, but that they are so symbolic is amazing. To the point of arguing open carry of assault rifles etc in some cases is some fundamental right.
I watched the debate on local elections in the Commons. A few points; there will be a lot of new postal votes and turnout on the day will be very low; no mention of the nominations problem; 2 Conservative MPs mentioned Lib Dems were campaigning in Guildford (of course) and Wolverhampton (why?).
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
Even us computer scientists need to know calculus....in fact more than ever with rise of ML. Yes you have autograd, but if you don't really have any handle on how to calculate the gradient of particular loss functions you won't really have any idea about how the optimization will go...also you won't even be able to do simply sanity checking.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I seem to recollect we did calculus for O level Maths. Maybe I am mis-remembering.
I did some, IIRC. But integration and differentiation are central to even vaguely advance mathematics...
He noted the private students didn't seem to have the problem. Perhaps this is the infamous "Private School A-Levels" thing from the examining board scandal?
House Republicans mounting a rearguard argument that impeachment is an over reaction.
Preposterous. If this isn't impeachment worthy what is? He whipped them up, he told them to do 'something' and go to Congress. Covering their arses.
You don't think they are considering the arguments on their merits, do you? How quaint!
They are each assessing the view of their voters back home. 60% think the election was rigged. They will not understand why their representatives should vote to impeach rather than support the President's view.
The way out would be for them to admit they lied in telling the voters that the event was rigged, but that comes with a certain down side.
You see the difficulty.
Indeed. And no, if course no one is assessing merits and no one objecting to certification will support it nor most of the others I expect - but they need to work harder on excuses why not than claim overreaction.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
Doesn't Morrisons have overheads?
Free market competition really doesn't work with these big service companies because the consumer doesn't get to choose them.
Morrisons overheads are minimal because they're already trading and already being used by the customer when they do the rest of their shop. So you're just adding a bit extra into the basket, you're not having an extra customer or doing an extra delivery. If you get eg a £20 voucher then a customer doing a £50 shop can do a £70 shop with all £20 extra going into the basket essentially, not into extra overheads since they're virtually all sunk costs now.
Free market competition works so long as people can choose which company they get the voucher from.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
Surely the correct answer to this is :.
"At the moment we're supply/manufacture constrained but once supply is no longer a bottleneck we envision our specialist vaccination centres will be going 24/7"
It is. Gordon Brittas knows that supply is the issue and trying to score cheap political point and Boris can't help himself and come up with some new moonshot.
Stratton comments yesterday about people not keen on getting vaccinated outside of 8am to 8pm was stupid.
When it comes to population wide vaccination programme you have to be willing to take what you are given (provided not some obvious issues). If you are fit, healthy and have access to a car, being asked to go 30 miles for 7am, you do it.
Its like masks, it isn't all about you, its about everybody.
If you're fit and healthy then why are you being asked to get vaccinated at the minute? Apart from healthcare workers who ought to be able to take whatever slot they're given at the minute.
How many octogenarians are keen to get a slot outside of 8am-8pm? If we're supply limited and we can get through the supply in those 12 hours its surely better to do so.
The problem with giving people a silly timeslot they don't want is they're more likely to not turn up for the slot, which then means you're potentially wasting the vaccine because it isn't getting used as expected and you only have 3 days to use it. Make sure you use it all, but make sure people turn up for their appointments to do so too.
That's why i caveated with fit and healthy, I am not talking about doing the 80 year olds.
As for people not turning up. Employ the airline ticketing model. You slightly overbook knowing not everybody will turn up. We can do that with Oxford and J&J vaccine, especially when plenty of supply. Also, we could do a "come between x and y", if we have any left, you can get one without an appointment.
I think given how long restrictions have been going on, the uptake will be significant, even if people are being asked to go for 7am or 9pm.
I think Francis is right - I know lots of people over 70 who are worried but not disabled and will be more than pleased to drive to a vaccination at any time - generally they are no longer working, and as one said to me, "I would rather go when not many people are around, and I can sleep in afterwards". The fact that you're older doesn't mean you can't stay up once for something that might save your life.
The answer, though, is simply a quick pilot, as I understand will now be tried in Manchester. Let's see what happens. Why rule it out in advance?
Yes, and politically it makes sense too. They've not been bounced into changing to what might be an inefficient policy but haven't rejected it outright. That's hard to criticise.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
With apologies, but this really is a mile off reality. 1) The company makes virtually no money from this. They are packing £5 of food into a £10 package, or £15 into a £23 package. Thats a whole lot of profit. Yes they have to be packed, but they pack a lot of boxes all day every day. As do the supermarkets who actively make a loss on their operations 2) They don't need to consider nutritional needs whilst packing a list of products specified by the client. They just need someone to pack them into the box. Assume £9 per head per hour thats a pack rate of less than 2 boxes an hour. I've seen some padding on factory costs in my time but this is off the scale
The best case scenario in this operation is that the taxpayer is throwing money at contractors like Chartwells who are pocketing significant amounts of it. To deliver largely random food that barely makes meals at all never mind ones that the child its aimed at will eat.
All because Tory MPs think poor parents spend handouts on crack.
You've never ran a business if you think COGS and Labour Costs are the only costs to a business.
£9 an hour doesn't even cover minimum wage.
Oh dear God. £9 an hour doesn't cover the £8.72 an hour minimum wage?
Lets assume I am the Chartwells warehouse dogsbody on £9 an hour working a 37.5 hour week I cost £9 an hour in salary. I cost 62p an hour in employers NI. I cost 27p an hour in pension contributions. So my total all in labour cost per hour for me is £9.89. I am confident that such a person is picking and packing a whole lot of boxes in an hour for their £9.89 cost. In a well laid out pick operation which is literally at the heart of a business like Chartwells.
"what about the overheads?" you ask. What about them? I am working a relatively small contract in a big facility. Any factory manager worth their beans will tell you what % profit margin they need to cover direct operating costs, and once you've covered that on your big stuff (and you have), side projects are largely contributing against sunk costs as you've already covered heat, light, utilities, insurance, rent etc etc.
As others have pointed out above, considering the global size and profitability of this company, they clearly know where a profit margin is on doing this kind of business.
"You've never ran a business if you think COGS and Labour Costs are the only costs to a business."
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
Subtle brag......
Not really subtle. But relevant.
You'll notice I didn't say which class of degree...
There were about 10 in my school year of 90 with the same results. I think that says more about the school than me.
Maggie HabermanWhite House Correspondent Hi folks, back from a meeting. It’s worth noting that the White House is not preparing a defense for Trump at all. The legislative affairs shop, such as it still is, isn’t involved. Neither is the White House counsel’s office.
- gets rid of Trump, - can possibly re-establish control of the party (but not certain); - can recover suburban voters (but not certain - trends have been shifting away from the Republicans)
Reasons why not to back impeachment
- Major risk of civil war in the party - RNC is controlled by Trump supporters and the WSJ poll showed well over half choosing Trump over the GOP if forced to choose; - limited support in the House - max 20 (<10% of base) GOP Congress members to vote for it, McCarthy has said he doesn't want a vote; - Rebellion in the Senate - not only from Hawley, Cruz et al but those who are up for re-election in 2022 who might feel this puts them at risk (e.g. Rubio); - Crucially, puts at risk a 2022 Senate Republican majority - 3 Republican seats (PA, WI, NC) are in very marginal states and incumbents are retiring. It's possible a backlash against the move puts Grassley's seat at risk also. In addition, McConnell probably hopeful he could pick up Arizona, Warlock's seat and possibly Nevada in a backlash year.
Jprobably trust his word on this than the NYT.</p>
On the pro-impeachment side you can add 'he hates the bastard'.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Also in reasons why
- tried to overthrown the Constitution; - put not a few Republican senators' lives in some jeopardy in the process; - is clearly toxic to significant numbers of their big business contributors.
How is this for crazy - Republican members of Congress are insisting they should be able to carry their guns into Congress despite last weeks coup!
These people love their guns more than anything else in life. I know, it's part of the culture and plenty of democrats will have guns, but the level to which gun rights are the crux of the culture wars and symbolic of all that needs defending is startling.
Democrats in the house are worried about Boebert. Not just politically, they're actually in fear of their safety around her.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Indeed. 'Grade snob' is also a rather bonkers term - as if high academic attainment were just a bit of inappropriate showing off best avoided in polite company.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Why don't you let the admissions people at Cambridge and Oxford decide whether there is a case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student?
You clearly are too proud and too arrogant to see beyond your own experience as a private school pupil, and lack the empathy to understand the challenges and endeavours others go through.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
Subtle brag......
Not really. But relevant.
You'll notice I didn't say which class of degree...
You don't want to get PBers started on that...it soon descends into my uni / course / year harder than yours. Its like that Harry Enfield character...how much money yaaa got. i bet my house is bigger than yyyyaurs. Well i have a car, a motorbike and a boat.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
Eldest Granddaughter was doing A level Biology but the teacher crashed and burned out about half way though the Spring term, and hadn't been very good anyway. Her parents sent her to a 'crammers' the Easter before her exam. Another girl from her school also went. About half way through their time there the Biology bod exclaimed "You poor girls. Who on earth has been teaching you!'
Think she managed a C, but she's doing a PhD now. Not in Biology, though!
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
Surely the correct answer to this is :.
"At the moment we're supply/manufacture constrained but once supply is no longer a bottleneck we envision our specialist vaccination centres will be going 24/7"
It is. Gordon Brittas knows that supply is the issue and trying to score cheap political point and Boris can't help himself and come up with some new moonshot.
Stratton comments yesterday about people not keen on getting vaccinated outside of 8am to 8pm was stupid.
When it comes to population wide vaccination programme you have to be willing to take what you are given (provided not some obvious issues). If you are fit, healthy and have access to a car, being asked to go 30 miles for 7am, you do it.
Its like masks, it isn't all about you, its about everybody.
If you're fit and healthy then why are you being asked to get vaccinated at the minute? Apart from healthcare workers who ought to be able to take whatever slot they're given at the minute.
How many octogenarians are keen to get a slot outside of 8am-8pm? If we're supply limited and we can get through the supply in those 12 hours its surely better to do so.
The problem with giving people a silly timeslot they don't want is they're more likely to not turn up for the slot, which then means you're potentially wasting the vaccine because it isn't getting used as expected and you only have 3 days to use it. Make sure you use it all, but make sure people turn up for their appointments to do so too.
That's why i caveated with fit and healthy, I am not talking about doing the 80 year olds.
As for people not turning up. Employ the airline ticketing model. You slightly overbook knowing not everybody will turn up. We can do that with Oxford and J&J vaccine, especially when plenty of supply. Also, we could do a "come between x and y", if we have any left, you can get one without an appointment.
I think given how long restrictions have been going on, the uptake will be significant, even if people are being asked to go for 7am or 9pm.
I think Francis is right - I know lots of people over 70 who are worried but not disabled and will be more than pleased to drive to a vaccination at any time - generally they are no longer working, and as one said to me, "I would rather go when not many people are around, and I can sleep in afterwards". The fact that you're older doesn't mean you can't stay up once for something that might save your life.
The answer, though, is simply a quick pilot, as I understand will now be tried in Manchester. Let's see what happens. Why rule it out in advance?
Yes, and politically it makes sense too. They've not been bounced into changing to what might be an inefficient policy but haven't rejected it outright. That's hard to criticise.
I'd rather they concentrated on getting more local places open (such as GP and pharmacy) for vaccinations than pratting about with vaccines at 3am in some super centre 40 miles away.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Indeed. 'Grade snob' is also a rather bonkers term - as if high academic attainment were just a bit of inappropriate showing off best avoided in polite company.
No, @HYUFD is genuinely and objectively a grade snob in any case, regardless of today's discussion.
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
It's not happening before the inauguration but that's not really the point, since Trump is going anyway. The point is not to let him come back.
Good. This is a great example of "best practice" sharing.
Worth remembering that Israel is 1/11th our size - think Cornwall to Kent, and inland to about south Berkshire. Then take out the Negev desert, which covers 55% of the country. Much easier prospect to set up vaccination centres in such a concentrated area. But great if we can learn lessons.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
I got ABC in Maths, History, and Physics.
ABD Law, History, Physics. Science is hard, ok!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
Good. This is a great example of "best practice" sharing.
Worth remembering that Israel is 1/11th our size - think Cornwall to Kent, and inland to about south Berkshire. Then take out the Negev desert, which covers 55% of the country. Much easier prospect to set up vaccination centres in such a concentrated area. But great if we can learn lessons.
Israel does have a similar population to London. If lessons can be learnt on how to quickly vaccinate urban areas - more quickly than we do already, that's valuable.
It's good we're talking in any case. I'm sure we have things to share with them too.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Though note the details. ...The university usually requires A*AA at A level to get on degree courses, but a new one-year foundation course has 50 places for students who achieve BBB. If successful on the course, students can then go on to study for degrees. Social mobility campaigners The Sutton Trust welcomed the "innovative steps"....
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I seem to recollect we did calculus for O level Maths. Maybe I am mis-remembering.
ISTR a tiny introduction to differentiation and integration. There was loads on the Further Maths (in the early 80s). Precious little stats though as others have noted.
The discussion on A-levels reminds me of a famous piece of career advice given by the Duke of Westminster: “If at all possible try to be a direct male-line descendant of a close friend of William the Conqueror”
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
I got ABC in Maths, History, and Physics.
ABD Law, History, Physics. Science is hard, ok!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
I've always thought my 'C' in Physics was also bullcrap as I got an A or B in every exam. I reckon there was a mistake in a coursework submission. In any case it has been no barrier!
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
With apologies, but this really is a mile off reality. 1) The company makes virtually no money from this. They are packing £5 of food into a £10 package, or £15 into a £23 package. Thats a whole lot of profit. Yes they have to be packed, but they pack a lot of boxes all day every day. As do the supermarkets who actively make a loss on their operations 2) They don't need to consider nutritional needs whilst packing a list of products specified by the client. They just need someone to pack them into the box. Assume £9 per head per hour thats a pack rate of less than 2 boxes an hour. I've seen some padding on factory costs in my time but this is off the scale
The best case scenario in this operation is that the taxpayer is throwing money at contractors like Chartwells who are pocketing significant amounts of it. To deliver largely random food that barely makes meals at all never mind ones that the child its aimed at will eat.
All because Tory MPs think poor parents spend handouts on crack.
You've never ran a business if you think COGS and Labour Costs are the only costs to a business.
£9 an hour doesn't even cover minimum wage.
Oh dear God. £9 an hour doesn't cover the £8.72 an hour minimum wage?
No it does not. 🤦🏻♂️
Try to run a business budgetting £9 per hour labour costs for an £8.72 minimum wage and you will go out of business very quickly.
Do you think you can cover pension liabilities, National Insurance and all other associated costs for just 28 pence per hour?
Even just covering pension liabilities and National Insurance you yourself already got it up to £9.89 - last I checked £9.89 > £9 so already past your £9 budget. If you only budgeted £9 you're now over budget and losing money.
But that's not the end of the story is it? Everyone employed is entitled to 5.6 weeks Statutory Holiday Pay - and to not just their wages but pension liabilities and National Insurance liabilities accrue during Holiday Pay too. Accrue for Holiday Pay and you're now costing approximately £11.34 per hour.
Is that the end? Well only if we assume zero paid absences per annum. If anyone ever gets sick they still need paying, some people don't often but other people can be off for months - and all the time they're off they're still getting paid - and still accruing other liabilities. The UK average is 7 days off per annum, 1.4 weeks from the 46.4 weeks they weren't on holiday.
Accrue for that and without anything unforeseen you're now close to £12 per hour, not £9 per hour. You can't cover pensions, Employers NI, Statutory Holiday Pay, Statutory Sick Pay and any other incidentals for 28 pence per hour.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I studied mathematics (eventually to PhD level) because I did well at it in school, and was disconcerted to find that university maths (which was all about theorems and proofs) bore virtually no relationship to school maths (which was all about arithmetic and then formulas). I was in fact initially pretty crap at university maths.
Perhaps schools nowadays do a better job of building a bridge to uni? Anyway, the relevance is that university success is perhaps more dependent on general talent and sheerr bloody-minded persistence than specific school knowledge, and someone from a rough school with BBB is certainly worth a close look.
pay him to leave and be barred from office forever?
Theres a prize in Africa for leaders who among other things leave office after a constitutionally mandated term.
I think it's about a $1m or so.
Trouble is Trump personally owes Deutsche Bank a minimum of $300m and a lot of his business from the last 4 years has been from staying at one of his places to curry favour from him.
And after last Wednesday as well as not needing to keep yourself in Trump's good books being seeing to go anywhere near him could cause you more harm than good.
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
It's not happening before the inauguration but that's not really the point, since Trump is going anyway. The point is not to let him come back.
The trial need not take long because all the relevant facts are known. The Senators who have to decide were witnesses to the crime. They could pretty much vote on it without debate. Nobody is going to vote on principle. It will all be about how it is perceived by the relevant voting constituencies in the country at large.
Nevertheless I expect the vote will be taken after inauguration, and that would probably make things a bit easier for Republicans who intend to vote guilty. I still don't think the number will amount to sixteen.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
I got ABC in Maths, History, and Physics.
ABD Law, History, Physics. Science is hard, ok!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
Is this a competition? I got AAAB at A-level (1978) in Maths, Physics, Economics and French (the B ). But I was working class so didn't get to Oxbridge like others in my year with AAA.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
Wowsers. Lets take this nonsense apart line by line:
1. "The cost to them largely is the box". Laughable. The major cost to all the supermarkets in their online orders is paying someone to pull the stock off the shelves. A generic cardboard carton printed on a vast scale is pennies.
2. "They can bulk order and get massive deliveries". Nonsense. Pretty much every supplier operates on a discount scale based on volume. As an example clear £20m with me and get 5% rebate paid quarterly. Ordering even a full vehicle of the same product won't get you an additional discount on top unless the supplier is trying to dump surplus stock. Nor will most overrider discounts appear on the P&L of a store, or a buyer, or even their buying department. They get filched at a top line level, with pull-forward of such payments often used to cover holes in the profit being reported quarterly to the city
3. "and get massive deliveries". To be delivered where? To be stored where? At their cost? Even in Christmas season where stores are going to sell a shit ton of chocolate, they don't get "massive deliveries". They order it as required trying to keep the manufactured stock on the supplier books as opposed to their own for as long as possible.
4. "Thats why supermarkets are such good value". They are, but this was posted as an exclusive statement. Massive foodservice contractors like Compass also have massive buying power. Also have volume based discounts. And are very good at tapping up money from manufacturers to fund their genuine high cost stuff like demonstration chef sessions. The difference between a large foodservice wholesaler dept and a large retailer depot is that the wholesaler doesn't have the cost of needing a front of shop. No decor. No displays. No cost of putting products out. And yet they fulfil similar functions to your supermarket order picker, gathering the bespoke order for a catering customer like an LEA.
5. "A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons". The direct opposite of reality. The singular most expensive way to fulfil a pick order is to do so from inside an open supermarket.
Philip, you really need to *breathe* before you carry on posting imagined stuff to defend whatever your position is that you are defending.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
If the govt objects to vouchers, why not buy however many of these boxes we need from Morrisons and simply pay for distribution (accepting Morrisons might not want that bit of the task)? Perhaps they didnt donate to the party.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
No. Yesterday I was saying that vouchers were better and praising Councils like Dixiedean's that have continued with the voucher scheme.
I hold no truck with Bradley, Clarke et al anymore than I do with HYUFD. Its one thing if the support was going to be stopped, then vote against and there's no cost. Such is life. But if the support is going to be there, then the best way to do so, unambiguously the best way, is vouchers.
So it was a different PT who responded to "That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now." with
"Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?"
Anyway this has got tedious, you got to the right position in the end, that the govt is wrong, vouchers are right and what is being offered privately is a disgrace and unacceptable.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I studied mathematics (eventually to PhD level) because I did well at it in school, and was disconcerted to find that university maths (which was all about theorems and proofs) bore virtually no relationship to school maths (which was all about arithmetic and then formulas). I was in fact initially pretty crap at university maths.
Perhaps schools nowadays do a better job of building a bridge to uni? Anyway, the relevance is that university success is perhaps more dependent on general talent and sheerr bloody-minded persistence than specific school knowledge, and someone from a rough school with BBB is certainly worth a close look.
I recall at school they talked a good game about the gulf between GCSE and A Level but for most subjects it just wasnt true. For Maths it was (a whole class did so badly the school switched exam boards and next year miraculously people were doing far far better, in the high 90s).
So I'd not be surprised if the gap between school and uni was still vast as of the early 2000s at least.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
Early in my physics degree, I discovered that the lecturers assumed everyone knew all about imaginary numbers (not in my A-Level maths course; I did not do further maths). Was a good kick up the backside for me to discover that this wasn't going to be easy and also to learn how to teach myself things rather than rely on being taught everything!
I really hope that, for once, Mr Ed's hunch is correct and Trump is not impeached.
The GOP are screwed if Trump is able to stand in 2024. They won't be able to win with him and they won't be able to win without him.
The moment he enters the primaries there will civil war in the GOP. Half the party have seen the light, the other half are doubling down and on their knees quivering in fear at the QAnon types.
The only way I see out of this for the GOP is for Trump to be disbarred from elective office. That way he can't even stand as an independent if he loses the GOP nomination. None of the mini-Trump wannabes would have anything like the same pulling power. I think that is why the saner wing will seriously
(For some reason I was unable to respond directly to Mr Ed. Kept getting a message saying my comment was "1 character too short")
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
If the govt objects to vouchers, why not buy however many of these boxes we need from Morrisons and simply pay for distribution (accepting Morrisons might not want that bit of the task)? Perhaps they didnt donate to the party.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
No. Yesterday I was saying that vouchers were better and praising Councils like Dixiedean's that have continued with the voucher scheme.
I hold no truck with Bradley, Clarke et al anymore than I do with HYUFD. Its one thing if the support was going to be stopped, then vote against and there's no cost. Such is life. But if the support is going to be there, then the best way to do so, unambiguously the best way, is vouchers.
So it was a different PT who responded to "That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now." with
"Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?"
Anyway this has got tedious, you got to the right position in the end, that the govt is wrong, vouchers are right and what is being offered privately is a disgrace and unacceptable.
No. Same point.
It wasn't Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley that made Councils choose to do boxes instead of vouchers. Councils had the choice. Dixiedean's did the right thing. Why not ask the local Councillors why they chose to do the wrong thing?
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
I got ABC in Maths, History, and Physics.
ABD Law, History, Physics. Science is hard, ok!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
Is this a competition? I got AAAB at A-level (1978) in Maths, Physics, Economics and French (the B ). But I was working class so didn't get to Oxbridge like others in my year with AAA.
If it is a competition I didn't expect to get on the podium.
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
It's not happening before the inauguration but that's not really the point, since Trump is going anyway. The point is not to let him come back.
The trial need not take long because all the relevant facts are known. The Senators who have to decide were witnesses to the crime. They could pretty much vote on it without debate. Nobody is going to vote on principle. It will all be about how it is perceived by the relevant voting constituencies in the country at large.
Nevertheless I expect the vote will be taken after inauguration, and that would probably make things a bit easier for Republicans who intend to vote guilty. I still don't think the number will amount to sixteen.
If I was writing a book on the modern day GOP, I'd definitely go for the title of "Profiles in cowardice"
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I studied mathematics (eventually to PhD level) because I did well at it in school, and was disconcerted to find that university maths (which was all about theorems and proofs) bore virtually no relationship to school maths (which was all about arithmetic and then formulas). I was in fact initially pretty crap at university maths.
Perhaps schools nowadays do a better job of building a bridge to uni? Anyway, the relevance is that university success is perhaps more dependent on general talent and sheerr bloody-minded persistence than specific school knowledge, and someone from a rough school with BBB is certainly worth a close look.
I don't think so. My son recently completed a maths degree at imperial, and said much the same.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
And AAA from Gasworks St Comp is a better predictor of a first class degree in the end than from Eton, I suspect, from observations amongst my friends - all more or less equally bright in their wats but some of the ones from proivate schools had less staying power when the magisterial lash was removed and thet had to self-motivate much more once at Uni. Though all got goods and productive careers in their ways.
I think the point is that from some schools a BBB from Gasworks St Comp is a better indicator than AAA from Eton.
That assumes that knowledge imparted at school is not really important at university.
A mathematics professor of my acquaintance was, several years ago, having to run supplementary basic maths courses for his first years. Since a chunk of the incoming students couldn't differentiate or integrate with any faculty, or ease - for example.
That is an A-level maths quirk: some years back a lot of calculus was stripped out in favour of probability and sets. Social scientists and computer scientists were happy, physical scientists less so.
I seem to recollect we did calculus for O level Maths. Maybe I am mis-remembering.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
It is entirely conceivable that the BBB pupil is more intelligent and harder working than the AAA one. In that case it is better for Oxford (dunno what this "Oxbridge" shit is) and by any sane standards more just and more desirable that the BBB pupil gets the place, subject to the very important proviso that the BBB pupil can make up the ground lost by worse schooling, in time to benefit from the Oxford course.
A friend of mine studied some Classics degree at Oxford, maybe the one Boris studied? In any case she was from a state school and found it almost impossible to keep up as most of her peers had studied greek and latin at their private schools, whilst she had not.
She got a 1st anyway.
Early in my physics degree, I discovered that the lecturers assumed everyone knew all about imaginary numbers (not in my A-Level maths course; I did not do further maths). Was a good kick up the backside for me to discover that this wasn't going to be easy and also to learn how to teach myself things rather than rely on being taught everything!
And it's a lot easier to find things out now than it used to be before the internet arrived.
pay him to leave and be barred from office forever?
Theres a prize in Africa for leaders who among other things leave office after a constitutionally mandated term.
I think it's about a $1m or so.
Trouble is Trump personally owes Deutsche Bank a minimum of $300m and a lot of his business from the last 4 years has been from staying at one of his places to curry favour from him.
And after last Wednesday as well as not needing to keep yourself in Trump's good books being seeing to go anywhere near him could cause you more harm than good.
For someone who rates his personal brand as a high proportion of his wealth he's awfully cavalier about trashing it with 52% of people.
As I once pointed out to the Head of a posh private school in Surrey, 3 AAA's from an inner city Hackney Comp is obviously more valuable than 3 AAA's from her school.
Nothing else needs to be said. What matters to Cambridge is not the qualification on entry but the qualification on exit and the years of learning to achieve that.
Maybe but 3 BBBs from a comprehensive should not be more valuable than 3 AAAs from a private school that is the point.
Of course when we had grammar schools many of the state schools even in Hackney were more than an equal for private schools academically, now with a few exceptions like Mossbourne Academy that is rarely the case for comprehensives
Actually 3 Bs from someone who's have to overcome a hell of a lot of difficult circumstances and self-motivate completely because there was no-one there to push them is a hell of a lot more valuable than 3 As from someone in a private school with pushy parents and private tutors.
No it isn't, it is still lower grades no matter personal circumstance.
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
Yes it is, actually. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it. I'm not even a socialist.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
You are a leftwing Tory hater.
In most cases BBB would be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
Though note the details. ...The university usually requires A*AA at A level to get on degree courses, but a new one-year foundation course has 50 places for students who achieve BBB. If successful on the course, students can then go on to study for degrees. Social mobility campaigners The Sutton Trust welcomed the "innovative steps"....
Seems a very good innovation.
Although I do wonder about rich parents of feckless kids moving house late in A-Levels to get their kids into the nearest failing school for eligibility
The Senate reconvenes on the 19th, one day before inauguration day, and impeachment trials normally take months so I'm thinking it's not going to happen before Trump's term ends. Unless there's a loophole or the political will to do it fast which I don't think the Republicans have.
It's not happening before the inauguration but that's not really the point, since Trump is going anyway. The point is not to let him come back.
The trial need not take long because all the relevant facts are known. The Senators who have to decide were witnesses to the crime. They could pretty much vote on it without debate. Nobody is going to vote on principle. It will all be about how it is perceived by the relevant voting constituencies in the country at large.
Nevertheless I expect the vote will be taken after inauguration, and that would probably make things a bit easier for Republicans who intend to vote guilty. I still don't think the number will amount to sixteen.
There are 20 Republican Senators who have terms that expire in 2026 - I can see them voting to impeach just to kill the issue.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
In Derbyshire a £30 box costs £14.40 retail so well under a tenner for Compass at wholesale
Still got to pay £4.7m PA to the CEO somehow I suppose
I'm sorry, but this sort of stuff is utter, vindictive, childish crap. The company makes virtually no money whatsoever from this contract. It's not a large part of its business at all. It's an extremely well-run company - one of the best in the world at what it does - and we need more such companies in the UK and paying UK corporation tax.
I can't comment on the actual food boxes (except that a lot of the pictures were quite obviously nothing to do with any big supplier), but I can make the very obvious point that the cost of sourcing, packing, and delivering food boxes is not just the cost of the raw ingredients. I'd have thought that at the very least £5 per box for putting it together, taking into account dietary requirements per child, and delivering it, would be what you'd expect, maybe quite a bit more depending on the quantities and the location. (That's one reason why vouchers probably make more sense, but that's a different argument).
Look at the Morrison £20 boxes for comparison. They manage to do far more for much less, with better nutrition and variety.
To be honest that is probably sufficient but it still leaves £10 for delivery and some more items.
As for the existing suppliers:
Why are they using mostly overpriced branded stuff? Why are they giving bottled water? Why do they repeatedly get in trouble for poor quality and quantity?
At best they really dont care, so if they dont make any money from it either why dont they leave it to someone else?
Supermarkets are always going to be cheaper and better value for money than any alternative as they have the scale and buying power to dominate. Getting a middle company involved to box it up is never going to be cost efficient.
Which is another reason why vouchers are far superior. If you're going to offer help then let the free market decide, give a voucher they can spend anywhere and let the parents take responsibility for themselves. Free market economics.
Morrisons is a box! All anyone else would need to do is deliver it for under £10. Even Royal Mail could do that.
But yes it goes back to vouchers are best but the Tory party voted against continuing the national voucher scheme because they think it goes on crack and prostitutes.
I'm saying it should be vouchers, I have never said crack and prostitutes and I am against any such judgementalism. I believe in libertarianism and free market economics - if you need to give to someone then give to them and let them choose how to spend it.
But yes Morrisons is in a box - the cost to them largely is the box. They're a supermarket they have a ton of food on site. That is the point. They can bulk order and get massive deliveries that go into the shelves or into boxes. That is why supermarkets are such good value. Morrisons may have marginal overheads in packing the box, but they will be tiny compared to others businesses.
A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons.
If the govt objects to vouchers, why not buy however many of these boxes we need from Morrisons and simply pay for distribution (accepting Morrisons might not want that bit of the task)? Perhaps they didnt donate to the party.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
No. Yesterday I was saying that vouchers were better and praising Councils like Dixiedean's that have continued with the voucher scheme.
I hold no truck with Bradley, Clarke et al anymore than I do with HYUFD. Its one thing if the support was going to be stopped, then vote against and there's no cost. Such is life. But if the support is going to be there, then the best way to do so, unambiguously the best way, is vouchers.
So it was a different PT who responded to "That was how it was working but the likes of Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley thought it was spent on crack, prostitutes and unhealthy food, so kids get this instead now." with
"Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?"
Anyway this has got tedious, you got to the right position in the end, that the govt is wrong, vouchers are right and what is being offered privately is a disgrace and unacceptable.
No. Same point.
It wasn't Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley that made Councils choose to do boxes instead of vouchers. Councils had the choice. Dixiedean's did the right thing. Why not ask the local Councillors why they chose to do the wrong thing?
Because there was a national voucher scheme that was working.
Clarke & Bradley led a campaign to stop the national voucher scheme, voted for its removal and succeeded.
This created loads of extra work for underfunded councils during a pandemic and was inevitably going to wrong somewhere.
Could do the councillors have done better? Sure, but the real blame lies with those who created needless bureaucracy because of their belief on how parents misspend vouchers.
On the pro-impeachment side you can add 'he hates the bastard'.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Also in reasons why
- tried to overthrown the Constitution; - put not a few Republican senators' lives in some jeopardy in the process; - is clearly toxic to significant numbers of their big business contributors.
Also on the pure politics - and with my GOP hat on therefore this post needs to be quick so I can take it off - there's an argument for something big and symbolic when a party wants to change and make it clear that they have. So assuming they do want to have Trump and all things Trump in the rear view mirror and no longer part of their life, a Senate conviction for high crimes & misdemeanors could perhaps be a Clause IV moment.
Well I think I just smashed that litigation exam. Hopefully I'm not just deluded.
Great stuff!
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
Thanks. That gives me an excuse to go back to a link made to the Guardian (I think) where they are improving diversity by accepting some students with BBB grades.
Over 2,200 people applied to do PPE at Oxford this year. Roughly 750 got an interview and of them 254 got places, just over 1/10. Would it really fair if someone loses one of those rare places despite having AAA to improve diversity?
It's quite a difficult question. If you are at a poor school BBB may be an incredible achievement showing genuine talent but people do not get in by accident. They get in by incredibly hard work over an extended period (consistency is important) and a genuine commitment and passion for the subjects. For those in that group to lose out when they otherwise tick the right boxes seems pretty egregious. Tricky.
The nub of this is: you are much more likely to get AAA if you go to a private school. Is that because private school pupils are innately better than state school pupils? I don't think so.
The solution is very difficult but leaving things as they are is not a solution.
I don't disagree. Its not easy. My wife went to a school where she had no Chemistry teacher for 2 of the 3 terms when she was doing her Higher, where, when she and her pal who had gone to night school in despair, they were approached by her maths teacher and told just because she had passed the prelim didn't mean that they would pass the exam, where her modern studies teacher was found using her notes, you get the picture. To get enough qualifications from that to get to University was an astounding achievement.
The fact that that school is no better 40 years on is the real tragedy.
My wife got in with ABC but the C was the highest mark in her entire school because the teacher went AWOL. I went to a grammar school and got AAAAAA but we ended up with the same class of degree (albeit in different subjects).
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
I got ABC in Maths, History, and Physics.
ABD Law, History, Physics. Science is hard, ok!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
Is this a competition? I got AAAB at A-level (1978) in Maths, Physics, Economics and French (the B ). But I was working class so didn't get to Oxbridge like others in my year with AAA.
More than enough to get into the shadow cabinet as chancellor. If you can also sport a regional accent and drop at least three consonants per sentence the sky's the limit
Comments
However as a socialist your solution as usual is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and penalise the middle classes having already scrapped most grammars which were the best chance to get to Oxbridge the working class ever had
https://twitter.com/SRuhle/status/1349372672401137665
https://twitter.com/SRuhle/status/1349372701723553792
The idea that this vast multinational business, which has donated money to the party that has given them this contract, are somehow doing us a favour by deigning to throw a few tins of beans into a box in exchange for taxpayers' money, seems absurd. I am sure there are many other groups willing and able to do this work. Our local mutual aid group delivers hundreds of food boxes to vulnerable people every week - I was part of a small choir group who raised over £500 for it over Christmas. There are lots of people helping out right now who don't have a £5mn Chief Exec salary to fund.
Also worth considering who the "middle company" is:
A supermarket collates products from manufacturers and suppliers for boxed up delivery.
A foodservice contractor collates products from manufacturers and suppliers for boxed up delivery.
Both are "middle companies"
Free market competition really doesn't work with these big service companies because the consumer doesn't get to choose them.
If the numbers are too small, perhaps it hasn't been argued long enough or strongly enough?
Jumping into bed with a knee jerk Authoritarian, who only believes in markets when they are rigged in his favour, and hoping for the best hasn't worked out so well.
Reasons why to back impeachment
- gets rid of Trump,
- can possibly re-establish control of the party (but not certain);
- can recover suburban voters (but not certain - trends have been shifting away from the Republicans)
Reasons why not to back impeachment
- Major risk of civil war in the party - RNC is controlled by Trump supporters and the WSJ poll showed well over half choosing Trump over the GOP if forced to choose;
- limited support in the House - max 20 (<10% of base) GOP Congress members to vote for it, McCarthy has said he doesn't want a vote;
- Rebellion in the Senate - not only from Hawley, Cruz et al but those who are up for re-election in 2022 who might feel this puts them at risk (e.g. Rubio);
- Crucially, puts at risk a 2022 Senate Republican majority - 3 Republican seats (PA, WI, NC) are in very marginal states and incumbents are retiring. It's possible a backlash against the move puts Grassley's seat at risk also. In addition, McConnell probably hopeful he could pick up Arizona, Warlock's seat and possibly Nevada in a backlash year.
Jprobably trust his word on this than the NYT.</p>
On the pro-impeachment side you can add 'he hates the bastard'.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Add on all the incidental overheads - for just employing someone you have not just wages, but holiday pay, pensions, National Insurance and more - then other overheads like your Business Rates for the building you're operating from, rent, electricity (not cheap if you have coolers running 24/7) and so on.
Costs can add up quicker than people realise.
All the more reason the only logical thing to do is have parents go direct to the supermarket. They can buy what they need to buy while doing their weekly shop - minimum fuss, minimum overhead.
Yesterday you were excusing Bradley, Clarke et al for their responsibility in this, despite them being the ones who led the Tory campaign against vouchers.
We all know you're a grade snob so this is to be expected, but you're wrong.
Besides, I didn't say a BBB was better than an AAA. In fact of course in most cases the AAA will be valuable. However there may be circumstances where the BBB is in fact more valuable.
Not sure about South Essex, which has been one of the worst affected areas. Our infection rate seems to have been falling slightly the last few days.
I sometimes wonder if the answer might not be residential colleges for A levels for the disadvantaged. There are several private outfits like that in Oxford, for example. Schools with room & board included.....
The answer, though, is simply a quick pilot, as I understand will now be tried in Manchester. Let's see what happens. Why rule it out in advance?
Sorry: "Due to low % of vaccinators in the UK..." what does that mean? UK routine vaccinations are at world-leading levels.
Also: "Following these talks, the UK has put this week some of the methods of vaccinations in Israel into action with them, including the mass centers in the UK that allow vaccination within 4 minutes and will allow much more vaccination."
Amichai Stein has obviously never seen a UK flu vaccination clinic in operation.
Reads like a puff-piece to me.
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Seems like a decent analysis. Cold hard speculation on relative risks of convict vs not convict will sway the senators.
It is worth them remembering he would regard a lack of conviction as endorsement of his actions and that he did nothing wrong. Saying he did bad but not to convict would be a nonsense. Either you're a Trumpster or you ain't.
They are each assessing the view of their voters back home. 60% think the election was rigged. They will not understand why their representatives should vote to impeach rather than support the President's view.
The way out would be for them to admit they lied in telling the voters that the event was rigged, but that comes with a certain down side.
You see the difficulty.
I hold no truck with Bradley, Clarke et al anymore than I do with HYUFD. Its one thing if the support was going to be stopped, then vote against and there's no cost. Such is life. But if the support is going to be there, then the best way to do so, unambiguously the best way, is vouchers.
https://twitter.com/ESCochrane/status/1349369986624712705
He noted the private students didn't seem to have the problem. Perhaps this is the infamous "Private School A-Levels" thing from the examining board scandal?
Is there any general visibility of the spread of outcomes from each school? If you are way above everyone else then that might indicate something. Those "one offs" that got treated really badly by the "algorithm".
I'm sure outcomes in finals will be monitored...
Free market competition works so long as people can choose which company they get the voucher from.
Lets assume I am the Chartwells warehouse dogsbody on £9 an hour working a 37.5 hour week
I cost £9 an hour in salary. I cost 62p an hour in employers NI. I cost 27p an hour in pension contributions. So my total all in labour cost per hour for me is £9.89. I am confident that such a person is picking and packing a whole lot of boxes in an hour for their £9.89 cost. In a well laid out pick operation which is literally at the heart of a business like Chartwells.
"what about the overheads?" you ask. What about them? I am working a relatively small contract in a big facility. Any factory manager worth their beans will tell you what % profit margin they need to cover direct operating costs, and once you've covered that on your big stuff (and you have), side projects are largely contributing against sunk costs as you've already covered heat, light, utilities, insurance, rent etc etc.
As others have pointed out above, considering the global size and profitability of this company, they clearly know where a profit margin is on doing this kind of business.
"You've never ran a business if you think COGS and Labour Costs are the only costs to a business."
What are you, a child?
In most cases BBB would normally be barely enough to scrape into Southampton let alone Oxbridge and it would be ridiculous of Oxbridge to lower its grade total so far to admit more from comprehensives.
There may be a case to favour an AAA comp student over an AAA private school student, there is no case to favour a BBB comp student over an AAA private school student
You'll notice I didn't say which class of degree...
There were about 10 in my school year of 90 with the same results. I think that says more about the school than me.
Hi folks, back from a meeting. It’s worth noting that the White House is not preparing a defense for Trump at all. The legislative affairs shop, such as it still is, isn’t involved. Neither is the White House counsel’s office.
NYtimes blog
Don't know about Manchin but I believe McConnell has a pretty decent relationship with Biden. I doubt that would affect his calculations though. Foremost in his mind would be what is best for the Republican Party, and if you can tell that better than me (never mind him!) you're a better man than me.
Fwiw, I don't think there are sixteen Republican Senate votes there for a conviction, so the possibility of a 2024 Trump run will remain, but I rather suspect the Orrible Orange Creature is something of a busted flush already and won't be back to frighten the children any more.
Also in reasons why
- tried to overthrown the Constitution;
- put not a few Republican senators' lives in some jeopardy in the process;
- is clearly toxic to significant numbers of their big business contributors.
deleted
You clearly are too proud and too arrogant to see beyond your own experience as a private school pupil, and lack the empathy to understand the challenges and endeavours others go through.
Think she managed a C, but she's doing a PhD now. Not in Biology, though!
(That B is bullcrap, itd require a very low score in last exam, but since I got into the best uni that bothered to give me an offer, I let it slide. Still mad though)
It's good we're talking in any case. I'm sure we have things to share with them too.
There is clearly a case, as Cambridge intend to do it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55635300
Though note the details.
...The university usually requires A*AA at A level to get on degree courses, but a new one-year foundation course has 50 places for students who achieve BBB.
If successful on the course, students can then go on to study for degrees.
Social mobility campaigners The Sutton Trust welcomed the "innovative steps"....
There was loads on the Further Maths (in the early 80s). Precious little stats though as others have noted.
Try to run a business budgetting £9 per hour labour costs for an £8.72 minimum wage and you will go out of business very quickly.
Do you think you can cover pension liabilities, National Insurance and all other associated costs for just 28 pence per hour?
Even just covering pension liabilities and National Insurance you yourself already got it up to £9.89 - last I checked £9.89 > £9 so already past your £9 budget. If you only budgeted £9 you're now over budget and losing money.
But that's not the end of the story is it? Everyone employed is entitled to 5.6 weeks Statutory Holiday Pay - and to not just their wages but pension liabilities and National Insurance liabilities accrue during Holiday Pay too. Accrue for Holiday Pay and you're now costing approximately £11.34 per hour.
Is that the end? Well only if we assume zero paid absences per annum. If anyone ever gets sick they still need paying, some people don't often but other people can be off for months - and all the time they're off they're still getting paid - and still accruing other liabilities. The UK average is 7 days off per annum, 1.4 weeks from the 46.4 weeks they weren't on holiday.
Accrue for that and without anything unforeseen you're now close to £12 per hour, not £9 per hour. You can't cover pensions, Employers NI, Statutory Holiday Pay, Statutory Sick Pay and any other incidentals for 28 pence per hour.
Perhaps schools nowadays do a better job of building a bridge to uni? Anyway, the relevance is that university success is perhaps more dependent on general talent and sheerr bloody-minded persistence than specific school knowledge, and someone from a rough school with BBB is certainly worth a close look.
Trouble is Trump personally owes Deutsche Bank a minimum of $300m and a lot of his business from the last 4 years has been from staying at one of his places to curry favour from him.
And after last Wednesday as well as not needing to keep yourself in Trump's good books being seeing to go anywhere near him could cause you more harm than good.
Nevertheless I expect the vote will be taken after inauguration, and that would probably make things a bit easier for Republicans who intend to vote guilty. I still don't think the number will amount to sixteen.
I got AAAB at A-level (1978) in Maths, Physics, Economics and French (the B ).
But I was working class so didn't get to Oxbridge like others in my year with AAA.
She got a 1st anyway.
1. "The cost to them largely is the box". Laughable. The major cost to all the supermarkets in their online orders is paying someone to pull the stock off the shelves. A generic cardboard carton printed on a vast scale is pennies.
2. "They can bulk order and get massive deliveries". Nonsense. Pretty much every supplier operates on a discount scale based on volume. As an example clear £20m with me and get 5% rebate paid quarterly. Ordering even a full vehicle of the same product won't get you an additional discount on top unless the supplier is trying to dump surplus stock. Nor will most overrider discounts appear on the P&L of a store, or a buyer, or even their buying department. They get filched at a top line level, with pull-forward of such payments often used to cover holes in the profit being reported quarterly to the city
3. "and get massive deliveries". To be delivered where? To be stored where? At their cost? Even in Christmas season where stores are going to sell a shit ton of chocolate, they don't get "massive deliveries". They order it as required trying to keep the manufactured stock on the supplier books as opposed to their own for as long as possible.
4. "Thats why supermarkets are such good value". They are, but this was posted as an exclusive statement. Massive foodservice contractors like Compass also have massive buying power. Also have volume based discounts. And are very good at tapping up money from manufacturers to fund their genuine high cost stuff like demonstration chef sessions. The difference between a large foodservice wholesaler dept and a large retailer depot is that the wholesaler doesn't have the cost of needing a front of shop. No decor. No displays. No cost of putting products out. And yet they fulfil similar functions to your supermarket order picker, gathering the bespoke order for a catering customer like an LEA.
5. "A company with overheads is never going to compete with Morrisons". The direct opposite of reality. The singular most expensive way to fulfil a pick order is to do so from inside an open supermarket.
Philip, you really need to *breathe* before you carry on posting imagined stuff to defend whatever your position is that you are defending.
"Are Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley in charge of all the Council's except for Dixiedean's?"
Anyway this has got tedious, you got to the right position in the end, that the govt is wrong, vouchers are right and what is being offered privately is a disgrace and unacceptable.
So I'd not be surprised if the gap between school and uni was still vast as of the early 2000s at least.
The GOP are screwed if Trump is able to stand in 2024. They won't be able to win with him and they won't be able to win without him.
The moment he enters the primaries there will civil war in the GOP. Half the party have seen the light, the other half are doubling down and on their knees quivering in fear at the QAnon types.
The only way I see out of this for the GOP is for Trump to be disbarred from elective office. That way he can't even stand as an independent if he loses the GOP nomination. None of the mini-Trump wannabes would have anything like the same pulling power. I think that is why the saner wing will seriously
(For some reason I was unable to respond directly to Mr Ed. Kept getting a message saying my comment was "1 character too short")
Brazilian variant.....is this another one of these bastard mutant version that infects anybody within 10m?
It wasn't Simon Clarke and Ben Bradley that made Councils choose to do boxes instead of vouchers. Councils had the choice. Dixiedean's did the right thing. Why not ask the local Councillors why they chose to do the wrong thing?
My son recently completed a maths degree at imperial, and said much the same.
Head...desk...thud....thud....thud....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/third-concerning-coronavirus-variant-should-wake-call-world/amp/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/third-concerning-coronavirus-variant-should-wake-call-world/
Although I do wonder about rich parents of feckless kids moving house late in A-Levels to get their kids into the nearest failing school for eligibility
Others got there first and better.
Clarke & Bradley led a campaign to stop the national voucher scheme, voted for its removal and succeeded.
This created loads of extra work for underfunded councils during a pandemic and was inevitably going to wrong somewhere.
Could do the councillors have done better? Sure, but the real blame lies with those who created needless bureaucracy because of their belief on how parents misspend vouchers.
I wonder why.......