politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one thing we are not getting st the moment is a clear pict

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

LordOfReason said:

DavidL said:

archer101au said:

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

daodao said:

Roger said:

.

+1

And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.

You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

It's a view, I suppose ...

I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.

Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.

Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
🎁
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.

That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.

I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.

Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

rcs1000 said:

LordOfReason said:

DavidL said:

archer101au said:

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

daodao said:

Roger said:

.

+1

And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.

You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

It's a view, I suppose ...

I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.

Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.

Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
🎁
If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.

That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.

I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.

Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.

Could I have a source for those figures please?

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

brendan16 said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

Its an age and generational effect.

brendan16 said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

Its an age and generational effect.

Quincel said:

Utd are 0-2 down at half time to Newcastle United, a team yet to win so far this season, but Betfair still have Newcastle at 1.4 to win. Which team does this say more about?

MikeSmithson said:

ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?

Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.

Fysics_Teacher said:

That

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.

DavidL said:

MikeSmithson said:

ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns

Will you luv it if Newcastle beat them Mike?

IIRC its not a good look.

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?

Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.

Its a bit of a lottery in any case
having put 3 through uni in the last decade Id say chose subjects he enjoys doing and a uni where he feels comfortable
for you theres the added complication of fees as they are considerable if he goes outside Scotland

Fysics_Teacher said:

That

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.

ExiledInScotland said:

FWIW My son is loving Dundee. He had offers from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Heriot Watt as well - but chose Dundee after doing his visits and research. He felt that the on campus accommodation in 1st year, the department facilities (Engineering) and student satisfaction scores were the key thing.

My eldest chose Exeter over the stress of Oxbridge & Warwick because she couild still play hockey at the top level. She loves it there too (Economics) - now on a gap year (loving that too)

The key is letting them do the research, work out the pros and cons, and choose for themselves. Various of their friends were pushed to go to unis that the parents preferred based on kudos - it hasn't worked out well in some cases because it wasn't actually what the kids really wanted to do.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.

The answer however is sort of yes and sort of no. My personal view is that rather than two there are four categories of A-level. The top tier, the two which are so complex, so demanding and so rigorous that any University and any course will accept a top grade in them for any course are Physics and Maths. Then here is a second tier, where the subjects are rigorous and versatile but not quite so prestigious. Here I would put the other sciences, modern languages, Economics, History, Geography, and possibly English and EPRS if you get good grades. Then there is a third tier, of subjects rigorous and useful in particular fields but that are of limited transferable use. Here I would out the likes of Art, PE, Music, Drama and again perhaps English and Philosophy.And at the bottom are the qualifications I don't personally rate and that are sometimes looked down on as 'soft' options. Business, Accounting, Media Studies etc would come in here.

However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

That

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.

Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw!

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.

brendan16 said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

Its an age and generational effect.

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

That

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.

Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw!

I may be too close to it: I think it’s easy and I we got some pretty good results last summer from my our students.

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.

I will admit I still think the worst mistake I ever made in my life was not to do Physics A-level. I was good at it and didn't find it hard. It is highly prestigious and eminently valuable, as of course is a physics degree (which is why of course you are such a rara Avis these days).

I was asked for advice by the very able son of a colleague on his A-levels. He loves History and is doing it for A-level, but he also loved Physics. He asked me if they went together. I replied I thought that it could be an error to see which ones went 'together' and it was as well to keep a spread. But, I added, nobody will lose out in life from having a physics a-level. So he's doing that too.

The stuff about 7s I had from an Oxford admissions tutor. How truthful she was being I don't know, but it seems plausible, and with the effective end of AS levels (which actually I think was one of Gove's better ideas) it will only become more so.

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

That

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

matt said:

rottenborough said:

From last thread:

Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.

By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.

Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw!

I may be too close to it: I think it’s easy and I we got some pretty good results last summer from my our students.

You may find this article of interest (and potentially useful for recruitment):

https://www.cityjobs.com/cityblog/2015/05/06/banks-physics-maths-grads/

It mentions ComSci in the same breath as well, but at A-level I would say that's third tier. We crash through it in a year at my school, and they still get good grades.

PS - should you wish me to give this spiel to your GCSE students, my hourly rate is very reasonable...

OblitusSumMe said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.

HYUFD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.

If that was the case UKIP would not be on up to triple their 2017 score, mainly from Tories and the Tories still at least level with Labour

justin124 said:

I must admit to having rather messed up my O levels in 1970 in terms of Pass Grades. Entirely my own fault, but June 1970 did coincide with the General Election campaign - and I was just as obsessed with the psephology of polls etc as I am today.It was a serious distraction for me, and Harold Wilson did me no favours - nor indeed himself! - by calling the election at that time.

HYUFD said:

Noel Gallagher says he would rather reform Oasis than see 'lunatic' Corbyn as PM
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/noel-gallagher-says-hed-rather-reform-oasis-than-see-lunatic-corbyn-as-pm-while-momentum-boss-who-went-to-£21000-a-year-school-says-rockers-working-class-hero-days-are-over/ar-BBO1svL?ocid=spartanntp

He has now clearly moved away from Labour having previously attended a reception with Blair at No 10

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Pulpstar said:

The allegations will disappear like snow in May if he isn't confirmed

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.


As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.

I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.

When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.

Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.

I got into Cambridge with only two GCSE "A" grades back in 1992. (Maths and History. And my maths teacher said in the first lesson of A Level maths: "Of course, Robert's "A" wasn't as good as Ian's." It's fair to say that I didn't get on well with (one of) my maths teachers.

Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

Fysics_Teacher said:

justin124 said:

Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.

Andy_Cooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1048576917589446656?s=20

I think the message is rather that people will not quietly give in to being cheated out of Brexit by "the People's Vote", Anna.

Anyway, it's all moot:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45768848

How - how could people be 'cheated out of Brexit' by another referendum?
It'd need the people to vote to Remain after all, which they won't do if they want Brexit after all.
Were the people 'cheated out of' a Conservative majority last year?

LordOfReason said:

Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

justin124 said:

Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?

I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

justin124 said:

Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?

I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...

Foxy said:

Anazina said:

Jonathan said:

Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

Has been thus for months.

Indeed, I don't think there has been a significant polling change in over a year. Its a stalemate. I cannot recall a longer period of stasis.