"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I'm thinking of a relative - PhD in science, started a couple of successful businesses, young family but settled at schools etc. The businesses are starting run themselves....
In times past, he would have been already high up in the local council and looking at Parliament. Now he and those like him wouldn't touch it with barge pole.
Councils seem to be 'professional' politicians now rather than successful people giving something back.
Something that needs to change. But how, when nobody with any sense would get involved?
Possibly true, but you can't tell from that graph. It could be that more patients are dying or being discharged per day!
Admissions have fallen, so the headline is correct, but they haven't fallen enough for the number in hospital to have also fallen.
The graph is, as you say, not entirely relevant.
Councils are largely formed of professional or semi professional political activists looking for the first steps on the ladder to Parliament or else the retired who have plenty of free time to be a councillor
You are talking about your fellow Conservatives, of course, young HY.
In my experience it is largely the same for Labour and the LDs
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there, you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
Although I am a scientist by training I hate the political obsession with "STEM" . What a dull place the world would be if we did not encourage youngsters to be musicians, artists, actors, sportsmen/women. We could probably do with a few less journalists with English degrees and anyone who scraped through Oxford with a Classics degree should be bared from any form of high office.
Encouraging young adults to study degrees in STEM subjects does not result in fewer musicians, etc. Drastically cutting arts funding does.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
Suggests the greasy pole isn't that greasy when you realise these two incompetents got to the top of it. A very sad indictment of where our political system has stooped to
Two parties distorted out of shape by First Past the Post in a social media era. If they were people they would have been sectioned, the pair of them.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Two hours of debate on the House motion of impeachment begins. Vote at 7.30pm UK time
What happens if it passes.
When would Senate vote?
That's entirely up to the Senate. The constitution puts no time frame on it. Democrats taking control next Wednesday due to VP Harris' casting vote might speed things up, or it might not.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Agreed, but also, as other people have mentioned in the past, I think another difference is the collapse of faith in big ideas. Previously that would offset all the boredom, invasion of your privacy and obedience of being an MP. A bright upper-middle-class boy like Clement Attlee went into Labour politics because he thought there were huge, momentous battles of ideas to be won that would also materially change people's lives, for instance. There are still huge new ideas out there to be discovered, intellectually fought over and materially change people's lives, but we still don't quite know what they are yet.
Attlee got a second and was a social worker before politics, he was no exceptional talent himself before he went into politics.
Given Brexit and Corbyn we have hardly been bereft of dramatic ideological battles recently either
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
Well, no. The rate at which the number of people in hospital is increasing has fallen, which means that a) fewer people are being admitted per day than previously or b) more people are leaving (dying or being discharged per day) or c) some combination of the two.
Hmm - not sure about this. For 1) I think Guido has confused hospital admissions with absolute numbers in hospital. Let's forget about him.
But for 2) if I have 10 admissions per day and no deaths... Then on day 1 my growth rate in hospital numbers is infinite. Day 2 it is 100%. Day 3 it is 50%. etc.
Delurk. Long time reader, grateful for the many excellent contributions. From a don's perspective, I'd say the Oxbridge info might need a bit of tutorial work...
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM.
Interesting: I once had exactly this argument thrown at me by an "Arts Bod" to criticise science. "Science is so esoteric, you can't understand a science seminar unless you are a scientis, but you don't have to be a philosopher to understand a philosophy seminar, you don't have to be a historian to understand a history seminar..."
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there, you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
Although I am a scientist by training I hate the political obsession with "STEM" . What a dull place the world would be if we did not encourage youngsters to be musicians, artists, actors, sportsmen/women. We could probably do with a few less journalists with English degrees and anyone who scraped through Oxford with a Classics degree should be bared from any form of high office.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Agreed, but also, as other people have mentioned in the past, I think another difference is the collapse of faith in big ideas. Previously that would offset all the boredom, invasion of your privacy and obedience of being an MP. A bright upper-middle-class boy like Clement Attlee went into Labour politics because he thought there were huge, momentous battles of ideas to be won that would also materially change people's lives, for instance. There are still huge new ideas out there to be discovered, intellectually fought over and materially change people's lives, but we still don't quite know what they are yet.
Types Brandreth (mock ye not) was making the same point 25 years ago- his new friend Danny Finkelstein has leapt from nowhere to No 10 because nobody else was trying to think about big issues from a right-of-centre perspective.
It's the same reason that the Conservatives have fallen for the Cummings vision; Dom may be a psycho and not a Conservative, but his cheese dream is a vision of sorts...
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Agreed, but also, as other people have mentioned in the past, I think another difference is the collapse of faith in big ideas. Previously that would offset all the boredom, invasion of your privacy and obedience of being an MP. A bright upper-middle-class boy like Clement Attlee went into Labour politics because he thought there were huge, momentous battles of ideas to be won that would also materially change people's lives, for instance. There are still huge new ideas out there to be discovered, intellectually fought over and materially change people's lives, but we still don't quite know what they are yet.
Attlee got a second and was a social worker before politics, he was no exceptional talent himself before he went into politics.
Given Brexit and Corbyn we have hardly been bereft of dramatic ideological battles recently either
Attlee was an exceptional organiser and planner, and also quite intellectually and socially curious. He wanted to get involved in seeing the world beyond his class from an early age, and also from an intellectual point of view was a pretty avid reader. His organisational skills met up with his intellectual and social curiosity when he became leader.
Brexiters and Corbynism, to a certain extent, were heavily dependent on older ideas. What tends to attract the most able is often a proving ground : new ideas waiting to be tried out for the first time.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
Damn it. I am proud of my 'Desmond.'
It reminds me of the quote about serving under the German Crown Prince in WWI - "Soon, the only way to avoid the awarding of the Iron Cross, Second Class, was suicide".
If Congress votes to remove Trump from office and Pence doesn't want the job, can they choose someone else?
The chance to get your name on the list of presidents, and only have to do the job for 6 days, most of which will just be handing over to Biden? Wow I have no political ambition at all, but I think even I would accept that gig!
So we have gone from 1,000 poorly organised police officers to 20k fully equipped troops and soldiers sleeping in the Capitol for the first time since the Civil War. There has to be an argument that that bet that Trump would leave before his period of office is up is a winner. He's certainly not making the decisions anymore.
I have a small bet at a good price on that from a while ago. Here's hoping.
Republican just speaking is very strident about the "vindictiveness" of impeaching Trump, a defeated president, days before he leaves office. I agree if this was all this is about. For me it is ensuring that Trump can never run again - that is the prize.
Republican just speaking is very strident about the "vindictiveness" of impeaching Trump, a defeated president, days before he leaves office. I agree if this was all this is about. For me it is ensuring that Trump can never run again - that is the prize.
Except even if that wasn't the case it still wouldn't be vindicitve if he acted in a manner which was considered warranted impeachment. If you stab a man days before you leave prison I would hope they don't think it vindictive to punish you for it.
Given the lengthy period between election and inauguration, and the vast powers of the presidency, it should be essential to establish the precedent that actions on your way out still deserve punishment.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Agreed, but also, as other people have mentioned in the past, I think another difference is the collapse of faith in big ideas. Previously that would offset all the boredom, invasion of your privacy and obedience of being an MP. A bright upper-middle-class boy like Clement Attlee went into Labour politics because he thought there were huge, momentous battles of ideas to be won that would also materially change people's lives, for instance. There are still huge new ideas out there to be discovered, intellectually fought over and materially change people's lives, but we still don't quite know what they are yet.
Attlee got a second and was a social worker before politics, he was no exceptional talent himself before he went into politics.
Given Brexit and Corbyn we have hardly been bereft of dramatic ideological battles recently either
Attlee was an exceptional organiser and planner, and also quite intellectually and socially curious. He wanted to get involved in seeing the world beyond his class from an early age, and also from an intellectual point of view was a pretty avid reader. His organisational skills met up with his intellectual and social curiosity when he became leader.
Brexiters and Corbynism, to a certain extent, were heavily dependent on older ideas. What tends to attract the most able is often a proving ground : new ideas waiting to be tried out for the first time.
Bill Cash, Dan Hannan, John Redwood etc are all very bright but were attracted to politics primarily to pursue and push the case for leaving the EU even when it was not fashionable
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Possibly true, but you can't tell from that graph. It could be that more patients are dying or being discharged per day!
The graph shows the the number of Covid patients in London is still increasing by about 3% per day. So either people are being admitted in greater numbers, people are not dying or being discharge, or a LOT of babies are being born with Covid.
It's probably rising admissions.
Well, no. The rate at which the number of people in hospital is increasing has fallen, which means that a) fewer people are being admitted per day than previously or b) more people are leaving (dying or being discharged per day) or c) some combination of the two.
Imagine a tank of water. If the rate at which it is rising has slowed (but is still positive), then the flow rate into the tank must have fallen (assuming no outflow).
Yes, you're right. 1000 -> 1030 = 3% rise 1030 -> 1050 = ~2% rise That's in numbers in hospital. It could be 50 admissions and 30 discharges. So your original reply was right "you can't tell from that graph" rather then my more strident (and wrong) statement. Thanks for putting me right.
"Johnson & Johnson has fallen behind on production of its Covid-19 vaccine, a delay that could put it as much as two months behind schedule, a person briefed on the matter told POLITICO.
The company had originally pledged to deliver 12 million doses by the end of February, with plans to reach 100 million over the next four months."
Johnson & Johnson - a Dysfunctional Family Company
Delurk. Long time reader, grateful for the many excellent contributions. From a don's perspective, I'd say the Oxbridge info might need a bit of tutorial work...
We're all dons here.
Made men. Wiseguys.
Does YBarddCwsc translate to 'Corleone'?
I have a wonderful system for garlic. I use a Razor and slice it so thin it liquefies in the pan with a little oil.
Delurk. Long time reader, grateful for the many excellent contributions. From a don's perspective, I'd say the Oxbridge info might need a bit of tutorial work...
We're all dons here.
Made men. Wiseguys.
Does YBarddCwsc translate to 'Corleone'?
I have a wonderful system for garlic. I use a Razor and slice it so thin it liquefies in the pan with a little oil.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
Delurk. Long time reader, grateful for the many excellent contributions. From a don's perspective, I'd say the Oxbridge info might need a bit of tutorial work...
A cynic would wonder whether the government is deliberately luring people off tax credits on to UC in order to qualify for these covid-related funds.
Once you have come off tax credits it is impossible to go back and UC is worse than tax credits in some ways - the most important being that it is means tested against wealth. So if you have over £16k in savings you don`t qualify for a penny. If you have between £6k and £16k you only partially qualify.
Many people do not realise this and come off tax credits only to sorely regret this decision.
Also there is no help for nine months on legacy benefits or universal credit for mortgage payers. Then after 9 months you can apply for a loan which is paid to your mortgage provider and added to amount you owe. So you are in a lot worse position the renters who are able to get housing benefit early in their claim. I imagine there will be an increase in re possessions as unemployment rises in people who are buying their house. Will be a shock to many.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
They are just relying on the same grounds they've used as an excuse to pardon people in the past.
It's nonsense, but it's all they've got.
Nonsense. I’ve been watching it and GOP have been coming out with some good points.
Why has it gone straight to the floor and not properly investigated. That’s a strong argument. What about incendiary language Democrat politicians have used? Does inflammatory inciteful remarks mean different things from different lips?
The Trump hating spectacles need to come off, it needs to be played straight. It’s not.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
Edit: and the SNP too, of course. But they don't count either, as NOT PATRIOTIC, I assume.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I'm thinking of a relative - PhD in science, started a couple of successful businesses, young family but settled at schools etc. The businesses are starting run themselves....
In times past, he would have been already high up in the local council and looking at Parliament. Now he and those like him wouldn't touch it with barge pole.
Councils seem to be 'professional' politicians now rather than successful people giving something back.
Something that needs to change. But how, when nobody with any sense would get involved?
Possibly true, but you can't tell from that graph. It could be that more patients are dying or being discharged per day!
Admissions have fallen, so the headline is correct, but they haven't fallen enough for the number in hospital to have also fallen.
The graph is, as you say, not entirely relevant.
Councils are largely formed of professional or semi professional political activists looking for the first steps on the ladder to Parliament or else the retired who have plenty of free time to be a councillor
That sounds like generalisation based on your time in Epping.
During my 24 years on my council, three councillors went on the become the local MP, in succession. And probably a few others who fancied a political career, some in denial of their limitations. Yes, there were also a fair number of retired people. But there was also a good number of people working full or part-time, such as myself, none of whom had national political ambitions. Your "largely" doesn't reflect the position fairly, at least in London.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
Does NOT compute.
Ever heard of the term "sea change"?
The thing you have to know about HYUFD is that he has absolutely no object persistence. Whatever is right in front of him is the whole universe. A poll is not a data point in a trend line, it's a signifier of the natural law of things. History is a bag of evidence to carefully choose from the facts that support the point you are about to make. Every moment is freighted with an eternal surety, and completely unconnected from the next moment and the previous.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
They are just relying on the same grounds they've used as an excuse to pardon people in the past.
It's nonsense, but it's all they've got.
Nonsense. I’ve been watching it and GOP have been coming out with some good points.
Why has it gone straight to the floor and not properly investigated. That’s a strong argument. What about incendiary language Democrat politicians have used? Does inflammatory inciteful remarks mean different things from different lips?
The Trump hating spectacles need to come off, it needs to be played straight. It’s not.
I was commenting on the tweet's comment, I'm not watching the debate, so you need to not be so defensive. They only listed one point, so that was all I commented on. You are obviously upset and distraught as you did not notice that. Had it listed more defenses I would have commented on those.
As for those points, the second one is classic distraction and absolute bloody nonsense - other people doing bad things doesn't excuse the person being looked into here, and his inflammatory remarks led up to and were at an event where he then told them to go to congress and do something, and that context matters a lot particularly given the aftermath.
On the first one, that may well be a good point, although what does a proper investigation mean in this context when the facts are very straightforward and the remarks and subsequent events cannot be disputed as they are on camera? How long do you (sorry, the GOP) think would be appropriate?
And if the issue is about process, why also comments about impeachment being divisive in itself, as the former does not preclude impeachment for his actions.
Two hours of debate on the House motion of impeachment begins. Vote at 7.30pm UK time
What happens if it passes.
When would Senate vote?
That's entirely up to the Senate. The constitution puts no time frame on it. Democrats taking control next Wednesday due to VP Harris' casting vote might speed things up, or it might not.
Biden's Cabinet being approved will likely be a priority over impeachment anyway.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
Yes for somewhat sane stuff that's related to policy like Brexit you need to be a true believer to become a Tory MP currently. But if Boris had whipped up language to incite an invasion of parliament (Instead of going through the usual channels to prorogue) I'd hope even your good self would disavow that crap.
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
God yes absolutely. The only thing worse would have been to listen to the STEM geeks turned viral immunologists of which there were and are plenty. Some even here on PB if you can believe it.
Interesting article for Labour Friends of Israel members - not fans of Netanyahu but on this occasion positive. They've gone about it quite differently to the rest of us.
Israel’s success thus far derives from a number of factors. Its small 9 million population is spread across just 21,000 sq km, which has assisted with the logistical challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine.
But the country isn’t just benefiting from its compact geography. Israel’s free healthcare system, which provides universal coverage, has also risen competently to the challenge. Israelis receive their care through four national networks which are required to take any citizen but which receive their funding from the state on the basis of the number of members they have. This competition, which helps hold down costs, has led to heavy investment in preventative medicine and digitisation. Each of the four networks are now competing to prove it can most efficiently get shots in the arms of its members. Vaccination slots are thus being offered seven days a week, with drive-in centres allowing Israelis to receive a jab without leaving their cars.
Digitisation and a central patient database are spurring the effort and initially helped the most vulnerable to be easily prioritised, identified and contacted. “We immediately set up a data system that identified which people to summon as a first priority, who was second priority, and who could wait. The whole thing took 10 minutes,” the chief executive of the Meuhedet health management organisation, Sigal Regev Rosenberg, told the Times of Israel this week.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Dems should be more narrowly focused on the violence, especially threats to Mike Pence.
Yes they are making the 4 years of Trump the basis of the charge and that is wrong.
That does seem like a tactical mistake in terms of getting others on board as well. It's far harder to prove, and makes the core charges seem weaker when you include wider detail.
Sounds like they couldn't help but roll out the greatest hits of their complaints, when recent events really were of a different scale to anything that came before.
My gods, a critical comment of the Dems, it's almost as those people crying about people here being all about Trump hate are talking nonsense.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
Does NOT compute.
Ever heard of the term "sea change"?
The lesson from Trump emerging stronger from the first impeachment is this is politically stupid from the democrats. There’s people pleased he’s out of power in a few hours you are forcing into voting for him. That’s politically stupid, smart politics is to build a coalition on your side even if it means patience.
Anyone who stands there saying we must act with this haste or he will get away with it really are just not smart enough at politics, Let time, investigations, money draining from GOP PACs, power draining from Trump and his court do your work for you, concentrate on priorities, installing Biden’s government and hitting ground running on COVID and economy. The headlines Dems really need is how Trump is disrupting orderly handover and what that actually means.
Two hours of debate on the House motion of impeachment begins. Vote at 7.30pm UK time
What happens if it passes.
When would Senate vote?
That's entirely up to the Senate. The constitution puts no time frame on it. Democrats taking control next Wednesday due to VP Harris' casting vote might speed things up, or it might not.
Biden's Cabinet being approved will likely be a priority over impeachment anyway.
Not to mention COVID and the Biden legislative agenda.
IF there are the votes to convict in Senate next week THEN look for a speedy trial & conviction.
BUT 67 votes are NOT there to convict next week THEN look for a lengthy process, which in early stages will NOT delay other maters.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I think that has always been largely the case.
If you are a top commercial barrister paid a fortune or a brain surgeon or a ceo or a top professor why would you take the pay cut with the added public intrusion to become an MP? There are a few exceptions like Archie Norman but they soon move on.
Plus party politics requires you to toe the party line inevitably and if you are too independent thinking you will not last too long with the whips nor rise up the greasy pole
Counterpoints: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn
Are you suggesting Boris and Corbyn are geniuses of humanity then?
No, I'm suggesting they made it to the tops of their respective greasy poles without having to "toe the party line inevitably".
They had to appeal to the views of their party base though instead
...which is an alternative route to power than toeing the party line. You caught up with my point finally.
No, it is still toeing the party line.
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
Hahaha, the shapes you contort yourself into when you're wrong about something, it's truly bewitching. You are the intellectual circus freak of this place.
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
If you are an very independent, highly intelligent, rich person why would you go into politics when to be successful you either have to to back the party leadership at all times or the views of the party membership at all times, that was the point
Dishy Rishi decided to.
Power is your answer.
If it can get David Mellor laid just think what it can do for others.
Trump deserves all he gets but if Biden loses the House in 2022 the chances of a resolution for impeachment must be high.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Yes, it was very foolish indeed. It is, sadly, true that Trump's unfounded claims that the 2020 election was 'stolen' were given political cover by the Dems' highly exaggerated claims that the 2016 election was rigged. (That's not to say the two were equivalent, of 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.
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.
In that case, your friend will almost certainly have scored very highly in the Classics Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) when she applied, and thus was admitted on merit, not as a charity case. Oxford has been doing this for years, and it's a much better solution than some crude handicapping system.
On the other hand, it's a great pity if she wasn't able to acquire the languages to a comfortable level, since that's one of the main pleasures and joys of the course.
I didn't say she was a "charity case". She is one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. My point was to highlight yet another advantage those who go to private school have and how she had to work much harder to achieve that 1st than they probably did.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. Getting a First if you read for Course II (where you start the languages from scratch) is less common, and the people who manage it are indeed impressive. On the other hand, the scope of Course II is narrower relative to Course I, concentrating on one language rather than both, and the first year is largely dedicated to intensive catch-up work, so inevitably the average Course II candidate will simply have read and covered less by the end of the degree.
Still, it helps Classics to survive and be enjoyed by more people, so it's not all bad.
Latin was both my best and favourite subject at school. Touch of the Billy Elliots about it except unlike him I caved in and went STEM instead. Others spoke, authority figures, and I did it their way. Regrets, I have sixty two, and this is one of them.
I knew you were basically sound, kinabalu. Oddly enough, I started off school certain that I was going to become a scientist, and only did my volte-face to languages and humanities a little later, though not from any special pressure.
I think a big mistake many arts graduates make is to assume that science grads are completely illiterate in the arts whereas science grads also know how to get to Covent Garden, or Bayreuth for that matter, read voraciously, and can tell a Monet from a Manet.
A STEM bod is more likely to be good at the Arts than an Arts bod is to be good at STEM. So if you had to cull one group - I mean if you simply had to - and start again from there you'd probably, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, have to say farewell to the Arts crowd.
The danger is that many STEM bods get ahead of themselves and start to pretend they have more than the vaguest acquaintance with the arts and thereby embarrass themselves.
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
That's a point. Although with the pandemic we have seen several "history men" types with their pants down when making forays into the wonderful world of numbers.
STEM bods (and that is my roots) are also more likely to get trapped in a world of one truth and one perspective.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
Two hours of debate on the House motion of impeachment begins. Vote at 7.30pm UK time
What happens if it passes.
When would Senate vote?
That's entirely up to the Senate. The constitution puts no time frame on it. Democrats taking control next Wednesday due to VP Harris' casting vote might speed things up, or it might not.
If it gets to next Wednesday there is no rush to resolve things. So either Mitch McConnell rushes things through or it can be left a while - say until after the first 100 days has passed.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Always required a few too many Republicans to look likely, HYUFD's point about Senators having more leeway to take a long term view notwithstanding. Needs Mitch and the gang, but there's so many reasons it's easier for them to stay schtum.
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:
Fishermen Fishermens' associations Fish merchants Fish exporters Shellfish exporters The P&J The Evening Express
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.
Unless he's just referring to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermens' association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shelfish exporter etc.
Looking forward to your links to 'a' fisherman 'a' head of a fishermen's association 'a' fish merchant 'a' fish exporter 'a' shellfish exporter 'a' newspaper serving the area with the largest part of the UK fishing sector who are supportive of the great deal for fishing.
It is worth recalling that there has been substantial inflation in degrees.
Roughly speaking, 30 per cent of students get a first. And ~ 50 per cent of students get a 2.1.
So, Boris Johnson's degree is pretty average.
In fact -- given his enormous educational advantages -- it is clear that Boris is a lazy fat fucker.
At Oxford, students are brighter and/or grade inflation higher so 95 per cent get a first or upper second.
I think it is more that at Oxford & Cambridge, having let you in the first place, they don't want to admit they made a mistake. 😁
So 2.2s are quite rare -- and it takes quite extraordinary ability to get a 3rd.
This has changed massively.
An academic, not long ago calculated the point in the future where no-one at a UK university would get less than a 1st - no seconds, no thirds, no fails.
Many of us will live to see it, IIRC.
The joy of confirming one's mediocrity by explaining the achievement of a "Desmond" will thus diminish over time. Although I suspect as time progresses, Desmond himself will fade from memory.
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
Any GOP Representative who votes to impeach Trump likely faces a primary challenge in 2022 from a Trump loyalist.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Strange. You are obsessed with latest polling numbers YET you believe that support for Trumpsky is carved in stone.
Does NOT compute.
Ever heard of the term "sea change"?
The lesson from Trump emerging stronger from the first impeachment is this is politically stupid from the democrats. There’s people pleased he’s out of power in a few hours you are forcing into voting for him. That’s politically stupid, smart politics is to build a coalition on your side even if it means patience.
Anyone who stands there saying we must act with this haste or he will get away with it really are just not smart enough at politics, Let time, investigations, money draining from GOP PACs, power draining from Trump and his court do your work for you, concentrate on priorities, installing Biden’s government and hitting ground running on COVID and economy. The headlines Dems really need is how Trump is disrupting orderly handover and what that actually means.
That was BEFORE the Trumpsky Putch. This is now. THAT's what I mean re: sea change.
They are just relying on the same grounds they've used as an excuse to pardon people in the past.
It's nonsense, but it's all they've got.
Nonsense. I’ve been watching it and GOP have been coming out with some good points.
Why has it gone straight to the floor and not properly investigated. That’s a strong argument. What about incendiary language Democrat politicians have used? Does inflammatory inciteful remarks mean different things from different lips?
The Trump hating spectacles need to come off, it needs to be played straight. It’s not.
I was commenting on the tweet's comment, I'm not watching the debate, so you need to not be so defensive. They only listed one point, so that was all I commented on. You are obviously upset and distraught as you did not notice that. Had it listed more defenses I would have commented on those.
As for those points, the second one is classic distraction and absolute bloody nonsense - other people doing bad things doesn't excuse the person being looked into here, and his inflammatory remarks led up to and were at an event where he then told them to go to congress and do something, and that context matters a lot particularly given the aftermath.
On the first one, that may well be a good point, although what does a proper investigation mean in this context when the facts are very straightforward and the remarks and subsequent events cannot be disputed as they are on camera? How long do you (sorry, the GOP) think would be appropriate?
And if the issue is about process, why also comments about impeachment being divisive in itself, as the former does not preclude impeachment for his actions.
You calling a clear case of hypocrisy bloody nonsense? 🙂
Dems should be more narrowly focused on the violence, especially threats to Mike Pence.
Don't know why more would be needed. Hammer home the recent events over and over again: it's recent, inescapable, very strong, and brings home to those voting how it involves them.
45 minutes of debate in the House and so far all the speeches along party lines.
Not going to happen, is it?
The impeachment is going to happen, conviction in the senate is unlikely.
Always required a few too many Republicans to look likely, HYUFD's point about Senators having more leeway to take a long term view notwithstanding. Needs Mitch and the gang, but there's so many reasons it's easier for them to stay schtum.
As I pointed out earlier there are 20 Republican Senators who have have terms that last 6 full years. The question is how many of them will vote alongside Mitch.
The interesting thing will be if Mitch passes it forward this week - if he does it's because he knows the votes are there to convict.
"I think it is more the smart ones don't go into politics, just the dregs".
There is some truth in that. I went to a well-known public school - not Eton, thank god - and there are a couple of people I remember who've done well in academia, the arts, etc and elsewhere. One of the people who was considered hugely unremarkable and conventional has become an MP. As mentioned, politics just isn't appealing to many more well-rounded or particularly interesting people any more.
The point about entitlement raised below is also relevant, though. If you're unremarkable but entitled, both in terms of your opportunities, routes to power and attitude, it's more likely to be your own prejudices, rather than any particularly interesting or independent ideas you might have , that everyone else is having to live with.
I'm thinking of a relative - PhD in science, started a couple of successful businesses, young family but settled at schools etc. The businesses are starting run themselves....
In times past, he would have been already high up in the local council and looking at Parliament. Now he and those like him wouldn't touch it with barge pole.
Councils seem to be 'professional' politicians now rather than successful people giving something back.
Something that needs to change. But how, when nobody with any sense would get involved?
Possibly true, but you can't tell from that graph. It could be that more patients are dying or being discharged per day!
Admissions have fallen, so the headline is correct, but they haven't fallen enough for the number in hospital to have also fallen.
The graph is, as you say, not entirely relevant.
Councils are largely formed of professional or semi professional political activists looking for the first steps on the ladder to Parliament or else the retired who have plenty of free time to be a councillor
That sounds like generalisation based on your time in Epping.
During my 24 years on my council, three councillors went on the become the local MP, in succession. And probably a few others who fancied a political career, some in denial of their limitations. Yes, there were also a fair number of retired people. But there was also a good number of people working full or part-time, such as myself, none of whom had national political ambitions. Your "largely" doesn't reflect the position fairly, at least in London.
I would suggest it does, the average age of a councillor is 61 in England
Comments
Hence to minimise the toe-curling factor best to dispense with the good STEM folk.
Given Brexit and Corbyn we have hardly been bereft of dramatic ideological battles recently either
For 1) I think Guido has confused hospital admissions with absolute numbers in hospital.
Let's forget about him.
But for 2) if I have 10 admissions per day and no deaths...
Then on day 1 my growth rate in hospital numbers is infinite.
Day 2 it is 100%.
Day 3 it is 50%. etc.
So doesn't that contradict your example?
On topic, Trump's impeachment will benefit the GOP over the medium and longer-term, as it kills Trump's future plans dead. I suspect GOP Senators and Representatives will be too dull to see this and Trump will walk free again. What a state of affairs, if for fear of their lives, lawmakers vote him a free pass.
It's the same reason that the Conservatives have fallen for the Cummings vision; Dom may be a psycho and not a Conservative, but his cheese dream is a vision of sorts...
Brexiters and Corbynism, to a certain extent, were heavily dependent on older ideas. What tends to attract the most able is often a proving ground : new ideas waiting to be tried out for the first time.
It's nonsense, but it's all they've got.
Given the lengthy period between election and inauguration, and the vast powers of the presidency, it should be essential to establish the precedent that actions on your way out still deserve punishment.
GOP Senators who are only elected in thirds and for 6 year terms may be able to take a longer view
Just the party line and views of the party members rather than the party leadership of the time
1000 -> 1030 = 3% rise
1030 -> 1050 = ~2% rise
That's in numbers in hospital. It could be 50 admissions and 30 discharges. So your original reply was right "you can't tell from that graph" rather then my more strident (and wrong) statement.
Thanks for putting me right.
"Johnson & Johnson has fallen behind on production of its Covid-19 vaccine, a delay that could put it as much as two months behind schedule, a person briefed on the matter told POLITICO.
The company had originally pledged to deliver 12 million doses by the end of February, with plans to reach 100 million over the next four months."
Johnson & Johnson - a Dysfunctional Family Company
It is a very good system.
https://twitter.com/magalawbrian/status/1349228191446044674?s=20
Does NOT compute.
Ever heard of the term "sea change"?
Being a serial rebel is toeing the party line. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Theresa Maysia.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1349075992136937473?s=20
https://gazette.web.ox.ac.uk/files/finalhonourschoolsbacheloroffineart2018-1tono5248pdf
Then after 9 months you can apply for a loan which is paid to your mortgage provider and added to amount you owe.
So you are in a lot worse position the renters who are able to get housing benefit early in their claim.
I imagine there will be an increase in re possessions as unemployment rises in people who are buying their house. Will be a shock to many.
The mistake of Democrats is not this, it was the first impeachment which was foolish.
Why has it gone straight to the floor and not properly investigated. That’s a strong argument.
What about incendiary language Democrat politicians have used? Does inflammatory inciteful remarks mean different things from different lips?
The Trump hating spectacles need to come off, it needs to be played straight. It’s not.
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
Edit: and the SNP too, of course. But they don't count either, as NOT PATRIOTIC, I assume.
https://twitter.com/MarisaKabas/status/1349418765570748416
During my 24 years on my council, three councillors went on the become the local MP, in succession. And probably a few others who fancied a political career, some in denial of their limitations. Yes, there were also a fair number of retired people. But there was also a good number of people working full or part-time, such as myself, none of whom had national political ambitions. Your "largely" doesn't reflect the position fairly, at least in London.
Unless he's just referring to
'a' fisherman
'a' head of a fishermens' association
'a' fish merchant
'a' fish exporter
'a' shelfish exporter
etc.
It is a cult. When the Messiah goes it gets very messy.
As for those points, the second one is classic distraction and absolute bloody nonsense - other people doing bad things doesn't excuse the person being looked into here, and his inflammatory remarks led up to and were at an event where he then told them to go to congress and do something, and that context matters a lot particularly given the aftermath.
On the first one, that may well be a good point, although what does a proper investigation mean in this context when the facts are very straightforward and the remarks and subsequent events cannot be disputed as they are on camera? How long do you (sorry, the GOP) think would be appropriate?
And if the issue is about process, why also comments about impeachment being divisive in itself, as the former does not preclude impeachment for his actions.
He should have gone for the jugular on COVID and accused the government of having blood on its hands.
Israel’s success thus far derives from a number of factors. Its small 9 million population is spread across just 21,000 sq km, which has assisted with the logistical challenges of transporting the Pfizer vaccine.
But the country isn’t just benefiting from its compact geography. Israel’s free healthcare system, which provides universal coverage, has also risen competently to the challenge. Israelis receive their care through four national networks which are required to take any citizen but which receive their funding from the state on the basis of the number of members they have. This competition, which helps hold down costs, has led to heavy investment in preventative medicine and digitisation. Each of the four networks are now competing to prove it can most efficiently get shots in the arms of its members. Vaccination slots are thus being offered seven days a week, with drive-in centres allowing Israelis to receive a jab without leaving their cars.
Digitisation and a central patient database are spurring the effort and initially helped the most vulnerable to be easily prioritised, identified and contacted. “We immediately set up a data system that identified which people to summon as a first priority, who was second priority, and who could wait. The whole thing took 10 minutes,” the chief executive of the Meuhedet health management organisation, Sigal Regev Rosenberg, told the Times of Israel this week.
While, like other countries, the country has prioritised those most vulnerable to serious illness from covid, it has also shown a high degree of flexibility and a typically Israeli disregard for rigid rules. Vaccinations centres are, for instance, inoculating younger Israelis who show up at the end of the day when unused doses might otherwise be thrown away. At the same time, Israeli experts are said to have proved adept at extracting more doses from each vial than they had originally expected to.
Logistically, the rollout has also been smooth, with key parts of the operation – including the use of pharmaceutical company Teva’s storage facilities, whose freezers can hold five million doses – ready by November. When the first shipment of vaccines arrived in December, they were placed in pizza-box size containers, which each held 100 doses, and sprinted to more than 400 clinics around the country.
Money has played a part too. Calculating that the economic and social cost of a prolonged lockdown were far outweighed by the advantage of speeding up vaccine deliveries, the Israeli government has proved willing to pay both Pfizer and Moderna considerably over the odds. Israel, the Kan public broadcaster reported on Monday, is paying $47 per person per vaccination – or £23.50 per dose – to the two drug companies. By contrast, the US is thought to be paying Pfizer $19.50 per dose while the EU is paying $14.76. Moderna vaccine prices are thought to be $15 per dose for the US and $18 per dose for the EU. The total cost – $333m – Israel is expected to pay for its vaccination programme is estimated to be roughly equivalent to the hit the economy receives for every two days of the current lockdown.
But the deal Israel struck with Pfizer isn’t just about money. In return for its shipments, the government has promised the drugs giant to feed it a supply of data about side-effects, efficacy and time to develop antibodies which will be broken down by segments including age, gender and preexisting conditions. “The country basically acts as a large, real-world lab for manufacturers and the rest of the world,” one analyst has suggested.
Sounds like they couldn't help but roll out the greatest hits of their complaints, when recent events really were of a different scale to anything that came before.
My gods, a critical comment of the Dems, it's almost as those people crying about people here being all about Trump hate are talking nonsense.
Anyone who stands there saying we must act with this haste or he will get away with it really are just not smart enough at politics, Let time, investigations, money draining from GOP PACs, power draining from Trump and his court do your work for you, concentrate on priorities, installing Biden’s government and hitting ground running on COVID and economy. The headlines Dems really need is how Trump is disrupting orderly handover and what that actually means.
IF there are the votes to convict in Senate next week THEN look for a speedy trial & conviction.
BUT 67 votes are NOT there to convict next week THEN look for a lengthy process, which in early stages will NOT delay other maters.
Power is your answer.
If it can get David Mellor laid just think what it can do for others.
And while some of their favorite films may talk of 'constructs', many STEM bods fail to understand that their understanding of the world is just one construct. This is not to mean that I am disrespectful of science, just that it is not equipped to provide all answers, including most of those which are of most central importance to the human condition.
'a' fisherman
'a' head of a fishermen's association
'a' fish merchant
'a' fish exporter
'a' shellfish exporter
'a' newspaper serving the area with the largest part of the UK fishing sector
who are supportive of the great deal for fishing.
One of each will be fine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9139345/Brazil-researchers-report-modest-50-4-efficacy-Chinas-CoronaVac.html
I think that the 20th would be a good day to be in a bunker, honestly.
"All changed utterly: a terrible beauty is born"
The interesting thing will be if Mitch passes it forward this week - if he does it's because he knows the votes are there to convict.
https://www.nalc.gov.uk/news/entry/1079-nalc-demands-more#:~:text=The average age of local,Association's most recent Councillor Census)