This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
You are clueless.
And thus entirely representative of current Tory attitudes to education.
Unfortunately mirrored by the DfE itself.
The irony of Gove/Gibb/Cummings/Freedman is that while they thought their reforms were improving education and liberating it from the dead hand of the DfE and the state, they actually ended up implementing things the DfE had been trying to get through for years without success and dumping all over teachers who dared to point out that they had messed up and achieved the polar opposite of what they wanted.
Instead of more rigorous assessment and greater school freedom, we have much less rigorous - in many cases pretty well worthless - assessments and far greater state control of education than at any time since 1944.
What's more frustrating is that they still refuse to admit the extent and nature of their failure. Gibb and Spielman, for example, are still dining out on their cataclysmic exam reforms. Cummings keeps boasting about taming the unions. Freedman actually worked as an executive for Teach First for a while, not very effectively.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
So why hasnt your party set it up? It's not even as if you have to go through nasty Labour ort LD local authorities any more. All this free market stuff you're spouting today about "academies" [sic].
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
The vast majority of lawyers and doctors will have mainly A or A* GCSES and A Levels.
That does not mean all those with A or A* GCSES and A Levels get good jobs
Having good exam results doesn’t make you a good doctor.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
Amongst the 2 main parties for FPTP seats not a small party with the first chance to get significant numbers of MPs beyond its current 1 into parliament and with many lifelong members eyeing those places on the PR list
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
Levelling down, you don’t make crap schools good by making good schools crap.
Alternatively, work towards making more state schools like Michaela Community School, so that parents will choose to send their kids there.
I don't particularly care how they improve things. I am simply making a modest proposal for how incentives might be aligned for that to happen.
The latest trend is to send the children to an ok state school for 6th form and hire 4 tutors. One per subject.
Cheaper than private school. Plus you can pretend to be Head Count for entry purposes at university.
As a side effect, the state school gets to rise up the league tables.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
People whom very many regard as parasites on society are a good example for hard-working, ethical servants of education?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
YOur party has been in charge for most of the last few decades. Unless they were not true Tories and you are?
Academies and free schools this government have created are a move to more free market education
The academies and free schools that are under the direct control of the DfE instead? And have to take orders from it (which becomes slightly problematic when they give out multiple contradictory orders at once, I might add)? Those academies and free schools?
If you believe that's a free market, what will you give me for this bridge I have for sale?
Sam Freedman is a walking advert for Russell Group graduates not necessarily being the brightest.
Mostly they have businesspeople, charities etc as sponsors and investors not the local authority.
They also have more freedoms on the curriculum than local authority schools
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
People whom very many regard as parasites on society are a good example for hard-working, ethical servants of education?
A good example of high earners, the request was to make top teachers high earners, not highly ethical.
So big bonuses for top performers who get good exam results, pay cuts and sackings for poor performers
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
The vast majority of lawyers and doctors will have mainly A or A* GCSES and A Levels.
That does not mean all those with A or A* GCSES and A Levels get good jobs
Doctors have good A levels because there are more applicants than places and the med schools can be picky.
You don't necessarily need good A levels to be a good doctor.
And there are other qualities you do need that are not determined by exam grades.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
YOur party has been in charge for most of the last few decades. Unless they were not true Tories and you are?
Academies and free schools this government have created are a move to more free market education
The academies and free schools that are under the direct control of the DfE instead? And have to take orders from it (which becomes slightly problematic when they give out multiple contradictory orders at once, I might add)? Those academies and free schools?
If you believe that's a free market, what will you give me for this bridge I have for sale?
Sam Freedman is a walking advert for Russell Group graduates not necessarily being the brightest.
Mostly they have businesspeople, charities etc as sponsors and investors not the local authority.
They also have more freedoms on the curriculum than local authority schools
I'm not interested in sponsors, I'm talking about who gives the orders. Which is the DfE. It's no good having autonomy over the curriculum if you have no power to make any useful changes.
A very large number of academy chief executives are ex-civil servants. There is a reason for that, and not just because it's a cushy number for people who were so useless even the CS got fed up with them.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
YOur party has been in charge for most of the last few decades. Unless they were not true Tories and you are?
Academies and free schools this government have created are a move to more free market education
The academies and free schools that are under the direct control of the DfE instead? And have to take orders from it (which becomes slightly problematic when they give out multiple contradictory orders at once, I might add)? Those academies and free schools?
If you believe that's a free market, what will you give me for this bridge I have for sale?
Sam Freedman is a walking advert for Russell Group graduates not necessarily being the brightest.
Mostly they have businesspeople, charities etc as sponsors and investors not the local authority.
They also have more freedoms on the curriculum than local authority schools
In other words, your lot fiddle it so their chums can interfere with what is being taught. Such as creationism.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/13/phage-therapy-fight-against-drug-resistant-infections-antibiotics … The second patient, the 56-year-old man with arthritis, developed a serious skin infection, which is a risk among those on immunosuppressive drugs. He was treated with a single phage, called Muddy, which had been discovered in a sample taken from the underside of a decomposed aubergine. After a few weeks his skin lesions cleared and after two months he tested negative for the bacteria on a biopsy….
I've often wondered why phages weren't more studied. Idly wondered if it was because the were quite big in Soviet Europe and thus 'a bad thing'.
Because they aren't easy to commercialise, and infection is tough and expensive to run clinical trials for. Similar reasons that a lot of big pharma gave up on antibiotic research.
There are a couple of small biotechs pursuing it, but they're likely to run out of cash before they get anywhere.
Ah. That seems a rather trickier problem to solve than just saying 'not everything from the Soviet era was bad, come along now'.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
Levelling down, you don’t make crap schools good by making good schools crap.
Alternatively, work towards making more state schools like Michaela Community School, so that parents will choose to send their kids there.
I don't particularly care how they improve things. I am simply making a modest proposal for how incentives might be aligned for that to happen.
The latest trend is to send the children to an ok state school for 6th form and hire 4 tutors. One per subject.
Cheaper than private school. Plus you can pretend to be Head Count for entry purposes at university.
As a side effect, the state school gets to rise up the league tables.
So everyone wins. Or do they?
That might have fallen down slightly during the pandemic when teachers guesstimated grades without necessarily knowing they should uprate Francesca owing to @Dura_Ace's tutorial assistance.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
There must be more to this story. What subjects? I've tutored a few 4 x 4 A* students and they have all gone on to succesful careers (one in the European Commission, one is post-doc at the University of Chicago, one is reasonably famous in the incredibly poorly paid world of classical music, etc.)
Seems the Ukr army are planning to try and hold the fragile little pocket they are at risk of being encircled in in the Donbas, N of Popsana:
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien Ukrainian strategy in the Donbas has certainly been the subject of some discussion--primarily because they have taken the decision to fight for what seems like a shrinking pocket which the Russians are clearly trying to encircle.
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
Amongst the 2 main parties for FPTP seats not a small party with the first chance to get significant numbers of MPs beyond its current 1 into parliament and with many lifelong members eyeing those places on the PR list
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Yes of which even under PR the Greens would maybe get 3 to 5 seats max.
You can be sure Ali would not necessarily get in those top 3 PR list places, even if she might have been able to keep her old seat under FPTP as the only way for Greens to win it
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
YOur party has been in charge for most of the last few decades. Unless they were not true Tories and you are?
Academies and free schools this government have created are a move to more free market education
I thought that the whole thing was invented purely so that Toby Young didn't have to send his offspring to the same school as the chavvy kids from the South Acton estate?
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Another issue of course is that 'university' rankings can be a rather blunt instrument. To take your example, I believe Bath is considered the second best economics department, behind the LSE. Similarly Aberystwyth is hardly a leader in biology, but it's got the best as well as the oldest politics department in the country. Hertfordshire is consistently highly ranked for History despite being a post-92 uni, as was Oxford Brookes (indeed for many years it had a much better history department than Oxford itself, where the history faculty is pretty naff).
But it's not always easy to spot from the raw rankings.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883 as part of the University of Wales. Just only independent since 2005
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
All this focus on the type of gun, particularly scary "assault rifles" and "AR-15s" misses the crucial point that, if all you want to do is shoot kids at close range, then ANY gun will do. So trying to stop school shootings by restricting ownership of certain ill-defined types of firearms is pointless.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
Amongst the 2 main parties for FPTP seats not a small party with the first chance to get significant numbers of MPs beyond its current 1 into parliament and with many lifelong members eyeing those places on the PR list
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Yes of which even under PR the Greens would maybe get 3 to 5 seats max.
You can be sure Ali would not necessarily get in those top 3 PR list places, even if she might have been able to keep her old seat under FPTP as the only way for Greens to win it
To get 3 seats in a purely PR system you'd need to get 0.4% of the vote. I'm assuming 30 MPs -- a little under 5% of the vote -- which I think is reasonable given the Greens would be effectively standing everywhere and the whole thing with PR is that tactical voting becomes pointless.
I actually have a hunch they'd do better again, but I'm keeping it reasonable for the sake of argument.
I was thinking 3 seats in one region but maybe 30 in the 11 UK regions overall
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
Dear me, you think stating that women are entitled to women only spaces = demonising trans people?
Seems the Ukr army are planning to try and hold the fragile little pocket they are at risk of being encircled in in the Donbas, N of Popsana:
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien Ukrainian strategy in the Donbas has certainly been the subject of some discussion--primarily because they have taken the decision to fight for what seems like a shrinking pocket which the Russians are clearly trying to encircle.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
Levelling down, you don’t make crap schools good by making good schools crap.
Alternatively, work towards making more state schools like Michaela Community School, so that parents will choose to send their kids there.
I don't particularly care how they improve things. I am simply making a modest proposal for how incentives might be aligned for that to happen.
The latest trend is to send the children to an ok state school for 6th form and hire 4 tutors. One per subject.
Cheaper than private school. Plus you can pretend to be Head Count for entry purposes at university.
As a side effect, the state school gets to rise up the league tables.
So everyone wins. Or do they?
That might have fallen down slightly during the pandemic when teachers guesstimated grades without necessarily knowing they should uprate Francesca owing to @Dura_Ace's tutorial assistance.
That’s not how it works.
The teachers will be well aware of Francesca’s remarkable….. gifts - her success reflects well upon them. “One of our stars…”
When she gets 4 As and goes to a top university - Oxford, Edinburgh, Dublin, Hull etc, they will add her name to the board that boasts of the schools success.
Meanwhile, Barry, who comes from the estate and whose parents don’t care about education will not get any A levels. But hey….
Seems the Ukr army are planning to try and hold the fragile little pocket they are at risk of being encircled in in the Donbas, N of Popsana:
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien Ukrainian strategy in the Donbas has certainly been the subject of some discussion--primarily because they have taken the decision to fight for what seems like a shrinking pocket which the Russians are clearly trying to encircle.
It’s not that fragile in the sense that the Russians would have to capture another 20km+ I think to do a full encirclement. Given the Russians have struggled in urban combat plus also that Ukraine is getting heavy duty howitzers, there is a decent chance they can inflict some very heavy casualties on the Russians. My armchair general guess is that they are focusing on bleeding the Russians dry in the east and, once the conscripts are fully trained, they will go for an offensive in the south in the summer where Russia is struggling against partisan operations.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
How many do you estimate there to be?
Enough to make the 'can a woman have a penis crowd?' uncomfortable.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
All this focus on the type of gun, particularly scary "assault rifles" and "AR-15s" misses the crucial point that, if all you want to do is shoot kids at close range, then ANY gun will do. So trying to stop school shootings by restricting ownership of certain ill-defined types of firearms is pointless.
Ok, cool, ban all guns apart from muzzle-loaded muskets. The 2nd amendmenters are getting what you seem to think of as equivalent weapon, so everyone is happy.
What seems to work, around the world, is banning/heavily controlling self loading firearms. Anything where you get a bang per trigger pull, no other actions required until you are out of bullets.
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
Dear me, you think stating that women are entitled to women only spaces = demonising trans people?
Dearie me.
Round here we have enough problems having open public toilets at all, rather than worrying about what gender they are assigned to.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
Amongst the 2 main parties for FPTP seats not a small party with the first chance to get significant numbers of MPs beyond its current 1 into parliament and with many lifelong members eyeing those places on the PR list
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Yes of which even under PR the Greens would maybe get 3 to 5 seats max.
You can be sure Ali would not necessarily get in those top 3 PR list places, even if she might have been able to keep her old seat under FPTP as the only way for Greens to win it
To get 3 seats in a purely PR system you'd need to get 0.4% of the vote. I'm assuming 30 MPs -- a little under 5% of the vote -- which I think is reasonable given the Greens would be effectively standing everywhere and the whole thing with PR is that tactical voting becomes pointless.
I actually have a hunch they'd do better again, but I'm keeping it reasonable for the sake of argument.
I was thinking 3 seats in one region but maybe 30 in the 11 UK regions overall
Ok, but the same logic applies. How many regions have a Green superstar like Lucas? (Spoiler: it's one)
They have plenty of Green councillors who will want a PR list spot, Lucas only a superstar as she won a FPTP seat
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
All this focus on the type of gun, particularly scary "assault rifles" and "AR-15s" misses the crucial point that, if all you want to do is shoot kids at close range, then ANY gun will do. So trying to stop school shootings by restricting ownership of certain ill-defined types of firearms is pointless.
Not really. Limit people to 5 in the magazine, have to work the bolt between shots, sporting rifles, and that really slows you down compared to 100 round AR drums unless possibly you have a sack of prefilled magazines and have practised a fuck of a lot. Which the arse at Uvalde prolly hadn't.
Plenty of stats showing that AR15 type sprees are I think 6x as deadly as their competitors.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
Btw why was gcse chemistry trending the other day? Was there another impossible exam question?
According to my daughter, who took it, there were questions based on topics that were supposed to be removed, due to loss of teaching time for COVID.
The phrase 'piss up' and 'brewery' springs to mind.
There is a story that goes as follows.
Someone hired the function room(s) at the Fulllers Brewery in Chiswick, London for an evening do.
Due to a miscommunication, there was no beer behind the bar. Since it was the evening, the actual brewery, next door was closed and locked. Separate organisation etc.
Sadly, I have unable to verify this, or the identity of the organisation that literally failed at organising a piss-up in a brewery.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
Pb hasn’t called it at all. There are certainly lots of us cheering on the Ukes, and why not, the Russians are a bunch of evil, rapey, invading war criminals. Only a tiny number have predicted outright Ukrainian victory, even if we dearly want it
As the news has worsened in recent days, so has the mood here, vis a vis the war
Incidentally, it all feels a LOT closer here in Georgia. If Putin “wins” in Ukraine, what is gonna stop him heading south to take Tbilisi? It’s a lovely part of the world and traditionally in the Russian sphere, and was long part of the Russian empire. I can see it being next on Putin’s menu
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
Pb hasn’t called it at all. There are certainly lots of us cheering on the Ukes, and why not, the Russians are a bunch of evil, rapey, invading war criminals. Only a tiny number have predicted outright Ukrainian victory, even if we dearly want it
As the news has worsened in recent days, so has the mood here, vis a vis the war
Incidentally, it all feels a LOT closer here in Georgia. If Putin “wins” in Ukraine, what is stop him heading south to take Tbilisi? It’s a lovely part of the world and traditionally in the Russian sphere, and was long part of the Russian empire. I can see it being next on Putin’s menu
The most prominent Russian of the twentieth century was a Georgian. Ioseb Besarionis Djugashvili, born in Gori in 1878.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
They really don't. What recent war has ended because one side ran out of young men before the other? How much is willingness a factor in the Russian army?
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
Pb hasn’t called it at all. There are certainly lots of us cheering on the Ukes, and why not, the Russians are a bunch of evil, rapey, invading war criminals. Only a tiny number have predicted outright Ukrainian victory, even if we dearly want it
As the news has worsened in recent days, so has the mood here, vis a vis the war
Incidentally, it all feels a LOT closer here in Georgia. If Putin “wins” in Ukraine, what is stop him heading south to take Tbilisi? It’s a lovely part of the world and traditionally in the Russian sphere, and was long part of the Russian empire. I can see it being next on Putin’s menu
The most prominent Russian of the twentieth century was a Georgian. Ioseb Besarionis Djugashvili, born in Gori in 1878.
I am planning to visit Gori. Apparently Stalin’s mother’s grave is here in Tbilisi
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
The point of this discussion is the highest A level entry requirements are almost all to Russell Group universities and they in turn produce the most doctors and lawyers.
As I posted earlier over 80% of top solicitors law firms trainees were Russell Group let alone barristers. Indeed commercial barristers are almost all Oxbridge let alone just Russell Group
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Btw why was gcse chemistry trending the other day? Was there another impossible exam question?
According to my daughter, who took it, there were questions based on topics that were supposed to be removed, due to loss of teaching time for COVID.
Ahh no wonder my daughter found it so hard! Definitely the worst exam so far...
That's got to be grounds for a complaint or an appeal, surely?
If they've cocked up on that scale there should be sackings as well, although knowing exam boards and OFQUAL there won't be.
SNAFU is the acronym you are searching for.
My understanding is that the working assumption is that everyone taking hit will simply move the curve. But that if predicted grades are not achieved, then an avalanche of appeals…
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Most wars come down to effectively resources. Given Russia’s are being drained and Ukraine’s bolstered as time goes on, how do you come to that conclusion?
Wars come down to who is willing to go and be killed .... in this case, in the Donbas.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
They really don't. What recent war has ended because one side ran out of young men before the other? How much is willingness a factor in the Russian army?
100 dead per day for Ukraine has been said…
That won’t break Ukraine, judging by history. The Balkan wars in the 90s ran for years at those (proportionally) causality levels.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
Btw why was gcse chemistry trending the other day? Was there another impossible exam question?
According to my daughter, who took it, there were questions based on topics that were supposed to be removed, due to loss of teaching time for COVID.
I am zoom tutoring my grandson atm, and he didn't say anything about stuff he hadn't been taught. The info sheet from aqa did say that nothing was removed from aqa paper 1F for covid. Not sure about other boards though.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Absolutely. See also suppression of the right to protest etc. There is more to Democracy than occasional elections. Even Putin has those.
May be worth rereading what I wrote here in July 2019 and March 2020 in light of events in recent weeks.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
Russell Group doesn't really resonate as a factor in ranking universities in Scotland. You have the old 4 (Glasgow/Edinburgh/St Andrews/Aberdeen) and the rest.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
A medical school and a future king, no less. What has Edinburgh got since Sherlock Holmes?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
Also proof of the Tories bankruptcy on vision, capability and ethics if that's the only way they think they have a chance of clinging to power.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
Not in software engineering
Even there you have to perform to get high pay and remember state school teachers are paid by taxpayers, most of whom earn less than the average teacher salary of £40k without the long holidays or final salary pensions teachers get
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
Tom Larkin @TomLarkinSky Update: 34 Tory MPs publicly questioning PM's position. 24 now calling for him to go asap. That's up 9 since Gray report was published.
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
All this focus on the type of gun, particularly scary "assault rifles" and "AR-15s" misses the crucial point that, if all you want to do is shoot kids at close range, then ANY gun will do. So trying to stop school shootings by restricting ownership of certain ill-defined types of firearms is pointless.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour…
There are no simple answers, obviously. But there are relatively straightforward ones in this case.
But the provision of more capable weapons to Ukraine - which they’ve been shouting about for a couple of months - would make a very large difference. Russia does not have unlimited resources; it’s invasion can be defeated.
To take a few examples - we (the west) could have supplied anti-ship missiles months earlier than we did; ditto artillery. We could still supply MLRS - and the US is actively considering this. We could hand over the Polish MIGs. Etc.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
The vast majority of lawyers and doctors will have mainly A or A* GCSES and A Levels.
That does not mean all those with A or A* GCSES and A Levels get good jobs
Having good exam results doesn’t make you a good doctor.
Having good exam results at school is a very good predictor of good assessment performance at medical school. But that of course leaves us with the question of doing well at medical school exams and other assessments makes you a good doctor. That’s difficult to answer because we have to work out what being a good doctor means.
There’s some studies showing that good exam results predicts not being a bad doctor. I’m sorry I can’t remember the details but there was a US study looking at performance in medical school against whether someone got struck off later in life.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
As is customary, @ydoethur knows exactly what he is talking about when it comes to Wales.
Lampeter is in the empire of Medwin Hughes, one of the highest paid VCs in the UK -- with extremely close connections to the Welsh Government, winkety-wink 😉😉
Medwin is on ~ £500,000 a year, with his expenses and his grace and favour house as well.
Medwin started off being in charge of Carmarthen College which became a University. Medwin then took over the troubled Lampeter University, & then took over the Swansea Metropolitan University, & along the way he picked up the University of Wales as well. it is all now branded as UWTSD (Trinity St David)
Even Putin could learn from that impressive record of territory gain.
So, not bad going for mediocre Medwin. But in the end, there are UWTSD campuses all over the place – Carmarthen, Lampeter, Cardiff, Wuhan (yes, really true), Birmingham, London and the renewed campus on SA1 in Swansea.
It's an unsustainable model of a place of learning, which is struggling to keep up with the demands of a modern institution and has poor rankings against other places
Medwin likes to court favour with the high and mighty. Most of all, he likes to give jobs to those that he thinks have links to Llafur and the Wales Govt – hence the God-awful "Dr" Jane Davidson of Llafur is a pro VC.
How Medwin's empire will survive is an interesting question.
Still, he really did manage to set up a course in Traditional Chinese Medicine with the Jiangxi University of Traditional Medicine and Wuhan University in 2019 .... just before we all got very familiar with the connection between Wuhan and medicine.
Yet again, Wales is really run like a third-rate Central Asian kleptocracy under Llafur.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Er...I think you need to go back and read your posts again, Hyufd.
As for your sentence, I think I should send you the bill for my irony meter.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Presumably you'd have felt the same way about Kaliningrad and Karelia.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
It's rather sad about Lampeter.
Unfortunately, Lampeter suffers from being very remote and very small. The business model of a uni requires it to have reasonable transport links and critical mass. Which it will never have.
It nearly died in 1971 when it joined the University of Wales. But now Medwyn Hughes seems to be running down the campus for closure.
It is sad, but it's also difficult to see what else can be done. There is no way Lampeter can be turned into a bustling, accessible metropolis.
It does also suffer somewhat from being dominated by Theology, which is not a fashionable subject, but it could have survived if it had been built at Carmarthen from the start. In fact, in all probability it would have become the nucleus for a proper collegiate University of Wales and Carmarthen would now be the capital of Wales.
Comments
The irony of Gove/Gibb/Cummings/Freedman is that while they thought their reforms were improving education and liberating it from the dead hand of the DfE and the state, they actually ended up implementing things the DfE had been trying to get through for years without success and dumping all over teachers who dared to point out that they had messed up and achieved the polar opposite of what they wanted.
Instead of more rigorous assessment and greater school freedom, we have much less rigorous - in many cases pretty well worthless - assessments and far greater state control of education than at any time since 1944.
What's more frustrating is that they still refuse to admit the extent and nature of their failure. Gibb and Spielman, for example, are still dining out on their cataclysmic exam reforms. Cummings keeps boasting about taming the unions. Freedman actually worked as an executive for Teach First for a while, not very effectively.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
Cheaper than private school. Plus you can pretend to be Head Count for entry purposes at university.
As a side effect, the state school gets to rise up the league tables.
So everyone wins. Or do they?
They also have more freedoms on the curriculum than local authority schools
So big bonuses for top performers who get good exam results, pay cuts and sackings for poor performers
You don't necessarily need good A levels to be a good doctor.
And there are other qualities you do need that are not determined by exam grades.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61604329
A very large number of academy chief executives are ex-civil servants. There is a reason for that, and not just because it's a cushy number for people who were so useless even the CS got fed up with them.
And all at public expense.
Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
Ukrainian strategy in the Donbas has certainly been the subject of some discussion--primarily because they have taken the decision to fight for what seems like a shrinking pocket which the Russians are clearly trying to encircle.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1530433779776507905
You can be sure Ali would not necessarily get in those top 3 PR list places, even if she might have been able to keep her old seat under FPTP as the only way for Greens to win it
But it's not always easy to spot from the raw rankings.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/stella-creasy-jk-rowling-wrong-woman-can-have-penis/
Dearie me.
The teachers will be well aware of Francesca’s remarkable….. gifts - her success reflects well upon them. “One of our stars…”
When she gets 4 As and goes to a top university - Oxford, Edinburgh, Dublin, Hull etc, they will add her name to the board that boasts of the schools success.
Meanwhile, Barry, who comes from the estate and whose parents don’t care about education will not get any A levels. But hey….
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Plenty of stats showing that AR15 type sprees are I think 6x as deadly as their competitors.
People are resources.
It will come down to how many young Ukrainian men and Russian men really are willing to die in the Donbas.
Anyhow ... pointless arguing.
We'll see how it ends. I am not optimistic that most of pb.com has called this right.
Someone hired the function room(s) at the Fulllers Brewery in Chiswick, London for an evening do.
Due to a miscommunication, there was no beer behind the bar. Since it was the evening, the actual brewery, next door was closed and locked. Separate organisation etc.
Sadly, I have unable to verify this, or the identity of the organisation that literally failed at organising a piss-up in a brewery.
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Off duty Met police sergeant charged with rape of a woman on Brighton beach.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/met-police-officer-charged-rape-woman-brighton-beach/
If they've cocked up on that scale there should be sackings as well, although knowing exam boards and OFQUAL there won't be.
Pb hasn’t called it at all. There are certainly lots of us cheering on the Ukes, and why not, the Russians are a bunch of evil, rapey, invading war criminals. Only a tiny number have predicted outright Ukrainian victory, even if we dearly want it
As the news has worsened in recent days, so has the mood here, vis a vis the war
Incidentally, it all feels a LOT closer here in Georgia. If Putin “wins” in Ukraine, what is gonna stop him heading south to take Tbilisi? It’s a lovely part of the world and traditionally in the Russian sphere, and was long part of the Russian empire. I can see it being next on Putin’s menu
The point of this discussion is the highest A level entry requirements are almost all to Russell Group universities and they in turn produce the most doctors and lawyers.
As I posted earlier over 80% of top solicitors law firms trainees were Russell Group let alone barristers. Indeed commercial barristers are almost all Oxbridge let alone just Russell Group
My understanding is that the working assumption is that everyone taking hit will simply move the curve. But that if predicted grades are not achieved, then an avalanche of appeals…
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
That won’t break Ukraine, judging by history. The Balkan wars in the 90s ran for years at those (proportionally) causality levels.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
But a staple for Aretha, who of the two had the versatility to make sense of @Foxy ’s lyrics.
You ought to change your PB handle.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
That’s not even a decent model for banking.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
@TomLarkinSky
Update: 34 Tory MPs publicly questioning PM's position. 24 now calling for him to go asap. That's up 9 since Gray report was published.
But the provision of more capable weapons to Ukraine - which they’ve been shouting about for a couple of months - would make a very large difference.
Russia does not have unlimited resources; it’s invasion can be defeated.
To take a few examples - we (the west) could have supplied anti-ship missiles months earlier than we did; ditto artillery. We could still supply MLRS - and the US is actively considering this. We could hand over the Polish MIGs. Etc.
There’s some studies showing that good exam results predicts not being a bad doctor. I’m sorry I can’t remember the details but there was a US study looking at performance in medical school against whether someone got struck off later in life.
This paper touches on some of these issues: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1339899/
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Lampeter is in the empire of Medwin Hughes, one of the highest paid VCs in the UK -- with extremely close connections to the Welsh Government, winkety-wink 😉😉
Medwin is on ~ £500,000 a year, with his expenses and his grace and favour house as well.
Medwin started off being in charge of Carmarthen College which became a University. Medwin then took over the troubled Lampeter University, & then took over the Swansea Metropolitan University, & along the way he picked up the University of Wales as well. it is all now branded as UWTSD (Trinity St David)
Even Putin could learn from that impressive record of territory gain.
So, not bad going for mediocre Medwin. But in the end, there are UWTSD campuses all over the place – Carmarthen, Lampeter, Cardiff, Wuhan (yes, really true), Birmingham, London and the renewed campus on SA1 in Swansea.
It's an unsustainable model of a place of learning, which is struggling to keep up with the demands of a modern institution and has poor rankings against other places
Medwin likes to court favour with the high and mighty. Most of all, he likes to give jobs to those that he thinks have links to Llafur and the Wales Govt – hence the God-awful "Dr" Jane Davidson of Llafur is a pro VC.
How Medwin's empire will survive is an interesting question.
Still, he really did manage to set up a course in Traditional Chinese Medicine with the Jiangxi University of Traditional Medicine and Wuhan University in 2019 .... just before we all got very familiar with the connection between Wuhan and medicine.
Yet again, Wales is really run like a third-rate Central Asian kleptocracy under Llafur.
It is the Kazakhstan of Western Europe.
As for your sentence, I think I should send you the bill for my irony meter.
Which is the point you don’t get.
It nearly died in 1971 when it joined the University of Wales. But now Medwyn Hughes seems to be running down the campus for closure.
It is sad, but it's also difficult to see what else can be done. There is no way Lampeter can be turned into a bustling, accessible metropolis.
It does also suffer somewhat from being dominated by Theology, which is not a fashionable subject, but it could have survived if it had been built at Carmarthen from the start. In fact, in all probability it would have become the nucleus for a proper collegiate University of Wales and Carmarthen would now be the capital of Wales.