- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3083 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 51150
Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts. England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range. When this is weighted with other factors, such as the socio-economic background of people taking the test, it shows that England is the only country in the survey where results are going backwards - with the older cohort better than the younger.
Cue lots of finger pointing and nothing changing.
|>>|| No. 51152
The Decline in action. This is why I know ITZ COMING. Idiocracy was more a prophecy than a comedy, although a happy upbeat censored version of the grim reality ahead. Expect a steady degeneration in both the individual and society as time goes on. Eventually the huge inertia push we've been coasting on will run out. Eventually it will get to the stage people will struggle to simply maintain what they inherited. Then the final collapse and mass deaths as babies become "the other white meat". That's assuming they don't simply wipe themselves out with a neat NBC solution before then.
|>>|| No. 51153
I hope someone will blame it on mass immigration.
|>>|| No. 51154
Overcrowding in classrooms as a consequence of immigration and resources being spent on pupils who don't have English as a first language won't have helped, but not enough to have a significant impact.
Many people my age are unable to conjugate verbs. It's hardly surprising that a system that wants to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, where children are taught to pass tests that are continually dumbed down by competing exam boards instead of actually engaging their brains and thinking critically and the government solution has been to throw money at it instead of putting any real strategy in place has been a complete clusterfuck.
|>>|| No. 51155
The real cause world wide is the dilution of the neo-hybridisation gene in modern homo sapiens. Soon the melonhead's project will come back under their control after spiralling wildly and wonderfully outwards and free for some time.
>where children are taught to pass tests
That is the nub of the problem. It's not that the tests are dumbed down, etc., rather that the education system is geared to pass tests. Not to educated people. If they knew the exact questions to be used that year they wouldn't even teach you anything beyond memorising parrot-fashion the key answers. You'd learn those, get a bit of paper and think yourself clever, but forget it all within a couple of months after the exam and have done nothing to improve your mind or capabilities in the long term.
|>>|| No. 51156
>the education system is geared to pass tests. Not to educated people.
I'm guessing you participated in the study.. Thicko.
|>>|| No. 51157
>It's not that the tests are dumbed down, etc., rather that the education system is geared to pass tests.
That wouldn't be a problem if the tests were any good.
Nobody complains that driving instructors are only teaching people how to pass their driving test, because we broadly accept that the driving test is a good measure of driving ability. Teaching to the test is only a problem when you're testing for the wrong things.
The problem at present is that we have multiple exam boards, who compete with each other to sign up schools for their particular exams. The schools are highly motivated to improve their exam results, so in turn the exam boards are motivated to dumb-down their exams. Lots of people have a strong incentive to dole out good results to bad candidates, but few are strongly motivated to prevent the devaluation of exams. It's a classic tragedy of the commons. There are many ways of fixing this situation, some of which have already been implemented, some of which are simply politically untenable.
Things are generally getting better under Gove, but most people within and without the system don't see it that way. GCSE grades fell last year for the first time in two decades, because of stricter marking of exams. Great news for the integrity of the GCSE system, bad news for the teaching unions, who rely on being able to argue "Of course teachers are good at their jobs, exam results get better every year".
|>>|| No. 51158
There are no greats today. The system is not geared to allow them.
|>>|| No. 51161
>That wouldn't be a problem if the tests were any good.
Except that isn't the case, and you well know it. The only consequence of a "better" test would be that schools would teach people to pass the "better" test.
|>>|| No. 51163
I enjoy how everyone believes they were successfully educated but everyone younger is clearly just a thicko trained to pass a test. Sometimes I'm amazed that so many people haven't realise this and decided to get off the roundabout, It's a cycle that has been happening probably before and during Mr Butler deciding to give us all a decent education.
Being 22nd is completely meaningless if the other countries are all first world countries and are improving as we are. A better bench mark would be a study based on historical improvement. But the rags know doom and gloom sells better then cheery so there we are.
|>>|| No. 51164
There are plenty. Mythologising and thorough examination of legacies doesn't tend to take place until after the fact. In 50 years the 2010s will be the good old days and senile cunts will insist that the world's gone to hell in a handcart whether it has or not.
|>>|| No. 51165
I passed my gcses 5 years ago and I was most definitely trained for the test.
|>>|| No. 51166
So what? If the test requires a deep and rounded understanding of the subject, then the only way to 'cheat' by teaching to the test is to impart a deep and rounded knowledge of the subject. The problem is that our current exams generally test whether you have memorised the 'right' answer rather than whether you have the skill to perform a specified task.
Take English Lit, for example. Currently, students are required to comment on a selection of texts, most of which they have previously studied in their Anthology. The inevitable result is that students are coached to memorise suitable talking points. What happens if the students are presented with a completely fresh selection of unfamiliar tests for each exam? The only way to teach to that test is to teach your students how to read and understand any text, which is the whole bloody goal of the English Lit syllabus.
In mathematics, students are presented with problems in a very fixed and predictable format, which allows them to memorise a formula and plug in the values without really understanding the mathematical principles that underly it ("plug and chug" to use the jargon). It's easy to knock that on the head completely, by presenting questions where the correct method isn't immediately obvious. Students who have memorised a method without understanding it are incapable of identifying applications for that method without prompting in all but the most trivial of cases.
None of this is hypothetical. The International Baccalaureate Diploma is taught widely and uses examination methods that make exam prep and memorisation ineffective. They test for skills, not knowledge. It's not a hard problem to solve, it's just that most people in the system don't want to solve it at all. The exam boards are paid by the schools, the schools want high grades, so the exam boards provide what they're paid for - soft exams that are easy to teach to. Pay a bit more and they'll tell teachers how to cheat.
|>>|| No. 51167
>Being 22nd is completely meaningless if the other countries are all first world countries and are improving as we are. A better bench mark would be a study based on historical improvement.
Im guessing you didn't read the OP where it clearly says we're the only nation going backwards and also that young people are no more literate or numerate than 55-65 year olds.
I have a son (6) and it doesn't fill me with confidence when I see work on display in the corridors at his school with errors from the teaching staff on them (such as 'ankel' on a diagram of the body) or when his teacher writes 'your doing really well!' in his reading log. I'd say at least half of the people I know who have gone into teaching are complete thickos who shouldn't be anywhere near a classroom.
|>>|| No. 51169
Everyone I know who is doing a PGCE this year was hardly a stellar intelligence. Is better teachers the answer, lads?
|>>|| No. 51172
I've been through training with these people for a good while and in the process got to know many teachers or future teachers. So many of them were thick as fuck and the rest low to average at best (and quite a few only capable of functioning in their narrow area of focus or rote memory and hopelessly out of depth beyond it). I have no idea what has happened to the standards in this area, but obviously they don't have much to choose from nowadays. It can't possibly be the pay and benefits as they are exeptional for the low requirements and they have plenty candidates trying to get in, more than positions available. The only reasonable conclusion is that these idiots really are the cream of the crop and those destined to try and raise the next crop. Depressing.
|>>|| No. 51173
>the only reasonable conclusion is that these idiots really are the cream of the crop
Or that they are being selected with other priorities, such as their ability to engage with and control children.
|>>|| No. 51175
More likely because they blend in with the children. They can barely control their bowel movements. Don't be such a twat.
|>>|| No. 51179
>More likely because they blend in with the children
It boiled my piss when the teachers tried to be down with the kids, mainly because that meant being lenient with the loveable rogues to the detriment of those who actually wanted to learn. Then again, I was a swot.
|>>|| No. 51181
I had a teacher, a 21st Century teacher, who once barked at a classmate to sit up straight. I still can't quite believe it today.
|>>|| No. 51183
Teachers can be engaging and informative. Honestly all it takes is a personality hovering slightly above the low end of the autistic spectrum and the most basic interest in your subject. Not being a permanently miserable prick is bonus.
The science department was primo in my school. Full of charismatic and interesting teachers. And one 50 something woman that constantly looked like she was a bit pissed. Not at all surprisingly I got straight B's in my three sciences. Hey! That's not bad coming from a school with a 17% pass rate.
Ha! Love that film.
|>>|| No. 51184
They should have probably asked nicely, but pupils should definitely be reminded to sit straight.
|>>|| No. 51188
It's a great film. I first saw just the final scene or two when I was about 11 after sneaking into my dads room to watch TV. Probably had a worryingly significant impact on my future opinions and actions with regards to authority.
And for that one person who might be thinking "what the hell are they talking about?!", the film is if...., from 1968. Malcolm McDowell's first feature.
|>>|| No. 51191
My science teachers at school were completely uninspiring and turned me off the subject. Thinking about it, apart from one maths teacher they were all average at best.
One day we had a substitute teacher and he was absolutely brilliant. He was taking us for history and decided to teach us about the Charge of the Light Brigade, although we didn't know this until after he had pushed over his desk, stormed out of the room and then charged back in, shouting and pretending to be on horseback.
|>>|| No. 51192
Alright there Captain Hardcastle. Who gives a toss what position they sit in, as long as they're listening?
|>>|| No. 51194
Right, well thank fuck for Mr Walcott telling us not to slouch for a single period each week, because the rest of our lives don't count, eh?
|>>|| No. 51195
Well, that's how schools work. You learn stuff there and try to use it in your everyday life. In that case the lesson was don't slouch or your spine is fucked. You should have taken this seriously.
|>>|| No. 51196
The ending is probably the most glorious things someone of our(?) generation could have watched as a child. The semi-imaginary sex sequence wasn't bad to see either.
|>>|| No. 51197
No, if it were knowledge designed to be imparted it would have been on the curriculum and the lesson plan. I don't know what kind of military school you went to where they taught you by screaming orders at you.
And my spine is just fine, old man.
|>>|| No. 51202
So when is the penny going to drop that we should be doing a lot more to help the chances of our younger generation?
Who am I kidding, it never is, we're just going to sit around blaming "kids these days" for being such lazy bastards until we're a bankrupt, third world shithole like Greece.
|>>|| No. 51203
What's the point in going to the effort of improving education standards over the long-term when you can import better skilled workers from overseas right now?
There'll need to be a docile underclass to work as cleaners and in care homes to wipe the arses of all the Polish doctors and businessmen when they retire. The well off will still be alright, mind.
|>>|| No. 51204
Not the guy you are replying to but just wanted to say thanks for the link. Really interesting.
I remember watching some Youtube video about how squatting prevents many rectal problems as well.
|>>|| No. 51205
help doesn't mean chucking money at them
public funds are so top heavy... How much government spending is dedicated to oldies do you think? Half?
|>>|| No. 51206
I passed my GCSE's a decade ago and I was definitely taught to pass a test in some, if not all, of my subjects. It was more of a memory test then actually trying to make you think critically.
Then again, my degree wasn't much different. Weeks of lecturers repeating slides verbatim followed by a final session where they'd cover their arses and tell you what questions would be in the exam.
|>>|| No. 51426
I remember all my mates bitching about some A-level exam and how it was "unfair" and how the stuff they learned wasn't even on the test and how everyone got to do a nice easy one after that.
And then I looked and the test would have been easy for anyone who actually understood the concept instead of just fact bytes.
|>>|| No. 51427
Was it one of the sciences? When I was at college, 7 years ago, I remember a few people moaning that the biology/chemistry exams were too hard and they'd got Ds and Es when they'd got As and A*s at GCSE.
|>>|| No. 51466
The reason this is happening is the shift from English centric education to making sure the immigrants get more funding to understand our language. It has fuck all to do with people being smarter or less educated than previous generations but more to do with the fact that every foreign speaking student is given extra funding which is from the same pool as the British funding.
That means if you have 10 kids all in a class with a budget of £100 for the class but 3 of those students require £30 a head for translators and extra tutors from the state, the other 7 are left sharing 1/10th the budget. That is why African and Asian students from immigrant families are now doing better than ever but natives are progressively getting worse. It has fuck all to do with the nationality of the student and instead has everything to do with foreigners getting 3-4 times the funding that their British counterparts would get.
The only way to end this system would be to simply force schools to have zero tolerance policies on non english speaking people. The Independant and the Guardian had a similar article on the same subject with white boys being lower scoring than their African and Asian counterparts at a GCSE level.
|>>|| No. 51473
The Pupil Premium (which is what I think you're referring to) goes to any kid who has been registered for free school meals now or in the past 6 years; 'Looked After Children'; and - notably - children of ARE BRAVE BOIYS in the armed services. So nothing to do with speekin forrin.
|>>|| No. 51475
I don't think he's on about funding. I think he's saying that extra resources need to be spent on non-native pupils with poor English and they're benefiting from this one-to-one tuition, to the detriment of the rest of the class.
|>>|| No. 51476
I know you are not him, but I would dearly love to see: A) actual examples of this happening on a mass scale, including where whites are excluded from basic language catch up, and B) budget numbers. Because he really comes across as a dribling bellend. But hey, what do I know. I only know 4 teachers, I am sure he knows many more.
|>>|| No. 51479
>including where whites are excluded from basic language catch up
Oh, I know that's not happening. At my son's primary school (he's in Year 2) they have dedicated sessions for the shy kids and ones in speech therapy in order to help them develop.
|>>|| No. 51490
OK, so considering the extra resources issue - I know of various 'catch up' and 'acceleration' schemes, and they are targeted at ALL kids whose language skills are below national expectations. So that means any kid who isn't exposed to speaking, reading and writing correct English at home, which means quite a lot of white English kids from deprived areas, as well as the more obvious ones who don't speak English at home.
I've been a teacher for just over a year now, so my experience is still limited; but living and working in areas with high non-English ethnicities I've yet to see any kid - white, black or brown - given special treatment on account of their ethnicity. It is only on their specific individual needs.
|>>|| No. 51948
This is all the result of the promotion of materialism and the feminization of the education system so as relational subjects are more emphasized than the hard sciences and mathematics.
|>>|| No. 51950
Godwin's Law. Looks as if you lost your chance to provide a counter-argument before you could even mount one.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 51951
I couldn't be bothered any more. I mean you drop in all the /pol/ buzzwords—materialism, feminisation (with a Z), comparing STEM to liberal arts, etc. I give you a 4/10. It needs more subtly.
|>>|| No. 52186
The UK is falling behind global rivals in international tests taken by 15-year-olds, failing to make the top 20 in maths, reading and science.
I read a decent article the other day saying that maybe, just maybe, we should stop undermining teachers by saying what a shit job they're doing and telling kids that they're thick as pig shit.
|>>|| No. 52187
The teachers ARE terrible though. Massively overpaid for the little work and poor efforts they put in. It is more insular and self-serving than MPs or the police. When a teacher screws up big time it's a luxury fast track gravy train to early retirement for "health" reasons.
|>>|| No. 52189
Don't give us it, m8. You lot don't do anything when there's a sniff of a holiday or you aren't getting extra money. You go on strike more often than the fucking French.
|>>|| No. 52191
I went to a comprehensive in South Wales and they were without question my worst years. It was chaos. The experiences you had came down to numbers, how many you had in your class, how willing teachers were to push you over a C grade level. Some were genuinely unpleasant people, others were doing the best with what they had.
If I had to approach the problem, it would be a total overhaul. Nothing about our current system of standardised testing makes much sense. Groups of people are arbitrarily stuck together. In all of my time there I don't remember a single passionate word uttered about a subject, a wise word said about the future, or a caring word offered to a student. The exception was maybe one assembly to commemorate a girl who had taken her own life.
The entire thing made me ambivalent about teachers, but certainly shattered any faith I may have had in our institutions.
|>>|| No. 52192
>The experiences you had came down to numbers
I've heard they don't teach eight in Welsh schools and just use nine instead.
|>>|| No. 52193
>Nothing about our current system of standardised testing makes much sense.
It's high time this was acknowledged - it leads to shit teaching, shit teachers, and poor international results. Nothing short of a complete overhaul is going to fix it.
|>>|| No. 52225
I've heard very sensible proposals for changing the system to levels of ability and education based, rather than simply age based. There was a TED talk on this that was worth watching, it should come up if you look on youtube. Teachers would probably welcome a serious overhaul aimed at educating people properly rather than passing tests and hitting marks for statistics and political reasons.
|>>|| No. 52226
The function of schools is to inculcate obedience and discourage independent thought. It conditions children to hate books and learning. Children are learning machines, and in an information age, have to be strongly discouraged from this, otherwise they'd be a threat to the talentless hacks that run the country.
From this perspective, schools are doing a spectacular job. It's not enough to say there needs to be change- the hierarchical nature of society needs to be overthrown.
|>>|| No. 52230
I can't believe for all those years of school education we still experience steady progress in almost every area. It's almost as if you were absolutely wrong, anarchylad.
|>>|| No. 52232
Not him, but are you being fucking serious? I'm off to bed, but have sources a-go-go on this one.
|>>|| No. 52761
40% of new teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Looks like it's a mix of kids being unruly shits who demand 'respect', poor training and too much dross only deciding to become teachers because they think it will be an easy ride/they're not fit to do anything else.
|>>|| No. 52762
Right. Poor pay for the time they work and generally low morale when contrasted with other avenues of employment couldn't possibly be a factor though. Let's blame those shithead kids and those lazy cunt teachers.
Are you a Tory voter, by any chance?
|>>|| No. 52763
>Poor pay for the time they work
That's a myth. True the average working week during term time for a teacher is 50 hours, but they only work 39 weeks a year so it averages out at 37.5 hours a week.
|>>|| No. 52765
>Do you honestly think that teachers just go on holiday as soon as the kids break up, put their feet up and the marking, lesson planning and training plus other administrative work does itself? Oh, you.
No, I look at the facts instead, which is what my previous post was based upon:-
The Teacher's Workload Diary survey, which was last carried out by the Department of Education in 2010, showed that the average secondary school teacher worked about fifty hours a week during term time.
You also seem to be overlooking PPA time - all of the teachers I know get at least one afternoon a week during timetabled teaching hours set aside for marking and preparation. They complain that they work long hours during term time, but they also acknowledge that the time off makes up for it.
|>>|| No. 52766
>all of the teachers I know get at least one afternoon a week during timetabled teaching hours set aside for marking and preparation
I can see that working at secondary level, but how would you do that in primary, where pupils have the same teacher all week?
|>>|| No. 52767
It's a statutory requirement that 10% of a teacher's timetabled teaching time is set aside for PPA. This is purely anecdotal, but there's seems to be a lot more emphasis on teaching assistants in primary schools nowadays.
|>>|| No. 52768
>£15.44 for primary school teachers
That's £31k a year, not a bad wage.
|>>|| No. 52769
TAs are not normally allowed to teach unsupervised, even during their teacher's PPA time. Source: a frustrated registered teacher working as a TA.
|>>|| No. 52773
The starting salary for a teacher is just under £22k (or up to just over £27k in London). That Graun link has the average salary as £31k for a primary school teacher and just under £37k for a secondary school teacher.
|>>|| No. 52774
Depends on what you mean by "paid". Permanent teachers are paid a monthly salary based on a 39-week year, which is used to work out the hourly rate.
|>>|| No. 52911
39 hours? The way most teachers I've spoken to tell it they work 7-7 every day, thanks to the ceaseless workload of "marking". In my opinion it serves them right for giving kids so much work, it only comes back to bite them in the arse it seems.
|>>|| No. 52913
Scroll up a little:-
>True the average working week during term time for a teacher is 50 hours, but they only work 39 weeks a year so it averages out at 37.5 hours a week.
|>>|| No. 52943
I don't know anyone could raise kids in the UK unless they can afford private school. It seems immoral.
|>>|| No. 52977
Grammar schools seem alright, too bad they no longer exist in most places.
|>>|| No. 54877
After what happened in Leeds last week there's been a couple of primary school kids putting bleach in their teacher's drink, some lasses in Wales excluded for plotting to kill their teacher and a couple of lasses arrested in Manchester for bringing a knife in to school.
Is killing your teacher going to be the new in 'thing' or is it just they're being reported more often in light of recent events?
|>>|| No. 54878
Because the sheeple reacted so emotionally strongly to the Leeds woman and all bought the Sun or whatever, they're now focusing on such stories and sensationalising them as much as possible. The bleach story was ridiculous, the Mirror was making the kids out to be like a Mexican cartel gang.
DANGER TO ARE KIDS REVEALED IN HERE BUT ONLY IF YOU BUY THIS NEWSPAPER FOR 50P WE PROMISE WE ARE NOT ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY
|>>|| No. 54879
Being shocked by a teacher being murdered in her classroom makes you a sheeple?
|>>|| No. 54880
While unironically using the word "sheeple" does immediately make that poster a dullard of the highest order, I think it's safe to assume that this is just the media reporting on what they feel is in vogue right now.
|>>|| No. 54881
Heavily reporting it, 24-hour rolling news, sensationalising it, etc, all mean that someone out there will try to kill their teacher, either for fame, or just a copycat crime.
|>>|| No. 54883
Not to get too off topic but is anyone else getting annoyed the by media's insistence of referring to that escaped prisoner as the "Skullcracker"?
|>>|| No. 54885
Well whether the media reports are true or not I'd now be terrified if I was a teacher, poor bastards. Coming into work worried that your charges are planning to kill you the first chance they get to look cool to their mates.
|>>|| No. 54886
>Coming into work worried that your charges are planning to kill you the first chance they get to look cool to their mate
Nothing new there. You know that NQT stands for Newly Qualified Target, right?
|>>|| No. 54887
That's actually an interesting thing to bring up. As a Leeds resident, I'm familiar with the school it happened at (our lass went there as a yoof), and putting all the sensationalism aside, it's really no susprise that it happened. I won't go as far as to say "it was the teacher's fault" or that they "had it coming to them";but this kid was clearly in desperate emotional need, and was ignored, by a staff who were and are wholly unprepared and unable to deal with or provide help.
Of course, the kids are little shits too and this should be taken into account. They have no respect for authority, because there is no authority for them to respect; and even if there was, you cannot blame them for rebelling against it when we live in times of such blatant, superficial social manipulation and power playing. If I recall correctly this was at one of the east end schools, and east Leeds really is a shithole- It made the news because it was a teacher, but around that end of town stabbings are hardly uncommon.
|>>|| No. 54889
>we live in times of such blatant, superficial social manipulation and power playing
|>>|| No. 54890
>I'm familiar with the school it happened at (our lass went there as a yoof)
>If I recall correctly this was at one of the east end schools
Well are you familiar with the school or not?
|>>|| No. 54891
As in I've heard about the place and what it was like, but I've never been there, so I don't know its precise whereabouts.
Do I have to? Go watch the telly for a bit. Turn AdBlock off on your browser, then go see what Facebook is like. A generation is growing up with this shite constantly, relentlessly bombarded into their eyes and ears.
|>>|| No. 56429
deport all the poofaces... also make the chavs learn stuff. Keep them in forced education camps if necessary
|>>|| No. 58580
Given that a psychiatric evaluation judged him as in 'sound mind', there must be a motive that they're not making public. Of course it's extremely unlikely that whatever Maguire did deserved what happened but we can't exactly learn anything without confronting it. Maybe it has something to do with his diabetes diagnosis?
|>>|| No. 58582
I don't think you fully understand what "sound mind" means. They apparently found him to have an adjustment disorder and psychopathic tendencies. Sound mind just means he is rational enough to be responsible for his actions, it doesn't mean he is completely stable.
|>>|| No. 58600
More likely that they wanted to make an example of him in an attempt to stop any other violent little chav brats getting ideas.
From what I've heard the schools in Leeds itself, not the relatively nice suburban schools people like us went to, are proper battlefields. You have to imagine, these are the schools responsible for raising the younglings of those overweight bald blokes who throw bricks at away fans on the motorway from Cottingley bridge. I've heard stories about supply teachers jumping out of third floor windows to avoid getting stabbed, and whilst I'm sure the claim is exaggerated, it wouldn't surprise me if it were true for a school in east end park.
What strikes me is the pointlessness of his sentence from a rational point of view. If he's getting a life sentence at the age of 16, why the fuck not just kill him? His life has scarcely begun anyway. If and when he gets out, he's going to be completely and utterly useless to society at large. Hence why I can only conceive that he is being made an example of.
|>>|| No. 58601
The accounts I've heard have said he was a quiet swot rather than a chav.
I don't think 20 years is unduly harsh. This was a premeditated attack in front of his classmates, he's shown no remorse (he winked before he did it and has subsequently said he's proud of killing her) and if he wasn't stopped he was planning on also murdering other teachers, including one who was pregnant. From what I've read he'd been planning this for 3 years, most of which time was spent trying to sow enough seeds to convince people he was insane so that he could get away with it.
|>>|| No. 58602
That for me is the worrying aspect of his sentence. The combination of his high intelligence, premeditation, his calmness during and after the attack and his lack of remorse is strongly suggestive of antipersonal or narcissistic personality disorder.
I have a sneaking suspicion that his defence played for a criminal sentence rather than an incapacity plea, on the basis that he'll probably get out of prison but he might never be released from a psychiatric hospital.
|>>|| No. 58603
>The accounts I've heard have said he was a quiet swot rather than a chav.
Yeah, but it's not other kids like him they are worried about, and in any case I doubt the authorities really see much of a distinction. It's those spud-headed types hanging around behind the bike sheds going "ERE MAN IF THAT FUCKIN POOF GOT AWAY WIV IT IM GUNER FUCKIN SHANK MR. JENKINS ON DOUBLE GEOGRAPHY, FUCKIN SWEAR DOWN MUSH"
|>>|| No. 58604
Thank you for opening up this line of inquiry. I want to know why the kid actually did it, not to validate his actions but rather to understand what was going on in his head, maybe to better address the underlying issues that would make murder an option in someones mind at all.
It's clear he's been sent away and publically named as a matter of deterrence, but I can't help but think this will mean the facts of the individual case will be glossed over. Any useful observations that could be made from this will be swept up in hysteria directed at some generalised, scary youth.
Last time I checked, violent crime and homicides were steadily falling around England and Wales, meaning it should draw all the more attention to what's going on in schools when something like this happens.
|>>|| No. 58605
>I want to know why the kid actually did it
For one reason or another he had a pathological dislike of her. He seems to have flipped once he was diagnosed with diabetes; the army wouldn't accept him and he felt that he'd fail when he went to college. He either made her the focal point of all his anger or he just didn't care about the consequences of it.
|>>|| No. 58608
I saw somewhere also something about him wanting to be sent to jail for the rest of his life, because it meant he would never have to work or have any responsibilities.
|>>|| No. 58617
I don't mean to sound glib, but that confirms some of what I would instinctively believe. Terms like sociopath and psychopath are being bandied about without considering what preceded the event. It seems likely to me that he planned not just the killing, but also the attitude he would take toward it to suit his purpose. I think it's possible for anyone to do something terrible calmly, maybe even with something approaching a clear conscience, if they feel that they have no other bearable choice. I'd be inclined to say he can show no remorse about his actions because maybe the prospect of living a responsible life was scarier to him than the few seconds it would take to attack someone he hated.
It's silly to assume any pathology based on the act of someone who was clearly hopeless to the point of giving away his future. Normal people can lose their capacity for empathy, or deliberately do away with it so that they can take an easier (if stupider/selfish/more reckless) option, it doesn't necessarily make them psychopaths.
I wish newspapers and media would lay off easy associations when reporting real life events, the event is disturbing enough without bringing external dramatic imagery into play (the 'psycho murderer').
Anyone who saw my last version of this post, I deleted the unrelated stuff. I got some of the details of that linked story wrong myself, and didn't want to hash up the other bits of my post/the thread. Apologies for anyone I might have misled.
|>>|| No. 58724
Except this seems to be yet another case of the red-tops misquoting a report and spinning it to fit the "PC Gone Mad" narrative. I can't see anything from Ofsted that actually said or implied that in the article.
|>>|| No. 58727
I don't see how this is a problem. Insular communities breed intolerance. Polling shows concern about immigration in an area is on a broadly consistent basis inversely proportional to how much immigration it has actually experienced.
|>>|| No. 58728
>“Pupil’s cultural development is limited by lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make-up of modern British society.”
>“The large majority of pupils are White British. Very few are from other ethnic groups, and currently no pupils speak English as an additional language” said Ofsted. To improve further Ofsted said the school needed to: “Extend pupils’ understanding of the cultural diversity of modern British Society by creating opportunities for them to have first-hand interaction with their counterparts from different backgrounds beyond the immediate vicinity.”
Seems like cultural marxism to me.
|>>|| No. 58734
> understanding of the cultural diversity of modern British Society by creating opportunities for them to have first-hand interaction with their counterparts from different backgrounds beyond the immediate vicinity.”
Looks like the people in charge of Rochdale have been given new jobs...
|>>|| No. 58736
>The London Challenge, a policy launched by the Labour government in 2003 which brought a massive injection of cash...
I'd expect this to play a part, especially as the funding per pupil is far greater in London than the rest of the country.
I just find it utterly ridiculous that a school in an area that is ~97% white has been marked down for lacking diversity, regardless of whether enriched schools perform better. There's not a great deal they can do about it.
|>>|| No. 58739
>I just find it utterly ridiculous that a school in an area that is ~97% white has been marked down for lacking diversity
As do I, which makes me sceptical that it even happened that way.
|>>|| No. 58740
They're right to flag it up though, I grew up in Lincolnshire and it's full of racist tossers. Even tokenistis efforts at reminding people browns exist will go a long way. >>58727 is right.
|>>|| No. 58742
> which makes me sceptical it even happened that way.
A very similar thing happened in my kids school. On the face of it our rural village primary school, which is 99% white, was given a "Grade 3" - needs improvement - on Diversity. Most other criteria were "Grade 1" - outstanding.
An large element of the parents thought this was unfair and thought the school was marked down for being "too white" and the OFSTED report even said this in black and white. I too became sceptical at this point, so I read the assessment for myself.
What it actually said was that, simply because the school was predominantly white, it should still make teaching around diversity and different cultures a priority. Which I tended to agree with. Whatever your view on the right or wrong of teaching around diversity - if it's on the curriculum it should be taught. If it's not being taught, or given a very low weight then the school should rightly be marked down on this.
Not quite the same thing as being "marked down for being white", I'm sure you'll agree.
|>>|| No. 58745
>I grew up in Lincolnshire
Please tell me you're not that lad from around Boston who thinks the majority of our economy is made up of vegetable pickers and also has a penchant for being racist against the indigenous population.
>Not quite the same thing as being "marked down for being white", I'm sure you'll agree.
I'd say it is; their school has been penalised for not having a diverse ethnic mix of pupils. Would it be fair for an enriched school to get a better rating solely because they have kids from different races/countries regardless of what they actually teach about other cultures?
|>>|| No. 58747
Er, no. You're a bit of a mong. That's like arguing against the teaching of science because it effects the number of reported miracles, or something.
|>>|| No. 58748
I would agree it's more difficult for predominantly white schools to get first hand access to other cultures and therefore more difficult to teach it. But it just means they would have to make more effort to do so. Not that they are being penalised for being white.
The school has other advantages due to it's demographic make-up. This is one of those things where it balances out the other way (swings/roundabouts/rough/smooth).
It's at this point in my argument my liberal guilt gets the better of me. The idea of organising a field trip so the kids can "go have a look at some muslims" - like some sort of zoo trip - fills me with abject horror.
|>>|| No. 58749
>The school has other advantages due to it's demographic make-up.
Name them. Also, wrong itz.
>The idea of organising a field trip so the kids can "go have a look at some muslims" - like some sort of zoo trip - fills me with abject horror.
There's usually a couple of stories each year in local papers about primary schools organising trips to mosques and the like and their parents kicking up a stink and not letting them go.
|>>|| No. 58750
Oh no it's not like that. At my middle class Tory Christian North London primary school, we used to have priests coming in to talk to us about religion and how groovy Jesus was during assemblies all the time. Why not rabbis, imams, Hare Krishnas? The more the merrier (i.e. less racist).
We did Diwali too which was great, being a festival around light and colour you can imagine the possibilities for primary school activities.
|>>|| No. 58751
>their school has been penalised for not having a diverse ethnic mix of pupils.
See me after class, lad.
|>>|| No. 58753
Is Diwali the one where we got to put cocktail sticks in an orange and then skewer sweets onto it?
Hang on, that might actually be Christmas.
|>>|| No. 58755
No, not at all. You've taken something you believe to be 'the right way', or 'what people should think' and decided it should be transplanted on to everybody else.
|>>|| No. 58756
I'm sorry, Nige, but some things aren't debatable. If you grow up only knowing white faces, you will be suspicious of ones of different colours, especially in such a jingoistic country as ours. I don't care how much you call me the lefty PC brigade or claim this is 'indoctrination' in the multikult.
Whatever happened to people going on about the multikult on /pol/, by the way? Was it just Simon and he's now finally fucked off?
|>>|| No. 58758
>>If you grow up only knowing white faces, you will be suspicious of ones of different colours,
|>>|| No. 58761
OK - so from the top of my head there are two main advantages of being all white/middle class:
(1) English as a first language for the vast majority of pupils makes teaching easier (given the teacher is an English speaker).
(2) Generally it's a reasonably well off area - so there are good support networks and facilities out of the school to encourage learning.
..as I said, i believe there are also disadvantages. Lack of cultural diversity would be one of them.
|>>|| No. 58762
>I'm sorry, Nige, but some things aren't debatable
And that's the major problem with your attitude.
|>>|| No. 58772
This. The left don't realise that their attitude has done more to further UKIP's cause than any UKIP promotional campaign could ever dream of.
|>>|| No. 58805
The good old "wrong sort of democracy" that the left love to bleat on about when people don't do what they want, probably best evidenced recently when the BNP won two EU seats in 2009.
"You're free to do what you want, as long as it's something I agree with."
|>>|| No. 58807
It is the kind of article that makes you rest your head in your hands. But I have to admit I kind of think there's a shred of truth in it.
Is democracy not the tyranny of the majority? The majority are quite thick after all. That's how we ended up with all the nanny-state bullshit we have in this country, like needing ID to buy kitchenware. Think of the children etc.
|>>|| No. 58808
>Is democracy not the tyranny of the majority?
Only if you use outdated electoral methods like FPTP rather than preferential or proportional methods.
|>>|| No. 58809
The wrong sort of democracy is the best kind, if it pisses off a good chunk of people it must be the right thing to do.
|>>|| No. 58812
I agree, people a fools. We should just elect the polar opposite of whoever "wins" the election.
Anarchists if the Tories win or I dunno', someone halfway competent if Labour get in.
|>>|| No. 58815
>The majority are quite thick after all
Do you mean 'quite thick' or 'do things that I disagree with'?
|>>|| No. 58818
Not him, but empirical evidence suggests that the general public is pretty thick. See e.g. the AV referendum, people voting UKIP unironically, the Ched Evans petition, etc.
|>>|| No. 58835
Better is somewhat relative, though I assume you mean in terms of democratic function.
|>>|| No. 58837
Sort of. There are objective measures, though it will depend on which ones you use and how you use them. If we work on the basis that more representative is better, then preferential voting is better than non-preferential, and non-plural is better than plural. If you're the Conservatives or the UUP, then it would be the other way round.
|>>|| No. 58838
The majority obviously aren't 'quite thick', as by definition they are merely average. It would be factually accurate to say that most people overestimate their own intelligence, which is a very real problem. We all need to be more willing to defer to expertise, and to be prepared to say "I don't know, go and ask someone who has done some research on the subject". We're generally very bad at recognising when political problems are purely a matter of opinion, and when they are a matter of fact; Some issues have no 'best' solution and require us to balance the preferences of many diverse groups, but some really can be solved with a solution that is optimal for everyone involved.
In particular, I think we have a major problem regarding mathematical and statistical illiteracy that goes right to the top. A modern economy presents us with many problems of such complexity that intuition and 'common sense' are worse than useless. We expect far too much from our politicians, and would pillory any minister who said something like "to be frank, I don't understand this at all, but I have spoken to many leading academics in the field and they all suggest this solution". We have a deep and self-defeating distrust of expertise and specialism; We unquestioningly accept the idea that someone with no training in medicine or epidemiology can run the Ministry of Health, yet we still expect them to have all the answers and to act decisively and unerringly. We see doubt as a sign of weakness, rather than as a sign of due caution and rationality.
|>>|| No. 58839
No, they're both shit. If ZaNu Liebour get into power is voting reform on the agenda?
|>>|| No. 58844
Be fair lad, the behaviours you've described, whilst accurate, could all also be described as 'quite thick'. People may not be quite as clever as they think they are, and I've no way of knowing how bright the lad that first said it is, but a genuinely clever person would probably be justified in describing most people as quite thick.
How geniuses restrain themselves from going on frustration-induced killing sprees is beyond me, frankly...
|>>|| No. 58848
>How geniuses restrain themselves from going on frustration-induced killing sprees is beyond me, frankly...
Social isolation and strong drink, mainly.
|>>|| No. 58859
It's possible for the majority to have below average intelligence, if you believe that intelligence is some sort of homogenised, measurable statistic, if, for example, the majority has the same intelligence and a minority has significantly higher.
|>>|| No. 61179
Schools are increasingly struggling to recruit senior teachers, while at the same time finding that newly qualified teachers are ill prepared to start working in the classroom, a leading teaching union has warned.
Almost 62% of school leaders are struggling to recruit teachers on the upper pay scale, according to a survey of headteachers, with 14% reporting they have been unable to recruit deputy heads and 20% unable to fill posts for assistant heads.
The survey, carried out for the National Association of Head Teachers and published to coincide with its annual conference in Liverpool, came as schools are seeing an exodus from the profession due to concerns about workload, pay and conditions.
|>>|| No. 61192
As someone considering doing just that, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning.
|>>|| No. 61197
Kids are cunts, their parents are cunts, the media are constantly making out that you're a cunt, politicians are cunts, your headmaster will probably be a cunt, you'll be drowning in paperwork and you'll have no life during term time.
There is literally no reason to be a teacher unless it is your last resort.
|>>|| No. 61199
Not to mention shit pay for all those hours. A teaching job should be a last, last, very last resort. I would much rather join the army than be a teacher.
Something like 40% of new teachers quit the profession within the first five years. That's saying something.
|>>|| No. 63402
I feel sorry for people in this country with kids who are not rich enough to send them to private school.
|>>|| No. 63404
I know. I too was annoyed at not being rich enough to send my parents to private school.
|>>|| No. 63415
Any reason you've decided to repeat yourself? I know it's about 17 months inbetween posts, but come on.
|>>|| No. 63576
All failing schools to be academies under new bill
Academies suck up the LEA budget, leading to other schools failing and being forced to turn into academies. Before we know it the whole school system will be in private hands.
|>>|| No. 64819
Society has a say in how things are run, except in academies, where the company running it has the say in how they're run.
|>>|| No. 64820
Society has no say, stop pretending some bod in the DoE is society. My son goes to an academy and it's excellent. They're a firmly liberal idea. People don't like them because they're associated with the Tories, which leads to the death of debate. The guy who heads it is huge in education in my local area and a great guy to boot.
|>>|| No. 64821
>Society has no say, stop pretending some bod in the DoE is society
No. You stop pretending that the local electorate is not society.
>My son goes to an academy and it's excellent.
Your rationalisation is showing.
|>>|| No. 64823
I think you might be getting confused. Academies are the ones run by the "DoE" (by which I assume you mean DfE), whereas other state schools are run by LEAs, which are accountable to local people rather than distant ministers. Academies were originally a Labour thing - the one everyone associates with the Tories would be free schools, which are independent from both local and central control, but for the most part have tended to be awful.
In short, 2/10 SEE ME.
|>>|| No. 64824
A couple of those Labour academies opened in my city. A few years down the line there was some surprise that taking kids in a failing school and putting them in a shiny new building, in the same sink estates, ended up with similar results. In other words, you cannot polish a turd.
Then again, that's Labour all over. They demolished loads of houses in the city and started a big programme of replacing them with new housing, when the originals weren't that bad and just needed renovation which would have been a fraction of the cost, only for the money to run out so even now there's still large swathes of wasteland.
|>>|| No. 64825
I'm glad we now live in a society where free enterprise is put back in the hands of the people.
|>>|| No. 65997
It would still be the first in Britain. Not that a Catholic school in Derry would want to be regarded as British anyway.
|>>|| No. 66005
>The first in Great Britain, not Britain
Lad. Don't make me post that video. Not here, of all places.
|>>|| No. 66025
Great Britain refers to the largest island in the British isles. "British" refers to "of the United Kingdom".
|>>|| No. 66027
>"British" refers to "of the United Kingdom".
It may alternatively refer to "of Great Britain".
|>>|| No. 66497
I keep seeing adverts on the telly promoting how much teachers earn to try and get more people into the profession. I'm not entirely sure that focusing on salary is the way to recruit people of the calibre you're after, even if the bar does seem to be rather low these days.
|>>|| No. 66498
Wasn't there a massive oversupply of teachers just a year or two ago? Or maybe a few years, I dunno.
There was a change in the law about when they could retire, that I'm certain of.
|>>|| No. 66500
There are massive disparities by subject. We're glutted with humanities teachers, but have a chronic shortage of decent maths and science teachers. The only sustainable fix is to reflect broader labour market trends and pay the latter a lot more than the former, but that's politically untenable.
|>>|| No. 66510
>but that's politically untenable.
Unfortunately. What a mess some people's heads are.
I'm not really sure it matters. When we talk about teaching we often talk about testing and exams but I'm not really confident that it actually makes much difference.
|>>|| No. 66514
>I'm not really sure it matters.
Did you bother reading the article? You know, the one about the Education Secretary wanting to introduce national testing at age 7?
|>>|| No. 66516
No, I didn't, and given that I said I don't think it really matters, I don't think it really matters.
|>>|| No. 66520
What matters is not whether he think it matters, or if you think he thinks it matters, but about having a good old cunt-off.
|>>|| No. 66522
Nobody cares about the orientals because they are expected to spend all their time studying, which only the Tories think is a good idea.
The Scandi nations have a good quality of life and higher standards of education here and they're not obsessed with tests.
|>>|| No. 66529
Correlation not cause perhaps? There's no particular reason to think the two are connected.
Yes they do. The fact that the education secretary wants tests at 7 is, to me, irrelevant, as I don't think they have any particular influence on the quality of teaching or education.
|>>|| No. 66531
>The fact that the education secretary wants tests at 7 is, to me, irrelevant
Yet you still felt the need to bring up comparisons with other countries that may or may not do them.
|>>|| No. 69116
The number of teachers leaving the profession has increased by 11% over three years as the government continues to fall short of recruitment targets, Whitehall’s independent spending watchdog has found.
Despite spending £700m every year on training, ministers have failed to reach their own goals for recruitment for four consecutive years, according to the National Audit Office.
In a report released on Wednesday, indicators suggest teacher shortages are growing. Between 2011 and 2014, the recorded rate of vacancies and temporarily filled positions more than doubled from 0.5% of the teaching workforce to 1.2%. Secondary school teacher training places are proving particularly difficult to fill.
A Conservative spokesperson said that teaching unions were the main threat to the profession. “The greatest threat to recruitment is the negative picture painted by the teaching unions, who take every opportunity to talk down teaching as a profession.
A DfE spokesman said the report makes clear that despite rising pupil numbers, more people are entering the teaching profession than leaving it and the number of teachers per pupil has not suffered.
|>>|| No. 69122
So who hates teaching more, the people who leave it or the people who stay in it and talk it down? Please enlighten us Nicky Morgan.
|>>|| No. 70043
>Top executives at some of England's biggest academy chains are paid huge salaries while pupils are left to get poor results, Ofsted says.
>Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw highlighted serious weaknesses at seven multi-academy trusts in a hard-hitting letter to the education secretary. He said the trusts were sitting on millions of pounds that should be used to raise standards.
Didn't see that coming.
|>>|| No. 70481
Teachers are threatening strike action in their campaign against excessive workload.
The National Union of Teachers' annual conference has called for "sustained strike action" to back schools challenging a long hours culture.
The union says teachers' workload is "intolerable and getting worse".
The Department for Education said rather than threatening "unnecessary strike action" the NUT should "work constructively" on a solution.
|>>|| No. 70503
I really don't like teachers, ever since I became an adult I realised they're just people who couldn't forge a career anywhere else.
Those who can't, teach.
|>>|| No. 70513
I know three people who applied to be teachers and failed. They're all in their late twenties; one is a pot washer in a pub, one works at B&M bargains and the other has a council desk job.
|>>|| No. 70929
They have degrees and they're doing that in their late twenties?
Obviously something's gone wrong or they're missing something huge.
|>>|| No. 70930
New Labour encouraged a lot of people to go to university who weren't really suitable for it.
|>>|| No. 70931
I get that, but I know a lot of people who also went to bottom tier unis, had terrible grades, weren't suited for it and still ended up doing things like teaching and are doing rather well / moved abroad with it.
They must be doing something catastrophically wrong.
|>>|| No. 70940
There just aren't enough professional jobs to go around. Some people get lucky but a lot of others don't, particularly if they're not natural blaggers. Young people are taught that if they follow the rules they'll succeed, but the reality is that people get ahead by taking risks. Most people don't have the courage to take a punt on going abroad, or the creativity to wangle a job that they're not really qualified for.
|>>|| No. 70941
I have no sympathy for any uni grad who doesn't find work. All unis put on careers skills and job finding classes and barely any of the cunts use them. I wasn't a top neek with the grades but I worked very hard at preparing myself for work and have no time for any bastard who moans there are no jobs going. The lazy shitbags just can't he bothered to learn about how to get one.
|>>|| No. 70942
Obviously this doesn't apply to anyone who had a serious ailment in their studies. But the sorts of useless shits I lived with, who thought everything would just come right, are what I have in mind.
|>>|| No. 70944
This has happened several times where a lad swoops in with some over the top 'just stop being poor/ lazy/ uneducated' and makes it seem like the same person just continuing the conversation.
You rise to it every time, stop it lad. Ignore him and he'll stop.
|>>|| No. 70947
Nobody who has completed a university degree was without access to their university careers skills classes, that are included in the tuition fees.
That pointing out facts like this raises a chorus of TORY TORY TORY says a great deal about the .GS audience. The idea that students should the resources available to them to prepare for a career is 'Tory', and if you think it your mum drives a Bentley and you're loaded.
Cunts the lot of you.
|>>|| No. 70948
It feels like this has been going on since around the summer of 2014. Britfa.gs just seemed to become a lot more hostile, and I've a feeling a few groups have caught on that they can provoke people with disingenuous arguments.
I do remember there being a time when 'cunt-off' was used in a deliberately funny way to point out the bad attitudes and silliness of the occasional heated argument. Now the cunt-off is the sport of .gs.
|>>|| No. 70949
Having a better educated population has social benefits as well as broadening an individual's career choices. There are non-pecuniary advantages to education, believe it or not!
|>>|| No. 70951
Nothing to do with my post or the pertinent topic (grads not getting jobs) whatsoever. Stop wasting my time.
|>>|| No. 70952
It actually does. When you have a well-educated populace, graduates are necessarily going to be competing with other graduates for the same job, and there are many degrees which impart inherently worthwhile knowledge while not broadening career prospects very much.
|>>|| No. 70953
>Nobody who has completed a university degree was without access to their university careers skills classes, that are included in the tuition fees.
Apart from, you know, all of those other people who completed a university degree without access to "careers skills classes". But go on, don't let facts get in the way of a good whinge. Though if what you wanted was "careers skills classes" you could have got those for free at the local library, saving yourself three years and the associated fees and you would have probably ended up making more after three years of work than your three years of study, not to mention not being hit for the graduate tax. But as you say, if you didn't want to make use of the resources available to you, then that was your choice.
>That pointing out facts like this raises a chorus of TORY TORY TORY says a great deal about the .GS audience.
But you're not "pointing out facts" are you? You're making a judgement on the entirety of a class of people based on your own subjective experience. You decided "well, I could do it, so everyone else could too". That is what earned you the epithet.
Whichever way you cut it, you can't really blame people who are taking up what is now up to £27k in tuition fees for being entitled. If I'd had to pay that for my degree (rather than my actual total of £600), then I too would expect the status alone to be worth something.
|>>|| No. 70954
There are thousands of SMEs who fail to recruit grads. The point of learning careers skills is learning to find and apply for a spectrum of jobs at large firms , medium firms and small firms. I competed with hundreds for some, tens for others, and four or five for some more. This is called 'strategy'.
OK lad, find me one uni in the 'top 50' (any list) that doesn't have a careers centre with classes, workshops and practice interviews for its students. I can wait.
|>>|| No. 70956
> you can't really blame people who are taking up what is now up to £27k in tuition fees for being entitled.
You can walk out of uni with £15k in your pocket and not pay a penny, all the rhetoric regarding student loans is nonsense.
|>>|| No. 70957
It is? Wow. Could you please forward this news to the Student Loans Company? They seem to think they actually are entitled to my money for some reason, sounds like they've got it wrong though!
|>>|| No. 70958
I might be misremembering, but I'm sure that the mods used to issue a lot more comedy bans. I think a lot of /pol/ threads could be salvaged if the instigators of cunt-offs had some time on the naughty step.
|>>|| No. 70960
>OK lad, find me one uni in the 'top 50' (any list) that doesn't have a careers centre with classes, workshops and practice interviews for its students. I can wait.
University of Wales, Swansea, circa 1965. In fact, I don't suppose we have to go back that far. I graduated over a decade ago and our careers service was nowhere near as mass-industrialised as many are now.
|>>|| No. 70961
Doesn't matter. Someone's paying the fees, so the universities are under some pressure to demonstrate they're delivering value for their students: value to which the students may understandably feel entitled.
|>>|| No. 70964
"It is? Wow. Could you please forward this news to the Student Loans Company? They seem to think they actually are entitled to my money for some reason, sounds like they've got it wrong though!"
|>>|| No. 70966
It really wasn't. Under the old funding model, an institution basically had to justify its existence on a broad basis. Under the current model, they have to justify the fee level charged. Several universities applied to set their fees at the maximum and were rejected because the funding authority believed they had not made a strong enough case for doing so.
|>>|| No. 70967
Fucking hell. I didn't think I'd have to spell that that I meant today, not HALF A CENTURY AGO.
|>>|| No. 70968
Lad, you're posting on .gs /pol/. You must have known you weren't going to get away with making statements like "Nobody who has completed a university degree" without qualification.
|>>|| No. 70969
You must have meant at least three years ago, which is most of the way to ten anyway.
|>>|| No. 70970
Politics is usually discussed with reference to the present tense or future, not decades ago. Universities all offer career skills and help today - fact - and no one who forwent them and now whinges about there are 'no graduate jobs' has my sympathy, because they had plenty of help they didn't bother taking. Unless, as I said, there was some kind of significant handicap at the time like severe illness or something. I began this chain with reference to someone going on about it's unfair because there aren't any jobs. It's absurd, there are plenty, you just have to make effort to find them and get them.
|>>|| No. 70971
>there are plenty of jobs
Does shuffling paperwork around in a pointless cycle and getting paid for it really count as a job, though?
|>>|| No. 70972
Do you always ask stupid questions or is it just something you do at weekends?
|>>|| No. 70973
Typical grad. Can't fathom the possibility that you might be wrong about something.
|>>|| No. 70975
I could be wrong, but I asked the other lad to supply an accredited uni that doesn't give careers classes etc and I'm still waiting. I'll take your smarmy 'well you might be wrong you know!' nonsense as an admission you couldn't find one either.
|>>|| No. 70976
Many of those institutions have massively increased their efforts because of the new funding system. If that's all you know, then one night wonder how you're supposed to know any better. When I was a student, the careers service wasn't quite so hands on, and their offerings weren't particularly convenient for part-timers holding down another job or students on high-contact courses. I hear they're now open 9-5 all year, which wasn't the case when I was there. I do know quite a few people who graduated around the same time and either ended up still taking the slow path into work, or ended up in distinctly "non-graduate" roles.
Effectively, before 2000 it was ancillary, whereas since 2011 it's been a core part of their service provision and something on which their funding depends directly.
|>>|| No. 70977
The problem I find is that if it's free universities do what they're supposed to. They provide a space for the brightest minds to grow their knowledge and contribute to academia.
When you start charging people insane amounts of money that they have to take out loans for (no matter how favourable the loan is) they begin to see it as a service and as such customers get what customers demand, which is more careers focused stuff.
It's a natural side-effect of whoring something which should be free out for some extra tax money whilst you continue bombing brown kids in the desert.
|>>|| No. 70979
Is it really so bad that, given that schools and sixth forms are increasingly focused on preparing pupils for university applications, that universities are now picking up the slack on good careers advice and practical support?
|>>|| No. 70981
Well as I said I don't think university is the right place for it.
Unless you're going for a vocational degree i.e. law, medicine, dentistry then your degree should really be about enhancing learning and not building you up for a career.
That's what universities are for, research, knowledge and advancement of studies, not making you fit best into the corporate and 21st century world.
I went to a top 10 and I can't recall all the times modules had a funny spin on them to make us 'employable.'
It's complete rubbish that we're ruining one of the few things we lead the world in because we created a culture of making it seem like degrees meant a successful career and in turn this has created the view that they are there to gain you meaningful employment and not to allow you to study something you have a true passion for and the academia behind.
That's my two pence, I know some have the old 'you get it you pay for it' type attitude.
|>>|| No. 70982
Using your university careers centre takes 5 hours out of your week as a maximum. You're presenting an absurd false dichotomy.
|>>|| No. 70983
Actually you are.
The focus has become entirely about how much grads earn and what degrees pay the most.
Just look at how league tables are largely scored by employment prospects etc
To imply this is just about using your careers service is absurd and you've obviously missed the whole point of my post.
|>>|| No. 70984
>Well as I said I don't think university is the right place for it.
You have a very outdated view of university then. Out of the numbers of people who go to university today, only a small fraction are going to become career academics. Even if 100% of students fell in love with their subject and decided to dedicate their working life to it there simply isn't the funding available for that many students to enrol on PhDs, and then 3/4 years down the line for those PhDs to find postdoc positions and climb the academic career ladder. Universities are aware of this, hence it is in their interests to give good careers support and advice so that graduates have the option to secure good careers outside of academia.
Historically, university studies were the preserve of the rich elite, who could afford to spend their time probing the depths of science, or studying classical literature or such. However, Britain has somewhat changed since the 13th century with the rise of middle class professionals. Today, student loans provide the means for many people to study, but it is the increased scope of careers options that provides the motivation for many.
Overall, modern UK universities are a great driver of social mobility and mixing of people from different social backgrounds, and I would not like to see regressive attitudes such as yours change that.
|>>|| No. 70985
There's something very bizarre about advocating free access to higher education but being told you are against social mobility and have a regressive attitude.
Oh Britfa.g's/*, never let common sense and facts get in the way of a cliché and poorly thought out moral one-upmanship attempt.
|>>|| No. 70987
I'm sure it's still the same lad, fresh out of uni, who thinks he knows everything and everyone who doesn't do every last thing to improve their prospects is a waster.
|>>|| No. 70988
Point out where in >>70981 you advocate free access to higher education?
Regardless, even if tuition fees were 0 access to education wouldn't be free due to living costs. Even if we are to make a heroic effort to completely cover living costs for all students that need it, there's still a cost in terms of lost earnings and potential career progression from taking 3-4 years out to study.
If we remove the careers support that universities offer, then there is a lot less motivation for people from lower income backgrounds to bother with higher education.
You might argue that's fine, that only people who are truly passionate about their subject should and would go to university in that case. That argument doesn't really hold water though, since current A-level teaching of many subjects is so poor, oversimplified and removed from even undergraduate studies (let alone postgraduate research) that students have no way to really experience their subject properly until they study it at university. Therefore by suggesting you should be passionate about something you know very little about before applying higher education is somewhat putting the horse before the cart.
|>>|| No. 70990
Oh and to address:
>I went to a top 10 and I can't recall all the times modules had a funny spin on them to make us 'employable.'
To be clear, a good careers service functions autonomously from degree teaching. The best universities don't compromise on the quality of academic content for careers reasons.
|>>|| No. 70992
To be honest I can't be arsed.
As usual some sad prick gets pedantic and wants to argue. You can't even follow where I originally said university should be free so it can fulfill what I believe is its proper function.
That's my opinion, you don't have to agree, but I can't be arsed wasting my time trying to change yours ina back and forth where you can't grasp the basic point I was trying to make.
|>>|| No. 70993
OK. So you admit that nowhere in the post I was responding to did you explicitly advocate free education?
As far as I can tell, you have a strong distaste for the 'corporate and modern 21st century world' and believe that universities should unanimously support you in this. I don't think you realise that this is a fringe opinion, and that most people are happy to work hard at university if it will lead to them earning more in later life.
You've asserted what you believe to be the 'proper function' of higher education but seem unwilling to accept that this would lead to less social mobility, for reasons explained above. This isn't pedantry; it is head-on challenging the core principle of your argument, something you have singularly failed to do in return.
Maybe your time at university would have been better spent had you learned how to properly debate a topic without getting angry about it?
|>>|| No. 70994
>seem unwilling to accept that this would lead to less social mobility
He seems unwilling to accept an argument you haven't properly made out? Well, isn't that a shocker?
|>>|| No. 70996
Well for a start I clearly advocate I don't think universities should charge fees earlier, i don't have to state that everytime I post because not everybody is a stupid cunt like you who can't grasp context.
I'm not going to argue with you mate, I really can't be arsed. As I said it was just my two pennies. Why are you so eager to make an argument out of it and debate me ?
What a sad cunt.
|>>|| No. 70997
So if you put forward an economically illiterate argument and append it with "just my two pence" nobody is allowed to call you out on it? Thanks for clearing that up.
|>>|| No. 70999
I wonder who people like you think you're fooling when you attack a straw man.
Nobody can be arsed with you because you're purposefully misrepresenting points and writing like a lad whose just finished his first term at debate club.
Sometimes in life people have an opinion, you don't need to make it your mission to convince them otherwise, you can be a man and just respect it instead.
Similarly, spouting buzzwords like 'you're regressive' or ' economically illiterate ' or saying 'well you technically didn't say it in that post ' airs a real sense of immaturity for any neutral bystander. Just a bit of friendly advice should you ever take it upon yourself to get flustered and try and debate somebody whose already said they're not interested again.
|>>|| No. 71049
>purposefully misrepresenting points
Huh? Which points do you feel are being misrepresented by posters in this thread?
My interpretation of >>70981 is that you are for universities being purely about academia, and against them helping students to develop careers skills. Based on:
>That's what universities are for, research, knowledge and advancement of studies, not making you fit best into the corporate and 21st century world.
Have I misinterpreted this? Could you clarify your point on view regarding careers advice, which was what the post you were replying to was regarding? Making points about free access to education is not what >>70979 was about at all, so I feel it is you are painting a straw-man by falling back on that.
If I've not misinterpreted you, then I disagree with you yes, for reasons already outlined. There's no need to be so defensive about it. I also don't completely agree with:
>Sometimes in life people have an opinion, you don't need to make it your mission to convince them otherwise
The logical conclusion of which would be that we should casually accept opinions that are provably wrong ("vaccines cause autism") or intolerant in our society ("I think we should kill all brown-eyed people").
I'll admit that 'regressive' was a regrettable choice of wording, and most likely what riled up the poster I was replying to. However, assuming I'm not misinterpreting them I still believe their views to be outdated.
|>>|| No. 71050
Neutral bystander here and not being facetious but have you ever been tested for autism ?
|>>|| No. 71052
>tenner says that you are >>70996.
Don't do that, lad. If you want to insult him or libel his character, then by all means, but anonymous means anonymous.
|>>|| No. 71053
What does that even mean, I'm being irrelevant ?
I just think you're either autistic or a student at university with little real world experience.
It's just the way you write, but either way, believe it or not, not everybody who thinks you're a prick is the same person. You might just that unlikeable (and a bit pathetic).
|>>|| No. 71054
It means what it says, look up 'irrelevant' in a dictionary if you don't understand.
|>>|| No. 71057
>Another nonsensical insult
I think some were teasing a bit at first for other people's amusement but now I genuinely have to ask, what's sixth form like?
|>>|| No. 71066
It's called paraphrasing, look it up in a dictionary if you don't understand.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 71070
Bloody hell, it's like Robot Wars in this thread.
|>>|| No. 71072
He called somebody irrelevant.
It was paraphrased to 'another nonsensical insult'.
How's secondary school?
|>>|| No. 71079
>called somebody irrelevant.
Might want to work on your reading comprehension there lad.
|>>|| No. 71094
I like the irony that a thread about poor literacy has ended in people getting upset over being called out on poor literacy.
|>>|| No. 76524
One in four graduates in work a decade after leaving university in 2004 is earning only around £20,000 a year, according to a new study.
The Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset is the first of its kind to track higher education leavers as they move from university into the workplace. Its findings are likely to be scrutinised closely by students considering whether to accept a university place when they receive their A-level results.
The LEO survey, which is not adjusted for inflation, reveals that the median earnings for a graduate were £16,500 one year on from when they left university in 2004, increasing to £22,000 after three years and rising to £31,000 in 2014. The lowest quartile of graduate earners fared significantly worse. A year after they graduated in 2004 their median earnings were just £11,500, rising to £16,500 after three years and £20,000 after 10. The average wage in Britain is currently £26,500.
Confirmation, if anyone needed it, that encouraging around a half of students to go to university has watered down the value of holding a degree for many subjects as to be almost worthless.
|>>|| No. 76896
Hmmm this is odd. I just saw the fat Timpsons guy in a live Facebook video a friend posted from a gig, yet if his pic is posted bans are issued and the picture immediately deleted.
|>>|| No. 77383
Can someone explain to me what's so bad about grammar schools, please? The complaints I've seen about it are that they increase inequality, but surely that's the whole point? By definition, the concept of social mobility requires some people to advance relative to others. Is it because those with the greatest opportunity for social mobility are bright children from poor backgrounds?
|>>|| No. 77385
The New Left prefers the equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity. To this end, it is easier to keep everyone down, with equally as rubbish prospects, than it is to let bright kids shine at the expense of thickos.
I was a bright kid. I would have really gotten somewhere in life if I'd gone to uni. But the career advisers at my crumbling 1970s-looking comprehensive school never helped me understand what opportunities lie where, or what needed to be done to achieve it. Loads of people I know ended up becoming part of the "useless degree wanker" generation, while loads of people like myself ended up working in shops and offices for a decent chunk of their early adulthood because they never had the chance to explore other options, nor even made aware that they were there.
The only people I can think of who did well from my school days are the kids who were already middle class, with encouraging and sensible parents. But the important thing is that there were plenty of thickos who did apprenticeships in plumbing or construction and what have you, who came out just as successful life as the smarter kids, who had their potential wasted instead of fostered. That's a victory for equality in the eyes of the New Left.
That's why they don't like grammar schools.
|>>|| No. 77389
> the career advisers at my crumbling 1970s-looking comprehensive school never helped me understand what opportunities lie where, or what needed to be done to achieve it
So, to put it more concisely: you lacked the gumption, wherewithal, and get-on-your-bike attitude required to find out any of the myriad of possibilities life has to offer, and stacked shelves in Tesco.
And this is the fault of the "New Left" and those evil "careers advisers". My heart bleeds mate.
|>>|| No. 77390
Backing up your claims with a paywall'd newspaper article isn't very helpful is it?
|>>|| No. 77391
Yeah, I find it hard to believe any careers adviser would tell someone getting As that working in Tesco is the best they can achieve.
Although I went to a comp and it's definitely true that they place disproportionately high emphasis on forcing the troublemakers to learn something versus the high-achievers. But then I guess that's what sixth form and university was for.
|>>|| No. 77393
There's a broader culture of low expectations in a lot of underperforming comprehensive schools. The teaching staff are predominantly people who fell into teaching for want of better options, so they're not really equipped to advise anyone on their career prospects. These schools rarely send pupils to highly selective universities and have few success stories. Few parents care all that much about education, otherwise their kids wouldn't be going to such a shithole; that indifference is reflected in the board of governors. The pressure of league tables means that there's often no effort made to get students any further than the 5 A*-C threshold.
A thousand little things add up to tell students "nobody gives a shit, you're not special, so don't get your hopes up". Invisible barriers to aspiration and achievement are created, by the things that aren't said as much as the things that are. It takes a brave person to apply to Cambridge when their UCAS adviser hasn't heard of STEP or the BMAT. It takes an exceptionally resourceful teenager to apply for work experience at an investment bank or a TV station when all their peers are going to Asda or their uncle's garage. Few teenagers have the foresight and courage to plan a career without useful support or advice.
That's why Etonians run everything. When a young Etonian says "I want to be Prime Minister when I grow up", they're told "go for it, but you might have to settle for a cabinet job". When they say "we want to organise trip to the Kremlin and meet Vladimir Putin", someone knows someone who can make that happen. It's the absolute conviction that you can do anything, combined with the advice and support that make it possible. Many schools operate on the diametric opposite of that attitude.
|>>|| No. 77395
How many fucking times do you need to be told how to defeat FT's soft paywall?
|>>|| No. 77397
n+1, where n is the number of times it's already been explained at any given time.
|>>|| No. 77419
>Yeah, I find it hard to believe any careers adviser would tell someone getting As that working in Tesco is the best they can achieve.
That's reading an awful lot into my post. In actual fact what happened in the only ever "career meeting" I had with the head of year, was that he told me there's only one uni worth going to for the academic area I was interested in and that it was a long shot. He didn't tell me I should stack shelves instead, but what he did was tell a 15 year old that his ambitions were far too unrealistic.
And at any rate, you can't expect a teenager to have a great deal of gumption. It's shocking that we expect people to plan out their entire future before they are even trusted to buy a lottery ticket. And yet there are so few opportunities for an adult to retrain, that you end up stuck with the bad choices you made as a naive, horny teenlad.
>A thousand little things add up to tell students "nobody gives a shit, you're not special, so don't get your hopes up".
The disadvantaged and lesser able kids can barely get the support they need, and the kids who are smart enough to understand their surroundings develop and understandably pessimistic, fatalistic attitude. It takes a literal child prodigy to actually break through those barriers.
I'm not saying it's all the evil state's fault and the nobody can be held to account for being an under-achiever. I just think our present education system is an utter mess. What it really needs is more investment and specialisation, but I'm not going to object to a selection system that lets smarter kids flourish in the meantime- That's exactly what I was always denied at school.
|>>|| No. 77423
>but I'm not going to object to a selection system that lets smarter kids flourish in the meantime
Good. Let us know when you discover one.
|>>|| No. 77428
Lad, having reviewed your posts, stacking shelves at Tesco is about all you are good for. Sorry to break that to you. But...fuck me...you expect to be an Oxbridge grad or summat? My sides.
|>>|| No. 77429
You'll be disappointed to hear then that I'm well beyond stacking shelves these days.
I remember a time when people here used to at least be creative when trying to instigate a cunt off. Try a little harder lad?
|>>|| No. 77431
Maybe if you'd tried a little harder you might have got into a decent uni.
|>>|| No. 77432
Or a Poly. Or an FE College. Or managed to take 'A' levels. But hey, this is beyond him duet to the evil machinations of the New Left. Bless.
|>>|| No. 77448
Not shelfstackerlad but I do take issues with some of the conclusions being drawn by that FT article. For one, the data clearly does show that grammar schools do increase high-end attainment, admittedly at a cost to the lower end. Which confirms the original point that most comprehensives focus on getting their 5 A*-Cs and not on pushing A/B students up to the top grades.
The problem is, at a standard comprehensive they have to deal with such a variety of abilities that it is impossible for them to target the teaching and advice to everyone. Even with splitting classes into sets you still get massive variation in a class size of 20-30 pupils. So a grammar school system makes sense at least in principle, so that those that can achieve aren't constrained by those that can't.
From a personal point of view, I know people getting A/A*s who were advised to take these new diploma qualifications after secondary school, in lieu of IB or A levels. It was only after a year that they realised almost none of the elite universities in this country accept them - in fact we were never advised on which A levels were accepted by the top universities until after we'd already chosen. To me, that basic level of advice would seem to make a world of difference to these guys - given them a shot at Cambridge or Durham or maybe that other place.
|>>|| No. 77460
I went to a state sixth form that sent fifty odd people a year to oxbridge and there was no guidance as to that at all but then they were prepared for that sort of thing anyway. They gave specialist classes to oxbridge applicants.
|>>|| No. 77461
Or, grammar schools make no sense in principle, because extra resources are drained from the schools where they are needed most. If you are a superb teacher, would you rather work at a grammar or a comprehensive? Tough luck inner city kids.
|>>|| No. 77464
If I were a superb teacher I'd work at an independent school over a comprehensive. Grammar schools aren't going to make comprehensives any less desirable to work in or send your kids to than they already are, but in a number of cases they give independent schools a run for their money.
|>>|| No. 77467
>If I were a superb teacher I'd work at an independent school over a comprehensive.
Not always an option if there's not one near you. Add in that many of them are in crumbling Grade II listed buildings, and have selection criteria based on money rather than academic ability, and compared to a grammar school it works out as a wash.
>Grammar schools aren't going to make comprehensives any less desirable to work in or send your kids to than they already are,
Erm, yes, they are. Education is a zero sum game. There are a limited number of children, a limited number of places, and realistically a child can only attend one school at a time. If more parents desire to send their children to a grammar, by necessity fewer desire to send them to comps, which will effectively become new sec-mods.
|>>|| No. 77468
In debates over grammar schools, it is often forgotten that the tripartite system was supposed to have a third part. We never bothered to build the Secondary Technical Schools, which I think was a huge mistake.
I remember plenty of lads in my school who would have made a great plumber or mechanic, but floundered in a classroom. They were crying out for quality vocational education and the opportunity to work with their hands. Instead of being allowed to learn the kind of skills they had a natural aptitude for, they were forced to sit in a classroom learning about the Tudors and photosynthesis. Many of these lads went totally off the rails with boredom and frustration, undermining their own opportunities and the ability of their classmates to learn.
We need to ask some serious questions about the purpose of education. Should we be encouraging all young people to go to university? Is a degree in Sports Science from UCLAN really worth £27,000? Why can't we offer better opportunities to young people who don't have the inclination or the ability for higher academic learning? Why aren't we responding to the chronic shortages of skilled tradesmen and craftsmen?
|>>|| No. 77469
>Should we be encouraging all young people to go to university?
Yes, because unlike what happened to your potential plumbers and mechanics, higher education is not compulsory.
|>>|| No. 77470
The thing is, I don't see how the answer to those many real problems within secondary education are solved by shovelling kids into a two-tier system. And before school some dimmy tells me how there's already different ability classes in schools, the difference is you can move between those sets based on your ongoing results.
If you want better results you need smaller classes and better teachers. When I decided to take three science GCSEs I ended up being one of only eleven kids in those classes, and with the a trio of the best teachers in the school taking the lessons no one could have got less than a C with ODing on smack before going into the exam.
But those changes are obvious and relatively straight forward so we should just entertain the barmy idea of bringing back grammar schools instead.
|>>|| No. 77472
>But those changes are obvious and relatively straight forward
Doubling or even tripling (based on a target class size of 11 versus 20-30) the number of teachers and classrooms is straight-forward is it? We can just magic up qualified teachers out of nowhere and pay them from the magic money tree right?
Firstly I'd like to know where you are talking about that has absolutely no independent schools - probably some northern shithole I'm guessing. Secondly, even if you do find yourself in the back of beyond it's very common for people to relocate to cities to find better work, especially as we are talking about "superb" teachers not your run-of-the-mill type.
|>>|| No. 77473
I didn't say It was free and instantaneous, but just admitting you have to spend more money is a lot more straight forward than reintroducing a two-tier system of old, yes. Perhaps I'm just a romantic sort who doesn't think the best thing for the nation's children is to do the totality of their secondary education on the cheap.
|>>|| No. 77474
I think you may have missed the point. The jobs at independent schools aren't necessarily worth moving for, and with more grammar schools they are even less likely to be so.
|>>|| No. 77481
OK, so what you're saying is that with more grammar schools we are likely to have better teachers persuaded to teach in the state sector, which has to be a good thing? I have a feeling we're actually in agreement about this.
|>>|| No. 77482
They were on about grammar schools on the radio. A lot of callers from areas still with them said not overly bright kids from middle class backgrounds are getting in because their parents are paying for tuition for them to pass the 11+ as getting their little Tristram or Ophelia into a grammar school would be much cheaper than paying for them to go to a public school.
|>>|| No. 77485
>which has to be a good thing?
Only if you assume a single state sector, which wouldn't be the case.
|>>|| No. 77489
So what you're saying is that rather than making things better for those that do well, you'd prefer to keep things just barely adequate for everyone except those that can afford private schooling? Ahh, this must be the famous New Labour "equality".
|>>|| No. 77490
>rather than making things better for those that do well
No, that's not what grammar schools do.
|>>|| No. 77492
Evidence? And don't quote that FT article because that's not what it says.
|>>|| No. 77494
No. That's your job. You're asserting better outcomes, you prove them.
|>>|| No. 77499
Because that's the entire point of wanting them? Grammar schools attract a better calibre of pupil, which in turn attracts a better calibre of teacher. It's not a difficult concept. If you want data I'd point you to the FT article which despite the overall negative slant does show that counties with selective grammar schools have better high-end attainment.
The argument isn't whether grammar schools provide a better education for those that get in, it's whether they make things worse for those that don't. This all depends on how they are implemented - if done the lazy way (i.e. standard comps as they are now and new grammar schools) then they probably will, but if the standard comps are overhauled to provide a more vocational-oriented study scheme this needn't be the case.
|>>|| No. 77500
>if the standard comps are overhauled to provide a more vocational-oriented study scheme this needn't be the case.
Alternatively, how about not giving up on a child's academic potential when they're 11?
|>>|| No. 77501
That's just your opinion. That's not, you know, evidence.
>it's whether they make things worse for those that don't
... and the evidence is pretty unequivocal that they do. Scroll a little further down that article. Also mentioned today was that those that don't make the cut earn considerably less over their lifetimes than their peers in non-selective areas. A report a couple of years ago found that the bottom 10% of earners who went to school in selective areas earn less than the bottom 10% of those from non-selective areas.
But of course, none of this evidence will satisfy the deluded crowd who have got it in their heads that "the numbers must be wrong" and that grammar schools must be the solution.
|>>|| No. 79265
So if my understanding is right, grammar schools still use the 11+ exam or things like it.
That seems a bit shit. At 11-12, I was a troublemaking little bastard who wanted to get the hell out of education as soon as possible and spent as much time outside the headmaster's office as I did learning.
By 16 this had resolved of it's own accord and I was getting good results and did eventually go to university. Being Scottish, grammar schools have always seemed an oddity, but the idea of being sent down one track or the other at 11 instead of being able to float around based on developing ability seems rather undesirable. You'd always have to have some kind of arbitrary point at which you write someone off (unless you tried a yearly exam or something, but that'd just add up to repeatedly telling most kids they're thick and should give up.)
Even if my case is an outlying one and most trains do tend to stay on the track they're put on, I've always been uneasy about fucking over outliers.
|>>|| No. 79266
It's a tricky balancing act. Comprehensive education offers the promise of equality, but there's the risk that it will serve everyone equally badly. We accept the idea of streaming children by ability within a school, so it's largely a question of how much selection by ability is appropriate, rather than whether it is appropriate at all.
Personally, I think the problem is that we undervalue vocational education. Rather than seeing it as a legitimate option for people who are more practically-minded, we tend to treat it as a fallback option for people who aren't cut out for academic study. I think we need to seriously address that issue.
You managed to find your own path, but a lot of people don't. Many of the kids who become disaffected in secondary school never found their way back to motivation and attainment. Youth unemployment and underemployment is a serious issue that's getting worse. We need better options for young people who don't engage with the one-size-fits-all curriculum.
What do we have to lose by offering young people a wider range of vocational options? If a young person doesn't want to do GCSE French, why do we force them to do it? Why not let them choose a path that leads to an apprenticeship or an HND rather than university? Why not let them learn through doing, why not connect theory and practice?
We don't need workers who can analyse poetry or explain the causes of the first world war. We do have crippling shortages of workers with practical skills. We should be giving young people the choice from an early age to spend less time in a classroom and more time in a workshop. Our lack of respect for vocational education is failing young people and it's hampering the economy.
|>>|| No. 79267
We accept streaming within a school because that is flexible. The 11-plus seals a child's fate for 5-7 years, whereas within a comprehensive school that uses streaming you can move that child up or down as they progress, and put them into different sets for different subjects.
|>>|| No. 79269
The lack of practical skills among the population isn't confined specifically to vocational jobs either. It's also having a massive impact in white-collar professions too, mainly in the science and engineering sectors.
Universities are churning out thousands of graduates who completely lack many basic practical skills, but just because a person doesn't need practical skills for their own job, doesn't mean that they can get away without experience or and least a basic understanding of them. How can you expect someone to design a product when they don't understand how it can be made?
Talk to any experienced engineer who has had experiences with young employees, and you'll get tons of anecdotes about the gaps in the knowledge of recent engineering graduates. Having to explain to them the difference between a lathe and a mill, having to explain how to use a pair of digital calipers, having to explain why a weld needs filler metal, having to explain what "3/4 inch BSP" means (I've seen one horror story about an engineering graduate who didn't even understand the concept of thread standardisation.) I had my own jaw-dropping experience with a Masters graduate who was somehow completely unable to measure the diameter of a piece of pipe.
I'm not that old myself, I've only been working for a few years, but I meet people my age and I can't fathom why they didn't understand this stuff at 18, never mind 4 years later once they've had so many opportunities for learning and hands-on experience.
|>>|| No. 79274
>so many opportunities
What opportunities? Being stuck in lectures and classes about theories and how to pass an exam for three or four years to get a piece of paper that cost you £20k+?
We can say it's their fault for not finding out everything themselves, but then again that will only harm us in the long run.
I came out with a nice first in an engineering degree. Most of what I learnt were just how to convert between units, how to write up reports and how to derive things. The amount of things I learnt on the job was staggering. I could have just went straight to my graduate job after I left school without wasting so much time on a useless piece of paper. It would have been much better to get trained and learn on the job rather than all the nonsense I have had to do. Absolutely useless.
|>>|| No. 79275
True, a lot of it is probably being in the right place at the right time, but they are there if you look. I took a year in industry before I started uni, I spent a whole summer and christmas holiday working in my departments workshop, my masters included a 6 month industrial placement.
But my point wasn't really to blame any individual people for not getting the experience, I just wanted to illustrate that lack of practical skills is a systemic problem. Becoming disengaged from practical skills doesn't suddenly start at the age of 18.
Although that might be changing now. The boom of the maker movement is getting a lot of young people interested in making things.
|>>|| No. 79276
>What do we have to lose by offering young people a wider range of vocational options? If a young person doesn't want to do GCSE French, why do we force them to do it? Why not let them choose a path that leads to an apprenticeship or an HND rather than university? Why not let them learn through doing, why not connect theory and practice?
Why not fold this all into one school [or bus people about], instead of giving them an exam that will filter them into a path that might not be suited for them?
Why can't I study something vocational 90% of the time, then go learn to analyse poetry the other 10%? Why must it be an either-or situation? That mindset in itself seems quite harmful.
If you did it in that sort of way (at least carrying over my understanding of subject choices from the Scottish system) then you'd continue to let people float around as they develop (so for example on 3rd-4th year they might take vocational courses, but then get sick of that and decide actually they really did always want to be a poet, or vice-versa, when it came to 5th year and 6th year.) you'd avoid the risks entailed with "Okay son you're 11 now, take this exam. btw if you fail you better hope you're good with your hands."
I'm going to presume the answer is, as always, money.
I'm having a difficult to articulate thought where there seems to be a general presumption that people are either academically minded or practically minded, while in my own experience I'd say there are a reasonable number of kids/teens who aren't really interested in either sort of subject and resent being locked up almost anywhere for 6-7 hours a day. Most people would probably pigeon hole them as not academically minded and therefore future plumbers, but that isn't really accurate. Half jestingly, I want to say they'd probably be future artists/musicians if we were nurturing everyone in some kind of hyper-individualized highly budgeted flexibly timed way.
|>>|| No. 79534
>Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
>I'm having a difficult to articulate thought
I'm not Shakespeare but I'm within my rights of free speech to call someone a stupid fucker
|>>|| No. 79876
dirty commies and their false equality... it's time for grammar schools and MORALITY
|>>|| No. 84440
One in four graduates in England and Northern Ireland are working in jobs for which they are overqualified and do not require a degree, according to a major international education report.
The study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development found that while graduate unemployment rates in the UK are among the lowest in the world, students are more likely to end up in non-graduate jobs associated with lower incomes.
Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director of education and skills, said too many young people emerging from university were ending up in low-paid, non-graduate jobs in the UK because they lacked the basic numeracy and literacy skills that should be expected from a university education.
Schleicher said: “What we see is that a lot of people in the UK get a university degree but end up in a job that does not require that degree. When you test the skills of those people you actually see that those people don’t have the kind of skills that would be associated with a university degree.”
|>>|| No. 84441
Totally unsurprising to anyone who has worked in academia or recruitment. Blair's goal of 50% participation in higher education led to a drastic lowering of standards in the lower recesses of the university league tables. A polytechnic or an FE college doesn't suddenly become an institute of higher education just because you call it that. A kid who got two Ds at A-level just isn't going to benefit from another three years of education, but there are plenty of "universities" who will happily take £27k in fees from them. It's cargo cult education for a cargo cult society.
|>>|| No. 84442
Well if our graduate employment rates are among the highest in the world, is it really a surprise that many of them are in positions where they are overqualifed? I've met graduates before who would rather live off the dole for half a year than get a lousy job because they feel it's beneath them. If these people are swallowing their pride then that's fine with me. Also I'd agree with >>84441 since there are clearly a lot of graduates who not only didn't require their education but didn't get a very good one in the first place.
|>>|| No. 84518
Thousands of children with special educational needs and disabilities are waiting for a school place or are being educated at home, and many more are excluded, prompting fears that schools in England are becoming less inclusive.
According to Guardian analysis of Department for Education statistics, just under 4,500 pupils with statutory rights to special needs support were awaiting suitable provision or being home-schooled at the start of the year.
Campaigners say the real figure is far higher because the DfE data does not include Send pupils who don’t have a special needs statement or an education health and care plan, documents that guaranteetheir statutory rights to additional support. More than 1.2 million children, or about 15% or all students in England have some kind of special educational need, but only about 253,000 have special educational needs statements or education health and care plans.
There is also growing concern that children with special needs are particularly vulnerable to being taken off the rolls by schools that are under pressure, both financially because of budget cuts and academically to improve their exam results.
“We are not sure to what degree off-rolling takes place, but the target-driven education system we have means teachers and headteachers don’t want difficult children on their rolls,” said one local government analyst. Pupils get excluded on tenuous grounds, or teachers will tell parents at open days, ‘you shouldn’t send your child here – they will get a better education at a school down the road.’ It’s subtle, but we know it happens.”
|>>|| No. 84545
>Staff at Leeds Trinity University, in Horsforth, have been told to avoid using capital letters in communication with students. In a memo sent to the university’s school of journalism department, it asks lecturers to not use uppercase letters in a letter which talks about causing anxiety.
>The letter asks lecturers to “generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis” and to “avoid a tone that stresses the difficulty or the high-stakes nature of the task.” Other requests include overusing the words 'do' and 'don't' and to write in a 'helpful, warm tone, avoiding officious language and negative instructions.'
>A member of staff at the university, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Yorkshire Evening Post: “Nobody has banned it but there are guidelines advising us not to use capital letters which is absolutely ludicrous. I am yet to meet anyone who was traumatised by capital letters. We don’t need to do students any favours. They need to be prepared for the real world. If they fall and we keep catching them then once they graduate they’ll wonder why they’ve fallen on the floor.”
|>>|| No. 84546
Does it not just mean THIS SORT OF THING? Which doesn't strike me as an especially controversial when suggestion when dealing with someone with anxiety. Whoever was writing these guidelines clearly reckons berating people with anxiety in emails doesn't do much good, something I'd broadly agree with. Wouldn't most people?
Instead of making mountains out of molehills, why doesn't the Yorkshire Evening Post or literally any other journalistic publication, and I'm aware that's an increasingly meaningless word for some outlets, but even so, do some journalism into why everyone and their dog has anxiety these days? I find it hard to believe the entire British Isles has just "gotten soft" after hundreds of thousands of years of people living here. Or not, whatever, just keep perpetuating Twitter "outrage" and stupid stereotypes about students, week after week, forever and ever.
|>>|| No. 84547
I too assumed they meant to avoid BLOCK CAPITALS which is entirely reasonable, and makes sense as I'm looking at a letter from my GP right that has things like "YOU MUST" printed as such.
Either this has been poorly communicated by the person who wrote the memo, or has been deliberately misconstrued for the sake of an article.
|>>|| No. 84548
>Either this has been poorly communicated by the person who wrote the memo, or has been deliberately misconstrued for the sake of an article.
Given the guidance explicitly says "for emphasis" I know what my choice would be.
|>>|| No. 84549
>Does it not just mean THIS SORT OF THING? Which doesn't strike me as an especially controversial when suggestion when dealing with someone with anxiety.
As someone with ANXIETY I don't think changing the text of letters will have a significant impact. What IS anxiety inducing is not the phrasing of a letter but the message of a letter, and you have really no way to get around "we will kick you out if you don't start attending lectures and your grades don't improve" no amount of SUGAR COATING is going to stop that concept causing anxiety.
What I do consider innapropriate is fucking tv licence letters, they read like a fucking threat, and make me hate the BBC.
|>>|| No. 84550
>What I do consider innapropriate is fucking tv licence letters, they read like a fucking threat, and make me hate the BBC.
I outright refuse to pay the fees because of these letters. They really kick off the antiestablishment side of me.
I remember a website a while ago showing that the letters sent to lower income areas were far more threatening than those sent to more well off households. Fuck them.
|>>|| No. 84551
What TV Licensing do effectively amounts to psychological warfare. I'm pretty sure that if I were to do the things they do I'd be sent down for a long spell for harassment and coercive control. I can see why they do it, since any parent, Russian defector or White House journalist knows that threats only work if the victim believes they're credible, but ultimately this is a threat to exercise state power knowing it will not be followed through upon.
|>>|| No. 84552
And don't even get me started on TV detector vans, which are either an outright lie, or, by any definition, an example of covert government surveillance.
|>>|| No. 84553
They used to be real, but haven't actually functioned in decades as nobody uses B&W CRTs anymore. These days they're just blacked out minibuses with a blinkenlights setup in the back. You know, the sort of thing Trading Standards would want a word with you about if you tried selling them as "detector vans".
|>>|| No. 84554
I had a good laugh last time I got a TV Licensing threat letter. They'd sent me one of those things to announce they'd started an investigation, which they can do as they please, but then I looked closer at the bit where it had been "signed" by the guy in charge of investigations and realised it wasn't even done over by some guy with a biro to look convincing, they'd printed a "signature" in a different colour to the main text, and if you looked closely at the paper it was obviously done by a printer.
They'll have to get up earlier than that if they think they're going to scare me, once they start actually signing their letters or sending people to the door, maybe then I'll consider registering to tell them I don't have a telly and they can save their ink for people who don't get any pleasure out of getting bullies to waste their money.
|>>|| No. 84556
You can build a working TV detector with a £10 RTL-SDR stick and a suitably tuned antenna. A skilled electronics engineer could build one using 1950s components as a weekend project.
The vast majority of radio receivers (that includes anything wireless) operate on the superheterodyne principle. The received signal is mixed with a signal from a local oscillator, which shifts the desired signal down to a lower frequency that is more readily processed. Older analogue TV receivers were inefficient and poorly shielded, so the local oscillator frequency leaked out and could be detected from some distance, especially with a highly sensitive receiver and an antenna with significant gain. High-gain antennas are highly directional, so it's simple to work out the direction of a transmission by steering the antenna and find its location by triangulation.
The cathode ray tube in older TVs also produces considerable amounts of RF energy. The electron gun at the back of the tube can only produce a single dot, which is steered around the screen using a deflection coil to produce the image on the phosphor. This coil operates at high voltage and is a modestly efficient antenna. Using a technique called Van Eck phreaking, it's quite straightforward to reconstruct the image being displayed on the screen from a distance based solely on the RF emissions of the deflection coil; this was a sufficiently practical threat that NATO developed standards for shielding monitors used to display classified data.
Modern digital TVs generally use direct-conversion receivers and have much better shielding, rendering traditional TV detection techniques impractical at anything but point-blank range; a TV detector isn't much use if it only works in the same room.
More generally, nearly all electronic equipment has some sort of identifiable radio frequency signature. Using that £10 RTL-SDR stick, you can ascertain all sorts of things about your immediate environment. A switched-mode power supply like your phone charger produces a distinctive square-wave at about 400kHz. A light switch produces a very brief but very wideband emission due to the tiny spark of the contacts closing. If you're attuned to it, you can hear how many cylinders a car engine has and how hard it's revving based on the radio emissions from the ignition circuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cup of tea_(codename)
|>>|| No. 84557
I doubt the vans were sensitive enough to detect which flat in a building (or even which house out of say five in a row) actually had the TV. I could be entirely wrong but I feel like such a sensitive piece of kit would turn out to be negative investment even if > 50% of people failed to pay their TV license.
Fantastically interesting post though, I learned a lot. Thanks lad.
|>>|| No. 84558
Homing in on the precise location of a transmitter is remarkably simple thanks to the inverse square law. The strength of a signal changes with the square of the distance; if you move your receiver towards the transmitter, the received signal strength increases geometrically. Once you've picked up the signal, all you need is a handheld receiver with a signal strength indicator, an antenna that is somewhat directional and a pair of legs. You wave the antenna about until you've found the highest signal strength and walk in that direction. It's very much like using a metal detector. If you're just trying to confirm whether there's a TV in operation in a particular house, it's absolutely trivial. The equipment required is remarkably basic, even by the standards of the late 1960s.
Radio hunting is a modestly popular sport in some parts of the former Soviet Union, for depressingly KGB-related reasons.
I do agree that it probably wouldn't have been worth the hassle in most cases.
|>>|| No. 84559
Good luck detecting my Northrop-Grumman HD-2 stealth telly, electrofascists!
|>>|| No. 84609
What else is this SDR thingy good for?
I have a friend who'd been nagging me to get one but I didn't see much use for it.
Sage for /g/ bollocks.
|>>|| No. 84610
SDR stands for Software Defined Radio - the hardware just hoovers up radio waves, with your computer doing the work of decoding them. An SDR can receive essentially any radio transmission within the frequency range of the hardware, which in the case of the cheap RTL-SDR dongles is about 22MHz to 1GHz.
That's of very little interest to most people, but it's a cheap and versatile entry point into the radio hobby. They'll receive FM and DAB radio, the ADS-B navigation signals transmitted by aircraft and most kinds of two-way radio (although not the encrypted TETRA system used by the emergency services). You can pick up radiosonde transmissions from weather balloons, maritime radio and navigation beacons. With an upconverter, you can also receive shortwave transmissions.
There are other, more capable SDRs available, some of which (like the HackRF One) are also capable of transmitting. Bear in mind that there is a considerable difference between what is technically possible with an SDR and what is legal. You can listen in on a local minicab company's radio system and steal their customers, but I wouldn't advise you to do so.
|>>|| No. 84611
Do minicabs still use PMR? I'd assumed it had all shifted to phones some time ago.
|>>|| No. 84612
I don't know the details, and I don't know how common it is, but a lot of minicabs I've been in recently have been running with the meter off, with a phone app doing all the work instead. The app runs up the charge, and can automatically bill the card. The driver can then pick his next job if one is waiting, or look at the board to see which part of town he might want to be in. Or, as seems to happen frequently in my case, get allocated the job and then go absolutely fucking nowhere for 15 minutes.
|>>|| No. 84613
I agree the letters are shite and could use a change in tone.
While they reiterate that watching without a licence is illegal, they should talk about the great BBC programming that your licence fee funds. Like public television does in the US when they do their pledge drives. Or maybe they could provide a breakdown of where your money goes, like the government does for your tax bill. God knows that is sorely needed so they can admit how much they are giving Jonathan Ross and the like.
|>>|| No. 84614
They could frame it as a way to vote for what you want to see on telly. British programming: it's locally sourced, supporting small businesses and not in the hands of EU or US political propaganda. That should appeal to everyone.
|>>|| No. 84615
Hmm. Up to a point, mind. I can't imagine anything worse than giving the British public full control over the broadcast schedule.
|>>|| No. 84638
There's no evidence that grammar schools actually provide a better education once you correct for the effects of selection. Of course schools that only select the brightest students get better exam results.
|>>|| No. 84866
White children are the least likely to achieve their potential between primary and secondary school, official data shows.
Official data released by the Department for Education (DfE) shows that white children are making less progress compared to their peers from all other ethnic groups by the time they are 16-years-old.
This year, the average Progress 8 score for white children in state schools was the lowest at -0.10, compared to -0.02 for mixed race, 0.45 for Asian, 0.12 for black and 1.03 for Chinese pupils. White children has the second lowest score for attainment, with an average of 46.1. Chinese pupils had the highest score of 64.2, followed by Asian children, while black children had the lowest. Both this year and last, children with English as a second language had a higher score for attainment and made better progress on average than native speakers.
The data, published yesterday by the Department for Education (DfE), adds weight to arguments that people with migrant heritage are more likely to drive themselves forward.
Some experts believe many ethnic minority families are more aspirational and have a better attitude to work than those in poor, white communities.
|>>|| No. 84867
Sounds about right. We've had this (tedious) discussion before, but poor white british kids are really struggling, not least because a lot of their parents don't give a shit.
|>>|| No. 85563
>A teacher was sent to work in an ‘outstanding’ school despite struggling to read or write.
>Faisal Ahmed was placed in St Thomas More Catholic School in Wood Green, London, after completing his Teach First programme. But headmaster Mark Rowland suspended him after discovering he had ‘extreme difficulty with handwriting’, reading problems and issues understanding ‘written tests’.
>Mr Ahmed, in his 30s, has dyspraxia, a developmental disorder that affects movement and co-ordination. Teach First admitted they had not informed the school of his dyspraxia before he started in 2016. Mr Ahmed decided to leave his role and has since sued the school for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination.
How the fuck do you qualify as a teacher if you're borderline illiterate? I know some right thickos who have gone into teaching, but they can at least read and write.
|>>|| No. 85566
Says you. What do you think an organisation called Teach First might do?
|>>|| No. 85568
One would assume encourage people to become teachers. I fail to see what point if any you are trying to make.
|>>|| No. 85571
>Teach First is a social enterprise registered as a charity which aims to address educational disadvantage in England and Wales. Participants must undergo a two-year training programme in order to achieve Qualified Teacher Status.
He'd completed the programme. He had achieved Qualified Teacher Status despite being unable to read or write properly.
|>>|| No. 85573
Your quote doesn't support your assertion. The two-year training programme at Teach First entails being placed into a school. He was at the beginning of his placement. He had not achieved QTS.
>Just a few days into his role as a business studies teacher
He had a degree, but no PGDE.
|>>|| No. 85574
>Faisal Ahmed was placed in St Thomas More Catholic School in Wood Green, London, after completing his Teach First programme.
I'd agree, but then we'd both be wrong.
|>>|| No. 85575
It is like Faisal Ahmed is amongst us and failing literacy once more!
|>>|| No. 85576
We need to call in the imageboard equivalent of Ofsted
I'll get working on the letter to Angela Eagle to make sure standards aren't slipping.
|>>|| No. 85646
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 31% of graduates are overeducated for the job they are doing. For those graduating before 1992, the number was only 22%, but this jumped to 34% for those graduating after 2007.
Graduates in arts and humanities were more likely to be under-using their education. The overeducation rate for all workers of about 16% for 2017 is largely unchanged since 2006.
|>>|| No. 85647
>Graduates in arts and humanities were more likely to be under-using their education
What a revelation. I'm truly shocked.
|>>|| No. 85648
Whereas some science graduates have been using their degree to produce this study.
|>>|| No. 85649
Not enough of a distinction is made between the calibre of the university and the subject studied in this country. I don't think this is fully understood by enough people who are planning to on applying to study. Even that BBC article talks about average graduate earnings in general, which gives people false hope over what they can achieve with a shitty degree from a shitty institution.
|>>|| No. 85833
>Most families do not choose to send their children to their nearest school, shows the biggest ever study of state secondary school choices in England. More than 60% opt for a school that is further away - usually because it is higher achieving.
>"Contrary to a widely-held belief, only a minority of parents choose their local school as their first option," say researchers.
>It also debunks the idea that richer families are more engaged with choices. Despite any assumptions about the "sharp elbows" of middle-class families, there was no significant difference in behaviour between wealthier and more disadvantaged parents.
>Both were similarly engaged in using choices to seek more desirable school places for their children. Parents in poorer areas were more likely to opt for schools further away - with researchers suggesting this was because richer families were more likely to live close to high-performing schools.
|>>|| No. 86300
This is more a personal observation than anything, but a few months ago when I watched that 'They Will Not Grow Old' documentary by Peter Jackson, I couldn't help but notice just how articulate all the old WWI vets were. They certainly didn't sound as though they were upper-crust or anything, they just sounded like regular blokes from across England and Scotland; only one or two of them sounded like officers.
Now, these were old men, so they've had a lifetime of experience to become more nuanced in their speech, but for me, it put to bed this silly notion that we're 'more' educated nowadays than we used to be because of technology. You'd think with all the text people read on a daily basis because of their phones, they'd be more literate, but it's the opposite.
|>>|| No. 86301
There are a lot of things that could have effected why the Tommies in those interviews sounded the way they did though. It's possible the researchers at the time thought the working class ones with inpenetrable regional accents weren't telly material, or that all of them died at the age of 40 from being so poor and smelly. I haven't seen the film though I might be way off on both ideas.
I definitely think literacy is taking a hit though, or at least the levels of quality literacy. Undoubtably more people can read and write than ever before, but not everyone's secretly a *NAME OF FAMOUS AUTHOR*. Sorry, I don't know many books.
Oh, Sara Pascoe, she did a book.
|>>|| No. 86302
I think it's sort of more that the way people spoke back then was more polite and proper; or at least, it bloody well was if you were going to be on the film. That will have been a big deal for gentlemen of their generation, and I imagine they'd have asked for their Sunday best and treated it like a formal occasion.
I don't think it necessarily has to do with education in terms of intellect, but certainly education in terms of how to conduct and present oneself. We've almost entirely retired that concept these days. Nowadays people might read and write more than ever before, technically, but most of them don't spend their time on a board like this for anoraks and shed enthusiasts. The quality of their reading material counts for far more than the quantity, because 90% of online communication is utter dreck.
I will type more words now because I have just obtained a mechanical keyboard and I am enjoying the noises it makes. They are pleasant, but I feel the trend towards them recently is a bit overrated. If my old one hadn't have broken I don't think I would have consciously "upgraded" to a mechanical one at any point soon.
|>>|| No. 86303
>I don't think it necessarily has to do with education in terms of intellect, but certainly education in terms of how to conduct and present oneself.
This. Back then people seemed to have a greater sense of pride or, more accurately, a greater sense of shame. I'm not entirely sure when picking up your children from school wearing pyjamas, slippers and a dressing gown became a thing but I'd wager it coincided with an increase in people having no sense of shame.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]