Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Going to ramble a bit here, and it's probably old news to my fellow dakka members, but two things have focused my attention of late:
1) a Sherlock Holmes' story
2) Uber in court over workers' rights.
As any Holmes fan will tell you, the intrepid duo get around London quite a lot on the old horse and carriage, but in 2016, these are almost non-existent, replaced by the combustion engine...
This we know. We also know that a major industry sprung up around cars: petrol stations, garages, mechanics, delivery drivers etc etc
Millions of jobs created ect etc
But looking at Uber, we know that the logical conclusion is the Uber app + self driving cars = tons of people without a job.
We know that Amazon drones will deliver parcels, and a hundred other uses for robots in factories that will wipe out millions of jobs...
This is a hardly a newsflash. As Oral story tellers ended up on the dole because of the printing press, so will London taxi drivers be cursing Uber and robot cars...it's called progress
This change might be slow, fast, or immediate. We should caution about future predictions, as after all, we're all supposed to be owners of flying cars by now and living on the moon...
And new technology will still need highly skilled technicians and engineers for maintenance, so small numbers of jobs will be retained...
But none of our political parties are taking the future seriously. The two zombie parties, Labour and the non-Tories, are fighting the battles of the 20th century in the 21st century...
They say nothing about automation, genetic engineering, climate change, meta data etc etc etc
A citizen's income has been thrown around, but nothing serious...
So when I look at the Uber court case, I think that one day, these cars won't need paid holidays or trade unions, won't get sick, won't get pregnant and need maternity leave, and then I remember Homes and Watson, in a carriage, speeding through the London fog to foil the dastardly Moriarty...
Which British politician has a vision for the 21st century?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Amazon drones thing is gonna be entertaining. I except a new black market will develop when people figure out how to intercept and hack or shoot down the drones and steal the packages.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 15:33:26
Kilkrazy wrote: UK corporation tax is extremely low already.
Agreed but its not Amazon/Google/Facebook/Apple low. Its already difficult to compete with those lot if you're a standard UK business even more so you're paying more tax then them.
I pay more tax than some of them , in fact the Scottish government gives them money!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 15:44:46
We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.
Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Finally! Word is getting out. It’s not just Uber’s “innovation” claims which are questionable, it’s potentially the entire business model.
Kudos to Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith for giving transportation industry expert Hubert Horan a platform to highlight the following analysis of the scant figures Uber has shared (reluctantly) with the public thus far – none of which had a requirement to be audited in accordance with GAAP or SEC reporting standards. Our emphasis:
As shown in Exhibit 2, for the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit margin. Thus Uber’s current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares.
This is critical because it suggests we’re dealing with a charity case in disguise.
But there’s more to it than that. Silicon Valley elites justify the subsidies in the name of monopolistic growth expectations and the building of “eco-systems”*. They believe if monopoly status is achieved, profitability will follow naturally from that point.
Yet, as FT Alphaville has long maintained, there is no reason to assume Uber’s obliteration of local competition across the planet will create a sustainable business in the long term. Costs are costs, even if you’re a monopoly. As long as people have cheaper alternatives (public transport, legs), they will defect if the break-even price is higher than their inconvenience tolerance threshold.
The fact Silicon Valley thinks otherwise is sadly symptomatic of the emperor’s new clothes groupthink dominating the sector. Though it does explain the sector’s obsession with popularising the idea that public transport can be done away with. (Less investment in public transport will lead to fewer competitively priced alternatives, empowering the Uber monopoly in the long run).
As Horan notes:
There is no evidence that Uber’s rapid growth is driving the rapid margin improvements achieved by other prominent tech startups as they “grew into profitability.”
Assuming that the unusual spike in EBITAR margin in the first half of 2014 (157%) was due to one-time events or accounting anomalies, Uber has been steadily producing EBITAR margins worse than negative 100% since 2012, and the absolute magnitude of losses has been increasing.
With the economics of the core business model looking that bad, small surprise Uber is currently preoccupied with pivoting its way to viability. If prices ever reflected the true cost of service provision, customer growth would stall and marketshare would no doubt be lost to more economically organised local alternatives.
Users will be familiar with the key pivots in hand. The first came in the shape of subtly turning its private taxi service into an economised carpool experience and hoping customers wouldn’t notice Uber’s slow and steady transformation into a bus service. Indeed, since this is Uber, customers’ preferences are instead subtly massaged and managed with discount incentives and other behaviour moderating mechanisms (like crappy app navigation which makes it impossible to opt out of a pooled journey).
The pooled option generates a much better margin for Uber. But drivers, safe to say, hate it. Many complain customers don’t always realise they’ve ordered a pooled trip and are shocked and annoyed when the app forces them to divert to pick up another customer at the expense of their convenience and journey time. The margin improvement, meanwhile, is mostly absorbed by Uber. Another pivot is the deployment of an “optimised pickup point” function, where passengers are incentivised (with discounts) to gather at hub points which improve route efficiency — essentially, the reinvention of the taxi rank and/or the bus stop.
Then there are the more dramatic pivots such as the deployment of delivery services like UberEats (the economics of which are equally questionable) and ultimately the release of self-driving vehicles, the economics of which we’re not sold on either.
But there are other more sinister issues at hand, like the blurring of political processes with business viability.
For example, when we met Bradley Tusk, CEO of Tusk Ventures, who lobbies on behalf of Uber in Washington at the Web summit in Lisbon earlier in November, he argued fervently that the backlash amongst drivers was being prompted by the fact that Uber was disrupting taxi cartels which had overpriced services for so long. Consumers wanted cheaper taxi journeys and the law which protected these cartels had to move with the times to respond to consumer demands.
As he noted to us:
There are, sure, the black cab drivers in London and taxi drivers who feel disaffected because they are losing out, but they can always become Uber drivers by the way, but at least in the US what frequently happens is the taxi cartel tries to shut Uber down because they don’t want innovation because Uber is ultimately such a more democratic system, it will take people where they want to go no matter who they are.
I think we’ve used democracy much in the way Trump has to ultlimately make our point. So we’ve run campaigns where 1000s of customers will plead or email the regulators to the government to say no leave me alone so the position of Travis is that Uber is very much a position of economic freedom.”
But what the above really illustrates is that nobody at Uber seems to understand the difference between a political process and a market process.
What they want is for the law to bow to “consumer demand” for cheaper taxi services by granting Uber the right to ignore collective regulations on worker rights and conditions. But all this equates to is an economic transfer from the working class over to urban metropolitan elites, which benefits one particular corporation over others.
This is plainly crazy. The only innovation in hand is that the old “You rang m’Lord” system has been transformed into a “you hailed me on your app m’Lord” one instead.
If the population’s top political priority really was a cheap private car service rather than a new public transport infrastructure, political parties would be putting this issue at the top of their political manifestos. The fact they don’t suggests society as a whole would never endorse policy which campaigned for cheap taxi services to be funded with lower worker living standards.
It’s hardly surprising that consumers will endorse political calls for cheaper taxi services if a pre-drafted email to that effect lands in their inbox without a fair explanation of who funds those cheap services really. They’d call for cheaper medical services, education, housing, utilities, basically everything as well. The question is not whether they want cheaper taxi services, it’s whether they would prioritise this need over all their other social and political needs as a whole. Hence why getting customers to dispatch thousands of pre-drafted emails to politicians isn’t indicative of the power of democracy. It’s indicative of an Uber-organised DDoS attack upon the state.
It’s fair to suggest the economics will prove themselves eventually. There’s even good anecdotal evidence to suggest they’re already doing so.
We recently spoke to one of Uber’s earliest London drivers, who declined to be named. He told us that to survive he had to forge a driver syndicate which collectively owns the underlying car capital. With more drivers than cars to hand, the cars can be fully utilised 24 hours a day improving the return on capital invested. To economise further, the drivers take turns with shifts, step-in for each other if and when they need leave and recruit temporary staff if and when they find themselves under staffed. They also mutualise the costs and the insurance. Yet, even then, he said “it’s really hard to make the economics work” and that “when Uber increased its margin from 20 per cent to 28 per cent it knocked our profitability in half”.
What this amounts to, of course, is the re-constitution of the very economies of scale which Uber inadvertently demolished when it went about its atomising driver process. But if a quasi professional corporate structure like this can’t make ends meet within the Uber network, what hope does any single driver have? Uber is surviving on plain old worker naivety.
*Eco-system is a Silicon Valley euphemism for a cross-subsidised system.
At the moment , and for the foreseeable future, Uber is a gigantic con.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 15:44:27
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Finally! Word is getting out. It’s not just Uber’s “innovation” claims which are questionable, it’s potentially the entire business model.
Kudos to Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith for giving transportation industry expert Hubert Horan a platform to highlight the following analysis of the scant figures Uber has shared (reluctantly) with the public thus far – none of which had a requirement to be audited in accordance with GAAP or SEC reporting standards. Our emphasis:
As shown in Exhibit 2, for the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit margin. Thus Uber’s current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares.
This is critical because it suggests we’re dealing with a charity case in disguise.
But there’s more to it than that. Silicon Valley elites justify the subsidies in the name of monopolistic growth expectations and the building of “eco-systems”*. They believe if monopoly status is achieved, profitability will follow naturally from that point.
Yet, as FT Alphaville has long maintained, there is no reason to assume Uber’s obliteration of local competition across the planet will create a sustainable business in the long term. Costs are costs, even if you’re a monopoly. As long as people have cheaper alternatives (public transport, legs), they will defect if the break-even price is higher than their inconvenience tolerance threshold.
The fact Silicon Valley thinks otherwise is sadly symptomatic of the emperor’s new clothes groupthink dominating the sector. Though it does explain the sector’s obsession with popularising the idea that public transport can be done away with. (Less investment in public transport will lead to fewer competitively priced alternatives, empowering the Uber monopoly in the long run).
As Horan notes:
There is no evidence that Uber’s rapid growth is driving the rapid margin improvements achieved by other prominent tech startups as they “grew into profitability.”
Assuming that the unusual spike in EBITAR margin in the first half of 2014 (157%) was due to one-time events or accounting anomalies, Uber has been steadily producing EBITAR margins worse than negative 100% since 2012, and the absolute magnitude of losses has been increasing.
With the economics of the core business model looking that bad, small surprise Uber is currently preoccupied with pivoting its way to viability. If prices ever reflected the true cost of service provision, customer growth would stall and marketshare would no doubt be lost to more economically organised local alternatives.
Users will be familiar with the key pivots in hand. The first came in the shape of subtly turning its private taxi service into an economised carpool experience and hoping customers wouldn’t notice Uber’s slow and steady transformation into a bus service. Indeed, since this is Uber, customers’ preferences are instead subtly massaged and managed with discount incentives and other behaviour moderating mechanisms (like crappy app navigation which makes it impossible to opt out of a pooled journey).
The pooled option generates a much better margin for Uber. But drivers, safe to say, hate it. Many complain customers don’t always realise they’ve ordered a pooled trip and are shocked and annoyed when the app forces them to divert to pick up another customer at the expense of their convenience and journey time. The margin improvement, meanwhile, is mostly absorbed by Uber. Another pivot is the deployment of an “optimised pickup point” function, where passengers are incentivised (with discounts) to gather at hub points which improve route efficiency — essentially, the reinvention of the taxi rank and/or the bus stop.
Then there are the more dramatic pivots such as the deployment of delivery services like UberEats (the economics of which are equally questionable) and ultimately the release of self-driving vehicles, the economics of which we’re not sold on either.
But there are other more sinister issues at hand, like the blurring of political processes with business viability.
For example, when we met Bradley Tusk, CEO of Tusk Ventures, who lobbies on behalf of Uber in Washington at the Web summit in Lisbon earlier in November, he argued fervently that the backlash amongst drivers was being prompted by the fact that Uber was disrupting taxi cartels which had overpriced services for so long. Consumers wanted cheaper taxi journeys and the law which protected these cartels had to move with the times to respond to consumer demands.
As he noted to us:
There are, sure, the black cab drivers in London and taxi drivers who feel disaffected because they are losing out, but they can always become Uber drivers by the way, but at least in the US what frequently happens is the taxi cartel tries to shut Uber down because they don’t want innovation because Uber is ultimately such a more democratic system, it will take people where they want to go no matter who they are.
I think we’ve used democracy much in the way Trump has to ultlimately make our point. So we’ve run campaigns where 1000s of customers will plead or email the regulators to the government to say no leave me alone so the position of Travis is that Uber is very much a position of economic freedom.”
But what the above really illustrates is that nobody at Uber seems to understand the difference between a political process and a market process.
What they want is for the law to bow to “consumer demand” for cheaper taxi services by granting Uber the right to ignore collective regulations on worker rights and conditions. But all this equates to is an economic transfer from the working class over to urban metropolitan elites, which benefits one particular corporation over others.
This is plainly crazy. The only innovation in hand is that the old “You rang m’Lord” system has been transformed into a “you hailed me on your app m’Lord” one instead.
If the population’s top political priority really was a cheap private car service rather than a new public transport infrastructure, political parties would be putting this issue at the top of their political manifestos. The fact they don’t suggests society as a whole would never endorse policy which campaigned for cheap taxi services to be funded with lower worker living standards.
It’s hardly surprising that consumers will endorse political calls for cheaper taxi services if a pre-drafted email to that effect lands in their inbox without a fair explanation of who funds those cheap services really. They’d call for cheaper medical services, education, housing, utilities, basically everything as well. The question is not whether they want cheaper taxi services, it’s whether they would prioritise this need over all their other social and political needs as a whole. Hence why getting customers to dispatch thousands of pre-drafted emails to politicians isn’t indicative of the power of democracy. It’s indicative of an Uber-organised DDoS attack upon the state.
It’s fair to suggest the economics will prove themselves eventually. There’s even good anecdotal evidence to suggest they’re already doing so.
We recently spoke to one of Uber’s earliest London drivers, who declined to be named. He told us that to survive he had to forge a driver syndicate which collectively owns the underlying car capital. With more drivers than cars to hand, the cars can be fully utilised 24 hours a day improving the return on capital invested. To economise further, the drivers take turns with shifts, step-in for each other if and when they need leave and recruit temporary staff if and when they find themselves under staffed. They also mutualise the costs and the insurance. Yet, even then, he said “it’s really hard to make the economics work” and that “when Uber increased its margin from 20 per cent to 28 per cent it knocked our profitability in half”.
What this amounts to, of course, is the re-constitution of the very economies of scale which Uber inadvertently demolished when it went about its atomising driver process. But if a quasi professional corporate structure like this can’t make ends meet within the Uber network, what hope does any single driver have? Uber is surviving on plain old worker naivety.
*Eco-system is a Silicon Valley euphemism for a cross-subsidised system.
At the moment , and for the foreseeable future, Uber is a gigantic con.
I don't disagree, but driverless cars are here to stay and will quickly take over, because the insurance companies will hammer anybody who doesn't sign up to this - human error being no match for our robot masters. Robots won't get drunk at the wheel or fall alseep or whatever.
Not for a minute am I anti-technology, because i can see that driver less cars = more efficiency = less air pollution = less deaths from air pollution.
You will find my predictions in any half-baked science or tech mag, but I believe that the rich will take advantage of genetic engineering to create another divide in society, and I also believe that VR is another major challenge...
Once VR goes mainstream, gets to a decent level, and when the Porn industry gets involved, I think society is in big trouble!
Seriously though, I think a big chunk of people, not having much success in life, will lose themselves the way Barclay did in the star trek holosuites or Dave Lister in the Red Dwarf novel...
I watched a BBC documentary about that famous equation (which I've forgotten ) about the search for alien life. They think we'll never find aliens because of the vast gulf of space, laws of physics, alien societies might have nuked each other etc etc
One reason given was VR i.e nobody wanted to leave their planet because they were lost in their own artificial universe...
Back OT, is any British politicians even heard of VR, never mind the implications for society?
PS I also recognise that VR could provide wonderful virtual training for many professions such as surgeons, engineers, planning etc etc
so I'm not anti-tech, just being realistic.
PPS we might already be in VR hell a la The Matrix It might be too late, we'll never know!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The Amazon drones thing is gonna be entertaining. I except a new black market will develop when people figure out how to intercept and hack or shoot down the drones and steal the packages.
I suspect a lot of Americans will take great delight in shooting down drones
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/09 15:59:10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
You need to accept that this one really, really, is demonstrably nothing to do with May and shouldn't be a reason to think badly of her.
I disagree; the limitations placed on the commission are favouring one party over others. If May had any real intent to give the people more opportunity to run their lives then that would include working to ensure each of their voices is equal. I was providing an example of one way of doing this. I would take the same view of anyone that doesn't follow through with the principles they state because it is hypocritical (and that they are just using it to pacify the mob rather than actually implementing it in a meaningful way). I would have the same view of Cameron/Blair and so on. It's a black mark fro all of them. But May is in power now and has the ability to change a process and the limitations that were placed on the commission. That she doesn't *and* is opposite to what she says she stands for is an extra negative mark.
What happens if it is 80% in one year or 30% in the next?
For there to be such statistical leap, I would assume some drastic evidence had necessitated it, and congratulate the government on their clearly rapid action.
Nationally yes it is unlikely, but on a local level it is much more statistically likely. Of course nationally it doesn't work if all the 'excess intelligent' children are in York and the spare capacity of grammar schools is in Exeter.
Moving children in and out doesn't work. This happened to my mother in the 70's. She didn't get into a grammar but then found to be 'worthy' of a grammar school place so moved 'up'. Problem was that the grammar lessons were already more advanced hence she went from top of the class to the bottom of the class. She was then moved back down and the cycle repeated ending up with a relatively poor education. She wasn't at fault it was the system - no one recognised that trying to catch up on a six month shortfall on education standards was the issue.
That's an interesting perspective, but one anecdotal tale does not a macro trend create.
Agreed it is anecdotal; it's interesting to note your example below also shows that swapping between different schooling systems doesn't work (but in a different way from mine).
Life is unfair advantage. Some kids get born smart and attractive, others don't. Some get genetic diseases, others don't. I accept that there's a goal to try and make sure everyone has a decent start, but there's that and then insisting that the nail that sticks out the most should be hammered down because it's unfair to the other nails.
How would you define this? On what basis. Einstein didn't talk until he was 4 and read until he was 7 and refused entrance to a school at 16 on the basis of his grades (just as a Grammar school would do). Elvis Presley was not considered very good at all. Yet both have had profound impacts in the last 100 or so years. Both where they would fail to meet grammar school standards. Just because one nail sticks out further in one field does not mean the person cannot be another scientist or musician in the future. It is too simplistic just to assess children on a few 'idealised' areas. My suspicion (which you confirmed) when you were talking about your education was that the early years were focused more on Maths, languages, sciences rather than a wider range of subjects. By doing this you focus only on a few that are good at the time in those areas. it ignores the potential in others or longer term. Excluding special needs children our ability to understand any of the basic maths/sciences/English subjects are going to be roughly the same and it becomes more about nurture rather than nature. At these stages of education you want a broad education experience different areas to find which areas you they could excel in and then leave the Universities to specialise the individual in their area of strength. Grammar schools fail to do this because they too early try to determine failure and achievement simply few classical fields.
That doesn't make financial services automatically migrate to Paris instead of elsewhere in Europe though. Trying to push a disadvantage on Britain may disadvantage France as well in some regards.
If these banks have already undertaken due diligence then they will have taken this into account. As I said previously 'Due Diligence' tests are the final stage of preparing a proposal/project/relocation to ensure that you have considered all reasonable potential scenarios. This will include other EU cities. It's not the early stage of the process where you are considering your options and hence might still go one way or another, it is the final stage of checking that the project will meet it's intended aims (and at this stage it's only a few little things will get tweaked, location will not be).
You ask for evidence about my earlier point? Evidence? Evidence!!!???
13 years ago, Blair ran a coach and horses through Parliamentry sovereignty with his push for invading Iraq.
We now know he lied to Parliament.
Parliament has been kept in the dark about British troops in the Ukraine, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which end up killing civilians in Yeman.
Despite the above, I didn't see much people giving two hoots for Parliamentry sovereigntry then.
And yet, here we are, after a crucial EU referendum, Gina Millar, backed by rich Remain supporters, suddenly find it in their hearts to lift a finger to defend our poor and weak Parliament and its sovereigntry.
You can rightly argue that the EU referendum is an important decision, but so is going to war, and war is without a doubt, the important position any nation will ever find itself in. It's a matter of life and death...
Evidence? Please. I don't evidence to tell me that Remain supporters who've had a sudden Damascus conversion over Parliamentry sovereigntry, are trying to stall, delay, or even reverse the June 23rd result.
I know bullgak when I smell it and this courtroom battle stinks to high heaven!
If the Supreme Court rules for the Government, Gina Millar and her backers will be on the first plane to the ECJ quicker than you can say dakka dakka.
They will fail to see the irony of a European court ruling on a British Constitutional matter.
We'll find out one way or another how much they care for Parliamentry sovereigntry.
So evidence is no longer needed? As long as a particular view meets your perception of the circumstances then it has to be true. I presume you think then that world is flat, as from an individuals perspective you can't see the curvature of the earth? How do you know G Miller isn't just an anarchist that wants to cause as much chaos as possible? If you only base your world view on what you believe then you *seriously* need to consider how you approach the world, because your view of the world is biased by the world you live in, the papers you read, the TV programmes you watch and the people you meet. That is why evidence is important because it is less constrained by this (there is always some bias) and without it leads to 'mob' mentality. You don't know if there is any ulterior motive or whether that she wants to ensure that we don't end up with some democratic dictatorship where Empress May and a few cronies can railroad anything they want through.
And the Iraq War is completely different. No one took a court action against the government for lack of Parliamentary sovereignty because there was no need. The UK parliament *did* vote on the Iraq War hence there was no need for High Court/Supreme court case. Whether TB misled the parliament is a different issue.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 11:25:47
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Whirlwind, my opinion is obviously just that, but it's based on rational principals, logic, Occam's razor, and years of following British politics.
I look at the situation, I see people who never gave two hoots for Parliamentary Sovereignty before, and all of a sudden, they're walking around with law books under their arm, and all because the EU referendum didn't produce the result they wanted.
You'll forgive me for being suspicious.
But it's all a moot point now anyway, given the vote in parliament.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
This is why I couldn't get excited about the vote.
Non-story is far as I'm concerned. When Parliament votes to walk away from the EU, nothing, short of an EU invasion, will stop it., and that is extremely unlikely.
For sure, everything should be done above board, but if a member chooses to walk away in line with its own constitutional requirements,m the EU won and can't stop it. Might make negotiations more frosty, but realpolitik usually comes to the fore in these situations.
Bottom line: an Irish court won't stop Brexit. They may as well ask a court in Cuba to rule on this...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, my opinion is obviously just that, but it's based on rational principals, logic, Occam's razor, and years of following British politics.
But that's exactly the problem. You aren't considering any other point of view other than one you think is correct. What you view as your Occam's razor is based on your own life experience which is biased by your upbringing, education, social group and so on. What is your Occam's razor is not the same as mine or anyone else's. So why is your version of things correct? That is why evidence is important (although potentially still biased) it try's to remove ones own interpretation bias. The case has never been about overturning the referendum it is about a constitutional issue about who can implement it (basically whether government can do what they want or it needs to have parliamentary oversight by those who we as the populace voted for).
I look at the situation, I see people who never gave two hoots for Parliamentary Sovereignty before, and all of a sudden, they're walking around with law books under their arm, and all because the EU referendum didn't produce the result they wanted.
How do you know this? Have you followed G. Millers life. Do you know what she has worked on before? Have you ever spoken to her. Otherwise the only time you have been exposed to what she has done over her life is through the press and what they are portraying because this particular issue is dividing the country. Your knowledge of her is only what she is doing now, so you don't actually know what you are saying is correct without evidence!
Also as a point of note the vote in parliament was on whether the timetable should be followed *not* the vote on Article 50 itself.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Nationally yes it is unlikely, but on a local level it is much more statistically likely. Of course nationally it doesn't work if all the 'excess intelligent' children are in York and the spare capacity of grammar schools is in Exeter.
And that's why it would help if loads were opened instead of just a few.
Agreed it is anecdotal; it's interesting to note your example below also shows that swapping between different schooling systems doesn't work (but in a different way from mine).
Aye. Just to throw a third anecdote into the fray, my father who immigrated to Britain aged 17, resat college exams twice here and did poorly each time before going into professional acting (he's now got a masters, so it wasn't a case of a lack of ability). He personally ascribed it to the curriculum differences. I would hypothesize that swapping systems altogether is more detrimental to a student than any individual (de)merit of any given system.
How would you define this? On what basis. Einstein didn't talk until he was 4 and read until he was 7 and refused entrance to a school at 16 on the basis of his grades (just as a Grammar school would do). Elvis Presley was not considered very good at all. Yet both have had profound impacts in the last 100 or so years.
Whether Elvis was good is a matter for debate, both then and now.
Regardless, the evidence accumulated indicates that placing children together in a fully comprehensive format retards the development/learning of the brightest in any given subject, because the class can only move at the speed of the slowest. That's literally the entire point of the system, it is a one size fits all model, designed to adjust for children of any given ability level. Mixed streaming instituted within a comprehensive system can help to temper the worst excesses of the comprehensive system and provide some flexibility, and many schools have now moved to such a model. But the flip side of the coin is that a grammar school can have adjustments of its own that mitigate the worst flaws.
The lesson here really, is that the hangup on 'comprehensive v grammar' is a stupid ideological battle which generates headlines and stands in the way of finding our way to a system that most likely sits in the middle of both worlds and incorporates the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.
Just because one nail sticks out further in one field does not mean the person cannot be another scientist or musician in the future. It is too simplistic just to assess children on a few 'idealised' areas. My suspicion (which you confirmed) when you were talking about your education was that the early years were focused more on Maths, languages, sciences rather than a wider range of subjects. By doing this you focus only on a few that are good at the time in those areas. it ignores the potential in others or longer term. Excluding special needs children our ability to understand any of the basic maths/sciences/English subjects are going to be roughly the same and it becomes more about nurture rather than nature. At these stages of education you want a broad education experience different areas to find which areas you they could excel in and then leave the Universities to specialise the individual in their area of strength. Grammar schools fail to do this because they too early try to determine failure and achievement simply few classical fields.
As do comprehensives, because doing 12 subjects instead of 8 really, really barely makes a difference. If a child has a genius gift for interior design, selling used cars, or growing hyacinths, he's no more likely to discover it in a comprehensive system than a grammar. You're always going to have to accept that that will be the case, there are too many professions, crafts, and skills to ever shoehorn them all into an educational curriculum. Grammar or comprehensive makes no difference to this fact.
The whole point of education is to establish a basic framework of knowledge and understanding. Within that, we select a number of topics we think are most necessary, group them into broad category labels, and grade them on how well they memorise what we tell them. Then you hope we did enough that they can find their way in the world. Whether you teach drama as a standalone or subsume it into English Literature makes little difference, the students are all still reading and performing plays at the end of the day.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 12:27:06
The Irish court appeal is intended to see if Brexit Article 50 can be reversed in EU law after it is triggered, it has nothing directly to do with Uk law. Hence why the appeal can be launched in any EU court, and the Irish system is as good as any for that purpose, as the question is directed as Brussels not Westminster.
However as we can see plainly that Article 50 rules already do not apply according to Brussels mandarins, which are offering only 18 months, not 2 years for post article 50 negotiations despite the worded ruling.
The goalposts are already shifting and are unlikely to shift in favour of remainers. I am interested to see what is scheduled to occur in the winter of 2018 spring of 2019 that the EU chief negotiator wants Brexit to be over by then.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
This is why I couldn't get excited about the vote.
Non-story is far as I'm concerned. When Parliament votes to walk away from the EU, nothing, short of an EU invasion, will stop it., and that is extremely unlikely.
For sure, everything should be done above board, but if a member chooses to walk away in line with its own constitutional requirements,m the EU won and can't stop it. Might make negotiations more frosty, but realpolitik usually comes to the fore in these situations.
Bottom line: an Irish court won't stop Brexit. They may as well ask a court in Cuba to rule on this...
Except with a second referendum either in a few years when the terms become clear or in 10 years when the changes in age of the current population, given current polls, would indicate the country becomes pro-EU again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 12:28:57
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
That youth vote you are counting on Whirlwind were too busy in the pub watching reality TV and playing games, or flipping burgers to actually vote. The already had the numbers, but they 'werent bovvered innit'. The over fifties were motivated and voted to Leave.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Whether Elvis was good is a matter for debate, both then and now.
Each to their own in that regard. However he did make a big impact whether you loved or loathed. I don't really like the Beatles but they definitely made an impact.
Regardless, the evidence accumulated indicates that placing children together in a fully comprehensive format retards the development/learning of the brightest in any given subject, because the class can only move at the speed of the slowest. That's literally the entire point of the system, it is a one size fits all model, designed to adjust for children of any given ability level. Mixed streaming instituted within a comprehensive system can help to temper the worst excesses of the comprehensive system and provide some flexibility, and many schools have now moved to such a model. But the flip side of the coin is that a grammar school can have adjustments of its own that mitigate the worst flaws.
The lesson here really, is that the hangup on 'comprehensive v grammar' is a stupid ideological battle which generates headlines and stands in the way of finding our way to a system that most likely sits in the middle of both worlds and incorporates the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.
At the ages we are talking about they do not need to be considered as brightest, as in the case of Einstein even at 16 he was refused access to a school on performance terms. Children need to be taught how to challenge the world, given a good grounding, determine what they are good at generally and what they enjoy. Universities can then be used to 'specialise' the person in what they want to do.
I do not think the comprehensive v grammar is a stupid ideological battle because it risks damning a large proportion of the children to route where they don't get considered for the top careers. It will become another selective process. A child doesn't get into grammar at 11, they then less or more less well considered courses (perhaps in more crowded environments). At 16 they then have poorer GCSEs (replace as appropriate) and their access to A-levels is worse. This impacts their ability to get to better (if any universities) which then impacts their ability to get that engineering job and so on. It already happens organisations already include job adverts that require a minimum of a degree. It's not that Grammars can't educate people better, it's that it means those that aren't selected at 11 are very likely to be condemned to second tier jobs for the rest of their life. Judging someone's potential capability at 11 is ridiculous because there is no reason to believe that the person left behind could not become the next Einstein later in life.
However I think we are going to go round the houses on this issue. We've had similar debates before on universities and whether the proliferation of courses is a good or bad thing. I think it comes down to a view whether the state should decide on a persons future rather than an individual (so hence the government grades and decides which direction you should go in vs giving everyone an equal opportunity to have a go at the world) and I'm not sure we are ever going to come to an agreement on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: That youth vote you are counting on Whirlwind were too busy in the pub watching reality TV and playing games, or flipping burgers to actually vote. The already had the numbers, but they 'werent bovvered innit'. The over fifties were motivated and voted to Leave.
No that's not the case. The numbers I'm quoting are based on the percentage of young people that voted so that effect is taken into account. What I didn't include was the possibility that as people aged they are more likely to vote. So the person that is 18 now would be more likely to vote in 10 years as well. I'm not relying on anyone, it's simple maths based on current polls and current birth/death rates. It's not hard to calculate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: There won't be a second referendum. That much we can be certain of.
ON what basis do you make that assertion. No one has ruled out a referendum on
1) Staying in the EU 2) Leaving and accepting the EU deal
3) Going full WTO.
Also if 10/15 years the population has swung to being pro-EU then you may start to see the rise of pro-EU parties (a pro EU UKIP for all intents and purposes) which may then force the governments hand. You also have to realise that MPs are becoming more educated over time as well, the next generation of MPs may well be even more pro-EU than now hence internal politics may become ever more fractious.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 13:00:55
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I think it comes down to a view whether the state should decide on a persons future rather than an individual (so hence the government grades and decides which direction you should go in vs giving everyone an equal opportunity to have a go at the world) and I'm not sure we are ever going to come to an agreement on this.
That's because people get screwed under grammar or comprehensive systems. There is no 'perfect' system. All we can do is try and seize the best aspects from everywhere, and try to limit any negative ones. There is no 'correct' answer.
Given that you just stated you'd prefer individuals to decide on educational formats for themselves however, I'm sure you're fully in favour of opening lots of schools of various types, grammar included, and letting the individuals/their parents choose which one to attend, right? I mean, nobody forces anyone to go to a grammar school.
Or were you classing youself as the one who thinks the government should dictate everything (by forcing all children who aren't in private education into a comprehensive format)?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, my opinion is obviously just that, but it's based on rational principals, logic, Occam's razor, and years of following British politics.
But that's exactly the problem. You aren't considering any other point of view other than one you think is correct. What you view as your Occam's razor is based on your own life experience which is biased by your upbringing, education, social group and so on. What is your Occam's razor is not the same as mine or anyone else's. So why is your version of things correct? That is why evidence is important (although potentially still biased) it try's to remove ones own interpretation bias. The case has never been about overturning the referendum it is about a constitutional issue about who can implement it (basically whether government can do what they want or it needs to have parliamentary oversight by those who we as the populace voted for).
I look at the situation, I see people who never gave two hoots for Parliamentary Sovereignty before, and all of a sudden, they're walking around with law books under their arm, and all because the EU referendum didn't produce the result they wanted.
How do you know this? Have you followed G. Millers life. Do you know what she has worked on before? Have you ever spoken to her. Otherwise the only time you have been exposed to what she has done over her life is through the press and what they are portraying because this particular issue is dividing the country. Your knowledge of her is only what she is doing now, so you don't actually know what you are saying is correct without evidence!
Also as a point of note the vote in parliament was on whether the timetable should be followed *not* the vote on Article 50 itself.
I follow British politics quite closely: newspapers, blogs, periodicals etc etc
And before the supreme court case, I'd never heard of Gina Millar or her backers, who are staunchly pro-EU.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've heard of a case in the modern age defending Parliamentary sovereignty, because usually, Parliament defends itself...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: The Irish court appeal is intended to see if Brexit Article 50 can be reversed in EU law after it is triggered, it has nothing directly to do with Uk law. Hence why the appeal can be launched in any EU court, and the Irish system is as good as any for that purpose, as the question is directed as Brussels not Westminster.
However as we can see plainly that Article 50 rules already do not apply according to Brussels mandarins, which are offering only 18 months, not 2 years for post article 50 negotiations despite the worded ruling.
The goalposts are already shifting and are unlikely to shift in favour of remainers. I am interested to see what is scheduled to occur in the winter of 2018 spring of 2019 that the EU chief negotiator wants Brexit to be over by then.
As I've said a few times now to anybody that will listen, the legal war is over. Let them debate this in court.
Politics, as always, has overtaken the lawyers, and thank God for that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 13:43:22
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
That's because people get screwed under grammar or comprehensive systems. There is no 'perfect' system. All we can do is try and seize the best aspects from everywhere, and try to limit any negative ones. There is no 'correct' answer.
Given that you just stated you'd prefer individuals to decide on educational formats for themselves however, I'm sure you're fully in favour of opening lots of schools of various types, grammar included, and letting the individuals/their parents choose which one to attend, right? I mean, nobody forces anyone to go to a grammar school.
Or were you classing youself as the one who thinks the government should dictate everything (by forcing all children who aren't in private education into a comprehensive format)?
No there isn't a perfect system. But I am opposed to one that allows selection on the basis of ability at ages where the person is still physically developing. Every child should be provided the same opportunity of a high level education so that at 18 they can make their own decisions based on what they think are good at and what they enjoy. Selective education options prevent this as it favours certain groups over others and leads to a two tier system where those left behind have more limited options to move out of the rut that was created for them at 11. You risk that well educated children are thought of as intelligent whilst those that aren't are considered less so. For every parent that decides a child should go to a grammar school there will be another that doesn't care, doesn't have the money etc etc to allow it regardless of whether that child could be the next Einstein.
You want an equivalent, high quality education for all allowing them to choose for themselves at 18 the direction they wish to go in. Selective system are already taking this option away from some before they even get there. Yes the comprehensive system at the current time is not the best, but then what do you expect when teachers are over worked and underpaid (with vast numbers leaving because they can get supermarket jobs that pay better), schools are being privatised by the back door and 'saving' money given by the government meant to improve children.
If since in the last 20 years the same increase in spending had been put into education as had been given to over 65s then the education system would be in a much better state.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
This is why I couldn't get excited about the vote.
Non-story is far as I'm concerned. When Parliament votes to walk away from the EU, nothing, short of an EU invasion, will stop it., and that is extremely unlikely.
For sure, everything should be done above board, but if a member chooses to walk away in line with its own constitutional requirements,m the EU won and can't stop it. Might make negotiations more frosty, but realpolitik usually comes to the fore in these situations.
Bottom line: an Irish court won't stop Brexit. They may as well ask a court in Cuba to rule on this...
Except with a second referendum either in a few years when the terms become clear or in 10 years when the changes in age of the current population, given current polls, would indicate the country becomes pro-EU again.
It takes two to tango as the old saying goes and for argument's sake, if Britain has left the EU, then even if Parliament and all 60 million people vote to rejoin the EU, then it all counts for naught if the EU says no to Britain re-joining.
Assuming there is an EU or a UK in 10 years time...
I think it comes down to a view whether the state should decide on a persons future rather than an individual (so hence the government grades and decides which direction you should go in vs giving everyone an equal opportunity to have a go at the world) and I'm not sure we are ever going to come to an agreement on this.
That's because people get screwed under grammar or comprehensive systems. There is no 'perfect' system. All we can do is try and seize the best aspects from everywhere, and try to limit any negative ones. There is no 'correct' answer.
Given that you just stated you'd prefer individuals to decide on educational formats for themselves however, I'm sure you're fully in favour of opening lots of schools of various types, grammar included, and letting the individuals/their parents choose which one to attend, right? I mean, nobody forces anyone to go to a grammar school.
Or were you classing youself as the one who thinks the government should dictate everything (by forcing all children who aren't in private education into a comprehensive format)?
If it were up to me, I'd demolish every school - all they do is fill their heads with nonsense!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 13:46:33
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I follow British politics quite closely: newspapers, blogs, periodicals etc etc
And before the supreme court case, I'd never heard of Gina Millar or her backers, who are staunchly pro-EU.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've heard of a case in the modern age defending Parliamentary sovereignty, because usually, Parliament defends itself...
Parliament only defends itself when it has the opportunity. If you remove that opportunity then unless you are asking MPs to drag Empress May, Boris the Clown and so on out into the street and left there then they have no opportunity to defend itself.
Because you hadn't heard of them doesn't mean they weren't doing things before hand that the press hadn't bothered to comment on. It's a selective bias in your analysis. You are assuming that because *you* haven't heard of them before that justifies the view. On the other hand for all we know if you go into the circles that she works in you could find she has spent her life protecting/arguing these sort of things - it's simply because no one on your blogs, papers and so on has reported on it. After the case you might not ever hear about her again. That doesn't mean she crawls into a hole and never does anything ever again, it's more likely she continues to fight the same arguments it's just you don't hear about it through you media channels.
It takes two to tango as the old saying goes and for argument's sake, if Britain has left the EU, then even if Parliament and all 60 million people vote to rejoin the EU, then it all counts for naught if the EU says no to Britain re-joining.
Assuming there is an EU or a UK in 10 years time...
I don't think they would prevent the UK rejoining, but there would likely be a cost associated with it and our rather unique negotiating position will have gone (even more so if the economy is shrinking)
If it were up to me, I'd demolish every school - all they do is fill their heads with nonsense!
How about a good old fashion book burning as well! After all educating people just makes them question any old rubbish or Trump Twitter feed they are being fed on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 13:58:51
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I'm interested by the assertion that all comprehensives lump all kids in together. I went to a comprehensive, and I was streamed top set all the way through, although I did drop down a set once in Physics due to basically buggering about in a test.
My children both go to a local comprehensive, and they are streamed too, and can go up and down sets depending on their performance.
As far as I was aware, this is normal, but apparently not in 100% of the cases?
We have a local Grammar, it's not well regarded locally. We chose to send our kids to the local comprehensive, and we were very relaxed about the 11 plus, and made sure our kids didnt worry themselves about it unduly.
I know several other families who took the same view as us, and concentrated on ensuring our kids got into the school of our choice.
To quote from the local Grammar school's latest OFSTED report for 2016,
The report states that ‘the quality of teaching is not good enough to ensure that all groups of pupils achieve as highly as they should, particularly the most able’. Among other things it notes that the proportion of high grades at GCSE ‘is too low in the majority of subjects’ and that ‘leaders at all levels have an over-optimistic view of the school’s provision, particularly the quality of teaching’.
Obviously just one example, but it does show that Grammar schools are not some sort of silver bullet for educational reform.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 14:06:48
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Whirlwind wrote: [
No there isn't a perfect system. But I am opposed to one that allows selection on the basis of ability at ages where the person is still physically developing.
Then don't submit your children to a grammar school.
Every child should be provided the same opportunity of a high level education so that at 18 they can make their own decisions based on what they think are good at and what they enjoy. Selective education options prevent this as it favours certain groups over others and leads to a two tier system where those left behind have more limited options to move out of the rut that was created for them at 11.
Why does a parental decision to submit their child to a grammar school that they think will maximise their child's potential, 'prevent' a good education being given to another child at a comprehensive? I don't ruin the food at a restaurant by not going to eat there. I don't ruin an NHS hospital by having my operation done at a private one.
You risk that well educated children are thought of as intelligent whilst those that aren't are considered less so.
Do you believe any child who goes to private school is more intelligent? I would suspect the answer is no. Education and intelligence are not equivalent, as any well-educated intelligent person knows. Plenty of fools went to good schools.
For every parent that decides a child should go to a grammar school there will be another that doesn't care, doesn't have the money etc etc to allow it regardless of whether that child could be the next Einstein.
That's fine. They can go to a comprehensive and receive a quality education there.
I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with the dictatorial, invasive, ideological belief that the State should force all children whose parents cannot afford private school fees to attend comprehensive schools. Should there be sufficient people who think more grammar schools should be opened (which there would appear to be), there should be a democratic allocation of our dosh to go towards opening more grammar schools. Democracy and choice. Simple.
r_squared wrote: I'm interested by the assertion that all comprehensives lump all kids in together. I went to a comprehensive, and I was streamed top set all the way through, although I did drop down a set once in Physics due to basically buggering about in a test.
My children both go to a local comprehensive, and they are streamed too, and can go up and down sets depending on their performance.
Streaming within comprehensives has become more common these days I believe, as I stated earlier. It's a sensible move and removes some of the worst downsides to the comprehensive system, at the risk of beginning to promulgate what opponents of the grammar system believe is the less desirable traits of the grammar system (kids not in top sets believe they are stupid, etc).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 14:09:31
Ketara wrote: ...Why does a parental decision to submit their child to a grammar school that they think will maximise their child's potential, 'prevent' a good education being given to another child at a comprehensive? I don't ruin the food at a restaurant by not going to eat there. I don't ruin an NHS hospital by having my operation done at a private one.
Because the grammar schools budget comes out of the same pot? Opening up another school, unless its a private one, will obviously thin out stretched resources.
If it's a private school, funded by parents, then go for your life. If it's coming out of the educational budget, there needs to be a serious justification beyond some airy fairy ideological leanings and nostalgia.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Ketara wrote: ...Why does a parental decision to submit their child to a grammar school that they think will maximise their child's potential, 'prevent' a good education being given to another child at a comprehensive? I don't ruin the food at a restaurant by not going to eat there. I don't ruin an NHS hospital by having my operation done at a private one.
Because the grammar schools budget comes out of the same pot? Opening up another school, unless its a private one, will obviously thin out stretched resources.
If it's a private school, funded by parents, then go for your life. If it's coming out of the educational budget, there needs to be a serious justification beyond some airy fairy ideological leanings and nostalgia.
err....the justification is identical to that of a comprehensive? I.e. educating a child? A grammar school costs the same to run as a comprehensive, and if you don't stick 500 in a grammar, you'll be putting 500 into a comprehensive. New schools open all the time as the population expands. There's no reason some of them can't be grammar if there's sufficient call for it from taxpayers.
It's a divisive issue for many reasons, budgetary ain't one I've heard before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 14:26:56
Then don't submit your children to a grammar school.
Fortunately I don't have any children, as it stands I find the idea to be some form of cruel and unusual punishment for the child given issues like overcrowding, more limited resources and climate change.
Why does a parental decision to submit their child to a grammar school that they think will maximise their child's potential, 'prevent' a good education being given to another child at a comprehensive? I don't ruin the food at a restaurant by not going to eat there. I don't ruin an NHS hospital by having my operation done at a private one.
They are hardly apt comparisons are they? What would be more apt if the restaurant/private health service determined whether you were allowed in based on whether you had met a certain educational standard. If you do you are accepted for fine dining, if you don't then you are limited to Burger King.
Do you believe any child who goes to private school is more intelligent? I would suspect the answer is no. Education and intelligence are not equivalent, as any well-educated intelligent person knows. Plenty of fools went to good schools.
.
No that was the point I was trying to make. Selection at 11 favours those with a better education, not on those who are more intelligent (which is pretty much impossible to quantify in that way). Hence you risk promoting those with more money to educate the children rather than promote those with poorer education but higher potential.
My children both go to a local comprehensive, and they are streamed too, and can go up and down sets depending on their performance.
Streaming is different. They are there to try and ensure that for *individual* subjects a child gets the best education in that area (there can also be more than one level so moving up and down is less dramatic). They may be in the top stream for physics, but the bottom for French. However the opportunity is equal for all children. A Grammar school is different; you have to succeed in a set of defined subjects regardless of how good you are in them. The child may be amazing musician but that's unlikely to be considered if they are poor at sciences/maths/English at the selection criteria of the grammar school. A streamed system allows the child to be in the top class for music and the appropriate class for the others. In a grammar school system it's either good in the defined subject and accepted or discarded to the second class education system.
I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with the dictatorial, invasive, ideological belief that the State should force all children whose parents cannot afford private school fees to attend comprehensive schools. Should there be sufficient people who think more grammar schools should be opened (which there would appear to be), there should be a democratic allocation of our dosh to go towards opening more grammar schools. Democracy and choice. Simple.
Well strictly speaking the number of people in support of grammar schools is declining whereas support for comprehensives are increasing. So on that basis there should be less:-
Bottom plot. 45% (up 5% over 12 months) of people think no more grammar schools should be created or they should be scrapped. 34% think more should be created (down 4%). 21% (down 1%) don't know. So from a 'Democratic' stand point that means we should not have any more grammar schools, yes?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 14:41:08
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
They are hardly apt comparisons are they? What would be more apt if the restaurant/private health service determined whether you were allowed in based on whether you had met a certain educational standard. If you do you are accepted for fine dining, if you don't then you are limited to Burger King.
Sure. In the case of the restaurant, you have to meet the dress code. If not, you don't get in. That doesn't prevent anyone from being able to dress appropriately.
You also haven't addressed the point, which was that the existence of a fine dining restuarant with a dress code (aka grammar school) does not preclude the existence of a restaurant just as good as that one next door without a dress code (aka comprehensive). Why should the state force one to close and promote the other? Neither one is doing any more sociological harm than the opposite model. The reason is purely ideological. Let parents decide.
No that was the point I was trying to make. Selection at 11 favours those with a better education, not on those who are more intelligent (which is pretty much impossible to quantify in that way). Hence you risk promoting those with more money to educate the children rather than promote those with poorer education but higher potential.
And as mentioned umpteen dozen times, this is an acknowledged flaw with a pure grammar system, but one that can be mitigated by adopting certain entry percentages. In the same way a pure comprehensive system can ward of the worst evils of the system by adopting streaming. This point has been addressed already.
Streaming is different. They are there to try and ensure that for *individual* subjects a child gets the best education in that area (there can also be more than one level so moving up and down is less dramatic). They may be in the top stream for physics, but the bottom for French. However the opportunity is equal for all children. A Grammar school is different; you have to succeed in a set of defined subjects regardless of how good you are in them. The child may be amazing musician but that's unlikely to be considered if they are poor at sciences/maths/English at the selection criteria of the grammar school. A streamed system allows the child to be in the top class for music and the appropriate class for the others. In a grammar school system it's either good in the defined subject and accepted or discarded to the second class education system.
EDIT:- Scratch this, I just realised I misread what you said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well strictly speaking the number of people in support of grammar schools is declining whereas support for comprehensives are increasing. So on that basis there should be less:-
Bottom plot. 45% (up 5% over 12 months) of people think no more grammar schools should be created or they should be scrapped. 34% think more should be created (down 4%). 21% (down 1%) don't know. So from a 'Democratic' stand point that means we should not have any more grammar schools, yes?
So what you're telling me is that 34% of the schools should be grammar schools? Because clearly the opinion of many, many people is being ignored on the matter. Although if it's a simple case of majority percentage takes all, then I'd be interested to hear why Brexit should be different.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/10 15:39:31
Ketara wrote: err....the justification is identical to that of a comprehensive? I.e. educating a child? A grammar school costs the same to run as a comprehensive, and if you don't stick 500 in a grammar, you'll be putting 500 into a comprehensive. New schools open all the time as the population expands. There's no reason some of them can't be grammar if there's sufficient call for it from taxpayers.
It's quite simple really, if you have reduced resources, which the education sector certainly does, it is grossly irresponsible to waste money on projects inspired by ideology and nostalgia that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the population. Comprehensives cater to everyone in the population, and when properly resourced, staffed and managed are every bit as effective at educating the whole population as any grammar school. As I pointed out earlier, the grammar school local to me is poor, and the comprehensives are outdoing it in every way. Grammar schools do not necessarily guarantee any better quality of education, however they do divide communities. We don't need to waste money on anymore of these outdated ideas.
Ketara wrote: ...So what you're telling me is that 34% of the schools should be grammar schools? Because clearly the opinion of many, many people is being ignored on the matter. Although if it's a simple case of majority percentage takes all, then I'd be interested to hear why Brexit should be different.
Maybe we should only have a 33% BREXIT in that case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/10 20:59:03
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
, in fact the Scottish government gives them money!
) about the search for alien life. They think we'll never find aliens because of the vast gulf of space, laws of physics, alien societies might have nuked each other etc etc
