2000 AD Online Forum

Those of you who have kids, do you ever wonder/worry exactly what they're being taught in school?

I recently started privately tutoring a girl just starting her GCSEs. She comes to me for English tuition, and she has been studying Macbeth at school. I went through a 10-page essay she had written on Lady Macbeth, from which I learned that Lady Macbeth is "mental" and "a bitch".

Lady Macbeth, you mad, mental bitch!!

I thought her essay was a bit too long. My own English Lit class is expected to produce essays of three to five sides A4, in common with the examples circulated by the exam board ahead of coursework standardization meetings. When I asked the girl about her essay, she told me her teacher had specified the page count and another girl in her class had submitted an essay 14 pages long. It transpires it was her teacher who told her Lady Macbeth is being a bitch. Now, the typical reading of Lady Macbeth is that her ruthless ambition drives her to encourage her weak-willed husband to murder the king and everyone else who stands in their way. To drive this message home, my tutee's teacher invented an acronym: B.I.T.C.H. which stands for 'Being In Total Control of Him' (!). Is this helpful? My view is not. It's is enough to know that Lady Macbeth is the big villain of the piece and she puts her husband up to all the terrible things he does. Are students likely to forget that without a rather tenuous acronym? It reminds me of the bit in Green Wing where Guille teaches Martin a mnemonic to remember the bones of the head, and Martin ends up having to list the bones in order to recall the mnemonic.

I am aghast that here we have an English teacher, working in a school environment, where bullying is a major political issue and name-calling and stereotyping aren't particularly helpful, who is introducing her students to a sexist discourse. If you're teaching English and don't recognize a discourse when you see it, you're really not earning your £30,000 a year. On a final point, I asked the girl where she'd got that Lady Macbeth was 'mental'. Apparently, it's what her teacher had told the class. I did a double take. Yes, the girl said, laughing, the teacher had actually said "Lady Macbeth is mental". When I was at school, if I had written Lady Macbeth was mental, my teacher would've crossed out 'mental' and written 'insane'. Mental is not a literary term; it's street slang. And my tutee's school teacher is promoting it to her class as appropriate terminology to present to examiners and coursework moderators.

That is well gay.

Quote from: "Godpleton"That is well gay.

Spoken like an English teacher! You've missed your vocation, there.

So did your FACE.

The face ain't lissnin'. Talk to the HAND!

That's what your mum said to me last night.

Macbeth is a great story and my favourite Shakespeare play. Personally I blame Baz Lehrmann.

HE DIDN'T EVEN DO MACBETH

I find that really worrying.  Maybe the teacher is trying to be down with the kids to try and keep them interested and there.  Which in this day and age is somewhat understandable but not to that extent.  

Also I take issue with the fact that Macbeth is solely guided by Lady Macbeth, that is like saying he had no free will.  He was an ambitious man who's head was turned by prophecy.   To blame her totally is to take away his culpability and I'm not sure that sits well with me.  And is besides your point House of Usher - I apologise!

Bloody hell!

I think there's a world of difference between introducing themes or discourse using 'street' language and suggesting an essay should be written with that style,unless that's the (cringeworthy) point of the essay. Sounds similar to the 'spelling doesn't matter' school of thought to me-It bloody does!You speak English you should be able to friggin spell the words you hath spake!

So, what are you going to 'tute' Ush? If you suggest the pupil modifies their language, you run the risk of teacher wrath.

M

Ugh. Ugh!  No seriously, that's the way to go - reduce Shakespeare to the soap-opera summaries in gossip rags.  It certainly beats using him to broaden the young mind, or explore the timeless themes of humanity.  And Macbeth is such an accessible one too - it's not like she was stuck with the ghastly Merchant of Venice ("never mind justice, let's teach that scabby Jew to know his place!").  

here's nothing wrong with using modern settings or even language to explore Macbeth, in fact I quite liked the recent Geoffrey Wright Australian movie adaptation - has plenty of boobies for Godpleton - and really enjoyed the Patrick Stewart Stalinist version that was on in London a few years back, which alas only had a bald captain.  It's just the idea of encouraging your students to write like that, or giving them the impression that 'mental bitch' pretty much covers it.

And finally - 10 pages at GCSE level?  Whatever happened to marshalling your thoughts?

"Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, and ask me am I bovvered?  Am I?  Am I bovvered?"

My favourite charcter is the little terrier chap

(//http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i38XfhjLpcQ/R0rFs0d-bZI/AAAAAAAABQ8/qKI-zlXQNyI/s400/hamdog.jpg)

he's gr8

'standardization'?

Wouldn't have been allowed in my day!

Those page counts. Handwritten or typed?

'Standardization' is a complex and hilarious business. It's what secondary school teachers do on 'inset' days. You go off to a hotel meeting room for the day with teachers from other schools and a representative from the exam board. A nice hotel lunch if you're lucky; sandwiches and orange juice if you're not. The point of the exercize is to ensure the teachers know what they're doing when marking their kids' coursework before they send it off to the exam board to be moderated. The idea is that if teachers know what grade to give their kids' work it saves the moderator having to make a lot of corrections and then re-examine the school department's entire coursework sumission for signs of systematic over-generosity or general incompetence.

The main benefit of standardization I can see is that it gives you examples of what good coursework looks like, and ideas for assignments to give your own students. Ideas like a typical piece of coursework should be about 4 sides of A4.

Indeed, there was no standardization in my day. There wasn't even examination by coursework. We just did 2 years of reading in class, essays and homework, and then we had to just guess what the examiner wanted when we came to do an exam at the end of it. We weren't even coached in how to pass! My poor English teacher was deluded enough to think that his job was to teach us to read, understand and appreciate the texts. Wrong, wrong, wrong! It's how to answer an exam question about it that matters. It has nothing to do with enjoyment of literature or the power of ideas.

Quote from: "Grae the puppetmaker"Those page counts. Handwritten or typed?

Either. If you're doing a straightforward English or English literature single GCSE you have to submit 3 pieces of written coursework. If you're doing a combined double English GCSE I think it's 4. There is a requirement that ONE of your coursework submissions must be handwritten. The rest may be typed. My student's 10 page Macbeth essay was handwritten.

correct me if I'm wrong- you being the teacher and all

But is spelling standardisation with a 'z ' an Americanism, a further nail in the coffin of a once proud Empire?

I remember doing Macbeth in school, they brought this funny lady in for a practical lesson. The first thing we had to do was to try and avoid looking at the spectacle of one lucky child chasing another child with a stick. This was an illustration of the human fascination with violence. Also she stabbed one girl completely randomly with a stage knife. Later she told us of how one of her friends lost an eye doing the Scottish play.

Quote from: "johnnystress"correct me if I'm wrong- you being the teacher and all

But is spelling standardisation with a 'z ' an Americanism, a further nail in the coffin of a once proud Empire?

"The verbal ending -ize has been in general use since the 16th century; it is favoured in American English and in much British writing, and remains the current preferred style of Oxford University Press in academic and general books published in Britain. However, the alternative spelling -ise is now widespread (partly under the influence of the French), especially in Britain, and may be adopted provided that its use is consistent." (Concise Oxford dictionary, 1995, appendix XIII, 6.9)

See also entry for 'standardize' on p.1358

QuoteSo did your FACE.

No, no, no, it should be so HAS your face, given that the clause that prompted it is in the present perfect.
Ahem. (Pushes glasses up nose).

My brother's ex was an English teacher and found the abbreviation 'LOL' in a few essays. They'll be naming their kids 'k8' next.

Known as 'K80' to her friends. Or should that be 'K8E'?

Quote from: "House of Usher"

Quote from: "johnnystress"correct me if I'm wrong- you being the teacher and all

But is spelling standardisation with a 'z ' an Americanism, a further nail in the coffin of a once proud Empire?

"The verbal ending -ize has been in general use since the 16th century; it is favoured in American English and in much British writing, and remains the current preferred style of Oxford University Press in academic and general books published in Britain. However, the alternative spelling -ise is now widespread (partly under the influence of the French), especially in Britain, and may be adopted provided that its use is consistent." (Concise Oxford dictionary, 1995, appendix XIII, 6.9)

so is your FAZE

Quote from: "JayzusB.Christ"

QuoteSo did your FACE.

No, no, no, it should be so HAS your face, given that the clause that prompted it is in the present perfect.
Ahem. (Pushes glasses up nose).

My brother's ex was an English teacher and found the abbreviation 'LOL' in a few essays. They'll be naming their kids 'k8' next.

So will your mum.

Now that's more like it, young man.

Quote from: "stacey"...And is besides your point House of Usher - I apologise!

Nothing to apologise for, Stacey. What the class is being taught is suspect from beginning to end. Incidentally, the school doesn't have a good reputation. I take your point entirely about Macbeth not being utterly helpless to act other than as directed by his wife. In Act I, scene 3 Macbeth identifies Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland as an obstacle to be overcome even before Lady Macbeth is informed of the prophesy, and he is not acting under his wife's direction when he kills Macduff's family and Banquo. 'Being In Total Control of Him' presents a simplistic analysis in which Macbeth is a mere puppet.

It seems like the teacher is trying to just get through the text and get the class to satisfy the coursework requirements so she can move onto the next topic: 'you've done Macbeth; you can forget all about it now.' Simplified analysis: it's all Lady Macbeth's fault. Write that down and pad it out to 10 pages. We'll aim to get everyone a 'C'. Refer to the assessment criteria and see if we've done enough. Less than a 'C' is response, awareness, familiarity, understanding. For a 'C' you need insight. Better than a 'C' requires analytical skill or originality. From the sounds of things, she's not giving them much insight.

Quote from: "Mikey"So, what are you going to 'tute' Ush? If you suggest the pupil modifies their language, you run the risk of teacher wrath.

Well, I told her that when you have a teacher and a private tutor they're not always going to agree about everything. My job is to help her get the best out of her school classes. I said I wouldn't advise the use of the word 'bitch' or describing a character as 'mental'. Watch the fur fly when she gets onto Of Mice and Men! It's too late for my advice on her Macbeth essay anyway. I used it mostly to assess the quality of the girl's written work, her ability in expressing herself and her spelling. The reason why it's too late is another horror story. Apparently the teacher has decided they're finished with Macbeth now, having spent one term on it. They're 7 months into a 2 year GCSE and the teacher has decided now is a good cut-off point for the submission of the first piece of coursework. Macbeth's done and dusted, they don't need to know it for the exam, so they can move onto something new and understand that at a similar level of complexity. And so on.

Quote from: "House of Usher"

Quote from: "Grae the puppetmaker"Those page counts. Handwritten or typed?

Either. If you're doing a straightforward English or English literature single GCSE you have to submit 3 pieces of written coursework. If you're doing a combined double English GCSE I think it's 4. There is a requirement that ONE of your coursework submissions must be handwritten. The rest may be typed. My student's 10 page Macbeth essay was handwritten.

Interesting. With my lousy penmanship, filling 10 pages handwritten would be a lot less work than filling 10 pages typed.

Still, GCSEs seem a long time ago now, no typing option back then.

''However, the alternative spelling -ise is now widespread (partly under the influence of the French), '


hehe, that should upset the English speakers, non?

Quote from: "House of Usher"

Quote from: "stacey"...And is besides your point House of Usher - I apologise!

Nothing to apologise for, Stacey. What the class is being taught is suspect from beginning to end. Incidentally, the school doesn't have a good reputation. I take your point entirely about Macbeth not being utterly helpless to act other than as directed by his wife. In Act I, scene 3 Macbeth identifies Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland as an obstacle to be overcome even before Lady Macbeth is informed of the prophesy, and he is not acting under his wife's direction when he kills Macduff's family and Banquo. 'Being In Total Control of Him' presents a simplistic analysis in which Macbeth is a mere puppet.

It seems like the teacher is trying to just get through the text and get the class to satisfy the coursework requirements so she can move onto the next topic: 'you've done Macbeth; you can forget all about it now.' Simplified analysis: it's all Lady Macbeth's fault. Write that down and pad it out to 10 pages. We'll aim to get everyone a 'C'. Refer to the assessment criteria and see if we've done enough. Less than a 'C' is response, awareness, familiarity, understanding. For a 'C' you need insight. Better than a 'C' requires analytical skill or originality. From the sounds of things, she's not giving them much insight.

It's scary this, it's all about grade maintaintence and hitting targets, its why the 5 year olds at our school are being forced into doing joined up writing before they have got the hang of their letters.  I don't know what exactly we are teaching our children these days, but it worries the bejesus outta me!

Quote from: "stacey"It's scary this, it's all about grade maintaintence and hitting targets, its why the 5 year olds at our school are being forced into doing joined up writing before they have got the hang of their letters.  I don't know what exactly we are teaching our children these days, but it worries the bejesus outta me!

That one is apparently about finding out what benefits dyslexic children's learning and then teaching all children as if they were dyslexic. It's less trouble to go to than diagnosing which of them are having problems. When I did my teacher training (for F.E.), it was implicit that we should use teaching methods that assume all our students are dyslexic, so as not to disadvantage any of them:

Quote from: "the British Dyslexia Association"Typically, when first learning to write, children 'print' their letters. They then move on to 'joined up' writing at a later stage. For children with dyslexia, learning two styles of handwriting can add an extra layer of difficulty and cause confusion. It is, therefore, much more helpful if a young child can learn to use a single system of handwriting right from the start. - British Dyslexia Association website.

I know it's not entirely relevant to your post, HoU, but has the young lady in question been taken to see a production of Macbeth?  If she had, I think it'd be a lot harder to come away with such a simplified take, and a lot harder to just forget about it and move on.  I know we've touched on this before, but studying plays you haven't seen on the stage always struck me as bizarre - like learning to read music without ever hearing any.  I certainly never got over the first time I saw A Midsummer's Night Dream, or Hamlet.

Quote from: "TordelBack"has the young lady in question been taken to see a production of Macbeth?

Nah. But she'd probably only have been bored by it anyway. Spoonfeeding with received wisdom and disparaging epithets for acronyms: that's what they need!

When I was a teenager I used to go on my own initiative, with mates, and see any Shakespeare that was going. Unfortunately there wasn't always a touring production of the very play we were studying. My school did get to see a production of Macbeth when we studied it, but it wasn't one of our O-level texts. For O'level I studied Henry IV Part I, which strangely wasn't being staged at the time... (the Orson Welles version, Chimes at Midnight, was shown on the telly though!). I was fortunate enough to see the Tempest twice when I studied it for A-level, including Jonathan Miller's version with Max von Sydow and Alexei Sayle. And Measure for Measure at the Barbican, which we were also studying, and all hated. Since then I've seen a fair few, but they don't always coincide with teachers' selections from the syllabus.

The Tempest:
//http://ahds.ac.uk/ahdscollections/docroot/shakespeare/performancedetails.do?performanceId=11971

In reality the only thing you should be teaching a girl is how to make dinner for her husband.

Quote...but they don't always coincide with teachers' selections from the syllabus.

That's sort of what I'm getting at - if you have a choice of what to select from the syllabus, wouldn't you be better finding out what's going to be on in the wider area and making you decision on that basis?  Saying 'let's do this play, but sorry you can't see in staged' seems very cart-before-the-horse.  Yes, yes, I know, preaching to the converted, budgets, timetables etc., but I can't imagine any music teacher deciding that they were going to force their students to study on an instrument that none of them has access too, or sports teacher deciding everyone was going to do swimming twice a week and then announcing there was no pool available.

My missus, who hilariously was placed in a remedial English class in school (despite currently devouring books like some insatiable woodchipper and writing top-notch essays for endless courses on her tea-breaks) had no interest in plays full-stop until a fortuitous school trip to Stratford - now she pesters me into long journeys to see any and all Shakespeare productions that have caught her fancy.  It really is that important.

Thrown out of school at 15, no qualifications, no interest in literature, fast forward 25 years, my beautiful wife buys tickets for Henry V at Stratford for my 40th birthday, don't really want to go but do so, to keep her happy.  Three hours later, gob-smacked, open-mouthed, enchanted, hooked, hairs on back of neck stand up, and in love with this Shakespeare geezer.  God, how I envy you guys who have been brought up with it.  Still time for me to catch up though.........

If you haven't seen a performance of Shakespeare, you haven't lived!!

Quote from: "TordelBack"if you have a choice of what to select from the syllabus, wouldn't you be better finding out what's going to be on in the wider area and making you decision on that basis?

I can't agree! If my English teacher had made his selection for O-level study based only on what was touring we would never have studied Henry IV Part I, which my friends and I really enjoyed. Your enjoyment of Henry V can be greatly enhanced by having read Henry IV, because several of the same characters are in both. Plus, Orson Welles's film was a pretty reliable adaptation even if it wasn't down to my teacher that I saw it at all.

I don't think schools should choose texts to fit in with what's being performed. I think that obligation lies with the exam boards. They're not doing terribly well on that score: the most commonly performed plays on any exam board's B specification are The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet and Blood Brothers. You can choose any plays you like for 'Specification A' (where you can cover Shakespeare for coursework and don't have to answer an exam question on his work). If you're going to teach around what's on at the theatre you can't teach Specification B, you have to defer judgement and hold back from teaching plays until one of your local theatres publishes a forthcoming programme with a suitable text on board, and you're a hostage to whatever happens to be on at the theatre in the year the course is presented. I think English teachers should take their class to the theatre, but I don't see why it should only be to see plays they are reading in class. Seeing any Shakespeare play performed gives you an insight into his language, characterization and stagecraft.

I'm of the view that teachers should teach whichever texts they feel comfortable teaching and interested in and think would be of benefit to their class. For my first year teaching English Lit I chose 4 texts I know and some poets I knew I could teach. I chose not to do any Shakespeare because it would be hard work for me and the students to get through a whole GCSE in 9 months, including Shakespeare, and would make everybody miserable. I chose Pygmalion and The Importance of Being Earnest because I know of two good film adaptations of each and I thought my students could get a handle on them. The fact they stubbornly refused to 'get' Oscar Wilde isn't my fault, honest! I would never in a million years want to teach Blood Brothers or Romeo and Juliet, even if there's a chance my students might get to see one or the other performed live. If I were being paid a salary and if I were paid to do it I might think about changing all of the texts next time I teach the course, but the way things are its in my own interests to squeeze as many years' teaching out of the same texts I've taught this year, so I'm not going to change more than I have to to keep it interesting for me.

Quote from: "Old Tankie"Thrown out of school at 15, no qualifications, no interest in literature, fast forward 25 years, my beautiful wife buys tickets for Henry V at Stratford for my 40th birthday, don't really want to go but do so, to keep her happy.  Three hours later, gob-smacked, open-mouthed, enchanted, hooked, hairs on back of neck stand up, and in love with this Shakespeare geezer.  God, how I envy you guys who have been brought up with it.  Still time for me to catch up though.........

If you haven't seen a performance of Shakespeare, you haven't lived!!

It's good, isn't it? I reckon you'd love Hamlet. And Macbeth. And.. and...and.. etc.

But not King Lear, Measure for Measure  or Anthony and Cleopatra. They're bad.  

Thanks for the tips, Ush.  Macbeth, here I come!

Does being the Prince of Cumberland entitle me to free sausages?

QuoteI think English teachers should take their class to the theatre, but I don't see why it should only be to see plays they are reading in class. Seeing any Shakespeare play performed gives you an insight into his language, characterization and stagecraft.

True, true.  Your practical observations make sense, and as you say, there are decent film versions of many plays.  I just remember nodding off during a video of Hamlet (I remember it as the Olivier version, but that isn't very likely, is it?) that stretched over several English classes, and the contrast of being electrified by a stage performance and feeling the whole thing click in my head (incidentally, we were never taken to Shakespeare by our school either - we went under our own steam).  I suppose I just feel reading plays is a uniquely odd branch of English - novels, poetry, prose... all can all be experienced more-or-less as intended, but a play is far more than one person and the text.  Not to say I haven't enjoyed reading plays myself - I've never seen   a single production of Ibsen but I love Hedda Gabbler, Peer Gynt (not a normal play) and A Doll's House.

Quote from: "TordelBack"I just remember nodding off during a video of Hamlet

On that note, why don't the exam boards include Hamlet in their prescribed texts? It's a good one, there's plenty of complexity and excitement to get stuck into, sex, murder, the supernatural, plenty of meat for coursework essays, and it's performed from time to time, and there are, as you say, any number of filmed versions. There's half a chance the students might get to see that one on stage!

Its a disgrace really and i fail to see why any of that even falls into the category of education when its nothing of the sort.All the kids in that classroom will leave school with nothing and will find that they will never have a chance to improve themselves beyond getting a McJob.Its part of the systematic downgrading and dumbing down of the education system by New Labour and you would think what with all the fucking about they do with the education system they might have done some good but No nothing of the sort.

"Its not a good school " was a comment left by someone else earlier.Thats just it really isnt it ? Its never going to be a good school either.The kids in the school dont matter then ?

The FuckTard teacher training course teacher should be fired for gross negligence if i had my way.

"Its not her fault !! she has to follow targets and govt this or that " when that is missing the point really.The point is it shouldnt happen at all.Kids are having their chances in life totally ruined by New Labour and the state education and what they are creating is an uneducated chav underclass that are useless to anyone with no future but maybe thats the idea.

I left school at 16 with no exams passed but i still soaked up a lot of it so i did learn something plus i wasnt condescended to by FuckTard teachers .I had to sit through 3 hour Shakespeare plays with no breaks and i was bored shitless then the same as now but thats personal taste.

I dont have kids but if i did i would educate them privately if i had the cash because i would be deeply concerned and unhappy that my kids would be sitting in a classroom with that kind of nonsense going on in a state school.

Its unacceptable.

I look back on my education as it were and realise just how fortunate i was now as i didnt realise it then at all.

And i dont believe for a second that this is an isolated incident as i think its right across the board.

"Is this a dagger I see before me?" probably not mate, and while you're at it you're Mrs is a f*cking mentalist. Oh, and Banquo was a bender, innit. Nuff said blood.

Quote from: "House of Usher"But not King Lear, Measure for Measure  or Anthony and Cleopatra. They're bad.  

Booooooo! I can't speak for Antony and Cleopatra, but Lear is the absolute bomb, and Measure for Measure pretty good too, properly staged.

Quote from: "House of Usher"But not King Lear, Measure for Measure  or Anthony and Cleopatra. They're bad.  

Sometimes I like to wear my philistinism on my sleeve.

You people are all S.H.I.T.

Seriously Helpful Individuals Ta!

Quote from: "House of Usher"'We just did 2 years of reading in class, essays and homework, and then we had to just guess what the examiner wanted when we came to do an exam at the end of it. We weren't even coached in how to pass! My poor English teacher was deluded enough to think that his job was to teach us to read, understand and appreciate the texts. Wrong, wrong, wrong! It's how to answer an exam question about it that matters. It has nothing to do with enjoyment of literature or the power of ideas.

It's only in recent years, and particularly since a friend of mine has gone into teacher training and I've had the opportunity to contrast his experience with my own time as pupil/student and having two teachers for parents ... and I've come to understand the absolutely razor-sharp insight of Ian Hislop's remark about that state of the current education system: "You don't fatten up a pig by weighing it."

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: "Jim_Campbell"It's only in recent years, and particularly since a friend of mine has gone into teacher training and I've had the opportunity to contrast his experience with my own time as pupil/student and having two teachers for parents

Specifically because I thought you might be interested, Jim: the link below is to the reader comments left on the Times Higher Education website in response to a letter attacking the Pro Vice-chancellor (PVC) of Leeds Metropolitan University and her husband, who are both education 'experts'. The letter's a bit long, but I hope the comments add something (anything) to your evaluation of current teacher training based on your mate's account and your own experiences of being taught. Does it just reflect the view you already held?

//http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=404034

Quote from: "House of Usher"Does it just reflect the view you already held?

Sadly, it rather does.

The philosophical difference seems so small between the educational doctrines now holding sway and the way I was taught, that it is a simple matter to trivialize them.

As with so many philosophical distinctions, however, whether is actually is trivial is very much dependent upon your position within (or outside) the argument (transubstantiation, anyone?).

At school, I was taught -- for example -- Chemistry. I wasn't taught to pass a Chemistry O-Level, I was taught chemistry and the exams were a means of checking to see that I had been paying attention to the teaching.

Now, the cart sits firmly before the horse, and all teaching is driven by the need to ensure a good pass rate; driven by political doctrine from the Dept of Education and by economic doctrine within each educational establishment, since pass rate = league ranking = pupils = cash.

The result? We aren't educating our children. I have had the thankless task of trying to hire from the current pool of recent-ish university graduates and anyone who says that the education system isn't failing both our children and our nation should spend a few hours considering the number of graduates who have managed to spend sixteen or more years in education and yet are defeated by basic arithmetic, simple spelling and fundamental grammar.

The most startling example I have encountered to date was from a graduate that I had hired to work in my department.

As was my wont at the time, I sent out a mildly amusing e-mail to my staff on a Friday afternoon. The graduate was not amused, in fact, she was positively bemused.

When I enquired why, she responded: "Because I don't know what a porpoise is."

OK. I can accept that perhaps not all families spent as much time in front of BBC wildlife documentaries as mine did when I was growing up, so perhaps not everyone has immediate knowledge of marine mammals*.

Here, however, is the image and accompanying text:

"Please check the image below. Scientists have determined that stress can now be measured by a simple test. If you are happy, unstressed and fulfilled in your job, you will see two porpoises."

(//http://blogidaho.biz/stresstest.jpg)

WTF? You don't need to know what a porpoise is, because the other thing in the picture is a fucking cow[/b]. It is clearly not native to a marine environment. There are two things, they are not the same and one is comically incongruous.

There is no part of this joke that requires you to know what a porpoise is in order to understand it.

However, this university graduate was incapable of making that simple set of logical deductions and inferring the meaning from the context, because she had not -- seemingly -- been challenged to do so at all during sixteen years of education.

I now work with recent university graduates. They are astonished that I read the New Scientist for fun, that I understand the basic tenets of String Theory and Catholicism, am conversant with the works of Shakespeare and 20th Century history ... all of this (bar String Theory), I knew by the time I finished my formal education.

I genuinely despair. "The kids" aren't becoming more stupid, but our society is failing to educate them, which makes me fear for the future.

Jim

*I confess, it might actually be a dolphin ... porpoise is just a funnier word.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  I work in a profession where we work on a daily basis with maps and technical drawings at different scales, from 1:1 through 1:20, 1:125 and 1:10,560 (I kid you not), right up to 1:50,000.  And only a handful of the university-educated and professionally-qualified people I work with has the vaguest clue how to go about consistently converting one scale to another, or any ready way of checking if something is the scale they think it is.  I'm absolutely terrible at maths, always have been, but how do you get through school, through a primary degree, through a post-grad degree and a professional examination, and not be able to multiply and divide?

I never went to university.
I drowned in 6th form college by taking subjects I had no interest in.

I'm now in my 40's.

I know more than the graduate programe entrants we take on.
Many of my colleagues in their 20's can't hold a discussion beyond what they saw on T.V. last night.
Most of the people I work with can't add up a column of numbers.
Some of the people I work with have trouble understanding basic training materials.
Much of the material we get from Head Office has spelling mistakes, bad grammar and is poorly written.
Some require help filling in basic forms.
I've had potential employees fill out forms using 'txt spk'.

I could go on.

This is not right.

-Bouwel-

The govt are more interested in having CCTV in school washrooms and classrooms than having any interest in what is or isnt being taught .

Also uneducated Proles are easier to control and manipulate once they have left the education system.

Actually the Education system is no longer an accurate term of description is it ?

I think it is partly the stupidity of people as well as the failure of the education system because it doesnt seem to occur to any of these dumb school leavers or University students that they are illiterate and it therefore might be a problem to them .Do they ever stop for one second and realise that they dont actually know anything or wonder what they were doing within the education system if they have a problem filling out forms or have problems with spelling and articulating themselves ?

Probably not but an utter waste of potential all the same.

When I've asked a few of them introspective questions they've looked at me as if I farted in thier hand-bags. Most don't seem to be capable of it.

-Bouwel-

Having spent a very long time in the education system myself I find it odd that incressingly, university students don't want to be educated. What they want out of university is something quite different from education. They want to be credentialized. They want a certificate that says they have been to university and 'done' it, and now can they please have a job in advertising/marketing/journalism/hotel management/laboratory science?

Once upon a time you started at the bottom and worked your way up in these fields, or else you went and got an education first: e.g. a degree in English or history for advertising and journalism; a degree in biology or chemistry for laboratory science. Nowadays they run too many vocational degrees with next to no educative content, and many of those students who are doing *proper* subjects at university only want to know what they have to know to pass their exams rather than to have a thorough and deep understanding of their subject.

The very idea that any 18-year-old can think of going to university to spend three years studying 'marketing' makes me sad deep down inside. I've met a few marketing graduates. They always strike me as psychopathic and not very interested in knowing about history, culture or the world around them.

Marketing seems to exist in their own little private bubble world. We keep asking for different lines to sell but are told 'You don't fit the demographic to sell those items'.
When we push the matter they point out we're making our estimates so why do we need to change what we're selling. I swear some of them work for a different company.

-Bouwel-

QuoteThey want a certificate that says they have been to university and 'done' it, and now can they please have a job in advertising/marketing/journalism/hotel management/laboratory science?

We regularly get job applications from people who have done a four or even six year BA/MA/MSc combo in archaeology, and despite long summer holidays have never set foot on an archaeological site - and this in a decade (now sadly past) where you just had to able to hold a shovel to guarantee yourself site work in this country.  I try to imagine what's going on in their heads all the time they're in college ('I'm doing archaeology!  I'm doing archaeology!').  How do they know if they'll be able to bear hour after hour of swinging a pick in a frozen-over puddle three feet from the wheels of a deafening choking procession of Volvo dumpers in the pre-sunrise sleet of a January morning?  Do they even know that's what they'll be doing for the five years after they graduate, and maybe the next forty if they're lucky?  I used to wonder how I would explain that the retired plasterer, the physics student, the former housewife, the Polish engineer and the ditzy artist we had working for us were all going to be ten times better at any digging job than they would because they actually spent the past few years doing archaeology rather than listening to someone else talk about it (all a bit irrelevant now, since there isn't any work for any of those people).  

I'm not suggesting that studying or indeed qualifying aren't essential parts of a career, particularly in a quasi-academic field that does require published output, but why wouldn't you have got out and got your feet wet and learnt something about your chosen profession before (or even during) completing half a decade of study?

Quote from: "TordelBack"'I'm doing archaeology!  I'm doing archaeology!'

You've just reminded me of the C.21st students at my university who used to proudly (and smugly) state 'I'm doing genetics!' who didn't know much about physiology, ecology, fungi or plant biology. In short, they were biology students who didn't have much knowledge of biology. They would turn up to non-genetics practicals, wait for the register to appear, sign it and then go. They weren't bovvered about their low grades for practicals. They were doing genetics, be-otch, and they were going to be in demand as laboratory menials for the first 3 years after graduation, because they had been shown how to do PCR.

HoU, this should cheer you up'''//http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7933690.stm


I feel that you can't really blame the students themselves for this, if you don't follow the prescribed course you fail, and end up doing jobs like some of mine, if you do get the bit o' paper a whole level of work opens up to you, don't tell me it doesn't because not having a degree (regardless of subject) decent jobs, although I have the experience asked for, are often automatically out of bounds for me and I'm down at the first fence.

Hence students learnt behaviour: 'What LO do I need? okay give me that, bye'. and this is from an early age now, (Minihuff is just finishing primary school, Midhuff entering college), this is what they are taught is education, not as said above, learning to do it or indeed learning how it works which doesn't help with the LO or the league tables.

That's the thing isn't it? I've seen many jobs advertised for graduates - just having a degree is what's required, not any specific knowledge of a subject, so students are at University to get a degree, not an education. I can't help thinking that everyone going to university isn't just there for the paper and to a certain extent was it not like that in years past? I didn't go to a brick university along with my cohort; I got a job (eventually) doing lab work and have moved on from there, getting a degree on the way. As far as i could tell, most of my former friends were at university for a laugh and few ended up with (IMO) much to show for it. I now earn more than most of them - but there you go.

There have been many comments about how little some graduates know - and I've seen it myself - about what is apparently their subject area but I find it jaw dropping that archaeologists come to employment without field experience! Surely that's the basis of most of the discipline!

I can be a bit wary of the 'dropping standards' argument as I don't want to sound a bit Daily Mail  - as Huff pointed out, it's all relevant really. My brothers did O Levels and I did more GSCEs than their combined O levels, but I think the work load was likley the same overall.

But standards are lower than when I were a lad!

M.

Learning Outcomes are evil. They reduce learning to a basic, mechanistic and instrumental operation. And they're championed by the aforementioned Pro Vice-chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University. And the gimps who taught my PGCE.

At the moment I'm teaching 3 different GCSEs and a bunch of psychology-based adult education leisure interest courses. There's a fairly marked difference in the attitudes of the GCSE students and the leisure interest students. The GCSE students by and large accept it when I tell them they have to learn something, because it's on the curriculum, because it's in the core textbook and because it might come up in the exam. The leisure learners are more likely to ask "why do we have to know this?" because they do written work each week that meets some vague criteria set by the accrediting body, which do not constitute a syllabus, and as a consequence the tutor has to invent one. When you give them something to learn about because it's interesting, but it doesn't correspond to assessment criteria, they get fidgety.

The only GCSE students I have who question what I ask them to do are my English Lit. students when I give them 9 essays to write in 9 months but they only have to hand in 3 pieces of work for coursework. "What are the other 6 for if they're not assessed for our final grade?" - "They're to help you develop ideas and practice essay writing in preparation for the exam, and to give you a greater choice of coursework pieces to submit for coursework." - "Oh. But that makes more work for us." - "Yes, but the writing practice may make a difference to the grade you get if it helps improve your exam performance."

(Cue "I'm not doing the exam now; it's too hard...")

Quote from: "Proudhuff"HoU, this should cheer you up'''

I followed the news link; cheers for that. I've just seen them talking about it on the BBC news at One. I have mixed feelings about it. I'm insulted by the suggestion teacher training can be rushed through in 6 months. I'm angry that it looks like a hastily-set up escape route for impoverished city dealers, but it's just as likely the government desperately trying to get just *anyone* into teaching who can do maths. And part of me welcomes the news, because it's a potential future route for me into salaried school teaching, whereas at the moment my adult education qualification would only allow me to do supply teaching.

Ush, why would we want city dealers teaching Maths, hasn't it just been proven over the last few months that the b*****ds can't add up!!??

Quote...but I find it jaw dropping that archaeologists come to employment without field experience! Surely that's the basis of most of the discipline!

I didn't say they got hired, did I?  (But if they didn't get a job with us, they probably did somewhere else).  Mandatory 'organised' field experience in the context of third-level courses depends on the area, and Ireland seems worse than most.  Most universities have some kind of department-linked research dig or other project (even if it's only a junior lecturer with a tiny grant), so some field experience is common.  But fiddling about in slow-motion on a picturesque hillside with a bunch of your peers and a chummy lecturer for a couple of weeks isn't always relevant experience for a working life (nice and all as it is) - and plenty of applicants didn't even have that. A professor of mine once expounded at length that he didn't think there was any room or need for any practical experience or training at all in an archaeology degree, so I shouldn't be surprised.    

(I should also note that to become a licensed archaeologist in Ireland (i.e. entrusted with the running and writing up of a dig) you need at least a relevant BA and preferably an MA/MSc, about 5 years field experience on a range of site types, including a few years of supervisory work and report writing, and then have to sit a ghastly oral exam complete with dreaded arefact identification and dating test!  To merely work on a dig, you just used to need one working arm and a willingness to stand your round.  In 2009 sole possession of Greysuit-style pictures of the Minister of the Environment are probably your only hope of a job.)

When I had something to hire people for, what I was always looking for was some evidence of genuine interest backed up with gumption - if that meant someone who was taking an OU course while washing bones as a volunteer in a shed somewhere, or someone who'd been slogging it as a digger for years without darkening the doors of a university, they'd be probably have been in ahead of the straight-to-PhD brigade in a shot.  Attendance at local history society lectures and public conferences, and reading of popular archaeology magazines was always a dead giveaway of a likely prime hand - the highly qualified and experienced but utterly useless numbnuts who clogged up our office over the years were sure to have never opened a journal or been to a talk since they left college. The number of my colleagues who proudly claim they haven't read an archaeology book in years scare the hell out of me.

As to dropping standards, my old man never went near third level, but he can beat me round the houses all day on almost any aspect of history and geography, despite my degree in both and one-time third-level teaching of same - not to mention grammar and spelling!

Quote from: "TordelBack"it's not like she was stuck with the ghastly Merchant of Venice

Here is the SUCK i got stuck with at school :-

"Romeo and juliet" asshattery of the greatest order
" To Kill a Mockingbird" was ok
" KES" bull
" Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry" was about a black family and the Klan very good from what i remember
" The Great Gatsby" sucked
" Watership Down " my god kill me now
"The Secret of nimh" primary schoool nonsense
"David Copperfield"  Man did i hate this
"Great Expectations" and this
" sense and sensibility " threatened to drop english so they gave me :-


" Catch 22" liked it but still dont understand why i like the main character as he should be shot for treason or being an effing coward


I was stuck with that at this level many moons ago, shakeinghispear has no place in schools nowadays.
 You want to read that drivel do it in history or even better at Uni.

TheEdge, your shrivelled heart is unto a thing of pure blackness.  But I'm with you on Sense and Sensibility - it does no-one any good to read an entire book while screaming "get a fucking grip woman!" every two pages.

I'm surpirised that Thrill hasn't been here contrasting and comparing Macbeth with Slaine!

Quote from: "TheEdge""Romeo and juliet" asshattery of the greatest order

If they didn't show you the Zeffirelli film, then they want shooting. If they did and that's still your response, then you have no soul.

Cheers

Jim.

Polanski's MacBeth is well bad!

Ahem. Anyway... the  play should be nuked from orbit. Poor old Mr and Mrs MacFinlay got a real rough deal here, as did their descendants. Then some twat writes a load of shite about them and it sticks forever! If it was expunged from memory, like the truth about MacBeth was, I would be happy!

Still... Polanski's Macbeth is well worth a peep.

I fucken'  loved English at school and I would strongly suspect have gotten a lot more out of University had I ignored my AS grades and not studied Philosophy instead, even if this meant going to (duh-duh-duhh) a poly.

-Macbeth
-Lord of the Flies
-The Handmaid's Tale
-Sassoon and friends
-The Duchess of Malfi
-Hamlet
-A Clockwork Orange (I chose this myself)

TheEdge, you are a man without soul or heart! Watership Down alone from that list should have reduced you to a quivering wreck!

As for Catch-22, you think you should dislike Yossarian because he doesn't want to die?


Your mouth is full of all kinds of wrong.

This is pissing me off now this teacher training business.Why is it after everything that has gone on so far which has led up to this point now with the economy am i hearing this bullshit idea about Bankers being prioritised for teacher training courses as if to say the FuckTard Govt seem to think that they are more important than anyone else ?

Why is this ??

Its not as if they left their jobs without being given payoffs and lumpsums of cash so why are they being prioritised first ?

Fuck them all.Let them live off their savings if they saved any and if not then tough shit they can go on the dole.I dont see any reason why they should be fastracked into employment before anyone else who may be better qualified.Fuck the bankers as they contribute nothing to anyone else except line their own pockets.What do they know about dealing with kids and controlling a classroom ? If there is a shortage of teachers then they could be sourced from all sectors of society instead of a fucked up scheme that assumes that Bankers are the right stuff for teaching especially Maths.

Its a childish simplistic assumption that Bankers should automatically be better at maths.Does a banker have anything near a degree level in maths automatically ?

For Fucks Sake dont let them teach economics in the further education system either.



Bankers = Good at maths .Perhaps but dont just hire them on that association as its stupid.Its as stupid and childish as the assumption that New Labour / Liberals/ Marxists / Socialists- the Govt have any real understanding of business/economics and are good at maths just because they are Politicians and are therefore clever by default and have been elected to manage and run the UK economy when the evidence that says exactly the opposite is everywhere.

F - ing Govt

GGGGGGGRRrrrrrrrrrrrrr





I dont know it just gets more and more stupid but living under a New Labour Govt i expect nothing less.

Quote from: TheEdgeHere is the SUCK i got stuck with at school

I'd've hated Romeo & Juliet, To Kill a Mockingbird, Kes, Roll of Thunder..., The Secret of Nimh (juvenile), David Copperfield, Great Expectations. I'd have hated anything by Dickens. Sense and Sensibility wouldn't be my choice of Jane Austen. I'd've coped with Watership Down, but would still have hated that.

But how in Grud's name can The Great Gatsby have sucked?? That book is a gift to any English Lit. class! Sounds like you missed the point of Catch 22 entirely. I'd have hated that too, and would sooner have read Sense and Sensibility...

For my own part, I got: Henry IV Part 1 (good guy), Oliver Twist (wanker), I'm the King of the Castle (wanker)
...also we read Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice and Brave New World. For larks.

Then I did A-level, and I got: Measure for Measure (boo!), The Tempest (Hooray! - big time), Chaucer - The Prologue (boo!), Paradise Lost - Books I + II (hooray!), Uncle Vanya (boo!), Persuasion (hooray!), Howards End (hooray!), Jude the Obscure (hooray! - but a bit depressing)
...also we read Hamlet and Pride and Prejudice. For larks. (actually, for analytical practice).

...and for French I got École des Femmes, Candide, L'Etranger, La Peste and La Symphonie Pastorale. I failed French, but I enjoyed all the books except Moliere.

Having read 13 books at school I liked and 8 I didn't like, and being penalized in exams for not responding to the text the way examiners wanted, was enough to convince me I didn't want to do an English degree. But on the plus side it gave me the grounding I needed to open up pretty much any work of literature and just start reading.

Quote from: "peterwolf"This is pissing me off now this teacher training business.Why is it after everything that has gone on so far which has led up to this point now with the economy am i hearing this bullshit idea about Bankers being prioritised for teacher training courses as if to say the FuckTard Govt seem to think that they are more important than anyone else ?

Indeed. But I think it's more like sign of desperation on the part of government. There aren't enough top maths graduates going into teaching. Believe it or not, banks do hire maths graduates. But the government's not just thinking about helping out redundant bankers. It's also thinking about enticing new maths graduates into teaching who can't now look forward to accounting jobs or whatever it is mathematicians do in the city: "We know there are a lot of fantastic mathematicians, for example, who would have once perhaps gone into the City but now actually might be more interested in a career in teaching" - Cabinet Office Minister Liam Byrn.

QuoteIts not as if they left their jobs without being given payoffs and lumpsums of cash

Yeah, it's hard to see why city fatcats are going to be lured by a starting salary of £20-25,000. Which is where, I think, newly graduated maths students come in.

If I were some selfish c*** of a city banker I wouldn't want to work as a schoolteacher. I would live on my own investments, as you suggest, Peter. Except that the culture of city twats was to consume as lavishly and conspicuously as possible because the cash was going to continue rolling in forever. So a lot of them are broke. Good!

QuoteI dont see any reason why they should be fastracked into employment before anyone else who may be better qualified.

Well, they wouldn't be. They would have to offer the fast track route to anyone who is equivalently qualified. That would have to include any new graduates in priority subjects. I think a lot of bankers would be surprised at the amount of non-teaching work involved, like lesson planning, paperwork (including producing stupid on-paper evidence of lesson planning, not to help you teach, but to produce to satisfy quality auditors), individual learning plans, inclusivity, etc. Not many of them would stick it for long.

QuoteIts a childish simplistic assumption that Bankers should automatically be better at maths.Does a banker have anything near a degree level in maths automatically ?

Only the ones with maths degrees.

QuoteIts as stupid and childish as the assumption that New Labour / Liberals/ Marxists / Socialists- the Govt have any real understanding of business/economics

I've never seen any evidence that the New Right have any real understanding of business or economics either. They're very prone to putting their faith in the advice of economic gurus and giving jobs to their best mates from school and university.

Quote from: "House of Usher"

Quote from: "peterwolf"This is pissing me off now this teacher training business.Why is it after everything that has gone on so far which has led up to this point now with the economy am i hearing this bullshit idea about Bankers being prioritised for teacher training courses as if to say the FuckTard Govt seem to think that they are more important than anyone else ?

Indeed. But I think it's more like sign of desperation on the part of government. There aren't enough top maths graduates going into teaching. Believe it or not, banks do hire maths graduates. But the government's not just thinking about helping out redundant bankers. It's also thinking about enticing new maths graduates into teaching who can't now look forward to accounting jobs or whatever it is mathematicians do in the city: "We know there are a lot of fantastic mathematicians, for example, who would have once perhaps gone into the City but now actually might be more interested in a career in teaching" - Cabinet Office Minister Liam Byrn.

QuoteIts not as if they left their jobs without being given payoffs and lumpsums of cash

Yeah, it's hard to see why city fatcats are going to be lured by a starting salary of £20-25,000. Which is where, I think, newly graduated maths students come in.

If I were some selfish c*** of a city banker I wouldn't want to work as a schoolteacher. I would live on my own investments, as you suggest, Peter. Except that the culture of city twats was to consume as lavishly and conspicuously as possible because the cash was going to continue rolling in forever. So a lot of them are broke. Good!

QuoteI dont see any reason why they should be fastracked into employment before anyone else who may be better qualified.

Well, they wouldn't be. They would have to offer the fast track route to anyone who is equivalently qualified. That would have to include any new graduates in priority subjects. I think a lot of bankers would be surprised at the amount of non-teaching work involved, like lesson planning, paperwork (including producing stupid on-paper evidence of lesson planning, not to help you teach, but to produce to satisfy quality auditors), individual learning plans, inclusivity, etc. Not many of them would stick it for long.

QuoteIts a childish simplistic assumption that Bankers should automatically be better at maths.Does a banker have anything near a degree level in maths automatically ?

Only the ones with maths degrees.

QuoteIts as stupid and childish as the assumption that New Labour / Liberals/ Marxists / Socialists- the Govt have any real understanding of business/economics

I've never seen any evidence that the New Right have any real understanding of business or economics either. They're very prone to putting their faith in the advice of economic gurus and giving jobs to their best mates from school and university.

Thanks for clarifying that and thanks for understanding what i was saying as well.

What gets me about this current Govt is that they chose to introduce/follow an economic model that was put forward by Alan Greenspan and the Fed which even if you have a rudimentary understanding of economics or less than like i have it was obvious it was going to end in tears and failure.So if i could see this happening then why couldnt Gordon Brown ? Why couldnt anyone in Govt or in the banking sector ?

Its nothing more than gross negligence on the part of Gordon Brown and its unforgivable and Gordon Brown doesnt have a solution because all he is interested in is pursuing a globalist agenda which is partly or even the cause of the economic situation which he still advocates to this day.

The buck stops somewhere and it stops with Gordon Blair.[that was a typo but i left it in anyway]

Its really not that difficult.

Bankers wether they were just traders on the floor or the Bigshots all chose blindly to ride the gravy train for as long as they could and if X amount of the banking sector failed to see or understand where it would ultimately end or chose to ignore it then they all should reap what they sow but its unfortunate that the knock on effects or fallout of it affect everyone else as well .

I do attack the Left a lot but not without good reason and the chances are that Conservatives/Right would have adopted the same economic policy 11 years ago if elected are very very high indeed as there is a bigger picture going on than UK party politics.

The Edge - Please be joking.

I also had to read Where Angels Fear to Tread, which brings me to my chief complaint about how A-level English was taught at my school... we spent a whole term reading three books for practice we could have done without. Hamlet was brilliant and I've no regrets about that one, but we didn't need to read any Jane Austen or E.M. Forster additional to the prescribed texts!

Tonight I taught the first chapter of Of Mice and Men. Really enjoyed it. The class seemed to as well.

I should probably point out that I did actually enjoy University and my horizons were genuinely expanded even though there was a whole bunch of my being depressed.

QuoteScientists have determined that stress can now be measured by a simple test. If you are happy, unstressed and fulfilled in your job, you will see two porpoises.

(//http://blogidaho.biz/stresstest.jpg)

Looking at this picture and reading that question like it is...Suddenly allows me to realise how much I have known the words Porpoise, Dolphin and Cow. what they are without knowing exactly how the words Porpoise and Dolphin really relate to each other. Only after just refreshinng my memory at Wikipedeia do I now realsie that Porpoise is the generic term for the particular family of marine mammals that dolphins as well as whales belong to

I know Dolphins well, because of Seaworld. A dolphin marine park on the Gold Coast spit, Surfers Paradice, Queensland. Be sure to drop in there if your ever on the east coast of Australia.


 

Quoteyou will see two porpoises .

Why not two Ungulates?. Which is how I reckon is the same difference to a Cow that Porpoise is to a Dolphin.

Ungulates, yeah, I wouldn't never have known that word if not for bolsting my knowledge of farm animals on the Wikipedeia just last night..

Here comes my Slaine reference....

 I was just using Spore : Creature Creator last night to recreate the Bicorne ( A Horse like beast known for it's wide girth and to feed on hen pecked husbands.) and the Chichevanche ( A cow like creature that is starved, skinny, because it needs to feed on faithful wives to survive.). This is ukko's idea of entertainment.Well, I merely wanted to know how Horses and cattle were related. Because these two creatures were supposed to be co-existant.

 I wonder if Wikipedia is frequently usedon school computers. Probably not, although it's handy to have and might eliminate the need for school books.

Looking at that picture, without reading the qestion has me wondering what was the artist thinking.

What is it like to be a cow forced to swim with a dolphin?.  

Is that love, or what?

Have you ever been placed in situation that you knew you had no hope of dealing with and yet still made your way through it.

As for picture, here is my comprimise.

(//http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,134429,00.jpg)

It is supposed to a whale with legs, now long extinct.Rodcetus thought to be discended from this....

(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Andrewsarchus_DB.jpg/250px-Andrewsarchus_DB.jpg)

Mesonychid, which is cat or dog like carnivore with hoofed feet.

I think it's weird that Ceteceans. Dolphins and whale kind were once land dwellers that evolved to the marine envIroment

it seemed backward when I first thought about it..

Anyway, looking at that picture of Dolphin and the Cow armed with thsi new perspective.. I would agree that they are both Porpoises, but I still feel really stressed and not really satisfied with my current condition of employment.

QuoteCatch 22" liked it but still dont understand why i like the main character as he should be shot for treason or being an effing coward

Knowing my father has this book, hearing how much I have heard the name 'Catch 22' crop up. I was wondering if I should be urged to read this atleast once?

It's supposed to be classic.

QuoteI'm surpirised that Thrill hasn't been here contrasting and comparing Macbeth with Slaine!

Actuallely, I might have done this in my mind and kept to it myself. Unitl now. Although I have'nt much of comparing the two works apart from  the stuff about three witch and the use of the Crone, the Mid wife and the Maiden in Slaine. There's a few Shakesperean passages that Pat Mills has used in some of the Slaine narratives. Something about comapring the Celtic warrior wivess fighting skill likend to that of a catapult being fired. Stuff like that.

Macbeth was part of my english education at school. We were allowed to watch one of the most recent televised versions of that play which was in 1987 or 88.The one with Martin Shaw playing the hero. Who I thought would have made a interesting Slaine just from his appaerance alone.

Another Slaine reference.

I really couldn't much more out of comparing the two pieces of work.Without watching that show again, re-reading Slaine entirely and also perhaps reading Macbeth properly. The settings is very simoilaer. Well it's the same place while not being the exact same place as Slaine's more northern and from a earlier age or two. The stuff witchs and knights.

 Yes!!!!!.

Quotecontrasting

Unless your kidding.

Thats very easy to do.

Thats like asking how many things could I find in other mediums of entertainment that have nothing what so ever to do with Slaine.

I made a mistake before, Implying that a Dolphin is a type of Porpoise, when it really is a surprising similer but a distinctly different marine mammal.

The most notable diffrence is that the Porpoise is shorter, but stouter.

There are differences, to be found if you care to consult the Wikipedia.

I would suggest that they are to Dolphins as dwarf is to Elve. Except for the beard.

Porpoise is french or latin for Pig-fish

is that because of the snout or it's pig like ancestors?

Dolphin is latin for "Fish with a womb"

Can't really say wether or not thats a Dolphin in that other picture, because the angle of it's body is very decpetive to my eyes.

Dolphins do have a more bulbous head, and the dorsal fin  is curved rather than triangular.

 Dolphin would be my first guess though.

Dare I admit I found some of that pretty interesting?  Only on 2000ADonline.com, folks!

Quotecontrasting

Unless your kidding.

Thats very easy to do.

Thats like asking how many things could I find in other mediums of entertainment that have nothing what so ever to do with Slaine.

I think I really took that out of context before. You see Contrating IU think we all understand that this is when one thing is held up next to each pother to show how different they are or more importantly how one stands out from the other.

It's probably not so much a mistake on my part than a misunderstading.

As long as we all understand what it means in the context it was originally stated in.

(//http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,134429,00.jpg)

QuoteIt is supposed to a whale with legs, now long extinct.Rodcetus thought to be discended from this....
 

I just thought change that to Rodhocetus, in casr any of you want to look that up.

Quote from: "ThryllSeekyr"Dolphin is latin for "Fish with a womb"

Apologies to those who wish to discuss Shakespeare but I beg to differ with the above.

The name is originally from Ancient Greek δελφίς (delphís; "dolphin"), which was related to the Greek δελφύς (delphys; "womb"). The animal's name can therefore be interpreted as meaning "a 'fish' with a womb".[1] The name was transmitted via the Latin delphinus, Middle Latin dolfinus and the Old French daulphin, which reintroduced the ph into the word.

That'll learn 'em!

QuoteThat'll learn 'em!

I bet they mis-interpreted it on porpoise.

I'll get me coat.

-Bouwel-

Being neither Professor or studnet, but something of one that likes to read alot of comics and dabble in Wikipedian.

While the accuracy of the wikipedian isn't absolute, it will always be here for the computer user like me who's too lazy to go the libary and reserach through those huge Excyclopdeia Britainica's...

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin

By the way, what does --WHALE-- mean in one of those ancient languges ?

The full extent of my latin knowledge is what I learnt from playing 'Crusaders of the Shattered Lands' ( Ignius Portence) and watching a old Disney movie called 'Dragonslayer' ( Adeptus Magi.)

Quote from: "ThryllSeekyr"By the way, what does --WHALE-- mean in one of those ancient languges ?

Apparently it means "whale".

In Saxon.

QuoteJim Campbell wrote:
WTF? You don't need to know what a porpoise is, because the other thing in the picture is a fucking cow. It is clearly not native to a marine environment. There are two things, they are not the same and one is comically incongruous.

There is no part of this joke that requires you to know what a porpoise is in order to understand it.

Nah. sorry Jim that's absolute tosh. The joke doesn't work at all if you don't know what a porpoise is. If you've never heard the word, or wrongly think it means something completely different, then the joke makes no sense - the 'other' thing may obviously be a cow, but the other other thing is obviously a dolphin, so why would you see two thingamajigs? Try imagining seeing the joke for the first time (almost impossible in reality, as humour is a weird spontaneous reaction) but replacing porpoises with a random made up word, or a word like giraffes - meaningless!

(the fact that it didn't occur to her to look the damn word up so she would GET the joke and forever increase her knowledge however....   )

Wit great respect DanDD, unless the person in question doesn't have English as a first language you have to expect a certain level of familiarity with the common names of the limited numbers of cute mammals in your own country...  and thus my not-yet-3-year-old son would find that joke funny.  Not hilarious (sorry, Jim), but he'd certainly understand that a cow wasn't the same as a porpoise.  In fact, I think I'll try him out tomorrow. I might get bemusement, but I'm damn sure he knows roughly what a cow and a porpoise look like.  Lord knows he's quick enough to take me to task on the chimp/monkey divide.

Some top quality gibberish going on here, TS.  Excellent stuff.  Keep it up!

Quote from: "GordonR"Some top quality gibberish going on here, TS.  Excellent stuff.  Keep it up!

I totally agree, only not in a sarcastic way.  TS always raises a smile, even if you have to translate it a bit - keep on keeping on TS!

Jesus, I thought I was a bit warped, what the hell have they done to that poor cow's digestive tract to propel it with such force from the pelagic deeps. They must have been feeding it spacedust and diet-cola the evil little preverts. At least the unfortunate beast was allowed to keep it's bell, which by the way will be even more effective underwater as sound travels more efficiently in a liquid. A fully grown dolphin or porpoise can kill a sea cucumber at thirty metres underwater simply by directing a concentrated barrage of squeaks and clicks.

Quote from: "TordelBack"Wit great respect DanDD, unless the person in question doesn't have English as a first language you have to expect a certain level of familiarity with the common names of the limited numbers of cute mammals in your own country... and thus my not-yet-3-year-old son would find that joke funny. Not hilarious (sorry, Jim), but he'd certainly understand that a cow wasn't the same as a porpoise. In fact, I think I'll try him out tomorrow. I might get bemusement, but I'm damn sure he knows roughly what a cow and a porpoise look like. Lord knows he's quick enough to take me to task on the chimp/monkey divide.

Hell, I'll be the first to bemoan the lack of vocabulary amongst a lot of people these days (and often do - and don't get me started about not knowing where things are on a map of the fucking world!) but my objection was purely about the semantics of the joke and JC's assertion that you don't need to know the word to make it work.

Jokes are weird and powerful things. I'm fascinated by how a specific series of words can lead your brain down a logical path that if done correctly, ultimately ends with an uncontrollable eruption of emotion. That's a bizarre and powerful thing if you think about it. It's why some people can't tell jokes and some can - the order of the words, the way one bit of information directly follows the last, the stresses and pauses, these are often as important as the gist of the story and the punchline.

one of my favourites, easily ruined by bad telling (and best if read aloud):
A mouse walks into a music shop and hops up on the counter.
The mouse says "I'd like a mouse organ please"
Shopkeeper says "you what?"
Mouse says "I'd like a mouse organ please"
Shopkeeper says "that's funny, I had a mouse in here yesterday asking for a mouse organ"
"Ah yes," says the mouse, "that'd be our Monica"

I should add that the "uncontrollable eruption of emotion" that joke elicits has often been a desire to punch me!

I was unhappy and slightly stressed and unfulfilled and tired at work so i looked at the picture and saw 2 cows.

I think this year's Thin Ice Awards are already a done deal.


On a serious note I think the board elders have to meet to devise a strategy for when TS eventually goes bad.

Quote from: "Kerrin"Jesus, I thought I was a bit warped, what the hell have they done to that poor cow's digestive tract to propel it with such force from the pelagic deeps. They must have been feeding it spacedust and diet-cola the evil little preverts. At least the unfortunate beast was allowed to keep it's bell, which by the way will be even more effective underwater as sound travels more efficiently in a liquid. A fully grown dolphin or porpoise can kill a sea cucumber at thirty metres underwater simply by directing a concentrated barrage of squeaks and clicks.

It would have been funny if someone else had photoshopped a Great White shark behind the cow and the porpoise.

QuoteIt's why some people can't tell jokes and some can - the order of the words, the way one bit of information directly follows the last, the stresses and pauses, these are often as important as the gist of the story and the punchline.

I think it's a good joke and it's written down it's really up to the person reading it. Their interpetation of it. Nothing else really matters. Unless the joke is being spoken. Then it would need to be good and it's oral delivery would matter alot.

With good a comedian sometimes the material doesn't even really need to be god at all, if delivery is perfect.

Partically, if they have a good reputation in this area.

It's like admiring Picasso's art work. I really think that sometimes just his name/reputation is what  makes it worthwhile.

This sometimes works the otherway round. Some unknown artist with a bad rep, but really great art being judged on their repsution.

Something I noticed while playing  SPORE ands using it's Object/creature Editors. ALot peopl will only rate up the work of a person whom has being doing great work from the very start.

There are a few exceptions to this rule of course.  

Here's joke I remember from my school days. Although it's more of a riddle.

Your at the zoo and next to the Camel enclosure reading the sign  which says,

'Beware,,, This Camel Spits',,

 and you are!

It's suddenly dawned on me that you might not get this, I'm not sure if I have worded it correctly.

Anyway, work that one out if you haven't heard it already.

QuoteOn a serious note I think the board elders have to meet to devise a strategy for when TS eventually goes bad.

I think I am already there!

QuoteIt would have been funny if someone else had photoshopped a Great White shark behind the cow and the porpoise.

Yeah, I would love to mess around with that picture.

Quote from: "dandontdare"Jokes are weird and powerful things. I'm fascinated by how a specific series of words can lead your brain down a logical path that if done correctly, ultimately ends with an uncontrollable eruption of emotion. That's a bizarre and powerful thing if you think about it. It's why some people can't tell jokes and some can - the order of the words, the way one bit of information directly follows the last, the stresses and pauses, these are often as important as the gist of the story and the punchline.

Awesome! You, Sir, are a poet. And it was lovely to be reminded of the 'mouse organ' joke.

shucks, thanks

And to drag things vaguely back to the topic, we had many great theatre trips from school, including Derek Jacobi in both the Tempest and King Lear, Robert Lindsay as Hamlet and Derek Griffiths (!) in Gogol's Government Inspector, but one that stuck in my mind was Macbeth at the Contact (University) theatre in Manchester around 83. The witches were young, sexy and resembled a kind of goth Bananarama. They delivered their lines to Macbeth while writhing around him and caressing him seductively. As we were on the front row, it was clear that the young lead genuinely appreciated their efforts and no amount of tugging his tunic down could hide his obvious excitement for the rest of the scene. We also saw a version of the Elephant Man there that included full male and female nudity. You'd never get away with school trips like that these days!

However, though I consider myself to have had a very good education (private grammar) it was just as much an exam factory as today - we were taught how to pass O levels, moved on quickly from one topic to the next, learned 'lists' of relevant facts (eg 10 reasons why Cortes beat the Aztecs), so I think some contributors to this debate have a rather rosy nostalgic view of education in times past. The main difference is we actually had to learn everything to regurgitate in the exams, whilst with course work you only need to have a present understanding of it. I think this is how many people operate these days - why learn lots of facts and knowl;edge when you can instantly google or wiki what you need? The internet has made people very lazy about committing knowledge to memory. Or maybe we're just dinosaurs and the youth of today have evolved different and superior 21st century thinking models...... Nah, they're just lazy gits!

Quote10 reasons why Cortes beat the Aztecs

I'm intrigued: What are the ten reasons?

-Bouwel-

What's this, they are actually teaching Spakespeare to kids at school now?!!

No wonder everything is going into a downward spiral!

Quote from: "Bouwel"

Quote10 reasons why Cortes beat the Aztecs

I'm intrigued: What are the ten reasons?

-Bouwel-

I can't remember them all, but the major ones I think were superior technology and tactics, assisted by introduced diseases like cholera that were spreading like plague through Aztec civilization. The ones that stick in my mind however are the lesser and more bizarre contributing factors - such as the Aztecs had never seen horses and were freaked out by these 4 legged creatures with men's torsos growing from their backs, or that the king's team had just lost a significant sporting contest (a kind of basketball or pelota I think) and this was a terrible omen that demoralised them. It was an impressive (and horrible) achievement that a couple of hundred men could destroy an entire civilization

The big one missing from your list is Cortes' vast numbers of local allies - as many as a quarter of a million according to one theory, but certainly more than 100K - who were very keen to see the dominant and otherwise unassailable Aztec civilisation take a kicking.    Between the Spanish-introduced smallpox epidemic in densely populated Tenochtitlan itself (again somewhere between a quarter and a half of the population died in one season), and the damage to the capital during the initial massacre, the Aztecs were vulnerable for the first time in ages.   In one view the arrival of the Spanish was the catalyst for what was really a local power struggle.  Not that it did any of the other tribes any good in the long run.

The whole 'they thought the Spanish were gods' thing has been challenged as a post-colonial invention, but I'm sure there's a grain of truth in there.

Quote from: "dandontdare"diseases like cholera that were spreading like plague through Aztec civilization

So a plague, then, in other words?  

I'm fascinated by this stuff about the Aztecs. We never did anything like that at my school.

Telling your account of Macbeth to the missus, she reminded me of a version we saw in Swansea starring and produced by Paul Darrow in the early '90s. The worst Shakespeare production either of us has ever seen! Paul Darrow's grinning, grimacing and mugging to the audience was ghastly, and the 3 teenage witches (in rags and Tina Turner wigs) were like something out of a sixth form play.  remember that because I traced the letters spelling 'sixth form play' on my partner's leg with my finger while we were watching it. At the interval we debating cutting our losses and asking for our money back, but decided it was too entertaining in its awfullness not to see second half. When the curtain went up after the interval it was noticeable that a small number of patrons had indeed left the theatre.

Do we have a rosy and nostalgic view of past education? I just think we learned stuff in those days, and I'm not so sure the kids do now, on the basis of seeing the ones I teach and what is now promoted as best practice in teacher training. Nowadays 'rote learning' (10 reasons why Cortes beat the Aztecs) is thoroughly disapproved of. And when we start exam revision the students tell me "I can't do this; how am I supposed to remember all this stuff". Why? Because rote learning is anathema. If we were doing rote learning on a day the inspectors dropped in to observe it would adversely impact on the college's quality standards rating.

I chose the state comprehensive I went to in 1983 on the basis that it was the nearest one to my house and was in walking distance any day I left early enough not to have to catch the bus or late enough that I'd missed the bus. How we were taught was very much up to individual teachers. My English teacher took the approach of getting us to read aloud in class, explaining meaning and putting things in context, encouraging us to enjoy the books, putting responsibility for revision firmly with the pupils, and leaving the exam grades in the lap of the gods. A contrasting approach was that of my history teacher. On reflection, she was not a good teacher. She taught us 20th century history in its entirety, just to pass O-level or CSE. She made the subject seem enormous and unknowable. So when it came to revision, though I tried to memorize everything, I felt I had to prioritize and concentrate on WWI, WWII, the Russian Revolution, the League of Nations, Mussolini, Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, Stalin, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Communist revolution in China and the Korean War. There wasn't adequate revision time or room in my head for the Wall Street Crash, the Depression, the Sick Chicken Case, Potsdam, Yalta, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War, though I made revision notes on these things too. My history teacher's preferred teaching method was dictation. In O-level history I spent 2 years taking dictation of copious pages of notes, with a knowledge test every few weeks. Rote learning was important, but we did it ourselves. The teacher didn't give us lists of facts to remember because she presented it as if every word she said was equally and vitally important, so we had to make our own lists of key points to memorize.

QuoteThe main difference is we actually had to learn everything to regurgitate in the exams, whilst with course work you only need to have a present understanding of it.

Exactly so. No-one is expected to have to or be able to remember anything these days. In an education driven by 'learning outcomes' the emphasis is always on skills, not knowledge. The assessment question is no longer "do you know...?" - nowadays it's "can you...?" Now it's not about knowing it's about doing. In my day you first had to know before you could do.

Quote.. the Sick Chicken Case...

Give an account of 'the Sick Chicken case', including WTF it is/was, and list factors leading to my having no idea what you're talking about (10 marks).

Quote from: "TordelBack"Give an account of 'the Sick Chicken case', including WTF it is/was, and list factors leading to my having no idea what you're talking about (10 marks).

Exactly! What is the point of troubling British schoolchildren with something so obscure? My friends and I immediately saw the absurdity of being expected to engage with it. I looked up 'sick chicken case' on wikipedia, but unfortunately wikipedia says 'no'. But Google provides another route back to wikipedia, which gets you this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_v._United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_v._United_States)

The following offers more clarity, though:

http://www.bookrags.com/history/america ... ub129.html (http://www.bookrags.com/history/america-1930s-law-and-justice/sub129.html)

Sorry, not more clarity. I meant less.

The point being, my history teacher wasn't very discriminating when it came to deciding what was important for us to know and what wasn't. She was an equally poor judge of what was interesting for us and what wasn't. I don't think she cared about the latter: it wasn't about finding it interesting. It was about covering everything or she hadn't done her job properly.

we spent a whole year on the French Revolution and there wasn't a single bastard essay question in the exam about it!

And on the subject of the Spanish conquistadores, I learnt a lot more about Pizarro vs the Incas last Summer in Peru. He was a right bastard - As well as the usual tactic of recruiting oppressed tribes to rise up against the empire and then shafting them anyway, he kidnapped the Inca king Atahualpa (who his people regarded as a God) and basically ransomed him for the entire Royal treasury. And then when the Incas had paid up, they executed him anyway. In a final attempt to save himself, Atahualpa agreed to convert to Christianity, which just meant that they strangled him rather than burned him.

Quote from: "House of Usher"the 3 teenage witches (in rags and Tina Turner wigs) were like something out of a sixth form play. remember that because I traced the letters spelling 'sixth form play' on my partner's leg with my finger while we were watching it.

Aaaah, that's so romantic!

Hmm, a disturbingly relevant piece of history as it happens. Thanks for the links, you truly do learn something every day

QuoteI'm fascinated by this stuff about the Aztecs

Thank you to those who replied. Always nice to learn something new.

As far as being spoon-fed ready for exams, I remember this happening for my Geology A level. We spent the whole two years going over the British Isles during every blessed period of geological time. In the final exam the question did come up, however, they had worded it like this; 'Describe the geology of the British Isles during a geological period of your choice'. The more canny of us (which for once included me!) took the easy route and described....the present day.
And thus I came to pass A Level Geology and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the exam board.

-Bouwel-
(Who got to see Roman Polanskis' Romeo And Juliet at school)

They told me at University, that once exams had been passed, we could safely begin forgetting the large amounts of knowledge we'd learned. Unless we studied philosophy, which would fuck you up for life!

QuoteUnless we studied philosophy, which would fuck you up for life!

No!  Philosophy graduates always struck me as the most balanced and genteel of correspondents!

Quote from: "TordelBack"

QuoteUnless we studied philosophy, which would fuck you up for life!

No!  Philosophy graduates always struck me as the most balanced and genteel of correspondents!

hmmmm -  the ones I know tend to be the most stupid intelligent people I know, if you get my drift - plenty going on in the noggin, fuck all idea how to work a VCR. Lists of igneous rocks and reason why Cortes beat the Aztecs can be easily discarded, but once your mind has been opened to Big Concepts, you're metaphysically screwed! That whole Ecstasian Dredd story was just a metaphor for an undergraduate philosphy degree.

I may have failed to include any empirical evidence for sarcasm in my comment, but believe me when I say it was there.

One of my housemates at uni was a philosophy student. After three years his conclusion was "Well it's all bollocks really, innit".
He did his final thesis on 'The philosophical aspects of shamanic drumming', field studies were conducted in 'The Zap' nightclub most friday nights with the aid of his kettle drum (we used to get in for free) and he got a 2/1. He had to do two and a half hours a week of actual lectures/tutorials, hilarious really, I mean I had as much as five hours a week at one point FFS.

Theres some very interesting relevant material that is well worth studying within the subject of Philosophy and in a way i wouldnt mind doing a degree in it myself if the right course was available.

Not that i ever will of course.

The fact it is often referred to as a subject you study if you cant do anything else and is a joke is absolutely wrong.

Its not Bollox at all .

I think it was more along the lines of being a quip as opposed to a considered comment on the whole of philosophy Peter. Depends on your point of view really. Much like philosophy. He's a very successful book indexer these days with his own business specialising in academic publications. Funny really because he wanted to be a drummer. I guess he's philosophical about it.

Quote from: "Kerrin"I think it was more along the lines of being a quip as opposed to a considered comment on the whole of philosophy Peter. Depends on your point of view really. Much like philosophy. He's a very successful book indexer these days with his own business specialising in academic publications. Funny really because he wanted to be a drummer. I guess he's philosophical about it.

My comment wasnt a direct reply to yours or your friend who studied the subject.

Its just something that i have heard over and over again over the years.

I didnt know anything about the subject until recently but because i have an interest in Politics and have gone further down the rabbit hole with it that i have realised that there is a direct relation with politics and certain philosophers or schools of Philosophy and that you cant understand political ideology without understanding philosophical ideology.

Quote from: "Kerrin"He did his final thesis on 'The philosophical aspects of shamanic drumming', field studies were conducted in 'The Zap' nightclub most friday nights with the aid of his kettle drum

Is this tongue in cheek? That's not philosophy! That's ethnography and phenomenology. And the Zap Club? Every Friday night? What a f****** w*****! (Not you, your mate with the kettle drum...   )

The philosophy student I had the most knowledge of was a bit of a hippy. Soap dodging eco-protestor type. Looked and spoke like a right Worzel. Ginger beard and bad teeth. Very left-wing, but not Socialist Worker: the political conscience of a then very corrupt Philosophy department. Became President of our student's union. Exactly what was needed. I think he left very disaffected, with a third.

The other philosophy students I knew were very middle class, scruffy poseurs. Their posturing wasn't about anything intellectual, just about being unconventional. They were involved in student union politics and the alt.rock scene (Throbbing Gristle; Revolting Cocks; Therapy?), were not very conscientious about their studies, took loads of drugs and stole from the bookshop instead of getting a library card. And they stole books from the library too. They didn't talk about philosophy very much, but one did once tell me an anecdote about Goethe's sexual proclivities.

Quote from: "House of Usher"Is this tongue in cheek? That's not philosophy! That's ethnography and phenomenology. And the Zap Club? Every Friday night? What a f****** w*****! (Not you, your mate with the kettle drum... )

No seriously, that was pretty much the exact title. And yes he was wankered most of the time as it happens, but then he was a philosophy student.

//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgCfnBtF7M

Bloody hippies. ;) )[/quote]No seriously, that was pretty much the exact title. And yes he was wankered most of the time as it happens, but then he was a philosophy student.[/quote]

That must have been when it was an arts venue before it changed ownership and became just another club.I never went there after that happened and the interior with its brick vaulted arches were all ripped out to create an open space and it was ruined.I did help someone paint a mural in there just before it re opened outside the washrooms.

Quote from: "peterwolf"That must have been when it was an arts venue before it changed ownership and became just another club.I never went there after that happened and the interior with its brick vaulted arches were all ripped out to create an open space and it was ruined.I did help someone paint a mural in there just before it re opened outside the washrooms.

That can't be the case. I first saw Frazier Chorus there in 1987 before it was knocked through and ruined, and the second time I saw them there was June 1989, by which time the redevelopment had occurred and it was all a greyish white and smelt of damp plaster. Kerrin's the same age as me, so he couldn't have been at university before October 1989, which was after the ghastly changes to the interior of which you speak.

(For the curious - I give you: Frazier Chorus. Watch out - the Chart Show intro fanfare at the beginning may startle!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XI-Mf3t ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XI-Mf3tgec&feature=related)

Actually, forget that link. To really get the most out of Frazier Chorus, check out this one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5jm6Zj6II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5jm6Zj6II)

Quote from: "House of Usher"Kerrin's the same age as me, so he couldn't have been at university before October 1989, which was after the ghastly changes to the interior of which you speak.

Yep, you're quite right Ush. I started at Sussex in '91. The Zap had been hollowed out and turned into a sweaty nightclub by then. I do however remember the venue before that event and agree wholeheartedly that it was architecturally preferable. But when you're a youngster and up for loud banging music and half naked girls dancing like dervishes you couldn't find a better place for miles around. I don't think it's a club anymore, but then I haven't actually taken a wander down that part of the seafront for years now. Mind you I haven't been in a nightclub for years either, not enough seats, music too loud and far too many young people. BAH!

Quote from: "Kerrin"

Quote from: "House of Usher"Kerrin's the same age as me, so he couldn't have been at university before October 1989, which was after the ghastly changes to the interior of which you speak.

Yep, you're quite right Ush. I started at Sussex in '91. The Zap had been hollowed out and turned into a sweaty nightclub by then. I do however remember the venue before that event and agree wholeheartedly that it was architecturally preferable. But when you're a youngster and up for loud banging music and half naked girls dancing like dervishes you couldn't find a better place for miles around. I don't think it's a club anymore, but then I haven't actually taken a wander down that part of the seafront for years now. Mind you I haven't been in a nightclub for years either, not enough seats, music too loud and far too many young people. BAH!

Its still a nightclub but its name is written in braille for some reason and i cant read it.I dont go to nightclubs anymore as i dont like dance music and thats all you ever get in Brighton.

Quote from: "Kerrin"when you're a youngster and up for loud banging music and half naked girls dancing like dervishes you couldn't find a better place for miles around.

Unfortunately there weren't many half naked girls on the indie/goth/heavy rock scene I was into when I was a youngster, c.1987-1992. Fortunately, there are a lot on the goth/heavy rock scene I'm into now!
 

(thinks: we're a long way from Shakespeare on this thread now...)

Quote from: "House of Usher"

Quote from: "Kerrin"when you're a youngster and up for loud banging music and half naked girls dancing like dervishes you couldn't find a better place for miles around.

Unfortunately there weren't many half naked girls on the indie/goth/heavy rock scene I was into when I was a youngster. Fortunately, there are a lot on the goth/heavy rock scene I'm into now!

I remember I used to wonder about the balck T-shirted and paunched older geezers who never seemed to leave the bar area of various gigs I went to - Why bother coming if you don't want to get down there and ROCK? - nowadays I appreciate this as the best place to watch gigs from. I have become them.

I'm sad to report that unlike House of Usher, there are significantly less half naked girls in my gigging/clubbing life than in years past, as my years past involved Manchester rave clubs in the 90s, when two tank-girlesque X 's of black tape seemed to suffice as a 'top' *sigh*

Quote from: dandontdareI'm sad to report that unlike House of Usher, there are significantly less half naked girls in my gigging/clubbing life than in years past, as my years past involved Manchester rave clubs in the 90s, when two tank-girlesque X 's of black tape seemed to suffice as a 'top' *sigh*

Hmm. Well, it's like that on the goth scene now, largely as a result of there being a great deal of rave-goth crossover in the past 10 years. The downside is we have to put up with a lot of 'industrial' house and gabber. I think it's a price worth paying. Without it there'd be no goth scene at all, let alone partial nudity.

Quote from: "House of Usher"Without it there'd be no goth scene at all, let alone partial nudity.

"the youth" will always find a reason and a method to freak out their elders, dress in BAD clothes and get their bits out.

The problem is keeping connected with "the youth" without trolling around clubs looking like a perv!

Quote from: "dandontdare"

Quote from: "House of Usher"Without it there'd be no goth scene at all, let alone partial nudity.

"the youth" will always find a reason and a method to freak out their elders, dress in BAD clothes and get their bits out.

As if any reason were even needed! And it's not just the youth... it's anyone who looks good partially clothed. Or doesn't. Me, I'm wearing something baggy that gives no hint of my shape underneath. But the missus can get away with almost anything.
 

Quote from: House of UsherThe downside is we have to put up with a lot of 'industrial' house and gabber.

I'm depressed to admit that I am now so old, I have no idea what that even means ...

Bah.

Jim

QuoteI have no idea what that even means ...

"Now my friends are gone
And my hair is grey
I ache in the places where I used to play".

The official definition as laid down by the Official Board of Musical Terminology for Great Britain  of  "industrial house" is "NOISE".

That's the Gods Honest.

I actually have a serious point to make about education but I was waiting so someone else could be the killjoy who cuts off the talk of young girls flashing their jigglies but no-one else seems to want to.
    My nephew is 5yrs old and can't recognise the letter k. Why you ask? Well his teacher very helpfully gave the kids in her clas a set of homemade primer cards-one for each letter of the alphabet- to keep in their take home wallets.She'd printed them off from a compter. However, she'd taken a marker pen and changed all the k's by hand. She'd joined the top of the k to the end of the top leg. She'd turned it into an R. Now, when he sees an R he thinks it's a k and when he ses a k he doesn't recognise it at all. Whats that about? Didn't the fact that she'd had to change them by hand-presumably because she couldn't find a font willing to write a k as an R- give her a clue that maybe this wasn't the best idea.
    I'm assuming now, from earlier posts on this thread, that it's something to do with teaching writing instead of printing but in a country where we are churning out a generation of illiterate chavs, why are we doing something that's seemingly designed to be confusing. It certainly confused me and I flatter myself that on a good day I can recognise almost every letter of the alphabet

There's gabber for you.
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8E4GPdu4k&feature=related
And some industrial techno - possibly not work safe. 'Hardcore M*****f*****' by Ultraviolence.
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utNoKNQL_DU

I was actually taught to read using that bizarre phonetic alphabet - it was called ITC or ICA or some such acronym - anyone remember it? Seemed to work for me, but I think it has been totally discredited and abandoned now. Once we'd got the hang of printed letters, in class 3 (age 7) the formidable Mrs Duckworth taught us joined-up writing to a strict and precise formula. A lower case k did indeed have a closed loop and a lower case s was rather odd too, but it was made clear that these variations were only used in handwriting. Your nephew's teacher sounds like an idiot. All my younger relatives talk about "curly cuh and kicking kuh" to differentiate C and K, which seems to be common today.

Now, can we PLEASE get back to girls flashing their jigglies?

Quote from: "House of Usher"There's gabber for you.
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8E4GPdu4k&feature=related
And some industrial techno - possibly not work safe. 'Hardcore M*****f*****' by Ultraviolence.
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utNoKNQL_DU

Jeez, I now know what to say if ever invited to a Gabber night, and it ain't 'ooh, yes please'!

Quote from: fapladMy nephew is 5yrs old and can't recognise the letter k. Why you ask? Well his teacher very helpfully gave the kids in her clas a set of homemade primer cards-one for each letter of the alphabet- to keep in their take home wallets.She'd printed them off from a compter. However, she'd taken a marker pen and changed all the k's by hand. She'd joined the top of the k to the end of the top leg. She'd turned it into an R. Now, when he sees an R he thinks it's a k and when he ses a k he doesn't recognise it at all. Whats that about? Didn't the fact that she'd had to change them by hand-presumably because she couldn't find a font willing to write a k as an R- give her a clue that maybe this wasn't the best idea.

I'm very sorry to hear it. The problem with teacher training nowadays is they emphasize putting current thinking into practice and effectively transforming teaching into a mechanistic activity (pulling levers and following flowcharts and checklists and auditing every step of the process). Teachers, like so many 'knowledge workers', are now expected, and expect, to be trained not educated. They are trained to expect to be told what to do and how to do it, and to be given procedures to follow instead of relying on their own instincts, knowledge and best judgement. Thus, they are not told "teach children to read", they are told "teach children to read this way", because it's the currently orthodox way of doing it. It's a good illustration of what Weber meant when he said bureaucracy is necessary for big and complex systems to work, but eventually it starts throwing up irrational and perverse outcomes. If teachers were allowed to use their own judgement about teaching methods you would get good and bad teaching. Of course we want to stamp out bad teaching. But the bureaucratic mechanism for stamping out bad teaching is to promote uniformity. The irrational outcome of standardized teaching, which raises the standards of the worst teachers, is that it wipes out good teaching along with the bad.

Your nephew's teacher sounds like a bad teacher who thinks good teaching comes from doing whatever the experts say you should do. You don't become a good teacher by following the set of instructions. You become a good teacher by learning to intuit the best way of getting the learning across to your students.

Works for me

Quote from: "House of Usher"And some industrial techno - possibly not work safe. 'Hardcore M*****f*****' by Ultraviolence.

Hah! I actually knew Jon Casey when he was starting out, and have a white label copy of his first 12" -- Shout -- knocking about the place somewhere.

Cheers

Jim

My last post makes it seem that I'm blowing off an intelligent response to my comments. Sorry about that. I was actually talking about getting back to girls jigglies when I said  it worked for me and completely blanked on the fact that others had posted in the meantime.

Glad I'm not the only one to think that her teaching methods are flawed. Tragedy is that h's a bright lad who's eager to learn but this, amongst other issues at his schol, is causing him no end of frustration

Quote from: "faplad"Glad I'm not the only one to think that her teaching methods are flawed. Tragedy is that h's a bright lad who's eager to learn but this, amongst other issues at his schol, is causing him no end of frustration

Well, try this one on for size! Whereas we used to learn times tables in primary school (the evil 'learning by rote'), nowadays they teach them to 'count in fives': 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. A school teacher recently told me about how her class was learning to count in fives and had only got up to 20 so far. They would be getting to 50 next week. I don't get it! Why is she preserving the mystery of what comes after 20? All they need to learn is a rule, and they can work the rest out for themselves: 80, 85, 90, 95, 100. Then when you get to 100 you need a new rule, which goes "ninety-nine, a hundred, a hundred and..."

When I was at school, not having been taught the rule for what happened after 100 led me to imagine that what came after 100 was 200. No-one had taught me about "a hundred and...", so I just used my imagination and came up with the wrong answer. But when I made that mistake it showed I was ready to learn something else.

They seem to make things needlessly complicated by breaking things down into so many components.

Just noticed you were all talking about me not so long ago and I think you should all go back to talking about me.

History at school for me was Nazis, Nazis, Nazis. I also found out recently that my inspirational history teacher is actually a bit of a twat. For one thing, he had an affair with another faculty member. I know that grown-ups do that kind of thing but goddamnit teachers having sex with each other is just creepy and gross. Also he had a kid and his wife was a childhood sweetheart or something. Also he has pictures of Che Guevara on his lightswitches.

University provided with me with possibly the most defining moment of my life when my second year marks came back and I got a load of 68s and 69s (This is the overall mark for the class BTW) but not one single 70. I pretty much kicked ass for the entire fucking third year but I was still never going to get a first and I wouldn't get to join the completely unattainable hot girl in the smart kids club and that bald twat SU president and his creepy Irish sidekick would.

Just been re-reading this thread and I can't help but notice that a discussion of educational standards has inspired me to make a shedload of spelling mistakes in almost every post. Tad ironic but there you go.

Unlike Godpleton I don't seem to have any really lasting memories of any of my teachers. The only one I really remember was my English Lit GCSE teacher who had the unmitigated gall to refuse to back down in the face of my utter disdain for the course she was teaching. Maybe it was her methods or maybe it was my attitude but that course came perilously close to killing my love of reading stone dead. It did introduce me to Mockingbird though so it wasn't all bad.

Speaking of teaching and Nazis, this is what went on in the fourth year of my junior school.

My teacher used to keep an extra pair of "slippers" (white plimsoles) in the cupboard, one size up from the size of his stinkers. This one size up pair of plimsoles was for whacking kids with.

But that's nothing. When the class was unruly, the following was his method of getting the class to calm down. He had a collection of knives and pen knives in his desk drawer, which he would keep unlocked! He was a WWII veteran and had told me and my friends the captivating story of when they had caned the Germans in a battle and were moving from the lines. He passed a dead German soldier and looking at the dead soldier's dagger, he thought to himself "this chap won't need that" and took it as a souvenir. So he would actually keep this Nazis dagger with large swastika on the handle in his unlocked drawer in the classroom. So to calm the class down he would lean forward, stare at us, put his hand in the drawer, find the Nazi dagger and still looking at us, hold it to the side of his desk from the swastika and let it go. It would fall into the floor, going in by about 3/4 of an inch. I guess it was supposed to terrify us but we thought it was cool.

True story.

Old Mr ****** was a decent chap though. He was forever in my good books. He would let us draw pictures of whatever we wanted in art, so me and my buddies would pretty much only draw superheroes and comic characters for one year's worth of art classes. He thought they were great and the class was completely plastered round three walls above the picture rail with mainly my comic drawings. I still have them, nearly all copies from Marvel comics with the odd one or two from the funnies. I guess he was the only teacher/tutor I ever came across that rated comic art.

Just shocking how they would leave our education to the whims of such characters back then.

Gabba?

as in Gabbagabbahey!?


(//http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8nIQOVfvkGI/STC4WKK7VEI/AAAAAAAAAac/w-o8SwxObDA/s320/ramones+gabba.2.jpg)

Quote from: "Jim_Campbell"

Quote from: "TheEdge""Romeo and juliet" asshattery of the greatest order

If they didn't show you the Zeffirelli film, then they want shooting. If they did and that's still your response, then you have no soul.

Cheers

Jim.

No films in english except for Redford in Gatsby,


 n history however i saw hunt for red october, top gun and stuff like Nicholas and alexandre and sobibor colditz etc, proper awsome movies.

In religious education we had rthe freakiest hippy type teacher who was luckily a star wars fanatic so you were guaranteed a viewing once every so often,

Quote from: "SamuelAWilkinson"As for Catch-22, you think you should dislike Yossarian because he doesn't want to die?

Your mouth is full of all kinds of wrong.

I'm sorry but lots of people dont want to die, but some of the stunts he pulled were not only cowardly but if caught i'm pretty sure during the WAR Death would have been the penalty.

What would have happened if Guy GIbson and a couple of his boys decided on the night of the Dambusters Raids that they would fake a radio failure.

Another thing Dropping payloads off TARGET so you can turn back early, this would probably cause huge civilian casualties. ( not that on target wouldnt, but on target would prob be a factory or a military site)

Quote from: "TheEdge"[
 n history however i saw hunt for red october, top gun

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

...

Jim

Quote from: "Jim_Campbell"

Quote from: "TheEdge"[
 n history however i saw hunt for red october, top gun

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

...

Jim

None of them for historical purposes i might add Just on those half days before holidays as treats to shut us up.

QuoteAnother thing Dropping payloads off TARGET so you can turn back early, this would probably cause huge civilian casualties.

A lot of WW2 is now viewed through rosey glasses even by people who were there. Yes, I am forever greatful that there were (and are) people willing to do great harm to protect my freedom but things were not as nice and 'Blitz spirit' as one would believe.

STARFISH and Q decoy-sites were often placed on bomber routes and this sometimes meant placing them close to rather large communities, as happened close to here. One bomb meant for Liverpool landed in the middle of a road and killed 20 civilians.

19,000 American troops deserted in Europe after D-Day, 20,000 British troops were tried for desertion during WW2. About 300 of the British troops were actually executed.

Theft and looting was rife throughout the Eastend during the Blitz.

A major march took place in Liverpool against the war while the war was on; many dockers striked for more pay causing delays in the unloading of essential supplies (witnessed by my grandfather).

Once again, I applaud and support the troops who fought and still fight for us. But history has interesting little hidden secrets, possibly dark secrets, if you look deeper and speak to people who were there and who remember it as it really was.

I find it fascinating.

-Bouwel-

I find it difficult, in my heart of hearts, to condemn cowardice for the simple reason that I think I'd have exactly that response myself. I'm not making light here and I take no pride in this but I came to the conclusion a long time ago that in a life or death situation I'd run like Hell. I'd feel like crap about it afterwards but in the moment instinct would be king and I'd do what I had to to live.

I have nothing but respect for those who give their all in defence of others or for a cause but I just haven't got it in me. Lifes too precious.

There was  a film society at my school with Dr Strangelove and Psycho shown amongst many others.

My school had quite a high turnover of school leavers going on to Oxford and Cambridge.I wasnt one of them .There was a board with a list of names that went to Oxbridge up on the wall that went back at least a century.

Shame there wasnt a list like a Hall of Shame and failures or i would have been listed on it.

QuoteThere was a board with a list of names that went to Oxbridge up on the wall that went back at least a century.

What a hideous thing to have in a school - "this, lads, is success". There is a lot that's good about many of the Oxbridge colleges, but when you come down to it getting in isn't the trick - it's paying for it.   I was offered a postgrad place in Oxford many years ago, which shows any phewl can get in, but even with a partial scholarship I couldn't come close to affording it.

One of my close relatives is a senior Professor at Jesus College Cambridge. Interesting fellow. Likes cutting dead people up to see what killed them. Fun at parties.

-Bouwel-

Quote from: "Bouwel"One of my close relatives is a senior Professor at Jesus College Cambridge. Interesting fellow. Likes cutting dead people up to see what killed them. Fun at parties.

-Bouwel-

I'm sure hi is- as long as he doesn't bring his work home with him.

Quote from: "faplad"I find it difficult, in my heart of hearts, to condemn cowardice for the simple reason that I think I'd have exactly that response myself. I'm not making light here and I take no pride in this but I came to the conclusion a long time ago that in a life or death situation I'd run like Hell. I'd feel like crap about it afterwards but in the moment instinct would be king and I'd do what I had to to live.

I have nothing but respect for those who give their all in defence of others or for a cause but I just haven't got it in me. Lifes too precious.

I dont have a problem with people who are scared and dont want to fight they have options, they could object.
(i know conscientious objector's were strapped to cannons etc in WW1) refuse to fight, and be placed in a support role or even sent to prison, its better than acts of sabotage

Yeah, but wasn't Yossarian's real beef that his insane superiors kept changing the rules?

If Yossarian was the only one on the base acting the eejit, I'd sort-of agree that his actions were indefensible, but Heller describes just about everyone involved as a complete loon.  The promise of only having to fly a certain number of missions, only to have the number endlessly extended, and the twisted eponymous catch itself, are more than enough reason to judge Yossarian's actions less harshly; that and the genuine psychological scars from the spoilerific pivotal event that we don't find out the truth about until the very end.

QuoteI dont have a problem with people who are scared and dont want to fight they have options

I remember reading a book about bomb disposal which stated that quite a few conscientious objectors voluteered to be bomb disposal engineers. I must dig it out and have a read of it again. As I remember they were still treated with distrust and out-right hostility regardless of the dangerous task they were doing.

Edited to add:
This site is interesting reading, although I'm not sure of its impartiality:
//http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/cos/st_co_wwtwo.html

-Bouwel-
(For the record, I am not a CO myself)

Quote from: "TordelBack"Yeah, but wasn't Yossarian's real beef that his insane superiors kept changing the rules?

That and Orr with his goddamn crab apples.

Quote from: "TordelBack"

QuoteThere was a board with a list of names that went to Oxbridge up on the wall that went back at least a century.

What a hideous thing to have in a school - "this, lads, is success". There is a lot that's good about many of the Oxbridge colleges, but when you come down to it getting in isn't the trick - it's paying for it.   I was offered a postgrad place in Oxford many years ago, which shows any phewl can get in, but even with a partial scholarship I couldn't come close to affording it.

It was an elitist school .

Quote from: "Kerrin"

Quote from: "TordelBack"Yeah, but wasn't Yossarian's real beef that his insane superiors kept changing the rules?

That and Orr with his goddamn crab apples.

Let's not forget that he was mad anyway - otherwise he would have been able to get out on the grounds of madness.

On the subject, has anyone read the sequel, Closing Time? My once-read copy sits next to my heavily-thumbed Catch-22, and I recall finding it pretty hard going in comparison.

QuoteOn the subject, has anyone read the sequel, Closing Time? My once-read copy sits next to my heavily-thumbed Catch-22, and I recall finding it pretty hard going in comparison.

Aye.  It was strongly recommended to me by a friend just after it came out, and to my shame I bought a hardback copy which I have read exactly once and have completely forgotten everything about it.  On the other hand my Catch 22 paperback, bought for 50p at a parish sale, is nearly shredded with re-reading.

Quote from: "Bouwel"I remember reading a book about bomb disposal which stated that quite a few conscientious objectors voluteered to be bomb disposal engineers. I must dig it out and have a read of it again. As I remember they were still treated with distrust and out-right hostility regardless of the dangerous task they were doing.

Unfortunatly during WW1 we were horrible to objectors, never mind stories of harmless white feathers for cowards. The army would strap them to front line artillery, human meat shields. Shot or imprisoned. lucky ones they would make them medics and strecher bearers and they would have to walk around no-mans land collecting wounded under sniper fire etc.

WW2 they were treated better, during conscription you could go before a non military panel and be made exempt from military service (rare but did occur ).

Generally during WW2 objectors made medics, bomb disposal, training, mechanics, drivers and couriers. ( most of which was done on the front line)

Necropost!

At my local comprehensive the English class is studying a horrid poem by Eileen McAuley called 'The Seduction' (nasty boy gets impressionable girl drunk, takes advantage, she gets pregnant).

It's a fairly widely studied poem for GCSE. As is the way with studying literature in schools these days, one of the methods of study is comparison with another text. I've had a look on the internet: suggested comparison texts for 'The Seduction' include To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell and Cousin Kate by Christina Rosetti.

The English teacher at the local comprehensive decided to give them Brenda's Got a Baby by 2Pac instead. I think it's a bit of a crass pairing. Even Fifteen, sung by Taylor Swift, would be a better choice for comparison and closer to the theme of the McAuley poem.

Quote from: House of Usher on 10 June, 2011, 02:20:14 PM
At my local comprehensive the English class is studying a horrid poem by Eileen McCauley called 'The Seduction' (nasty boy gets impressionable girl drunk, takes advantage, she gets pregnant).

Had to google that.  Ugh.  'Improving', one imagines a curriculum board deciding, 'talks to them at their level.  Teach 'em to keep their legs closed'.  Patronising, painfully literal and ugly.  Bring back Pam Eyres, says oy.

All of that - my thoughts exactly (apart from any reference to Pam Ayres!) And yet, it is so outdated I had to explain no fewer than a dozen cultural references to the student who was given it for homework. Nothing wrong with that: it's part of what studying literature is for, to broaden your horizons and imagine other times and cultures. However, for a poem selected for relevance to the students' own lives, it was as much work to explain as Betjeman's Slough.



Footnote: by far the most common question readers, students and teachers wanted to put to the author was "is the girl in the poem you?"

They were drawing and colouring 'Union Jacks' at Robbies school. Oh how that grates me.
As of 1801 this was formally named the Union Flag (No2).
(http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/union-jack/union_jack.png)
Although in 1908 Admiralty pushed the issue for both thus parliament of that time decreed this, if my memory serves me correctly.



V

Teachers are also letting themselves down on TV quiz programmes.

From 'Dumb Britain,' Private Eye #1289, 9 June 2011:

'Pointless,' BBC2

Alexander Armstrong: "Name any state in the USA that has a coastline."

Contestant 1 (teacher): "Mexico."
Contestant 2 (also a teacher): "Orlando."

i thought it was only a union jack when used on a ship? union flag on land.

Or costume of a BritisH "superhero"

I know your talking about secondary schools HOU,  but two of mine go to the local Gael(primary) school, where everything is taught through Irish, with English as a separate subject.  
The methods are very different from when I went to school with a lot more emphasis on reading and maths skills than writing skills.
They both love school, with a kind of learning is fun attitude, that I was a little bit suspicious of  until I see the results, both are excellent at English and Maths and speak Gaelic excellently, now surpassing my own vocabulary.
I do hear my Sister complain of the Secondary system though, this year she has one in Leaving and Junior cert(O and A levels I think). The most thing she has concerns for is the shifting sands of the curriculum, which has left her kids learning stuff that's (exam wise) irrelevant.

David

Quote from: vzzbux on 10 June, 2011, 10:26:29 PM
They were drawing and colouring 'Union Jacks' at Robbies school. Oh how that grates me.
As of 1801 this was formally named the Union Flag (No2).
(http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/union-jack/union_jack.png)
Although in 1908 Admiralty pushed the issue for both thus parliament of that time decreed this, if my memory serves me correctly.



V

one thing has always bothered me ,usually in war films "i knew he was a spy gerald,the union jack was upside down"!!! how can they tell?to me it looks the same ! :-\

Quote from: mogzilla on 11 June, 2011, 10:15:21 PM
one thing has always bothered me ,usually in war films "i knew he was a spy gerald,the union jack was upside down"!!! how can they tell?to me it looks the same ! :-\

Imagine flipping it around a horizontal axis rather than rotating it - the wide and narrow white stripes would be inverted. I remember having the importance of this drilled into me in Scouts!

Aye. The wrong way to wear it is inverted so really only flags or transfers can be displayed the worng way as most stickers/patches are printed one side only.




V

Sometimes people fly the Irish Flag upside down and I get confused and think there're people visiting from Cote d'Ivoire ::)

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 June, 2011, 11:28:41 PM
Sometimes people fly the Irish Flag upside down and I get confused and think there're people visiting from Cote d'Ivoire ::)

Could be worse.  I've seen people use the Italian flag.