News1 min ago
Student Vote
It is known that students have abused the system and voted in two places. Apparently some have been boasting and joking about it! Virtually impossible to check this doesn't happen apparently! Surely this needs to be addressed.
http://
Putting it in News as it the most relevant section.
http://
Putting it in News as it the most relevant section.
Answers
Another thing to point out to the "youngster" regarding the free to everyone university promise. It isn't. It will be funded by massive borrowing that will have to be repaid. It will be repaid by they who are young now, not by oldies like me. I paid my tax for 45 years, month in month out. Now not all the young will go to university, some may not even go on to tech...
13:20 Mon 12th Jun 2017
//As to yours, v-e, can I ask you to explain what point you are trying to make?//
I'll try by way of an anecdote, Jim. True story.
Quiz show - Eggheads. Challengers - five pretty young girls from the same university. Topic - history. Girl reading history (second year?) chosen to answer.
Her questions:
Q1: Did Julius Caesar die (a) by drowning, (b) by assassination, or (c) in battle?
Student: Not my period of history. Drowning?
Q2: Which Royal house was named after a plant: (a) Plantagenet, (b) Tudor, or (c) Stuart?
Student: Not my period of history. Planter gent?
Q3: Can't remember, but we did get the "not my period" plea for the third time.
After watching this I speculated (rather unkindly, I admit) firstly on the brightness, commitment and intellectual curiosity of the "student", secondly, on he nature of the course she was doing, and thirdly - the point I was trying to make in my last post - why society was spending £27,000 or whatever to "educate" this girl.
Assuming this girl gets her degree, what use will it be to her or anybody else, Jim?
I'll try by way of an anecdote, Jim. True story.
Quiz show - Eggheads. Challengers - five pretty young girls from the same university. Topic - history. Girl reading history (second year?) chosen to answer.
Her questions:
Q1: Did Julius Caesar die (a) by drowning, (b) by assassination, or (c) in battle?
Student: Not my period of history. Drowning?
Q2: Which Royal house was named after a plant: (a) Plantagenet, (b) Tudor, or (c) Stuart?
Student: Not my period of history. Planter gent?
Q3: Can't remember, but we did get the "not my period" plea for the third time.
After watching this I speculated (rather unkindly, I admit) firstly on the brightness, commitment and intellectual curiosity of the "student", secondly, on he nature of the course she was doing, and thirdly - the point I was trying to make in my last post - why society was spending £27,000 or whatever to "educate" this girl.
Assuming this girl gets her degree, what use will it be to her or anybody else, Jim?
I still don't think I get your point. You don't go to University in order to become good at pub quizzes. Studying History at university is meant to make you good at being an Historian -- or, failing that, having a decent command of the skills an Historian needs. Research skill, critical evaluation of sources, etc, rather than a recall of specific names, dates and events.
I'm not defending the inability to answer questions I'd regard as fairly basic, but I am saying that going to University isn't really meant to impact on that ability. Whether or not she ended up gaining useful skills out of the degree I can't say without knowing her personally, but certainly you can't judge that based on a TV quiz show.
I'm not defending the inability to answer questions I'd regard as fairly basic, but I am saying that going to University isn't really meant to impact on that ability. Whether or not she ended up gaining useful skills out of the degree I can't say without knowing her personally, but certainly you can't judge that based on a TV quiz show.
Thanks for your answer, Jim.
"Studying History at university is meant to make you good at being an Historian -- or, failing that, having a decent command of the skills an Historian needs. Research skill, critical evaluation of sources, etc, rather than a recall of specific names, dates and events.".
Of course. But the acquisition of these skills presumes some minimum measure of intellectual competence. And some moral qualities like the willingness to work hard in order to acquire them.
You're very generous in your assumption that most of today's students are like you, but it's a false take on reality.
"Studying History at university is meant to make you good at being an Historian -- or, failing that, having a decent command of the skills an Historian needs. Research skill, critical evaluation of sources, etc, rather than a recall of specific names, dates and events.".
Of course. But the acquisition of these skills presumes some minimum measure of intellectual competence. And some moral qualities like the willingness to work hard in order to acquire them.
You're very generous in your assumption that most of today's students are like you, but it's a false take on reality.
Based on the last week or so, if most students are like me then the UK is doomed...
Funnily enough, in the course of thinking about your question I was put in mind of famous Uni challenge contestants of days gone by. Guttenplan, Trimble and the like. Brilliant at quizzes, although each of them would I'm sure prefer to be defined by their success in their chosen fields (biochemistry for Guttenplan, Classics for Trimble).
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point I was going to make was that their knowledge of random trivia wasn't so important as their impressive research skills, although one other contestant, Daisy Christodoulou (Warwick, 2007), became a teacher in her later career -- and then promptly decided to write a book almost disagreeing with me about literally everything. "Seven Myths About Education". You might want to look it up, but Myth One is that "Facts ruin Creativity", or something along those lines.
I think *my* point is more that facts are overemphasised, rather than an existential threat to education, but still I think you might enjoy that book.
Funnily enough, in the course of thinking about your question I was put in mind of famous Uni challenge contestants of days gone by. Guttenplan, Trimble and the like. Brilliant at quizzes, although each of them would I'm sure prefer to be defined by their success in their chosen fields (biochemistry for Guttenplan, Classics for Trimble).
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point I was going to make was that their knowledge of random trivia wasn't so important as their impressive research skills, although one other contestant, Daisy Christodoulou (Warwick, 2007), became a teacher in her later career -- and then promptly decided to write a book almost disagreeing with me about literally everything. "Seven Myths About Education". You might want to look it up, but Myth One is that "Facts ruin Creativity", or something along those lines.
I think *my* point is more that facts are overemphasised, rather than an existential threat to education, but still I think you might enjoy that book.
More precisely, the myth was that "Facts prevent understanding"; separately, there's the "You can always just look it up" myth and "you should teach transferable skills".
I imagine that *I* might need to read that book more than you do, to be honest, particularly if (as I am) I'm going to consider a career in teaching. Still, I'm going to recommend it to you as well; as I say, it seems to be very much in support of the point you're trying to make, albeit less focused on University Education per se.
I imagine that *I* might need to read that book more than you do, to be honest, particularly if (as I am) I'm going to consider a career in teaching. Still, I'm going to recommend it to you as well; as I say, it seems to be very much in support of the point you're trying to make, albeit less focused on University Education per se.
Thanks for has turned out to be a very interesting and polite discussion, which I have read through now and found to be very informative. Going back to my question, the petition is now somewhere about 30,000 supporters. Personally, I think that students should only be able to register in their home constituency, and if they can't get back home then then they should have a postal vote. Perhaps all voters should have to show photo ID and a recognised proof of address at the polling station to cut down on fraud.
