The Spectator

[Hebdomad]

does anyone read it? Or know anyone who does? Thoughts? It pains me.

I can only read about three paragraphs of any article in that magazine because after that I imagine the article author's head slowly shrinking and the concomitant screams which result. I try to read another article, but the same symptoms appear.

What's the point of the magazine (magazine of the year, don't you know), anyway? I can read Conservative Home any time I want. I tried to read it today and it had a particularly informative article about Scottish independence, and by informative I mean gallstone removal after four hours of heavy anal fisting kind of informative.

I can stomach the Economist's isn't global finance beautiful like that scene at the end of one of the Star Wars prequels when Natalie Portman's looking very attractive and you can understand how Anakin ends up destroying the universe after losing her discourse, even though I disagree with it (the unrelenting advocacy of neoliberalism and global finance, that is).

In this thread we discuss The Spectator, and what you think about it. Begin.

[Androme]

Being a spectator of football is fun

[Tomkat]

Nathalie Portman is pretty hot, yeah...

[Hebdomad]

I blame modern education, you know.

[Tomkat]

At least my kids choose not to read anything rather than reading rubbish like you!

[All Systems Go]

As part of my 'ignoring mainstream media' phase, I tend not to read any such publications. I find no benefit in reading things which stir up negative emotions and provide no useful side effects (increased knowledge etc...)

However, it did have an article on the Swedish education system, so I read that. I find the Spectator to be the right-wing version of the New Statesman.

On the whole however, I must say that it's somewhat better than other thigns on the net such as the Devil Kitchen blog, or whatever it's called. I read one post on that and it was possibly the worst thing I've ever read. Completely up its own arse and with less considered criticism than a copy of the Sun.*

*yes, it really was that bad.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I find no benefit in reading things which stir up negative emotions and provide no useful side effects (increased knowledge etc...)

So pretty much all works of fiction then...?

[All Systems Go]

ITT we learn TK has never actually read a book.

[lokken]

that Natalie Portman really is hot though

[furball]

I quite like the Spectator. It's far from perfect but it's by far superior to any other political magazine out there. The Swedish education system article that ASG is referring to is quite superb and shows why Cameron's education policy (allowing parents to set up new schools) is an excellent idea that would flourish.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by lokken

that Natalie Portman really is hot though

Here's a collection of her wallpapers.

*** WARNING: Contains mature content + mature woman ***

So if you're younger than Dead Meat or you're gay, look away now.

Natalie Portman wallpapers

[G.K Zhukov]

Got a link to that article, furball?

[Hebdomad]

This article about the Swedish education system sounds interesting. Care to go into detail?

What I hate about The Spectator the most is its unashamed bias. At least the Guardian goes for Labour's throat now and again. There's one columnist who keeps lauding Cameron as well, Michael someone. I hope that doesn't change should there be a change in government. The Economist seems to stay out of party advocacy from what I can tell. I suspect that's the reason I like it.

Not all's lost, though, because at least I now know, for certain, that furball is an enemy.

[All Systems Go]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...volution.thtml

There's a bit of Swedish lovin' for you.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by furball

I quite like the Spectator. It's far from perfect but it's by far superior to any other political magazine out there. The Swedish education system article that ASG is referring to is quite superb and shows why Cameron's education policy (allowing parents to set up new schools) is an excellent idea that would flourish.

Ignoring the fact that a policy implimented in one country will not run in exactly the same way in another, it depends on what you mean by 'flourish.'

Whilst the policy seems to be very popular in polls of parents, only about 10% of parents don't send their children to their appointed schools.

[lokken]

The thought of British parents organising anything other than a witch hunt is pretty hilarious. Come to think of it, aren't a lot of the cabinet parents?

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by lokken

The thought of British parents organising anything other than a witch hunt is pretty hilarious. Come to think of it, aren't a lot of the cabinet parents?

Look at it from the bright side, Hitler wasn't a parent.

[G.K Zhukov]

We have something similar in Norway. The only difference beeing that you cannot legaly take out profit from these privatly-run schools. However, this has not stopped one of the firms from doing so by various dodgy means (John Bauer).

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by furball

I quite like the Spectator. It's far from perfect but it's by far superior to any other political magazine out there. The Swedish education system article that ASG is referring to is quite superb and shows why Cameron's education policy (allowing parents to set up new schools) is an excellent idea that would flourish.

I'm not British, so i've not really heard anything about The Spectator (except its name, like The Guardian). It seems to be a right-wing semi-tabloid though, which i cant say that I would personally spend money on.

That aside, i was seriously concern with Furbeh's mental health when i read that comment of his. I was wondering whether i should send him a "get well soon" card or not. I was shaken.

However, now that i've read the article, i actually think that its a good idea. (!!!). In fact, exceptionally good. My only major concerns would be that curricula would have to be more-or-less standardised so that applicants to universities would be of a consistently (high) level. This being done in consultation with the unis, but IGCSE sounds like a good idea (how does it differ from GCSE? I've done a bit of IGCSE sciences (physics, chem) back when i was in high school as extension... but any Poms care to elaborate for me?).

Still, that's more of a policy point. The cost structure sounds good though. Personally, i'd like the idea of having profit-driven schools though, because otherwise you get the whole "goverment department" mentality, whereby any money you dont spend will just be removed next year, so you might as well spend it, even though its not efficient or necessary to do so. Having a profit motive minimises this quite nicely, whilst not detracting from key educational standards else they loose all their business (kids) next year as they're closer to perfect competition.

I like!

[Hebdomad]

Originally Posted by lokken

The thought of British parents organising anything other than a witch hunt is pretty hilarious. Come to think of it, aren't a lot of the cabinet parents?

I haven't read the article yet, and I may well love the idea, but for the record, my first thoughts about this were the same as lokken's. There's something about a large group of parents and the curriculum that sends all the warning lights in my head into resembling a disco for amphetamine junkies.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Well, the article essentially says that the Government is willing to put up 6000pounds for any student willing to be taught in "free" (as in freedom) schools. Which are essentially independently run (of the education department/s) but still government funded.

The idea being that schools will compete with eachother to get more kids so that they can get more money (and potentially profit?), and the way to do that is through grades.

parents who believe in alternate/religious education can do that sort of thing too (and keep away from the mainstream, hopefulyl ).

Parents dont actually organise the school, they pick the one(s) that they think are best based on thier criteria, rather than what the school reckons. It should eliminate insufficient places and improve efficiency. It might even improve standards.

We'll see, but it seems to be positive.

[lokken]

I read the article this time as I didn't notice it before (!) and thought we had privately owned schools already, it's just that any government couldn't possibly bear the electoral cost of being seen to be elitist and paying out grants for kids to go to privately run schools and cover some/all of their fees.

If the tories want to encourage more privately run institutions and give kids the money to go to school, I'm all for it. **** the parents being involved though, if I ever have a child I want the kid to be challenged with a variety of opinions/moralities, not read some ****ing script about what someone thinks is 'safe' for the kid.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by lokken

I read the article this time as I didn't notice it before (!) and thought we had privately owned schools already, it's just that any government couldn't possibly bear the electoral cost of being seen to be elitist and paying out grants for kids to go to privately run schools and cover some/all of their fees.

They might be able to justify it (at least, economically) by saying that "it costs the State 10000pounds per student in every [grammar??] school. It costs the State 6000pounds per student in every "Free" school. Given that the free school is expected to have a higher standard of education, and is cheaper for the State, we expect to save xy billion pounds which we have decided to waste on overt populism such as suspending the petrol tax for 47 minutes."


I reckon it could work!


No, i wont do well as a politician .

If the tories want to encourage more privately run institutions and give kids the money to go to school, I'm all for it. **** the parents being involved though, if I ever have a child I want the kid to be challenged with a variety of opinions/moralities, not read some ****ing script about what someone thinks is 'safe' for the kid.

Parents should be permitted to want the best for their children. But wrapping them tightly in bubble-wrap only results in their precious child asphyxiating. This should be made explicit to the parents involved.

[Yahwe]

Oh look lefties being tribalistic.

There's a surprise.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Furball you really do talk an awful lot of nonsense sometime and I can only put it down to the fact that you read shite like the Spectator and the Guardian.

The Spectator and the Guardian....what an amusing mix you've tried to come up with for me. The Guardian is complete wank and anyone who reads it for anything but comedy value is a pillock.

The Spectator's a little socially conservative for me liking but it's decent journalism nevertheless.


By the way, anyone with the political beliefs you espouse should be careful about accusing others of talking "an awful lot of nonsense".

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I'm not British, so i've not really heard anything about The Spectator (except its name, like The Guardian). It seems to be a right-wing semi-tabloid though, which i cant say that I would personally spend money on.

It's a weekly political magazine. Think The Economist but without the economics.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

That aside, i was seriously concern with Furbeh's mental health when i read that comment of his. I was wondering whether i should send him a "get well soon" card or not. I was shaken.

However, now that i've read the article, i actually think that its a good idea. (!!!). In fact, exceptionally good.

Exactly. It sounded like complete crap before I read the article, but there's some excellent arguments presented that have convinced me for the time being.


I don't recommend that anyone tries to summarise the article though - they'll probably do a bad job. The article's superbly written and presents the arguments superbly.

[Boogster]

The Spectator's a bit shit but not nearly as shit as the New Scientist which as far as I can tell as actually more shit than shit itself. The average front page article is either:

a) half of that wikipedia article you read 2 years ago

b) something that someone has quite brazenly made up

c) the shocking discovery of a genetically mutated, amnesiac black hole with green tendencies.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

The Spectator's a bit shit but not nearly as shit as the New Scientist which as far as I can tell as actually more shit than shit itself. The average front page article is either:

a) half of that wikipedia article you read 2 years ago

b) something that someone has quite brazenly made up

c) the shocking discovery of a genetically mutated, amnesiac black hole with green tendencies.

PLUS they don't believe in god either do they!!!

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Boogster

The Spectator's a bit shit but not nearly as shit as the New Scientist which as far as I can tell as actually more shit than shit itself. The average front page article is either:

Well, you've just missed the point then. The New Scientist is great fun - but the whole point of it just has to be the Feedback pages. They definitely brighten my day.

Originally Posted by T&F

Furball you really do talk an awful lot of nonsense sometime and I can only put it down to the fact that you read shite like the Spectator and the Guardian.

I thought this an interesting point as well, bundling together strongly left (iirc) and right papers together as being 'shite'. Is that because all political commentary is just wank in britain (or everywhere), or is it just that you disagree with their views, or is it through the lack of competent editors/authors?

Originally Posted by furbeh

I don't recommend that anyone tries to summarise the article though

Ouch. Subtle.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Oh dear, was that an attempt at some sort of burn there Furball? Very convincing.

Sniff, the lad thinks he's all growed up, with his opinions and his views, its heart warming.

Stop, stop, stop, you're killing me.



The day that you stop telling us that we should "socialise the means of production, dismantle the chains of private property and create an economy owned by the people for the people" is the day that I'll value your political opinions.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by furball

Exactly. It sounded like complete crap before I read the article, but there's some excellent arguments presented that have convinced me for the time being.

Where is the government supposed to come up with £6000 per pupil per year for this funding? How many pupils will benefit from these schools?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by furball

Stop, stop, stop, you're killing me.



The day that you stop telling us that we should "socialise the means of production, dismantle the chains of private property and create an economy owned by the people for the people" is the day that I'll value your political opinions.

you're sitting at home in front of your computer going "hee hee hee, i think you'll find i won that exchange, oh yes"

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Where is the government supposed to come up with £6000 per pupil per year for this funding? How many pupils will benefit from these schools?

They dont need to. They pay that much (or more) already per student via government schools and private school subsidies.

Read the article! \o/

[furball]

precisely.

[All Systems Go]

So, now that you have been thoroughly convinced that this idea actually is the new Messiah, what do you actually expect it to achieve?

By this, I mean in both financial and educational terms.

[lokken]

I can't find a single news source that will tell me the news without me having to decipher it to guess what the truth probably is.

The amount of articles based on misquoted/twisted evidence is pretty pathetic, all for the case of making news of where there is either none or because it doesn't suit the paper's agenda. I don't think you can blame the journalists for it as they need to serve up stuff I want to read and ultimately, they need to justify their position as journalists.

It's no use for me to get the facts about anything, but a paper that deals with blunt presentation of the news probably wouldn't sell many copies.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Parents should be permitted to want the best for their children. But wrapping them tightly in bubble-wrap only results in their precious child asphyxiating. This should be made explicit to the parents involved.

Wait a second here:

Why should another parent have an influence on how my kid would be educated and likewise, why should I have influence on how someone else's is? And why should any of us tolerate any kind of filthy compromise that is reached?

Give them the widest possible curriculum and let the kids decide/ think (yes, think!) for themselves I say.

[Hebdomad]

This idea has a worrying precedent. Since British universities started to depend on student admission and graduation for their funding, universities have had to decrease their entry and graduation requirements. This has an awful effect on pre-university schools: because pre-university schools have "succeeded" when one of their students reaches and graduates from university, schools have no incentive to improve; according to such quantitative criteria, they're already performing adequately.

These same lowering of standards could happen to these new schools. What parent is going to send their child to a school which has a notoriously stingy grading reputation (for coursework)? The resultant lower grades would lessen their child's future prospects. I can't see any schools who proposes to teach Latin fairing well, either. Basically, when these new schools advertise you'd have to know for sure what they mean when they talk about their students' success rates: "we have excellent teachers" and not "we're very lenient." (hopefully the parents wouldn't be attracted to the latter..) The government would have to have an iron grip on the curriculum and marking criteria (I'm not sure how much leeway teachers get now, to be honest). Of course, this is quite possible, and why I'm not opposed to the scheme.

Similar to the current British university system, I'd worry that these new schools would care more about numbers than anything else. For example, these new schools would obviously have to attract a certain number of students to cover their school's rent, electricity, etc. This would become even worse if the schools were for profit. However, if the government's grants per student were large enough to mitigate this, and the schools weren't for profit, then the school could concentrate on teaching and not whether they're attracting enough students. If the grants were large enough, this scheme may even reduce class sizes, which would be a huge boon to students.

Basically, if regulated well, market economics may very well help the education system.

But do you know what I really love about this scheme? It's the fact that the Tories, traditionally seen as uncaring, have taken advise from a socialist country, which clearly has the best education system, when the Labour party, divided and unable to rule, can't even understand how they're destroying our children's future. They're destroying their own party and destroying the country. I can only pray the Tories get into power and fix this broken society.

(there's another post about cultural emphases on education, and how think tanks and university's should concentrate on those who use a system and not just the system itself for evaluation, but meh)

[All Systems Go]

I was waiting for the irony, but... nothing.

...

[Hebdomad]

Because I mentioned market economics? The fact what I worry about happens now, but, arguably, to a lesser extent? You should probably put content into your posts, that way we'd communicate.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Hebdomad

I can only pray the Tories get into power and fix this broken society.

It's like the '80s never happened.

[All Systems Go]

I've been doing a bit of research into this topic as I'm doing it for my dissertation. One trend is that schools are opening faster than teachers can be trained. This has seen an increase in the number of non-trained teachers in the education systems. At the moment, I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.

What I'm most concerned about in this situation though is that a two-tier system will arise (partly out of this, partly from other factors). If the popular schools are constantly expanding then they will need more teachers. If these schools have smaller class sizes then the obvious result is that other schools are going to see their classes balloon as the teacher/pupil ratio increases.

[Tactitus]

These schools sound a lot like what we call charter schools here in the US. They're a variation on the idea of school vouchers, proposed by economist Milton Freedman in the 1950s.

Originally Posted by Hebdomad

These same lowering of standards could happen to these new schools. What parent is going to send their child to a school which has a notoriously stingy grading reputation (for coursework)? The resultant lower grades would lessen their child's future prospects. I can't see any schools who proposes to teach Latin fairing well, either.

Many of the charter schools here cater to parents looking for back-to-the-basics (like Latin) and academic rigor. If you're a parent looking for declining standards and grade inflation, our state-run public schools already have that market pretty well covered. Perhaps surprisingly, many parents seem to actually want their children to get a good education (and by that I mean not just good grades).

Grades were already problematic for comparison purposes, which is why standardized test scores are replacing grades as the more reliable metric.

[Mzyxptlk]

I hear Latin really comes in handy these days.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I hear Latin really comes in handy these days.

It may not have practical uses but it's a great asset when it comes to understanding languages. It's also very difficult to dumb it down in the way you can most subjects.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by lokken

Wait a second here:

Why should another parent have an influence on how my kid would be educated and likewise, why should I have influence on how someone else's is? And why should any of us tolerate any kind of filthy compromise that is reached?

Give them the widest possible curriculum and let the kids decide/ think (yes, think!) for themselves I say.

What? Where did i say that? Did you even read the article?

The only parents who will be influencing what is being taught in schools are those people or organise and formalise any curricula, typically people in Education departments of governments. Thus, at best, what you're saying already happens. At worst, a new system like this lets you be able to move school more easily and the government will keep funding your place.

Kids often dont know what they want. This is for a number of reasons, such as over-caring parents choosing for them. For their lack of knowledge of the real world. For their lack of knowledge with their own abilties, or available options. How many Year 1s talk about becoming an economist? Or a mathematician? Or a psychologist? Or a quantity surveyor? They all want to be policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses or perhaps vets. Sure, as they grow older, they get exposed to more options. But if you're 13 in high school and you're required to select your own curriculum, then you will be choosing subjects that may not be suitable for your path, which you will discover when you're older. Imperfect information is a major problem, and its very costly to correct, let alone incurring some major changes to society as a whole first. Given that people keep trying to do this, and it not working, then i'd suggest that its a pipedream. Get into the real world, and you might be less disapointed with whats going on.

Now, that might sound comical coming from an economist, but i've just put it out there.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

These schools sound a lot like what we call charter schools here in the US. They're a variation on the idea of school vouchers, proposed by economist Milton Freedman in the 1950s.

Everyone credits Friedman with this idea, but Denmark has been running a similar program for over a century.

[Mistwraith]

I have to agree with Ultimate Newbie, The New Scientist is a great read, and for my newspaper, if i buy one which i rarely do, i find The Times to be well written and willing to take a shot at anyone.

I'd rather read a feebles picture book than The Mail, The Express or The sun.

[Hebdomad]

Mz, I'd be quite keen on Latin in schools because it exercises memory and analytical skills, among other things, like an increased understanding of French, Spanish and Italian. I wouldn't suggest anyone speak it.

Also, yesterday, the Independent had an article on this school system, but left out the fawning for the Conservatives, and cited the Dutch school system, instead. Heh.

[Tomkat]

I feel sorry for T+F. His cutting 9-word sentence has lost its impact, due to being shuffled onto the 2nd page.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Hebdomad

Because I mentioned market economics? The fact what I worry about happens now, but, arguably, to a lesser extent? You should probably put content into your posts, that way we'd communicate.

What exactly is broken within society and what are you expecting the Tories to do that is any different than Labour?