Plans for next season

[stlucifer]

Just now, oaksoft said:

Well yes. I have him temporarily on ignore until he starts behaving like an adult.

My patience ran out last month.

I wasn't referring to you seeing his posts. It was more, do you really think he'll change his spots?

[oaksoft]

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I wasn't referring to you seeing his posts. It was more, do you really think he'll change his spots?

Well he used to be OK so I hope so.

[smcc]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Hang on. When was it hard to get to uni?

There certainly were many fewer universities and university places in 1960!

[oaksoft]

8 minutes ago, smcc said:

There certainly were many fewer universities and university places in 1960!

There were also significantly fewer students attempting to enter university because they had a huge range of other options.

It should also be noted that you needed significantly lower grades to get into uni at that time. Mind you, on that score I can look at school exam papers and see the vast difference in expected performance so that will account for some of it. Comparing things like the Maths Higher paper of 2019 and that from 1986, for example, is a very stark and sobering experience for those who deny that there's been dumbing down within schools.

So, in short, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by oaksoft

[GMan]

21 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Hang on. When was it hard to get to uni?

It was always easy for the geniuses, like us. I spent the whole time drunk, revised the morning of the exams and still came away witha first. But then I'm probably just very lucky.

[lenziebud]

38 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Hang on. When was it hard to get to uni?

Early days of your hero Margaret Thatcher.

Less places, Less uni's, harder exams in o'grade and higher. 

Much tougher then than now and your beloved didn't make it any easier. 

Started to open up from 97 when government made it a target to get up 50% into higher education. 

[oaksoft]

9 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Early days of your hero Margaret Thatcher.

Less places, Less uni's, harder exams in o'grade and higher. 

Much tougher then than now and your beloved didn't make it any easier. 

Started to open up from 97 when government made it a target to get up 50% into higher education. 

Exams were certainly harder in the 80s but I don't remember it being difficult to get into university in the 80's.

I certainly don't remember it being "much tougher" than it is now although kids nowadays have more breadth of knowledge whereas we had depth of knowledge in fewer subjects.

We were taught differently then, there's no doubt about that and once we got to uni, it was perhaps a little easier to make the transition to uni level standard.

Thatcher certainly didn't make going to university harder than it previously was. I think your red tinted glasses are kidding you on.

Every generation thinks the younger generation gets it easier than them.

Younger people today have much more pressure on them than previous generations.

There may be more places and more universities but, for example, instead of needing an A and 3 Bs to do engineering, you now need 5 As at the same university to do the same course I did in the 80s. Those exams might well be easier but getting 5 As is no mean feat. It's much harder for kids to get the job they want now with many more people achieving degree status. It's harder to get on the ladder to a career at all.

Younger people have been sold a pup as far as education is concerned and it's our generation who have sold them it. We designed the education system, taught those kids, opened up more unis and courses to those kids and it's us who are now bizarrely criticising those kids. Maybe us older folks need to a bit more shutting the f**k up and leaving those kids to work things out for themselves eh?

[GMan]

22 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Early days of your hero Margaret Thatcher.

Less places, Less uni's, harder exams in o'grade and higher. 

Much tougher then than now and your beloved didn't make it any easier. 

Started to open up from 97 when government made it a target to get up 50% into higher education. 

Aye. Good old Labour. Their ultimate target was 100%, because if everyone went to uni then everyone could get a really well paid job and pay more tax. A brilliant idea. 

[lenziebud]

41 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Exams were certainly harder in the 80s but I don't remember it being difficult to get into university in the 80's.

I certainly don't remember it being "much tougher" than it is now although kids nowadays have more breadth of knowledge whereas we had depth of knowledge in fewer subjects.

We were taught differently then, there's no doubt about that and once we got to uni, it was perhaps a little easier to make the transition to uni level standard.

Thatcher certainly didn't make going to university harder than it previously was. I think your red tinted glasses are kidding you on.

Every generation thinks the younger generation gets it easier than them.

Younger people today have much more pressure on them than previous generations.

There may be more places and more universities but, for example, instead of needing an A and 3 Bs to do engineering, you now need 5 As at the same university to do the same course I did in the 80s. Those exams might well be easier but getting 5 As is no mean feat. It's much harder for kids to get the job they want now with many more people achieving degree status. It's harder to get on the ladder to a career at all.

Younger people have been sold a pup as far as education is concerned and it's our generation who have sold them it. We designed the education system, taught those kids, opened up more unis and courses to those kids and it's us who are now bizarrely criticising those kids. Maybe us older folks need to a bit more shutting the f**k up and leaving those kids to work things out for themselves eh?

This is an interesting read, chimes with what a few friends who have been in uni's for over 20 years say ?

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value

[GMan]

31 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

This is an interesting read, chimes with what a few friends who have been in uni's for over 20 years say ?

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value

I'm not sure I'd trust the opinion of someone who has spent more than twenty years trying to get a degree. But the fact they let special needs people into university tells me all I need to know...

[smcc]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Exams were certainly harder in the 80s but I don't remember it being difficult to get into university in the 80's.

I certainly don't remember it being "much tougher" than it is now although kids nowadays have more breadth of knowledge whereas we had depth of knowledge in fewer subjects.

We were taught differently then, there's no doubt about that and once we got to uni, it was perhaps a little easier to make the transition to uni level standard.

Thatcher certainly didn't make going to university harder than it previously was. I think your red tinted glasses are kidding you on.

Every generation thinks the younger generation gets it easier than them.

Younger people today have much more pressure on them than previous generations.

There may be more places and more universities but, for example, instead of needing an A and 3 Bs to do engineering, you now need 5 As at the same university to do the same course I did in the 80s. Those exams might well be easier but getting 5 As is no mean feat. It's much harder for kids to get the job they want now with many more people achieving degree status. It's harder to get on the ladder to a career at all.

Younger people have been sold a pup as far as education is concerned and it's our generation who have sold them it. We designed the education system, taught those kids, opened up more unis and courses to those kids and it's us who are now bizarrely criticising those kids. Maybe us older folks need to a bit more shutting the f**k up and leaving those kids to work things out for themselves eh?

Table 8
Students obtaining university degrees, UK
                            First degrees                                  Higher degrees
                   Men           Women           Total          Men      Women      Total
1920          3,145                  1,212           4,357           529             174         703
1930        6,494                 2,635           9,129          1,123            200        1,323
1938          7,071                 2,240           9,311          1,316            164         1,480
1950        13,398                 3,939         17,337         2,149            261         2,410
1960        16,851                  5,575        22,426        2,994            279        3,273
1970        35,571                 15,618         51,189         11,186            1,715      12,901
1980       42,831                 25,319        68,150       14,414            4,511      18,925
1990       43,297                33,866        77,163      20,905          10,419      31,324
2000     109,930                133,316     243,246     46,015         40,520      86,535
2005      122,155                156,225     278,380     63,035         62,050     125,085
2010     144,980                185,740     330,720     93,375         89,235      182,610
2011       153,235                 197,565     350,800    96,280        97,990     194,270

I think this illustrates the rapid increase in the number of university degrees awarded since the 1960s. Do you think it wasn't harder to get into university before that?

Edited May 10, 2020 by smcc
Typo

[W6er]

11 minutes ago, smcc said:

Table 8
Students obtaining university degrees, UK
                            First degrees                                  Higher degrees
                   Men           Women           Total          Men      Women      Total
1920          3,145                  1,212           4,357           529             174         703
1930        6,494                 2,635           9,129          1,123            200        1,323
1938          7,071                 2,240           9,311          1,316            164         1,480
1950        13,398                 3,939         17,337         2,149            261         2,410
1960        16,851                  5,575        22,426        2,994            279        3,273
1970        35,571                 15,618         51,189         11,186            1,715      12,901
1980       42,831                 25,319        68,150       14,414            4,511      18,925
1990       43,297                33,866        77,163      20,905          10,419      31,324
2000     109,930                133,316     243,246     46,015         40,520      86,535
2005      122,155                156,225     278,380     63,035         62,050     125,085
2010     144,980                185,740     330,720     93,375         89,235      182,610
2011       153,235                 197,565     350,800    96,280        97,990     194,270

I think this illustrates the rapid increase in the number of university degrees awarded since the 1960s. Do you think it wasn't harder to get into university before tyhat?

Aye, it does. I hate to sound like a snob, but I recently had to explain to a geography graduate that Russia spans two continents, with the Ural Mountains dividing them. I also had to correct an English graduate's grammar. 

I actually agree with GMan. Graduating from university used to indicate academic excellence. What does it mean today? Even the redbrick universities have expanded so much that the prestige of having attended them has diminished. Then there are people with degrees in social studies from Runcorn Polyversity, which to me would imply low intelligence, as a brighter student would do an apprenticeship. Even work experience in a supermarket would be more beneficial than getting into debt to earn a meaningless qualification.

[oaksoft]

26 minutes ago, smcc said:

Table 8
Students obtaining university degrees, UK
                            First degrees                                  Higher degrees
                   Men           Women           Total          Men      Women      Total
1920          3,145                  1,212           4,357           529             174         703
1930        6,494                 2,635           9,129          1,123            200        1,323
1938          7,071                 2,240           9,311          1,316            164         1,480
1950        13,398                 3,939         17,337         2,149            261         2,410
1960        16,851                  5,575        22,426        2,994            279        3,273
1970        35,571                 15,618         51,189         11,186            1,715      12,901
1980       42,831                 25,319        68,150       14,414            4,511      18,925
1990       43,297                33,866        77,163      20,905          10,419      31,324
2000     109,930                133,316     243,246     46,015         40,520      86,535
2005      122,155                156,225     278,380     63,035         62,050     125,085
2010     144,980                185,740     330,720     93,375         89,235      182,610
2011       153,235                 197,565     350,800    96,280        97,990     194,270

I think this illustrates the rapid increase in the number of university degrees awarded since the 1960s. Do you think it wasn't harder to get into university before that?

Do I think that the number of graduates coming out of university correlates to the ease of entering university?

Not necessarily.

I've already explained that prior to the 80s, there were a substantial number of alternative options to going to uni. My dad's generation left school at 15 or younger because they needed to bring a wage to support theor parents income. Lower university numbers were directly related to things like this and had much less to do with being technically more difficult entry requirements.

I think you are guilty of over simplifying things.

 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, lenziebud said:

This is an interesting read, chimes with what a few friends who have been in uni's for over 20 years say ?

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value

This absolutely chimes with my personal experience as a student and as staff. It's why I quit academia. There's no way I am going to waste my career awarding top grades to shite students (and I was asked to do this).

[W6er]

5 hours ago, shull said:

It was. 

Prices are fine though. 

You never said how it was, Shull? What would you rate it, out of ten?

Edited May 10, 2020 by W6er

[shull]

8 hours ago, W6er said:

You never said how it was, Shull? What would you rate it, out of ten?

Not their usual 9.

I will give them 7/10.

[smcc]

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Do I think that the number of graduates coming out of university correlates to the ease of entering university?

Not necessarily.

I've already explained that prior to the 80s, there were a substantial number of alternative options to going to uni. My dad's generation left school at 15 or younger because they needed to bring a wage to support theor parents income. Lower university numbers were directly related to things like this and had much less to do with being technically more difficult entry requirements.

I think you are guilty of over simplifying things. Surely the main reason for the lower number of university graduates

 

I think you are complicating things. Surely the main reason for the lower number of graduates in the earlier years is that there were many fewer universities and university places. It is likely that the universities were able to recruit the more able candidates and that many of today' s university entrants would not qualify.

In your subsequent post you said that you left academia because you were encouraged to award high grades to duff students. Does this not suggest that university standards have dropped and that it is much easier to gain a university place?

Edited May 11, 2020 by smcc

[shull]

Is Scottish Football worth saving  in its present state  ?

[antrin]

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

 My dad's generation left school at 15 or younger because they needed to bring a wage to support theor parents income. Lower university numbers were directly related to things like this and had much less to do with being technically more difficult entry requirements.

I think you are guilty of over simplifying things.

I read this diversion to the thread, baffled by this omission.  Thanks oxter.

For 99% of working class people (when it came to a time when I might have contemplated it) the idea of University was risible - pie in the sky.  You had to get a job, an income and bring it back to the family. 

Both my parents worked in the Mills and on their wages, (even if there were grants) it would have been insanity to encourage me to continue education any longer.  I was lucky: I got a job, which allowed further education on day release.

I was also interested to see some of the data presented above.

Thatcher was the one who enabled the explosion in "University" numbers, when she sanctioned every poly and grubby failing college to be "called "University".  She hated Universities such as the Russell Group.  She loathed their "neoliberal" attitudes.

(Oxford refused to grant her an 'honorary degree'.    )

 

This was her revenge.

 

[bazil85]

Interesting developments out of England on Project Restart. Apparently they're considering threatening the bottom three with relegation if they don't vote for neutral venues. To me that's blatant coercion tactics. 

It is interesting the current stance is pretty different though, on the relegation of clubs when a season hasn't been completed. 

[antrin]

About that. bazil...

From a Radio 4 discussion that I heard whilst driving this a.m., a presenter talking to a top "sports lawyer" …who believed that it was probably more likely that EVENTUALLY there would be little litigation.... 

…despite the FA  and leagues being hemmed in by the demands of their own structures and rules - and the huge monies involved.

They discussed the obvious ramifications for various clubs top and bottom and the ways in which "final league positions" could be arrived at, pointing out that all suggestions had problems and a detrimental impact on clubs no matter which way it went.

The lawyer thought it more likely that there would be talk-talk over this rather than litigation.  And that the football people he'd been speaking to all seemed to just want to get back to a "normal" ASAP and realistically there would be no actual playing out of the final fixtures.

[antrin]

Also - the lawyer was convinced that financial recompense for those most detrimentally hit would be found somehow.

Unusual for a lawyer to say, "we can do without the law getting messed intae this!"

And, for me, that is how it should work/have worked in Scotland.

 

Scotland could go for a temporary No Relegation.  Sadly, it seems to be not up for that.  I think it is wrong that any club be relegated with so much left to play for.  (And V. glad for the blessed Obika and his goal.   )

Scotland should compensate those clubs now to be relegated.

 

To that end, all Prize Money should be divided equally between the clubs of each division, AFTER Hearts, Partick, Stranraer (?) have been taken care of.

This is only 1 incredible year in over a century, Scottish fitba should be adaptable... it should ensure that as many of our old clubs as possible survive for the next century.

 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, antrin said:

About that. bazil...

From a Radio 4 discussion that I heard whilst driving this a.m., a presenter talking to a top "sports lawyer" …who believed that it was probably more likely that EVENTUALLY there would be little litigation.... 

…despite the FA  and leagues being hemmed in by the demands of their own structures and rules - and the huge monies involved.

They discussed the obvious ramifications for various clubs top and bottom and the ways in which "final league positions" could be arrived at, pointing out that all suggestions had problems and a detrimental impact on clubs no matter which way it went.

The lawyer thought it more likely that there would be talk-talk over this rather than litigation.  And that the football people he'd been speaking to all seemed to just want to get back to a "normal" ASAP and realistically there would be no actual playing out of the final fixtures.

I think litigation is a real grey area right now regarding the rule based nature of football. Really wonder what avenues clubs could follow if they were relegated. I think that's why clubs like Hearts & Partick Thistle have really steered clear of committing to legal action. It would likely be futile. 

[antrin]

I'm not convinced it's a grey area...   The SPFL rules do have sufficient wiggle room to condemn clubs, which is why law would be a last costly-for-all resort.  But it's really unnecessary to my mind.

It is a league of clubs, all in it together - none of any point, none would exist without the others.

I sincerely believe that this year, in this circumstance, flexibility must be embraced.

 

Just seen this from ICT's 'statement':

“We fully admit to having an agenda, that is that no fellow member of the SPFL should be more financially damaged than we all already have been since the complete shutdown of our industry. We believed that no club should have been relegated or expelled during an unfinished season.”

This is morality, solidarity and good. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by antrin
new info

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, smcc said:

I think you are complicating things. Surely the main reason for the lower number of graduates in the earlier years is that there were many fewer universities and university places. It is likely that the universities were able to recruit the more able candidates and that many of today' s university entrants would not qualify.

In your subsequent post you said that you left academia because you were encouraged to award high grades to duff students. Does this not suggest that university standards have dropped and that it is much easier to gain a university place?

I can't think of a way either of us could conclusively prove our point on that first sentence so we'll agree to disagree. Both points are not unreasonable.

As for the bit in bold, I can see where you are coming from but it's indicative that a student who should have failed a uni test was being allowed to pass. That doesn't necessarily mean that this student shouldn't have been at uni in the first place. It means they are not being allowed to taste failure at uni. Back in the 80s, you were allowed to fail ( and I did a couple of times and lost 2 summers because of resits) and you learned to pick yourself up. Nowadays the student can simply cry, kick up a fuss and in many cases simply be upgraded. The university system is corrupt to the core.

I have to say that I am a very positive person but I completely despair at our entire education system from start to finish and I'm particularly pissed at those teachers and lecturers who have allowed themselves to be cogs in this nonsense. We have primary school teachers who can't teach fractions because they can't do them either, high school teachers who are more concerned about what the kids are wearing and teaching them how to pass tests rather than filling them with a love for their subjects, lecturers who believe that they are really researchers and that teaching is somehow beneath them. The entire process incentivises the wrong people to do the wrong things and not enough people seem to have enough professional and personal integrity or care about the students enough to do anything about it. I have sat with other academic staff individually who are absolutely broken by all of this but then they go straight back to engaging in this nonsense afterwards. I've seen countless new lecturers coming in, full of hope and energy only to have that extinguished within months as they realise they can't change things. I know from anecdotes that the same thing happens at schools.

I have no idea how it can be fixed.

My advice to young people who are genuinely capable? Unless you need a degree to practice your discipline, teach yourself from books and youtube videos (from MIT etc) and go and start your own business. It'll be faster, cheaper and you won't have to sit through useless examinations and nobody cares what degree a company owner has.

Right, that's enough misery and despair from me today. My whole quota used up in a single post. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by oaksoft