Students are Fragile

[The Todal]

A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq

quotes

As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.

A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.

Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.

This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.

They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.

Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.

I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.

I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

[Theo]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!

1. A pandemic in which students lost formative years as their school (and
everything else) was moved online
2. NHS mental health services that are barely functioning and are not fit for
purpose (eg 4 years for a diagnosis)
3. 14 years of austerity leading to defunding of young people's services, eg
Sure Start, youth support services, community mental health teams, etc
4. Academisation of schools leading to high pressures on students
5. A cost of living crisis in which students are having to do multiple jobs
in order to pay their basic bills, or other time consuming activities like
commuting long distances because they can only find somewhere affordable to
live a long way away / with their parents
6. Privatisation of university accommodation (no longer uni-owned halls, now
student blocks run by housing companies at extortionate rent; small-time
private landlords of regular houses withdrawing from the market)
7. Social media and related pressures
8. Students who are 'customers' 'paying' £9250pa to their university and
the customer is always right

Any more for any more?

Theo

[Brian]

Post by Theo

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!

1. A pandemic in which students lost formative years as their school (and
everything else) was moved online
2. NHS mental health services that are barely functioning and are not fit for
purpose (eg 4 years for a diagnosis)
3. 14 years of austerity leading to defunding of young people's services, eg
Sure Start, youth support services, community mental health teams, etc
4. Academisation of schools leading to high pressures on students
5. A cost of living crisis in which students are having to do multiple jobs
in order to pay their basic bills, or other time consuming activities like
commuting long distances because they can only find somewhere affordable to
live a long way away / with their parents
6. Privatisation of university accommodation (no longer uni-owned halls, now
student blocks run by housing companies at extortionate rent; small-time
private landlords of regular houses withdrawing from the market)
7. Social media and related pressures
8. Students who are 'customers' 'paying' £9250pa to their university and
the customer is always right
Any more for any more?
Theo

In the early/mid 1940s you may be aware the was a major 'event' which
disrupted the lives of millions of people, not only in the UK, but World
wide.

At the time, the UK had no NHS, access to University was very limited,
mental health care / treatment was, at best, 'basic'.

Economically, things weren't too good either- to but it mildly.

How many students do you think used self diagnosed 'mental illness' to
avoid attending lectures, completing assignments, etc?


There was similar 'event' in 1914-18, when conditions were even more
basic, yet I doubt many students tried it.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Brian

Post by Theo

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!

1. A pandemic in which students lost formative years as their school (and
everything else) was moved online
2. NHS mental health services that are barely functioning and are not fit for
purpose (eg 4 years for a diagnosis)
3. 14 years of austerity leading to defunding of young people's services, eg
Sure Start, youth support services, community mental health teams, etc
4. Academisation of schools leading to high pressures on students
5. A cost of living crisis in which students are having to do multiple jobs
in order to pay their basic bills, or other time consuming activities like
commuting long distances because they can only find somewhere
affordable to
live a long way away / with their parents
6. Privatisation of university accommodation (no longer uni-owned halls, now
student blocks run by housing companies at extortionate rent; small-time
private landlords of regular houses withdrawing from the market)
7. Social media and related pressures
8. Students who are 'customers' 'paying' £9250pa to their university and
the customer is always right
Any more for any more?
Theo

In the early/mid 1940s you may be aware the was a major 'event' which
disrupted the lives of millions of people, not only in the UK, but World
wide.
At the time, the UK had no NHS, access to University was very limited,
mental health care / treatment was, at best, 'basic'.
Economically, things weren't too good either- to but it mildly.
How many students do you think used self diagnosed 'mental illness' to
avoid attending lectures, completing assignments, etc?
There was similar  'event'  in 1914-18, when conditions were even more
basic, yet I doubt many students tried it.

But modern students have been deprived of such life-shaping events. How
can you expect them to cope in the face of such a condition?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Brian

Post by Theo

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!

1. A pandemic in which students lost formative years as their school (and
everything else) was moved online
2. NHS mental health services that are barely functioning and are not fit for
purpose (eg 4 years for a diagnosis)
3. 14 years of austerity leading to defunding of young people's services, eg
Sure Start, youth support services, community mental health teams, etc
4. Academisation of schools leading to high pressures on students
5. A cost of living crisis in which students are having to do multiple jobs
in order to pay their basic bills, or other time consuming activities like
commuting long distances because they can only find somewhere affordable to
live a long way away / with their parents
6. Privatisation of university accommodation (no longer uni-owned halls, now
student blocks run by housing companies at extortionate rent; small-time
private landlords of regular houses withdrawing from the market)
7. Social media and related pressures
8. Students who are 'customers' 'paying' £9250pa to their university and
the customer is always right
Any more for any more?
Theo

In the early/mid 1940s you may be aware the was a major 'event' which
disrupted the lives of millions of people, not only in the UK, but World
wide.
At the time, the UK had no NHS, access to University was very limited,
mental health care / treatment was, at best, 'basic'.
Economically, things weren't too good either- to but it mildly.
How many students do you think used self diagnosed 'mental illness' to
avoid attending lectures, completing assignments, etc?

A huge number actually, though they probably used different names for their
symmptoms.

Post by Brian
There was similar 'event' in 1914-18, when conditions were even more
basic, yet I doubt many students tried it.

I have done no research on that, but mental illness was exceedingly common in
survivors.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

This is usually the point where someone trots out the ancient Greek quotes of
people saying youth was going to wrack and ruin. It is probably not too much
different from previously apart from recent changes, a) mental illness being
fashionable (though the Orwellian way they describe mental illness as mental
"health" confuses me), b) even more marginally capable people going to
university and, especially, c) universities being desperate to keep incapable
students because they need their fees.

I doubt if kids have changed much.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq

This is usually the point where someone trots out the ancient Greek quotes of
people saying youth was going to wrack and ruin. It is probably not too much
different from previously apart from recent changes, a) mental illness being
fashionable (though the Orwellian way they describe mental illness as mental
"health" confuses me), b) even more marginally capable people going to
university and, especially, c) universities being desperate to keep incapable
students because they need their fees.
I doubt if kids have changed much.

Indeed they have not. In particular, the 40% (approx.) who make up the
difference between the 10% (or so) who ought to be at university and the
50% (or whatever) who go to university have not grown more intelligent
or more able.

A lot of them should be learning trades and skills.

[Vir Campestris]

Post by JNugent
Indeed they have not. In particular, the 40% (approx.) who make up the
difference between the 10% (or so) who ought to be at university and the
50% (or whatever) who go to university have not grown more intelligent
or more able.
A lot of them should be learning trades and skills.

I think even the 10% might have been a little high - and I was one of them.

I managed to learn enough playing with the computer at Uni in my spare
time to get a decent job and a career. I could probably have learned as
much with a year's proper tuition.

Sadly that report is no surprise to me at all.

Andy

[The Todal]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

This is usually the point where someone trots out the ancient Greek quotes of
people saying youth was going to wrack and ruin. It is probably not too much
different from previously apart from recent changes, a) mental illness being
fashionable (though the Orwellian way they describe mental illness as mental
"health" confuses me), b) even more marginally capable people going to
university and, especially, c) universities being desperate to keep incapable
students because they need their fees.
I doubt if kids have changed much.

I think one major change in recent years is disability discrimination
law. To penalise anyone in university or in a workplace because of a
medical condition, even a self-diagnosed one, risks attracting a claim
for compensation.

Perhaps the anonymous lecturer is too fearful of the consequences of
rebuking or penalising students. Or perhaps the law is not as clear as
it ought to be. Or universities should have clearer less ambiguous
policies about academic performance and make those policies known to
students and to staff.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by The Todal

[quoted text muted]

I think one major change in recent years is disability discrimination
law.
To penalise anyone in university or in a workplace because of a medical
condition, even a self-diagnosed one, risks attracting a claim for
compensation.

The problem is, if you look carefully enough (which some incentives will
prompt) then 100% of the population is disabled in some way.

[Fredxx]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal

[quoted text muted]

I think one major change in recent years is disability discrimination
law.
To penalise anyone in university or in a workplace because of a medical
condition, even a self-diagnosed one, risks attracting a claim for
compensation.

The problem is, if you look carefully enough (which some incentives will
prompt) then 100% of the population is disabled in some way.

I personally know some mothers with young children who have ailments
like fibromyalgia and anxiety so they get their full benefit without the
DWP taking off the amount they would earn at NMW for 16 hours.

Before the DWP made mothers of children over the age of 3 go to work
they were 'healthy'.

Where there's a will there will be a way.

[Fredxx]

Post by The Todal

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-
too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-
diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

This is usually the point where someone trots out the ancient Greek quotes of
people saying youth was going to wrack and ruin. It is probably not too much
different from previously apart from recent changes, a) mental illness being
fashionable (though the Orwellian way they describe mental illness as mental
"health" confuses me), b) even more marginally capable people going to
university and, especially, c) universities being desperate to keep incapable
students because they need their fees.
I doubt if kids have changed much.

I think one major change in recent years is disability discrimination
law. To penalise anyone in university or in a workplace because of a
medical condition, even a self-diagnosed one, risks attracting a claim
for compensation.
Perhaps the anonymous lecturer is too fearful of the consequences of
rebuking or penalising students. Or perhaps the law is not as clear as
it ought to be. Or universities should have clearer less ambiguous
policies about academic performance and make those policies known to
students and to staff.

I would have thought the rules could include deferring the year if they
are too 'ill' to continue. Perhaps take off from the same place a year
later?

Some decades ago I was aware of a female student who got a degree
despite getting pregnant. By all accounts she would have failed otherwise.

[Spike]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

This comes as no surprise. At the start of the covid pandemic and
associated lockdowns, the BBC in particular droned on endlessly about how
this would affect the mental health of young people. Fast-forward five
years, and after an entire education where they have been mollycoddled, not
allowed to ‘fail’ (by coming second or third), every ‘problem’ being
someone else’s fault, and generally been shielded from the rude world, they
are suddenly thrust in to adulthood and expected to cope. And, in this
case, it’s the lecturer’s fault if they can’t!

[Les. Hayward]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

I have suggested before, that now might be the time to hand out degrees
with cornflake packets.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

Long past time.

Post by The Todal
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

Ever seen "Oleanna"?

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-
too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students self-
reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between 2016-17
and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among students at my
university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues stop them
partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

I call it the Age of Entitlement.

It has much to answer for.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.

People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.

The larder's empty IOW.

And guess who ate all the pies ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

Er... people who are actually not university material (just as if
someone of median intelligence *could* be!) but have been falsely
reassured that they are?

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

Er... people who are actually not university material (just as if someone of median
intelligence *could* be!) but have been falsely reassured that they are?

Whether people are, or are not university material is totally
irrelevant.

They are paying for their own tuition, and so creating jobs in the
further education sector

And so are not costing the taxpayer a penny.

So why should anybody (the ones who've already eaten all the pies)
be so concerned what they chose to spend their money on ?

More especially when many of those people, not only sponged off the
taxpayer to the extent of receiving free tuition, but trousered sizeable
(depending on parental income) maintenance grants into the bargain.

And all for free !

Furthermore the ones who've already eaten all then free pies also actually
had jobs to go to at the end of it. And quite possibly built up fat pensions
as a result.

And so are still eating their pies !

I've asked this question before on here, and I'll ask it again. Years ago almost
everything you bought and wore was made in Britain. From drawing pins to cars.
You paid your bills in the Electricity Board showrooms with your meter being read
every few months by an actual meter reader and had a choice of actual banks
on the High Street; all bristling with staff. Etc, etc, etc

Today we are told there are more people in employment in the UK than ever
before.

So what are they all doing ?

If they're not going to go to university what jobs are you suggesting they take
up instead ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

Er... people who are actually not university material (just as if someone of median
intelligence *could* be!) but have been falsely reassured that they are?

Whether people are, or are not university material is totally
irrelevant.

"totally irrelevant" to what, exactly?

Irrelevant to whether they should be admitted to university?

Post by billy bookcase
They are paying for their own tuition, and so creating jobs in the
further education sector
And so are not costing the taxpayer a penny.

As expensive as £9,250 per annum is, it is certainly not the total cost
of running a university. IOW, the general taxpayer, including everyone
who never goes to university, is meeting part of the cost.

Not a lot of people (seem to) know that.

Post by billy bookcase
So why should anybody (the ones who've already eaten all the pies)
be so concerned what they chose to spend their money on ?

No reason. But it is important that universities maintain standards.

Post by billy bookcase
More especially when many of those people, not only sponged off the
taxpayer to the extent of receiving free tuition, but trousered sizeable
(depending on parental income) maintenance grants into the bargain.
And all for free !

You didn't get in, then?

Bad luck.

Post by billy bookcase
Furthermore the ones who've already eaten all then free pies also actually
had jobs to go to at the end of it. And quite possibly built up fat pensions
as a result.
And so are still eating their pies !
I've asked this question before on here, and I'll ask it again. Years ago almost
everything you bought and wore was made in Britain. From drawing pins to cars.
You paid your bills in the Electricity Board showrooms with your meter being read
every few months by an actual meter reader and had a choice of actual banks
on the High Street; all bristling with staff. Etc, etc, etc
Today we are told there are more people in employment in the UK than ever
before.
So what are they all doing ?

I dare say some of them are working as assistants in the Diversity
Outreach Departments of universities.

Post by billy bookcase
If they're not going to go to university what jobs are you suggesting they take
up instead ?

I hope you don't think that 50% of all the jobs in the United Kingdom
are suitable only for graduates?

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

Er... people who are actually not university material (just as if someone of median
intelligence *could* be!) but have been falsely reassured that they are?

Whether people are, or are not university material is totally
irrelevant.

"totally irrelevant" to what, exactly?
Irrelevant to whether they should be admitted to university?

Post by billy bookcase
They are paying for their own tuition, and so creating jobs in the
further education sector
And so are not costing the taxpayer a penny.

As expensive as £9,250 per annum is, it is certainly not the total cost of running a
university. IOW, the general taxpayer, including everyone who never goes to university,
is meeting part of the cost.
Not a lot of people (seem to) know that.

Post by billy bookcase
So why should anybody (the ones who've already eaten all the pies)
be so concerned what they chose to spend their money on ?

No reason. But it is important that universities maintain standards.

The leading universities still do.

I very much doubt anyone would equate the University of South Neasden
with Oxford or Cambridge or any of the leading universities somehow,

University League Table Link

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
More especially when many of those people, not only sponged off the
taxpayer to the extent of receiving free tuition, but trousered sizeable
(depending on parental income) maintenance grants into the bargain.
And all for free !

You didn't get in, then?
Bad luck.

Well for a start, the ability to distinguish between objective facts, and
subjective opinions masquerading as facts, but based solely on personal
experience, is one of the hallmarks of a good education.

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
Furthermore the ones who've already eaten all then free pies also actually
had jobs to go to at the end of it. And quite possibly built up fat pensions
as a result.
And so are still eating their pies !
I've asked this question before on here, and I'll ask it again. Years ago almost
everything you bought and wore was made in Britain. From drawing pins to cars.
You paid your bills in the Electricity Board showrooms with your meter being read
every few months by an actual meter reader and had a choice of actual banks
on the High Street; all bristling with staff. Etc, etc, etc
Today we are told there are more people in employment in the UK than ever
before.
So what are they all doing ?

I dare say some of them are working as assistants in the Diversity Outreach Departments
of universities.

Some

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
If they're not going to go to university what jobs are you suggesting they take
up instead ?

I hope you don't think that 50% of all the jobs in the United Kingdom are suitable only
for graduates?

quote:

In May to July 2024, the number of people aged 16+ in employment was 33.23 million,

:unquote

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9366/

So what are they all doing ? All 33.23 million of them ?

And who cares whether its a graduate or not who eventually picks up the phone after
keeping you waiting for half an hour ?

And they might not even be based in the UK in any case.



bb

[Vir Campestris]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable with 10%
of students.

And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile phone,
colour TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect if the modern
youth were prepared to live the way we did they would be a lot better off.

My kids didn't get free tuition from the government - they got it from
me. Some of us old sods didn't eat all the pies.

Andy

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable with 10% of
students.
And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile phone, colour
TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect if the modern youth were
prepared to live the way we did they would be a lot better off.

Of course they will be. They won't have to worry about the impact of climate
change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the internet on commerce,
jobs, print media, and just about everything else, including poisonous social
media. And assuming they can get jobs they can look forward to retiring at 80 ,
having finally paid off their mortgages assuming they could actually get one,
to be faced with still growing NHS waiting lists

They just don't know how lucky they are, do they ?


bb

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable with
10% of students.
And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile
phone, colour TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect if
the modern youth were prepared to live the way we did they would be a
lot better off.

Of course they will be. They won't have to worry about the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. And assuming they can get jobs
they can look forward to retiring at 80 , having finally paid off
their mortgages assuming they could actually get one, to be faced with
still growing NHS waiting lists
They just don't know how lucky they are, do they ?
bb

The prevailing narrative is Gen-Z, and others like it, has been fleeced
by the ever so wicked Boomers. Some refer to Boomer greed wrecking the
entire economy for Gen-Z. Maybe you've drunk this Kool-Aid?

It never rang true despite various incendiary books and articles on the
topic. Recently a counter-narrative has been appearing. Financial
commentators are starting to discuss the colossal Great Wealth Transfer
(of $84 trillion) to the poor Gen-Z dears who no doubt will still view
themselves as victims, such is their narcissistic sense of entitlement.

See articles such as the following.

"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-they-are-
the-luckiest-in-human-history/>

"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"

<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-
z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>

Smashed avocado on toast, anyone?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable with
10% of students.
And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile
phone, colour TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect if
the modern youth were prepared to live the way we did they would be a
lot better off.

Of course they will be. They won't have to worry about the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. And assuming they can get jobs
they can look forward to retiring at 80 , having finally paid off
their mortgages assuming they could actually get one, to be faced with
still growing NHS waiting lists
They just don't know how lucky they are, do they ?
bb

The prevailing narrative is Gen-Z, and others like it, has been fleeced
by the ever so wicked Boomers. Some refer to Boomer greed wrecking the
entire economy for Gen-Z. Maybe you've drunk this Kool-Aid?
It never rang true despite various incendiary books and articles on the
topic. Recently a counter-narrative has been appearing. Financial
commentators are starting to discuss the colossal Great Wealth Transfer
(of $84 trillion) to the poor Gen-Z dears who no doubt will still view
themselves as victims, such is their narcissistic sense of entitlement.
See articles such as the following.
"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-they-are-
the-luckiest-in-human-history/>
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"
<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-
z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>
Smashed avocado on toast, anyone?

Rightard "think" pieces, at a guess

So in your own words, if you don't mind.

Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of climate
change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the Internet on commerce,
jobs, print media, and just about everything else, including poisonous
social media. Along with the future of pension provision, the
future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy of numerous Local Authorities
despite widespread library closures etc. etc. "The money is running
out" IOW. And has been for decades.

( Although as they're probably Merkan Rightard "think" pieces, given the
$84 trillion they're possible a bit silent on most of the latter )

While finally achieving World Peace and eliminating of Third World
poverty can safely be left for another time.


bb






,

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable with
10% of students.
And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile
phone, colour TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect if
the modern youth were prepared to live the way we did they would be a
lot better off.

Of course they will be. They won't have to worry about the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. And assuming they can get jobs
they can look forward to retiring at 80 , having finally paid off
their mortgages assuming they could actually get one, to be faced with
still growing NHS waiting lists
They just don't know how lucky they are, do they ?
bb

The prevailing narrative is Gen-Z, and others like it, has been fleeced
by the ever so wicked Boomers. Some refer to Boomer greed wrecking the
entire economy for Gen-Z. Maybe you've drunk this Kool-Aid?
It never rang true despite various incendiary books and articles on the
topic. Recently a counter-narrative has been appearing. Financial
commentators are starting to discuss the colossal Great Wealth Transfer
(of $84 trillion) to the poor Gen-Z dears who no doubt will still view
themselves as victims, such is their narcissistic sense of entitlement.
See articles such as the following.
"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-they-are-
the-luckiest-in-human-history/>
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"
<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-
z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>
Smashed avocado on toast, anyone?

Rightard "think" pieces, at a guess

The facts and figures used are either right or wrong.

Now that you have so deeply researched the issue, which was it?

Post by billy bookcase
So in your own words, if you don't mind.
Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of climate
change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the Internet on commerce,
jobs, print media, and just about everything else, including poisonous
social media. Along with the future of pension provision, the
future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy of numerous Local Authorities
despite widespread library closures etc. etc. "The money is running
out" IOW. And has been for decades.
( Although as they're probably Merkan Rightard "think" pieces, given the
$84 trillion they're possible a bit silent on most of the latter )
While finally achieving World Peace and eliminating of Third World
poverty can safely be left for another time.
bb
,

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Norman Wells
I call it the Age of Entitlement.

Indeed.
People who never had to pay any tuition fees at all
in their time, somehow feeling themselves Entitled to
criticise those who are having to pay up to 9 and a
quarter grand a year, for theirs.
The larder's empty IOW.
And guess who ate all the pies ?

I'm one of those people who got free tuition. It was affordable
with 10% of students.
And life was cheaper when we were young, with no internet, mobile
phone, colour TV, no satellite or streaming services... I suspect
if the modern youth were prepared to live the way we did they would
be a lot better off.

Of course they will be. They won't have to worry about the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. And assuming they can get
jobs they can look forward to retiring at 80 , having finally paid
off their mortgages assuming they could actually get one, to be
faced with still growing NHS waiting lists
They just don't know how lucky they are, do they ?
bb

The prevailing narrative is Gen-Z, and others like it, has been
fleeced by the ever so wicked Boomers. Some refer to Boomer greed
wrecking the entire economy for Gen-Z. Maybe you've drunk this
Kool-Aid?
It never rang true despite various incendiary books and articles on
the topic. Recently a counter-narrative has been appearing. Financial
commentators are starting to discuss the colossal Great Wealth
Transfer (of $84 trillion) to the poor Gen-Z dears who no doubt will
still view themselves as victims, such is their narcissistic sense of
entitlement.
See articles such as the following.
"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-
they-are-the-luckiest-in-human-history/>
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"
<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-
economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>
Smashed avocado on toast, anyone?

Rightard "think" pieces, at a guess

Blaming the messenger is one way of avoiding facts.

Post by billy bookcase
Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
Internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. Along with the future of
pension provision, the future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy of
numerous Local Authorities despite widespread library closures etc.
etc. "The money is running out" IOW. And has been for decades.
While finally achieving World Peace and eliminating of Third World
poverty can safely be left for another time.

Stick with affordability of education and intergenerational disparities.

[billy bookcase]

"Pamela" <***@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:***@135.181.20.170...

snip

Post by Pamela
Blaming the messenger is one way of avoiding facts.

The world is full of "facts". As it is of questionable
statistics

99.999% of which are indeed best avoided. As they are of
absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
Internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. Along with the future of
pension provision, the future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy of
numerous Local Authorities despite widespread library closures etc.
etc. "The money is running out" IOW. And has been for decades.

Stick with affordability of education and intergenerational disparities.

Which will address the above challenges in what way exactly ?

Oh and I left out the "Brexit Legacy". Something else for them to
be grateful for.



bb

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
snip
Blaming the messenger is one way of avoiding facts.

The world is full of "facts". As it is of questionable
statistics
99.999% of which are indeed best avoided. As they are of
absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

That's a questionable statistic.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
Internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. Along with the future of
pension provision, the future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy
of numerous Local Authorities despite widespread library closures
etc. etc. "The money is running out" IOW. And has been for decades.

Stick with affordability of education and intergenerational
disparities.

Which will address the above challenges in what way exactly ?
Oh and I left out the "Brexit Legacy". Something else for them to be
grateful for.
bb

You share a lot of anxieties about the future with Gen-Z and perhaps
Millenials too. This Telegraph article discusses how such "misery
springs from a disconnect between expectations and reality"

"Endemic misery in the UK towards a civilisational catastrophe"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/endemic-misery-is-pushing-
the-uk-towards-a-civilisational-c/ OR https://archive.ph/ABzR4

--------

Cheer up with those links you didn't get round to reading:

"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-they-are-
the-luckiest-in-human-history/>

"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"

<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-
z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>

[billy bookcase]

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela
snip
Blaming the messenger is one way of avoiding facts.

The world is full of "facts". As it is of questionable
statistics
99.999% of which are indeed best avoided. As they are of
absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

That's a questionable statistic.

Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
Specifically what do they say on the questions of the impact of
climate change, the inexorable rise of China, the impact of the
Internet on commerce, jobs, print media, and just about everything
else, including poisonous social media. Along with the future of
pension provision, the future of the NHS, the impending bankruptcy
of numerous Local Authorities despite widespread library closures
etc. etc. "The money is running out" IOW. And has been for decades.

Stick with affordability of education and intergenerational
disparities.

Which will address the above challenges in what way exactly ?
Oh and I left out the "Brexit Legacy". Something else for them to be
grateful for.
bb

You share a lot of anxieties about the future with Gen-Z and perhaps
Millenials too. This Telegraph article discusses how such "misery
springs from a disconnect between expectations and reality"

And what does the article have to say on the specific issues raised ?

Post by Pamela
"Endemic misery in the UK towards a civilisational catastrophe"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/endemic-misery-is-pushing-
the-uk-towards-a-civilisational-c/ OR https://archive.ph/ABzR4
--------
"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-victims-they-are-
the-luckiest-in-human-history/>
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"
<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-
z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>

You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"

It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.

As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)

It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.


bb

[JNugent]

On 10/10/2024 01:07 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.

I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the
1959 (MacMillan) and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.

Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in
the press was that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of
adverse balance of payments. It was more or less constantly predicted
that the country was heading for a 1930-type economic dislocation.

Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily
discourse of British political commentary. At every stage over those
last 60+ years, we have been told that we are awaiting "economic recovery".

But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living
standards in the UK, right up and down the social scale, have been
improving for all of that time. They are now at levels which would have
been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing away in 1967
and 1980), let alone any generation before that.

One Prime Minister, in the period between the 1955 and 1959 GEs,
summarised it pithily: "You've never had it so good". And that was 67
years ago. Living standards in 2024 are at sci-fi levels compared to
those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by 1980 or so!

So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all
right" compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Post by billy bookcase
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?

When I was in that world, I remember three getting fails for their finals.

One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student
wasn't struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and
passed.

The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.

That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the
1959 (MacMillan) and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in
the press was that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of
adverse balance of payments. It was more or less constantly predicted
that the country was heading for a 1930-type economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily
discourse of British political commentary. At every stage over those
last 60+ years, we have been told that we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living
standards in the UK, right up and down the social scale, have been
improving for all of that time. They are now at levels which would have
been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing away in 1967
and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
One Prime Minister, in the period between the 1955 and 1959 GEs,
summarised it pithily: "You've never had it so good". And that was 67
years ago. Living standards in 2024 are at sci-fi levels compared to
those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by 1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all
right" compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Post by billy bookcase
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?
When I was in that world, I remember three getting fails for their finals.
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student
wasn't struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and
passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

[Andy Walker]

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

That very much depended on the university and course. Some places
were of the nature of a "last chance saloon"; a friend attended one such,
in 1961-4, and reported that his year had a 50% failure rate [in a large
class], and that this was normal at his university, which specialised in
taking those with somewhat dubious A-levels. Most good universities had
/much/ lower failure or drop-out rates.

OTOH, /changes/ of course were much more normal, even "then". After
all, most students were looking at their choices of course in the first year
of sith form, aged 16-ish, they are often choosing subjects [medicine, law,
engineering, psychology, geology, ...] which are uncommon as A-levels, they
are often leaving home and living more-or-less independently for the first
time, and they mature greatly between 16 and 21 or 22. It's not at all
surprising if perhaps a third or so finish up doing a different course,
perhaps at a different university, from the one they embarked on. Again, a
lot depends on the course/university; some put obstacles in the way of
students who want to switch, others try to make it easy.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the
1959 (MacMillan) and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in
the press was that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of
adverse balance of payments. It was more or less constantly predicted
that the country was heading for a 1930-type economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily
discourse of British political commentary. At every stage over those
last 60+ years, we have been told that we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living
standards in the UK, right up and down the social scale, have been
improving for all of that time. They are now at levels which would have
been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing away in 1967
and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
One Prime Minister, in the period between the 1955 and 1959 GEs,
summarised it pithily: "You've never had it so good". And that was 67
years ago. Living standards in 2024 are at sci-fi levels compared to
those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by 1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all
right" compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Post by billy bookcase
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?
When I was in that world, I remember three getting fails for their finals.
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student
wasn't struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and
passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference
between me and the majority, but I remember being surprised that a an
18-yr-old female from one of the Welsh valleys disappeared after a
couple of weeks.

We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope
with Liverpool and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a
severe cultural shock, not helped by a particularly crass question (from
a lecturer trying to make a point) in a tutorial: "Would you sleep with
a black man?".

She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".

Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's
racist". He was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In
retrospect, it was not surprising that she left so abruptly. I can
remember her full name to this day. Had I been more on the ball myself,
I should have advised her to complain about it.

I hope she enrolled elsewhere, perhaps somewhere more congenial for her,
and made a success of her life. There is no reason why she shouldn't have.

[billy bookcase]

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference between me and the
majority, but I remember being surprised that a an 18-yr-old female from one of the
Welsh valleys disappeared after a couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope with Liverpool
and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a severe cultural shock, not helped
by a particularly crass question (from a lecturer trying to make a point) in a
tutorial: "Would you sleep with a black man?".
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's racist". He
was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In retrospect, it was not
surprising that she left so abruptly. I can remember her full name to this day. Had I
been more on the ball myself, I should have advised her to complain about it.
I hope she enrolled elsewhere, perhaps somewhere more congenial for her, and made a
success of her life. There is no reason why she shouldn't have.

You could always try and trace her, and acting as her witness agree to split the
compo 50% / 50%.

Sexism, racism, bullying, public humiliation.etc etc.

Even you yourself, appear to have been affected to some extent.

Even if the lecturer is by now dead and can no longer be publicly exposed
the institution in question in employing the lecturer still bears overall
responsibility for what happened.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference between me and the
majority, but I remember being surprised that a an 18-yr-old female from one of the
Welsh valleys disappeared after a couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope with Liverpool
and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a severe cultural shock, not helped
by a particularly crass question (from a lecturer trying to make a point) in a
tutorial: "Would you sleep with a black man?".
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's racist". He
was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In retrospect, it was not
surprising that she left so abruptly. I can remember her full name to this day. Had I
been more on the ball myself, I should have advised her to complain about it.
I hope she enrolled elsewhere, perhaps somewhere more congenial for her, and made a
success of her life. There is no reason why she shouldn't have.

You could always try and trace her, and acting as her witness agree to split the
compo 50% / 50%.

I'm not a "compo" sort of person, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Post by billy bookcase
Sexism, racism, bullying, public humiliation.etc etc.

Exactly.

Post by billy bookcase
Even you yourself, appear to have been affected to some extent.

You are correct in that. The incident has stayed with me for 47 years.

Post by billy bookcase
Even if the lecturer is by now dead and can no longer be publicly exposed
the institution in question in employing the lecturer still bears overall
responsibility for what happened.

[Max Demian]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference
between me and the majority, but I remember being surprised that a an
18-yr-old female from one of the Welsh valleys disappeared after a
couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope
with Liverpool and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a
severe cultural shock, not helped by a particularly crass question (from
a lecturer trying to make a point) in a tutorial: "Would you sleep with
a black man?".
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's
racist". He was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In
retrospect, it was not surprising that she left so abruptly. I can
remember her full name to this day. Had I been more on the ball myself,
I should have advised her to complain about it.

It would have been better to ask if she would *marry* a black man, but
still a rather crass question. It sounded as if she was asked if she
would sleep with a random individual.

[JNugent]

Post by Max Demian

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference
between me and the majority, but I remember being surprised that a an
18-yr-old female from one of the Welsh valleys disappeared after a
couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not
cope with Liverpool and its vastness and intensity. It must have been
a severe cultural shock, not helped by a particularly crass question
(from a lecturer trying to make a point) in a tutorial: "Would you
sleep with a black man?".
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students,
"That's racist". He was obviously looking for an opportunity to say
that. In retrospect, it was not surprising that she left so abruptly.
I can remember her full name to this day. Had I been more on the ball
myself, I should have advised her to complain about it.

It would have been better to ask if she would *marry* a black man, but
still a rather crass question. It sounded as if she was asked if she
would sleep with a random individual.

I am sure the question was deliberately geared towards eliciting the
negative response. He needed a hook to hang his next remark on.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the
1959 (MacMillan) and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in
the press was that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of
adverse balance of payments. It was more or less constantly predicted
that the country was heading for a 1930-type economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily
discourse of British political commentary. At every stage over those
last 60+ years, we have been told that we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living
standards in the UK, right up and down the social scale, have been
improving for all of that time. They are now at levels which would have
been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing away in 1967
and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
One Prime Minister, in the period between the 1955 and 1959 GEs,
summarised it pithily: "You've never had it so good". And that was 67
years ago. Living standards in 2024 are at sci-fi levels compared to
those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by 1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all
right" compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Post by billy bookcase
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?
When I was in that world, I remember three getting fails for their finals.
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student
wasn't struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and
passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference
between me and the majority, but I remember being surprised that a an
18-yr-old female from one of the Welsh valleys disappeared after a
couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope
with Liverpool and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a
severe cultural shock, not helped by a particularly crass question (from
a lecturer trying to make a point) in a tutorial: "Would you sleep with
a black man?".

What an astoundingly unpleasant little sexist bully the tutor was; was he a
Liverpudleian?

Post by JNugent
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's
racist". He was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In
retrospect, it was not surprising that she left so abruptly. I can
remember her full name to this day. Had I been more on the ball myself,
I should have advised her to complain about it.
I hope she enrolled elsewhere, perhaps somewhere more congenial for her,
and made a success of her life. There is no reason why she shouldn't have.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the
1959 (MacMillan) and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in
the press was that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of
adverse balance of payments. It was more or less constantly predicted
that the country was heading for a 1930-type economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily
discourse of British political commentary. At every stage over those
last 60+ years, we have been told that we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living
standards in the UK, right up and down the social scale, have been
improving for all of that time. They are now at levels which would have
been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing away in 1967
and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
One Prime Minister, in the period between the 1955 and 1959 GEs,
summarised it pithily: "You've never had it so good". And that was 67
years ago. Living standards in 2024 are at sci-fi levels compared to
those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by 1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all
right" compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Post by billy bookcase
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at
the same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal
for me personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually
paid full price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn
called into question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his
readers what they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?
When I was in that world, I remember three getting fails for their finals.
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student
wasn't struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and
passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class.

Did no one drop out during or after the first year? I believe it is
commonplace for a considerable number to drop out or change course nowadays.
As you say, it was very few then.

I was 26 when I enrolled and felt every day of that age difference
between me and the majority, but I remember being surprised that a an
18-yr-old female from one of the Welsh valleys disappeared after a
couple of weeks.
We were in the same tutorial group and I learned that she could not cope
with Liverpool and its vastness and intensity. It must have been a
severe cultural shock, not helped by a particularly crass question (from
a lecturer trying to make a point) in a tutorial: "Would you sleep with
a black man?".

What an astoundingly unpleasant little sexist bully the tutor was; was he a
Liverpudleian?

I don't think so.

Yes, he probably lived in the city, but was not (IIRC) a native.

I am glad that you agree with me, BTW.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
She was obviously shocked by the question and immediately answered "No".
Believe it or not, he told her, in front of her fellow students, "That's
racist". He was obviously looking for an opportunity to say that. In
retrospect, it was not surprising that she left so abruptly. I can
remember her full name to this day. Had I been more on the ball myself,
I should have advised her to complain about it.
I hope she enrolled elsewhere, perhaps somewhere more congenial for her,
and made a success of her life. There is no reason why she shouldn't have.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?

I don't have a clue. Only that when students do fail, not actualy
answering the question is often a common cause

It's a bit of a clue, same as on Usenet.

This applies not only to filnals but to first and second year examinations
as well

Post by JNugent
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student wasn't
struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.

Its rather surprinsing they lasted that long in the first place. Non ?

Post by JNugent
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class

About the same as in the Soviet Union, Red China, and North Korea then.

What a truly riotous bunch you all must have beem,


bb










.

[Andy Walker]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?

I don't have a clue. Only that when students do fail, not actualy
answering the question is often a common cause

"Not actually answering the question" is indeed commonplace, but
"instead answer[ing] the question they'd revised for" is not the same
thing; I don't recall even one example over my career. OTOH, perhaps
maths is not the most likely subject for it to happen. I do recall one
student writing "I can't answer the question, but here is a picture of a
tree", followed by a quite beautiful drawing. I also recall a couple
of instances of a student breaking off from an answer to insert a plea
for help -- "Dear examiner, I know you will read this, there is no-one
else I can turn to, ...". Luckily, that never happened in a script I
myself was marking.

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner
won't notice.

Do many more students fail their final exams these days?

I don't have a clue. Only that when students do fail, not actualy
answering the question is often a common cause
It's a bit of a clue, same as on Usenet.
This applies not only to filnals but to first and second year examinations
as well

There were summer re-sits available for single exam failures.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
One was a shock to me; I really thought that that female mature student wasn't
struggling. I understand that she resat the following year and passed.
The other two came as no surprise. They were out of their depth.

Its rather surprinsing they lasted that long in the first place. Non ?

They possibly did a couple of resits at the ends of years 1 & 2.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
That was three out of about a hundred of that graduating class

About the same as in the Soviet Union, Red China, and North Korea then.
What a truly riotous bunch you all must have beem,

It was the best few years of my life!

Not that I was right down with the kids or anything. By then, I owned my
own house and so worked (hard) at the weekends to make enough to live on
(successfully). But I was "in" with the social life to a degree [no pun
intended]. And my cultural horizons expanded in my first year when I
discovered Shakespeare (having hated it at school, like most people).

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the 1959 (MacMillan)
and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in the press was
that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of adverse balance of payments. It
was more or less constantly predicted that the country was heading for a 1930-type
economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily discourse of British
political commentary. At every stage over those last 60+ years, we have been told that
we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living standards in the UK,
right up and down the social scale, have been improving for all of that time. They are
now at levels which would have been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing
away in 1967 and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
"You've never had it so good". And that was 67 years ago. Living standards in 2024 are
at sci-fi levels compared to those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by
1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all right"
compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Things have never been better ? Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;
primary schools with the highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those
whose concrett ceilings haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with
defendants waiting months to come to trial (apart from two tiers)
legal aid being cut, overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries
and running down leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

quote:

UK Personal Debt ... People in the UK owed £1,860.6 billion at the end of July 2024

:unquote

https://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/

To repeat £1,860.6 billion - £1,860.6 thousand million


Which is a bit more than missing a payment on the telly in the 60's. Non ?

Oh yes things have never been better !

So where is the money going to come from, to pay for it all?

As it happens Ridley wasn't taking about the UK. Which is maybe just as well.
He's a climate change skepic and latterly an anti-vaxxer and a Brexiteer.

It's just he sounded so sensible at one point earlier on.

With the Law Of Defamation being what it is, I think it's best to leave it at that


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase
You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt Ridley
who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be
all right.

An interesting proposition.
I became vaguely interested in British politics some time between the 1959 (MacMillan)
and 1964 (Wilson) General Elections.
Throughout the period, the general to-and-fro of commentary on TV and in the press was
that the UK was in a disastrous situation because of adverse balance of payments. It
was more or less constantly predicted that the country was heading for a 1930-type
economic dislocation.
Ever since then, almost without a let-up, that has been the dauily discourse of British
political commentary. At every stage over those last 60+ years, we have been told that
we are awaiting "economic recovery".
But what has actually happened, despite shock after shock? Living standards in the UK,
right up and down the social scale, have been improving for all of that time. They are
now at levels which would have been unrecognisable to my grandparents (last two passing
away in 1967 and 1980), let alone any generation before that.
"You've never had it so good". And that was 67 years ago. Living standards in 2024 are
at sci-fi levels compared to those in 1957. And we were supposed to run out of oil by
1980 or so!
So yes... it's a safer bet that "basically everything is going to be all right"
compared with any prophecy to the contrary.

Things have never been better ?

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were
arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse
effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that
way. Nothing ever does. Even if a lot of people *do* think they should
be allowed to stay at home three days a week and still get full wages.

Post by billy bookcase
Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;primary schools with the
highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those whose concrett ceilings
haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with defendants waiting
months to come to trial (apart from two tiers) legal aid being cut,
overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries and running down
leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

Legal aid cuts (if it has happened) and overcrowded prisons?

Oh stop. You'll have me in tears.

Is that concrete business really impacting on *you* living standards?

Or anybody's?

Post by billy bookcase
UK Personal Debt ... People in the UK owed £1,860.6 billion at the end of July 2024
:unquote
https://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/
To repeat £1,860.6 billion - £1,860.6 thousand million

...and?

Post by billy bookcase
Which is a bit more than missing a payment on the telly in the 60's. Non ?

What was the figure for 1960, when fewer people owned houses with
mortgages, cars on HP, had bank overdrafts, etc and crucially, when the
credit card was something which you only occasionally heard mentioned in
an American TV show or movie?

Post by billy bookcase
Oh yes things have never been better !

Please say when you think UK living standards were higher than they were
immediately pre-pandemic (not that they have dropped very much even
since then).

Post by billy bookcase
So where is the money going to come from, to pay for it all?

Good question. The basic point about your little list above is that
arrangements are in place for that. And there have always been credit
defaulters - and bankruptcy.

Post by billy bookcase
As it happens Ridley wasn't taking about the UK. Which is maybe just as well.
He's a climate change skepic and latterly an anti-vaxxer and a Brexiteer.

Ah well. No-one's imperfect.

Post by billy bookcase
It's just he sounded so sensible at one point earlier on.
With the Law Of Defamation being what it is, I think it's best to leave it at that

[billy bookcase]

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.

None have ever come back.

Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

Some things *are* unarguably better though

So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

snip

Post by billy bookcase
Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;primary schools with the
highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those whose concrett ceilings
haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with defendants waiting
months to come to trial (apart from two tiers) legal aid being cut,
overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries and running down
leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

Legal aid cuts (if it has happened) and overcrowded prisons?
Oh stop. You'll have me in tears.
Is that concrete business really impacting on *you* living standards?

Very little, if any of it, is impacting on my own living standards.

Whereas as I tried to explain to you before, but apparently in vain,
basing all one's arguments solely on ones own personal experience can not
only lead to very limited view of the world, but is all to evident to
others; who at least make some attempt take a more objective view.

rest snipped


bb

[Pancho]

Post by billy bookcase

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century of
shame, now it is coming back.

Post by billy bookcase
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

By the end of the 60s we had cassette tapes, not Walkman size, but they
would fit in a smallish bag.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century of shame, now it is
coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

The Greeks colonised the Greek Islands and much of Asia Minor
with Alexander The Great reaching India.

While Spanish still has the second largest number of native speakers in
the world.

There are possibly other I've left out. Holland was going great guns at
one point, but took her eclipse gracefully, sticking with the canals
and the greenhouses.

Post by billy bookcase
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

By the end of the 60s we had cassette tapes, not Walkman size, but they would fit in a
smallish bag.

Sgt Pepper, the album previous to the White Album, was issued in May
1967.

Whereas as I never bothered transferring the The White Album (1968) onto the
CD player, I very much doubt it would have made it onto the pram either

Nice try; but no cigar I'm afraid.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Exactly ! Because your neighbour might equally well kill you and steal
your stuff; and so needs to be policed at the minimum. Wheraes your
neighbour's neighbour would first kill your neigbour and steal their
stuff before turning their attention to you. Thus giving you plenty
of notice.

Of course nowadays we have the United Nations, complete with UN
Resolutons to prevent any of this sort of carry on

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Exactly ! Because your neighbour might equally well kill you and steal
your stuff; and so needs to be policed at the minimum. Wheraes your
neighbour's neighbour would first kill your neigbour and steal their
stuff before turning their attention to you. Thus giving you plenty
of notice.

Oh! It's a wonder we managed to invade India then, since they must
surely have noticed us coming as we approached over land, steadily
conquering France, the Austrian Empire, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire,
Persia, and Afghanistan, before we finally reached India.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.
But apparently Boisdale of Belgravia is good.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Exactly ! Because your neighbour might equally well kill you and steal
your stuff; and so needs to be policed at the minimum. Wheraes your
neighbour's neighbour would first kill your neigbour and steal their
stuff before turning their attention to you. Thus giving you plenty
of notice.

Oh! It's a wonder we managed to invade India then, since they must
surely have noticed us coming as we approached over land, steadily
conquering France, the Austrian Empire, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire,
Persia, and Afghanistan, before we finally reached India.

What with Britain being a maritime nation - a foundation stone of the
British Empire, we were simply able to sail around the edge.

They'd already worked that out for sure by the start of 17th century.

First the Dutch VOC, and then the British East India Company in
competition.

With a navy you can take over countries which are no direct threat
to you, at all. Unlike with the Chinese. All you need is superior
technology and ruthless determination.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

Only because they're bribed to vote the right way in referendums.

If both Wales and Scotland were paid fair reparations for all the coal
and steel which was wrenched out of their grasp, to say nothing of
North Sea Oil, they might choose to vote differently.

Post by Jon Ribbens
But apparently Boisdale of Belgravia is good.

Doubtless a truly unique experience, comprising the traditional ingredients
of leeks, cabbages and lamb. Or possibly fine Scottish beef, venison or salmon
which the peasants would never have got near, on pain of being hanged. Or
disembowelled. Or something


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Exactly ! Because your neighbour might equally well kill you and steal
your stuff; and so needs to be policed at the minimum. Wheraes your
neighbour's neighbour would first kill your neigbour and steal their
stuff before turning their attention to you. Thus giving you plenty
of notice.

Oh! It's a wonder we managed to invade India then, since they must
surely have noticed us coming as we approached over land, steadily
conquering France, the Austrian Empire, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire,
Persia, and Afghanistan, before we finally reached India.

What with Britain being a maritime nation - a foundation stone of the
British Empire, we were simply able to sail around the edge.
They'd already worked that out for sure by the start of 17th century.
First the Dutch VOC, and then the British East India Company in
competition.
With a navy you can take over countries which are no direct threat
to you, at all. Unlike with the Chinese. All you need is superior
technology and ruthless determination.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

Only because they're bribed to vote the right way in referendums.
If both Wales and Scotland were paid fair reparations for all the coal
and steel which was wrenched out of their grasp, to say nothing of
North Sea Oil, they might choose to vote differently.

Post by Jon Ribbens
But apparently Boisdale of Belgravia is good.

Doubtless a truly unique experience, comprising the traditional ingredients
of leeks, cabbages and lamb. Or possibly fine Scottish beef, venison or salmon
which the peasants would never have got near, on pain of being hanged. Or
disembowelled. Or something
bb

Or perhaps transported to Australia, where we were busily helping the
inhabitants to develop their economy.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter
Or perhaps transported to Australia, where we were busily helping the
inhabitants to develop their economy.

The question of teachers with degrees cropped up earlier. The first games
master at our school didn't appear to teach any other subjects at all. Not IME
at least. But the second one did. He was a fully fit Kiwi Polynesian type gentleman
who was always immaculately turned out; and always wore his blazer with its badge.
Apparently he was a rugby international, maybe Fiji, Samoa, Papua New
Guinea etc. but not a Kiwi as there was no fern on his badge.
Anyway one day, the subject of Australian Aboriginals cropped up in class, as
it does. And he immediately launched into this tirade claiming the AA's were
no better than animals, they only ate insects and all sorts.
This was not only the first time we'd seen him lose his cool over anything
but maybe for many of us it was the first time we'd been exposed to
such blatant overt racism.

Anyway the class all went quiet for a bit.

Its maybe its just as well nobody had smartphones in those days and could
bring up the question of cannibalism.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Or perhaps transported to Australia, where we were busily helping the
inhabitants to develop their economy.

The question of teachers with degrees cropped up earlier. The first games
master at our school didn't appear to teach any other subjects at all.

The classic double was PE and Geography.

Post by billy bookcase
Not IME
at least. But the second one did. He was a fully fit Kiwi Polynesian type gentleman
who was always immaculately turned out; and always wore his blazer with its badge.
Apparently he was a rugby international, maybe Fiji, Samoa, Papua New
Guinea etc. but not a Kiwi as there was no fern on his badge.
Anyway one day, the subject of Australian Aboriginals cropped up in class, as
it does. And he immediately launched into this tirade claiming the AA's were
no better than animals, they only ate insects and all sorts.
This was not only the first time we'd seen him lose his cool over anything
but maybe for many of us it was the first time we'd been exposed to
such blatant overt racism.
Anyway the class all went quiet for a bit.
Its maybe its just as well nobody had smartphones in those days and could
bring up the question of cannibalism.

Wow...

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things
were arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather
adverse effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always
stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century
of shame, now it is coming back.

China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

... except for Korea, Vietnam, Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, etc.

It simply expanded its borders. Same as England did with Scotland and
Wales. But not how England did with say, India. While Taiwan is simply
equivalent to the Isle of Wight.

Oh, well, that's *alright then*. If you kill your neighbours and steal
their stuff, that's just fine. It's only if you kill your neighbour's
neighbour that it's a problem.

Exactly ! Because your neighbour might equally well kill you and steal
your stuff; and so needs to be policed at the minimum. Wheraes your
neighbour's neighbour would first kill your neigbour and steal their
stuff before turning their attention to you. Thus giving you plenty
of notice.

Oh! It's a wonder we managed to invade India then, since they must
surely have noticed us coming as we approached over land, steadily
conquering France, the Austrian Empire, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire,
Persia, and Afghanistan, before we finally reached India.

What with Britain being a maritime nation - a foundation stone of the
British Empire, we were simply able to sail around the edge.
They'd already worked that out for sure by the start of 17th century.
First the Dutch VOC, and then the British East India Company in
competition.
With a navy you can take over countries which are no direct threat
to you, at all. Unlike with the Chinese. All you need is superior
technology and ruthless determination.

So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

Only because they're bribed to vote the right way in referendums.
If both Wales and Scotland were paid fair reparations for all the coal
and steel which was wrenched out of their grasp, to say nothing of
North Sea Oil, they might choose to vote differently.

I'm not aware of any Welsh Independence referendums. But if either
territory gained independence, that would still not make them
"erstwhile British Empire".

[billy bookcase]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+***@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvgj6bc.5tq2.jon+***@raven.unequivocal.eu...

Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
And in any case the Koreans and Vietnamese at least still have their own
language, culture, and restaurants.

So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

quote:

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states

unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?

Who else are you suggesting ?

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Only because they're bribed to vote the right way in referendums.
If both Wales and Scotland were paid fair reparations for all the coal
and steel which was wrenched out of their grasp, to say nothing of
North Sea Oil, they might choose to vote differently.

I'm not aware of any Welsh Independence referendums.

Or not allowed any referendum at all then. Which is even worse.

Post by Jon Ribbens
But if either
territory gained independence, that would still not make them
"erstwhile British Empire".

See above.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

You may have difficulty whole-heartedly applying that logic to NI!

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

You may have difficulty whole-heartedly applying that logic to NI!

I wasn't asked about NI :-p

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

People turning up in boats could posibly well represnt a threat. As the
Dutch did when turning up out nowhere in the Thames Estuary; causing
Pepys to hurriedly bury all his gold.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

So who *are* they ruled by ?

When many Empire and Commenweath citizens came to settle in the UK
they believed that they were coming to the "Mother Country". And that
the British Empire was "one big family". So was it a "family" without
a "mother" or maybe not really a family at all ?

Similarly when people used to wave their Unions Jacks on Empire
Day, as the King or Queen went past, did they believe the King
or Queen was head of the biggest Empire the World had ever seen
of which they were proudly part ? Of their Empire ?

Or did they believe it had nothing to do with them as so stayed at home
and vainly waited for "United Kingdom Day" to come round ?

And you were doing do well, at one point.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

People turning up in boats could posibly well represnt a threat. As the
Dutch did when turning up out nowhere in the Thames Estuary; causing
Pepys to hurriedly bury all his gold.

So all along you had no point at all and actually invading a neighbour
is morally equivalent to invading a non-neighbour - they both may
"pose a threat".

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

So who *are* they ruled by ?

Ourselves? Rupert Murdoch? The Illuminati? Why do you keep asking
incredibly obvious questions that lead nowhere? Is England a part
of the Empire and needs liberating from it? You do remember that
whether we consider "the United Kingdom itself" to be part of "the
British Empire" has nothing to do with anything we were actually
discussing, right?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Copious Snippage

Post by Jon Ribbens
So is your point nothing to do with geography but actually that it's
only wrong to kill people if you have a superior navy?

Er no. It's only wrong to kill people only if they don't represent
any possible threat to you; or if its necessary to sail a long distance
to reach them. In order to then possibly kill them

So you're confirming that the sailing *is* special? And would not
"don't represent any possible threat to you" require no other countries
to have boats too?

People turning up in boats could posibly well represnt a threat. As the
Dutch did when turning up out nowhere in the Thames Estuary; causing
Pepys to hurriedly bury all his gold.

So all along you had no point at all and actually invading a neighbour
is morally equivalent to invading a non-neighbour - they both may
"pose a threat".

What have "morals" got to do with any of this ? "Wrong" as stated above,
simply means "wrong headed", "wasteful of resources", "inefficient".

In what era of history including the present day have "morals" ever
played any real part in the foreign policy of any country ?

All countries frame their foreign policy solely in terms of their own
best interests and what they can achieve, based on tbe power balance
between themslves and their rivals.

All countries sign treaties when it suits them and break those treaties
when it suits them, if it will be to their advantage to do so.

Morals simply doesn't come into any of this at all.

Although obviously, all parties involved, will go out of their way to
pretend that they do. And have nothing whatsoever to do with grabbing
as much land and resources as possible under whatever pretext.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens
So does almost all of the erstwhile British Empire. What's your point?

Are there any good Scottish or Welsh restaurants you'd care to recommend ?

They're not part of the "British Empire", they're part of the UK.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates,
mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United
Kingdom and its predecessor states
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
But weren't England Scotland and Wales themselves ruled or administered
by the United Kingdom ?
Who else are you suggesting ?

That they're part of the United Kingdom? They're not "ruled by" or
"administered by" the United Kingdom, they *are* the United Kingdom.

So who *are* they ruled by ?

Ourselves? Rupert Murdoch? The Illuminati? Why do you keep asking
incredibly obvious questions that lead nowhere? Is England a part
of the Empire and needs liberating from it? You do remember that
whether we consider "the United Kingdom itself" to be part of "the
British Empire" has nothing to do with anything we were actually
discussing, right?

But regardles of that, don't you yourself consider that your novel
suggestion above, that England, Scotland, and Wales were not and never
had been part of The British Empire might not be worthy of further
discussion ? Surely you don't want to abandon it at this early
stage ?


bb

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase
China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

China has been imperialist and expansionist, which were more about
territorial control than "colonization" in the European sense. (The
latter involves improving the running of the colonised country and
encouraging its development).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

China has been imperialist and expansionist, which were more about
territorial control than "colonization" in the European sense. (The
latter involves improving the running of the colonised country and
encouraging its development).

That is not a universally accepted interpreation!

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

China has been imperialist and expansionist, which were more about
territorial control than "colonization" in the European sense. (The
latter involves improving the running of the colonised country and
encouraging its development).

That is not a universally accepted interpreation!

The situation regarding the Spratly Islands suggests otherwise.

[Pamela]

On 11 Oct 2024 at 19:22:47 BST, "Pamela"

Post by Pamela

Post by billy bookcase
China has never colonised anywhwere outside of its own borders.

China has been imperialist and expansionist, which were more about
territorial control than "colonization" in the European sense. (The
latter involves improving the running of the colonised country and
encouraging its development).

That is not a universally accepted interpreation!

The point is illustrated by a video clip on Twitter where a senior
Chinese executive who is overseeing a major infrastucture project in
Africa talks to a native African about development and says: "Your
country was a colony for many years, so you must have learnt a lot".

Colonialism is not simply imperialism. Despite the vogue of rewriting
history, colonialism was of mutual benefit and largely done with consent by
agreement with local rulers and requiring surprisingly low numbers of
troops for enforcement.

When the Berlin Conference happened in 1884, most countries of
sub-Saharan Africa hadn't discovered the wheel nor used writing and
their last major invention was the bone harpoon from 90,000 years ago.
Colonialism took these people from the Bronze Age to the present.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Pamela
Colonialism is not simply imperialism. Despite the vogue of rewriting
history, colonialism was of mutual benefit and largely done with consent by
agreement with local rulers and requiring surprisingly low numbers of
troops for enforcement.

That could almost have been lifted, word for word, from an advertisement
for the Maxim Gun

The only mutual benefit involved teaching sufficient of the native population
English so as to form an administrative class; as the colonisers much
preferred speaking their own language.

Post by Pamela
When the Berlin Conference happened in 1884, most countries of
sub-Saharan Africa hadn't discovered the wheel nor used writing and
their last major invention was the bone harpoon from 90,000 years ago.
Colonialism took these people from the Bronze Age to the present.

So the Benin Bronzes were all made by the Greeks and Greater Zimbabawe
is just a hoax.

While as to the supposed benefits of using writing, it seems that in some
cases, the jury is still out on that one.



bb

[Max Demian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Pamela
China has been imperialist and expansionist, which were more about
territorial control than "colonization" in the European sense. (The
latter involves improving the running of the colonised country and
encouraging its development).

That is not a universally accepted interpreation!

Such ingrates!

[JNugent]

Post by Pancho

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were
arguably better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse
effect on productivity, the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that
way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.

China was the dominant civilisation, it suffered decline, a century of
shame, now it is coming back.

Post by billy bookcase
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

By the end of the 60s we had cassette tapes, not Walkman size, but they
would fit in a smallish bag.

:-)

I remember the smaller micro-cassette format. It never really caught on
with the ordinary user. They were more for telephone answering and
dictation machines.

Cassettes as used in the Walkman - the Philips "Compact Cassette"* -
were the same size as those released onto the UK market in 1964 (perhaps
the previous year in the Netherlands).

[* The original format was two-track mono and the tape coating quality
and running speed were geared towards use for dictation rather than hi-fi.]

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

Yes. Technology has improved to such an extent that a child on his way
to primary school very possibly has computing power in his pocket which
is thousands of times better than what the Apollo 11 astronauts had
available to them. And the means to let it communicate with almost
anything and anyone in the world.

"Living standards", of course, is a very wide-ranging concept. As one
(OK, trivial) example, just think how much things are improved by TV
time-shifting and how we can now see any TV programme of any importance
even when we weren't dutifully sitting in front of the screen when it
was transmitted and without even having set a VCR to record it. Even the
VHS recorder was an amazing step forward and was quite limited in what
it offered compared to a Firestick or smart-phone today.

Post by billy bookcase
snip

Post by billy bookcase
Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;primary schools with the
highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those whose concrett ceilings
haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with defendants waiting
months to come to trial (apart from two tiers) legal aid being cut,
overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries and running down
leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

Legal aid cuts (if it has happened) and overcrowded prisons?
Oh stop. You'll have me in tears.
Is that concrete business really impacting on *you* living standards?

Very little, if any of it, is impacting on my own living standards.

I also asked whether it (crumbly concrete) is affecting *anyone's*
living standards.

The correct answer to that, I venture, will be approximately "no".

Post by billy bookcase
Whereas as I tried to explain to you before, but apparently in vain,
basing all one's arguments solely on ones own personal experience can not
only lead to very limited view of the world, but is all to evident to
others; who at least make some attempt take a more objective view.

All any of us can do when forming a view is to take account of what one
sees. And a time-travelling visitor from 1950 or 1960 would be quite
amazed by what they can see today.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

Yes. Technology has improved to such an extent that a child on his way
to primary school very possibly has computing power in his pocket which
is thousands of times better than what the Apollo 11 astronauts had
available to them. And the means to let it communicate with almost
anything and anyone in the world.
"Living standards", of course, is a very wide-ranging concept. As one
(OK, trivial) example, just think how much things are improved by TV
time-shifting and how we can now see any TV programme of any importance
even when we weren't dutifully sitting in front of the screen when it
was transmitted and without even having set a VCR to record it. Even the
VHS recorder was an amazing step forward and was quite limited in what
it offered compared to a Firestick or smart-phone today.

Post by billy bookcase
snip

Post by billy bookcase
Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;primary schools with the
highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those whose concrett ceilings
haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with defendants waiting
months to come to trial (apart from two tiers) legal aid being cut,
overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries and running down
leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

Legal aid cuts (if it has happened) and overcrowded prisons?
Oh stop. You'll have me in tears.
Is that concrete business really impacting on *you* living standards?

Very little, if any of it, is impacting on my own living standards.

I also asked whether it (crumbly concrete) is affecting *anyone's*
living standards.
The correct answer to that, I venture, will be approximately "no".

I disagree. It is diverting public money that could be spent on useful things
like food banks. And diverting construction resources from building new homes.
So having to repair things that should have lasted longer does impoverish us
all, slightly. Don't know if it was anyone's fault though, perhaps just a
reasonable experiment that went wrong.




snip

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

I didn't say that things have never been better. Clearly, things were arguably
better until March 2020. "Events" then had a rather adverse effect on productivity,
the NHS, etc. But they won't always stay that way. Nothing ever does.

Exactly. The UK and formerly the British Empire along with the US
is going into inexorable decline. As do all dominant civilisations.
The Greeks, the Romans. the Monguls, The Spanish.
None have ever come back.
Right now its time to start learning Chinese.
Some things *are* unarguably better though
So that while on the one hand ever since the 60's there has
never been a Beat Combo to rival the Beatles up until
White Album anyway, nowadays you can load all their
stuff from CD's onto an MP3 player costing 40 quid
and play it all while walking down the street.
Which in the 60s would probably have involved
walking very slowly pushing a pram. And that's
not even taking into accounr the cost of
the batteries.

Yes. Technology has improved to such an extent that a child on his way
to primary school very possibly has computing power in his pocket which
is thousands of times better than what the Apollo 11 astronauts had
available to them. And the means to let it communicate with almost
anything and anyone in the world.
"Living standards", of course, is a very wide-ranging concept. As one
(OK, trivial) example, just think how much things are improved by TV
time-shifting and how we can now see any TV programme of any importance
even when we weren't dutifully sitting in front of the screen when it
was transmitted and without even having set a VCR to record it. Even the
VHS recorder was an amazing step forward and was quite limited in what
it offered compared to a Firestick or smart-phone today.

Post by billy bookcase
snip

Post by billy bookcase
Hence NHS waiting lists stretching for years;primary schools with the
highest pupil teacher ratio in Europe, those whose concrett ceilings
haven't collapsed. A criminal justice system with defendants waiting
months to come to trial (apart from two tiers) legal aid being cut,
overcrowded prisons, councils closing libraries and running down
leisure facilities and parks. Having been saddled with
further statutory responsibilities by CG so as to keep down headline
tax rates. But then can anyone afford to pay more tax ?

Legal aid cuts (if it has happened) and overcrowded prisons?
Oh stop. You'll have me in tears.
Is that concrete business really impacting on *you* living standards?

Very little, if any of it, is impacting on my own living standards.

I also asked whether it (crumbly concrete) is affecting *anyone's*
living standards.
The correct answer to that, I venture, will be approximately "no".

I disagree. It is diverting public money that could be spent on useful things
like food banks. And diverting construction resources from building new homes.
So having to repair things that should have lasted longer does impoverish us
all, slightly. Don't know if it was anyone's fault though, perhaps just a
reasonable experiment that went wrong.

The proposition that it might be diverting taxpayers' money that might
be used on something that might improve the living standards of A N
Other is just a little too mightily removed from the reality of anyone's
living standards having been reduced, wouldn't you say?

OTOH, I know what you mean, but the connection is a little tenuous.

[Pamela]

Post by billy bookcase

[TRIMMED]
"Endemic misery in the UK towards a civilisational catastrophe"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/endemic-
misery-is-pushing-the-uk-towards-a-civilisational-c/ OR
https://archive.ph/ABzR4
--------
"I'm fed up of hearing Gen-Z are victims – they are the luckiest in
human history"
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/21/gen-z-not-
victims-they-are-the-luckiest-in-human-history/>
"Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich"
<https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/
generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich>

You probably won't know this, but there is an author called Matt
Ridley who wrote a whole book called "The Rational Optimist" claiming
the very same thing; that basically everything is going to be all
right.
Previously, Ridley had written among others an interesting and well
received book called "The Origins of Virtue"
It was only subsequently when it emerged that Ridley had been, at the
same time the Chairman of Northern Rock, the first UK Financial
Institution to be brought down as a result of investing depositors'
funds in mortgage bonds, themselves based on liar loans, that his
judgement was first called into question.
As I bought both books in charity shops, this was no big deal for me
personally. With Tom Bower it was different as I'd actually paid full
price for some of his. (Bower's rubbishing of Corbyn called into
question a lot of his previous books. Just telling his readers what
they wanted on hear/read ?)
It's probably a bit late now but many students fail in examinations
and fail miserably at that, simply because rather than even attempt
to actually answer the question on the paper, they instead answer the
question(s) they'd revised for, vainly hoping that the examiner won't
notice.
bb

I wonder if those random non-sequiturs were intended for another thread?

Nevertheless, I detect a pervading sense of betrayal and pessimism in
those points. In a similar way, today's young are an extremely lucky
generation but have reacted ungratefully. It leads these self-declared
victims to obsess on misunderstood social concerns, which only makes
them more neurotic.

Many students have not benefitted as much as hoped from university
education but they weren't able to turn away the offer of three years of
leisurely "student life", all funded by easy-term loans from the
government which in some cases never get repaid.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Pamela
Nevertheless, I detect a pervading sense of betrayal and
pessimism in those points.

Wrong again.

Why should I feel betrayed ? I've a had a great time. But I don't
envy the young people of today.

All we ever had to worry about, was the Bomb. And fair enough
Bertrand Russell was wrong about that. But then MAD put an
end to those worries, at least so we are told. Along with
one or two near misses forestalled by Soviet common sense

But climate change is an altogether different kettle or fish
as it will require international co-operation of a kind which
I doubt will ever be achieved.

For instance it seems some people have only now cottoned on
to the fact that 2/3 of EV batteries are made in China who
are at the forefront of battery R&D; not exactly hindered
by the fact that they've also sewn up supplies of necessary
scarce raw materials.

Not that EV's will ever make much of an impact on interstate
trucking in the US in any case


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase
All we ever had to worry about, was the Bomb. And fair enough
Bertrand Russell was wrong about that. But then MAD put an
end to those worries, at least so we are told. Along with
one or two near misses forestalled by Soviet common sense
But climate change is an altogether different kettle or fish
as it will require international co-operation of a kind which
I doubt will ever be achieved.

The main concern with climate change is that things aren't just going to
gradually get worse until general public opinion decides "hey actually
this sucks, we should do something about this" and then things will
gradually get better. There are various tipping points which mean that
by the time meaningful large scale action is actually taken, not only
may we be unable to make things get better, we may be unable to stop
them continuing to get worse.

[Spike]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
All we ever had to worry about, was the Bomb. And fair enough
Bertrand Russell was wrong about that. But then MAD put an
end to those worries, at least so we are told. Along with
one or two near misses forestalled by Soviet common sense
But climate change is an altogether different kettle or fish
as it will require international co-operation of a kind which
I doubt will ever be achieved.

The main concern with climate change is that things aren't just going to
gradually get worse until general public opinion decides "hey actually
this sucks, we should do something about this" and then things will
gradually get better. There are various tipping points which mean that
by the time meaningful large scale action is actually taken, not only
may we be unable to make things get better, we may be unable to stop
them continuing to get worse.

I’m very sorry to say that the above passage appears to have been taken
from the Little Red Book of the Dedicated Climate Activist.

To throw about phrases like “…various tipping points… and “…meaningful
large scale action…” without even a cursory nod as to what they might mean
is disingenuous, to say the least.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens
The main concern with climate change is that things aren't just going to
gradually get worse until general public opinion decides "hey actually
this sucks, we should do something about this" and then things will
gradually get better. There are various tipping points which mean that
by the time meaningful large scale action is actually taken, not only
may we be unable to make things get better, we may be unable to stop
them continuing to get worse.

I’m very sorry to say that the above passage appears to have been taken
from the Little Red Book of the Dedicated Climate Activist.
To throw about phrases like “…various tipping points… and “…meaningful
large scale action…” without even a cursory nod as to what they might mean
is disingenuous, to say the least.

No it isn't. And you are reminded that this is the moderated group and
such personal attacks are inappropriate here.

[Spike]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens
The main concern with climate change is that things aren't just going to
gradually get worse until general public opinion decides "hey actually
this sucks, we should do something about this" and then things will
gradually get better. There are various tipping points which mean that
by the time meaningful large scale action is actually taken, not only
may we be unable to make things get better, we may be unable to stop
them continuing to get worse.

I’m very sorry to say that the above passage appears to have been taken
from the Little Red Book of the Dedicated Climate Activist.
To throw about phrases like “…various tipping points… and “…meaningful
large scale action…” without even a cursory nod as to what they might mean
is disingenuous, to say the least.

No it isn't. And you are reminded that this is the moderated group and
such personal attacks are inappropriate here.

I ‘attacked’ the dogmatic statements made, paralleling them with other
dogmatic statements made in another time, on the grounds that NASA has said
that it is well accepted by scientists that the factors that control
Earth’s climate are:

- the elliptical orbit 

- the orbital periapsis 

- the axial tilt 

-
precession of the axis

These are said to be responsible for the advance and retreat of the
glaciers over a ~100,000 year cycle.

Short-term climate effects arise from:

- changes in the cosmic ray flux 
- changes in the Sun’s output.

Insignificant effects arise from changes in concentrations of trace gases
in the atmosphere.

With these celestial forces in mind, where would the ‘tipping points’ be,
and what ‘large scale action’ is envisaged that would circularise the
Earth’s orbit, correct its axial tilt, control the cosmic ray flux, and
regulate the Sun’s output, in a manner sufficient to return Earth to some
idyllic past climate?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Jon Ribbens
The main concern with climate change is that things aren't just going to
gradually get worse until general public opinion decides "hey actually
this sucks, we should do something about this" and then things will
gradually get better. There are various tipping points which mean that
by the time meaningful large scale action is actually taken, not only
may we be unable to make things get better, we may be unable to stop
them continuing to get worse.

I’m very sorry to say that the above passage appears to have been taken
from the Little Red Book of the Dedicated Climate Activist.
To throw about phrases like “…various tipping points… and “…meaningful
large scale action…” without even a cursory nod as to what they might mean
is disingenuous, to say the least.

No it isn't. And you are reminded that this is the moderated group and
such personal attacks are inappropriate here.

I ‘attacked’ the dogmatic statements made,

No, you didn't. You made an unwarranted attack against me personally,
and said nothing whatsoever about my argument. Don't do it again.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/my-students-say-theyre-too-anxious-to-learn-i-dare-not-question-it-lzh93zrrq
quotes
As the new academic year starts and I put the final touches to my
lectures, the emails from students have already begun informing me why
they won’t be attending. It’s not unusual to turn up to class and find
at least 30 per cent of students absent — but not because they’ve been
out all night partying. Instead, students claim to be dealing with a
startling number of wide-ranging mental health issues, many self-diagnosed.
A study by King’s College London found the number of students
self-reporting mental health difficulties had nearly tripled between
2016-17 and 2022-23, rising from 6 per cent to 16 per cent. Among
students at my university, worrying numbers claim mental health issues
stop them partaking in university life.
Sometimes students tell me they have ill-defined “mental health issues”,
other times they assert specifics saying they’re suffering from
depression, extreme anxiety or “ADHD burnout” — although none offer a
diagnosis.
This is the real scandal that is sweeping through our universities: that
enabling students to self-diagnose mental health issues does them a
disservice by leaving them unprepared for adult life, promoting
fragility to their detriment. There are reports that students are now
increasingly going straight on to long-term sick benefits after
graduating — with half of economically inactive people citing depression
or anxiety.
They can’t complete work due to “burnout”, can’t attend sessions because
their “stress has flared up” and they’re “struggling to process essay
work”. Many avoid assignments that involve talking to people, preferring
to email or text. Others won’t do set reading because of “stress”.
Anxiety is by far what most students claim to suffer with, and is blamed
for requesting extensions on assignments. But it doesn’t stop with the
workload. They have anxiety over being on time, university life, booking
doctor’s appointments, and managing their money. A study of 11,000
students in six Russell Group universities since 2022 revealed about 30
per cent of students report anxiety disorders.
I am responsible for following up absent students and checking they are
OK. For some classes, this could mean checking on as many as 20 students
out of 30. I am expected to help them catch up after missing seminars
and to rearrange courses in ways students feel meets their individual
needs. If a student says anxiety means they can’t come to seminars I
must find ways to adapt my lessons so students can participate and
provide course materials that students can read in their own time,
record my lectures or work out other ways for students to attend remotely.
I can’t be unsympathetic, or push them too hard. When students say their
anxiety means they haven’t done the work or means they can’t come in, I
wouldn’t dare challenge them or suggest that work can be just the thing
to distract you and give you a sense of purpose. I’d be afraid speaking
candidly might land me in trouble if a student complained. If they did,
it could lead to an investigation, I have heard of a lecturer being
fired because students found them too “forceful”.

Is this the next stage?
<https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bosses-firing-gen-z-grads-111719818.html?guccounter=1>

[Mark Goodge]

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees. These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree, that's
their problem.

The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs up the
necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those graduates try
to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly discover that their
lack of application while on the course is the reason why they're flipping
burgers while their contemporaries are in the courtroom, the operating
theatre or the boardroom.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees.

TRANSLATION:
"It's not like back in my day, when the government paid for something
like 7% to 10% (and not 50%) of people to get degrees".

Post by Mark Goodge
These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree, that's
their problem.
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs up the
necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those graduates try
to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly discover that their
lack of application while on the course is the reason why they're flipping
burgers while their contemporaries are in the courtroom, the operating
theatre or the boardroom.
Mark

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees.

"It's not like back in my day, when the government paid for something
like 7% to 10% (and not 50%) of people to get degrees".

This is a lot less true than it seems at first sight. Although the state did
not pay for students to live away from home other than at universities, there
were almost as many polytechnic and technical college free places as there are
now so-called university places at nearly ten thousand pounds a year. It is
more rebranding than new places, and no longer paid for by the state.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees.

"It's not like back in my day, when the government paid for something
like 7% to 10% (and not 50%) of people to get degrees"...

Nearer 5% in my day.

[JNugent]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or
turn up for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course
- and seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to
penalise students for not doing the work. How have we got to this
point?!  Is it time to begin suspending and expelling students who
don't do the required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees.

"It's not like back in my day, when the government paid for something
like 7% to 10% (and not 50%) of people to get degrees"...

Nearer 5% in my day.

I was including the polytechnicss and teacher-training colleges (both of
which started awarding degree-level qualifications without necessarily
significantly increasing the number of higher education places).

Otherwise, include HNCs, Teacher Training Certificates, etc.

[Andy Walker]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Mark Goodge
What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when
the government paid for people to get degrees.

TRANSLATION: "It's not like back in my day, when the government
paid for something like 7% to 10% (and not 50%) of people to get
degrees"...

Indeed. It's now close to 0%, depending how you count Scotland,
and depending how you view student "loans" [in reality a graduate tax in
all but name]. But if the percentages are to mean anything, then you
need to compare like with like. ...

Post by Colin Bignell
Nearer 5% in my day.

... That was a lo-o-o-ng time ago! Since then, (a) as RogerH
points out in a nearby message, [poly]technics, teacher training colleges
and nursing [in particular] have come [rightly, IMO] into the fold, (b)
the balance of male to female has been much improved [indeed, swung past
mere equality] and (c), as a consequence of middle-classification and of
a large immigrant population, there is much more pressure on HE. To
expand on (c), in my day there was a lot of pressure, especially but not
only in working-class families, to leave school as soon as possible, go
out to work and bring in an income, so many who would have benefited from
HE were unable to take part. Today, many more families see education as
bringing long-term benefits. In particular, many immigrant families see
HE as a route out of poverty, as opposed to a luxury.

But, as Mark implies, none of this really matters [cf "accident"
vs "misadventure" in nearby articles]. That was "then", this is "now".
Today's students are not competing with the older contributors here for
their careers. Instead, they are competing with young people from the
USA, China, Germany, Finland, Korea, .... Many of our youngsters want
jobs elsewhere in the world; many of theirs want jobs here; so ours
need to be able to compete, not least by having the "right" pieces of
paper. Whether or not a degree "now" is devalued by comparison with a
degree in the 1960s or whenever is irrelevant.

Worth noting that HE for overseas students is a major contributor
to the UK economy. They pay overseas fees; they spend in local shops,
restaurants, pizzerias, ... and often take holidays in the UK; decades
down the line, they have often become "movers and shakers" in their own
countries and are often favourably inclined to the UK for trade, etc.
Win, win, win. But a strong HE market for overseas students depends on
a strong sector for local students; another reason why participation
rates in the UK need to be comparable with current rates elsewhere, not
with rates 30+ years ago.

Final comment: the oft-[mis]quoted "50%" target is often misused
to imply that many students must be "below average" [or even, and very
unfairly, "stupid"]. But that is very misleading. Most of us are much
better at some things than others. It is quite possible to be very good
at, say, maths, but rubbish at history, or vv. There are enough different
sorts of ability for a large majority of the population to be much better
than average at /something/, esp if they spend years studying whatever it
is that they are relatively good at, and so to be worth a place in HE.

[Pancho]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?! Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees. These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree, that's
their problem.

It's not a waste of money, people are paying to get jobs, it is an
entrance fee to the job market.

The whole thing is terrible. Firstly you need a degree to get a job,
skills or intelligence aren't particularly relevant.

Secondly tuition costs are high, it seems they support university
research. The idea that undergraduates need to be close to research is
bollocks.

Thirdly, they blocked cheaper alternatives, i.e. Open University, which
is now hugely expensive. The government should have provided a cheaper
route for people who want to learn more cheaply. A mechanism for
validation, examination, testing of skills, without paying for hugely
inefficient and expensive teaching. Instead they increased the fees of
Open University, so they wouldn't undermine demand for traditional
teaching establishments.

Post by Mark Goodge
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs up the
necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those graduates try
to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly discover that their
lack of application while on the course is the reason why they're flipping
burgers while their contemporaries are in the courtroom, the operating
theatre or the boardroom.

If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application, you
haven't been paying attention.

Post by Mark Goodge
Ma

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Pancho

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn
up for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course -
and seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to
penalise students for not doing the work. How have we got to this
point?! Is it time to begin suspending and expelling students who
don't do the required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees. These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree,
that's their problem.

It's not a waste of money, people are paying to get jobs, it is an
entrance fee to the job market.
The whole thing is terrible. Firstly you need a degree to get a job,
skills or intelligence aren't particularly relevant.
Secondly tuition costs are high, it seems they support university
research. The idea that undergraduates need to be close to research is
bollocks.
Thirdly, they blocked cheaper alternatives, i.e. Open University, which
is now hugely expensive. The government should have provided a cheaper
route for people who want to learn more cheaply. A mechanism for
validation, examination, testing of skills, without paying for hugely
inefficient and expensive teaching. Instead they increased the fees of
Open University, so they wouldn't undermine demand for traditional
teaching establishments.

Post by Mark Goodge
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs up
the necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those
graduates try to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly
discover that their lack of application while on the course is the
reason why they're flipping burgers while their contemporaries are in
the courtroom, the operating theatre or the boardroom.

If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application, you
haven't been paying attention.

Post by Mark Goodge
Ma

This is what happens when education becomes a commodity.

[Pancho]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Pancho

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn
up for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course -
and seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to
penalise students for not doing the work. How have we got to this
point?! Is it time to begin suspending and expelling students who
don't do the required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees. These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree,
that's their problem.

It's not a waste of money, people are paying to get jobs, it is an
entrance fee to the job market.
The whole thing is terrible. Firstly you need a degree to get a job,
skills or intelligence aren't particularly relevant.
Secondly tuition costs are high, it seems they support university
research. The idea that undergraduates need to be close to research is
bollocks.
Thirdly, they blocked cheaper alternatives, i.e. Open University, which
is now hugely expensive. The government should have provided a cheaper
route for people who want to learn more cheaply. A mechanism for
validation, examination, testing of skills, without paying for hugely
inefficient and expensive teaching. Instead they increased the fees of
Open University, so they wouldn't undermine demand for traditional
teaching establishments.

Post by Mark Goodge
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs up
the necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those
graduates try to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly
discover that their lack of application while on the course is the
reason why they're flipping burgers while their contemporaries are in
the courtroom, the operating theatre or the boardroom.

If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application, you
haven't been paying attention.

Post by Mark Goodge
Ma

This is what happens when education becomes a commodity.

Yes, but the commodity is entrance to the job market, not acquiring
skills to do a better job. It is like a company boosting sales through
better advertising, rather than offering a better product.

Then you have the advertising people tell us how valuable they are due
to the money they earn. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer less
advertising and better products,

[JNugent]

Post by Pancho

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
A remarkable piece in the Times, written by an anonymous lecturer - a
high proportion of university students now diagnose themselves with
psychological illnesses and claim to be unable to do the work or turn up
for lectures, yet expect their degree at the end of the course - and
seemingly the university does not feel able to be strict and to penalise
students for not doing the work. How have we got to this point?!  Is it
time to begin suspending and expelling students who don't do the
required work?

What does it matter, though? It's not like back in my day, when the
government paid for people to get degrees. These days, they're paying
tuition fees and taking on massive debt in order to live through their
student years. If they want to waste that money on a useless degree, that's
their problem.

It's not a waste of money, people are paying to get jobs, it is an
entrance fee to the job market.
The whole thing is terrible. Firstly you need a degree to get a job,
skills or intelligence aren't particularly relevant.

But is that correct?

Reports are that most graduates (more than 50%) are in "non-graduate jobs".

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33983048>

Post by Pancho
Secondly tuition costs are high, it seems they support university
research. The idea that undergraduates need to be close to research is
bollocks.
Thirdly, they blocked cheaper alternatives, i.e. Open University, which
is now hugely expensive. The government should have provided a cheaper
route for people who want to learn more cheaply. A mechanism for
validation, examination, testing of skills, without paying for hugely
inefficient and expensive teaching. Instead they increased the fees of
Open University, so they wouldn't undermine demand for traditional
teaching establishments.

Post by Mark Goodge
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs
up the necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those
graduates try to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly >> discover that their lack of application while on the course is the
reason why they're flipping burgers while their contemporaries are
in the courtroom, the operating theatre or the boardroom.

If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application, you
haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

[Pancho]

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
The whole thing is terrible. Firstly you need a degree to get a job,
skills or intelligence aren't particularly relevant.

But is that correct?
Reports are that most graduates (more than 50%) are in "non-graduate jobs".
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33983048>

Post by Pancho
Secondly tuition costs are high, it seems they support university
research. The idea that undergraduates need to be close to research is
bollocks.
Thirdly, they blocked cheaper alternatives, i.e. Open University,
which is now hugely expensive. The government should have provided a
cheaper route for people who want to learn more cheaply. A mechanism
for validation, examination, testing of skills, without paying for
hugely inefficient and expensive teaching. Instead they increased the
fees of Open University, so they wouldn't undermine demand for
traditional teaching establishments.

Post by Mark Goodge
The universities might as well hand out degrees to anyone who coughs
up the necessary money. The real proof of the pudding is when those
graduates try to get a job at the end of it, when they will rapidly

Post by Mark Goodge
discover that their lack of application while on the course is the

reason why they're flipping burgers while their contemporaries are
in the courtroom, the operating theatre or the boardroom.

If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

Well, that's what I meant by you need a degree to get a good job. I
didn't mean a degree guaranteed a good job.

I also meant getting a good job is about connections and politics,
rather than ability to do the job well.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I
think it's still possible. They did the Legal Executive exams, then a
conversion course to the Solicitors Qualifying Exam and didn't even need
a training contract.

And back in the day a Teacher Training qualification did not equate to a
degree. At my school there were quite a few elderly male teachers with
Oxbridge degrees who didn't even need teacher training qualifications
and were rubbish teachers.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I
think it's still possible. They did the Legal Executive exams, then a
conversion course to the Solicitors Qualifying Exam and didn't even need
a training contract.
And back in the day a Teacher Training qualification did not equate to a
degree. At my school there were quite a few elderly male teachers with
Oxbridge degrees who didn't even need teacher training qualifications
and were rubbish teachers.

For balance, there were at my school (1960s) an elderly physics teacher and a
youngish chemistry teacher without any teaching qualifications who were both
brilliant teachers. The physics chap had a speech impediment too, so I thought
him incredibly brave and dedicated.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I
think it's still possible. They did the Legal Executive exams, then a
conversion course to the Solicitors Qualifying Exam and didn't even need
a training contract.

Indeed. We discussed this in November 2012. These days you can do it by
becoming a solicitor's "apprentice", it seems!

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor/qualifying-without-a-degree/apprenticeships

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I
think it's still possible.

I should have been more specific about law. These days, whatever the
situation was in the past (and I know it was different), one needs a
degree in order to qualify as a solicitor or barrister.

It is true - AIUI - that it is possible - and perhaps normal - to become
a legal executive by other routes.

Post by The Todal
They did the Legal Executive exams, then a
conversion course to the Solicitors Qualifying Exam and didn't even need
a training contract.
And back in the day a Teacher Training qualification did not equate to a
degree. At my school there were quite a few elderly male teachers with
Oxbridge degrees who didn't even need teacher training qualifications
and were rubbish teachers.

Yes - at the grammar school I attended, every teacher* had a degree.
That was all they needed.

[* Not sure about the woodwork teacher, who was permanently off sick,
letting a brand new woodwork room and equipment go to waste.]

Copilot, BTW, says this (and make of it what you will):

QUOTE
Do I need a degree in order to qualify as a solicitor or barrister?

Copilot
To become a solicitor or barrister in England, you don't necessarily
need a law degree, but you do need to complete specific qualifications
and training

For solicitors, you can take different paths to qualify
. One common route is to complete a *law* *degree* (LLB) or an
equivalent qualification, followed by the Solicitors Qualifying
Examination (SQE), which consists of two stages
. You'll also need two years of qualifying work experience and pass a
character and suitability assessment1

For barristers, the route is slightly different. You'll typically need
to complete a *law* *degree* (LLB) or an equivalent qualification,
followed by the Bar Course and Bar Vocational Course (BVC), or the new
Bar Transfer Test (BTT) if you're transferring from another jurisdiction2
. You'll also need to join one of the four Inns of Court and complete a
period of pupillage (a type of apprenticeship).

So, while *a degree is a common starting point*, there are alternative
pathways to becoming a solicitor or barrister
ENDQUOTE (my emphases)

Not, perhaps, as clear as one would wish.
.

[Simon Parker]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application,
you haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I
think it's still possible.

I should have been more specific about law. These days, whatever the
situation was in the past (and I know it was different), one needs a
degree in order to qualify as a solicitor or barrister.

I recommend in the strongest possible terms that you inform the SRA of
this "fact" as they seem to think otherwise, even going so far as to
have a page dedicated to discussing "Solicitor apprenticeships" [^1]
which includes the following text in the opening paragraph:

"Aspiring solicitors can qualify through a solicitor apprenticeship in
England. This provides an alternative to the traditional qualification
route through university and may suit candidates who want to 'earn as
they learn'."

Similarly, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education
(IfATE) have a page dedicated to solicitor apprenticeships [^2]. Whilst
you're reaching out to the SRA to inform that their page is wrong, you
could do a "two-for-one" and let IfATE know that their page is wrong too.

And whilst you are at it, DWF LAW LLP are but one of the firms in my
neck of the woods that claim to offer solicitor apprenticeships to
candidates with a minimum of AAB A-levels in any subject meaning they
must be wrong too as there's no mention of a degree in the "Essential
Qualifications" listed at
https://www.findapprenticeship.service.gov.uk/apprenticeship/reference/VAC1000274868

Unless, you can think of alternative in which they above august
organisations are all correct and the error lies elsewhere? :-)

Post by JNugent
It is true - AIUI - that it is possible - and perhaps normal - to become
a legal executive by other routes.

Post by The Todal
They did the Legal Executive exams, then a conversion course to the
Solicitors Qualifying Exam and didn't even need a training contract.
And back in the day a Teacher Training qualification did not equate to
a degree. At my school there were quite a few elderly male teachers
with Oxbridge degrees who didn't even need teacher training
qualifications and were rubbish teachers.

Yes - at the grammar school I attended, every teacher* had a degree.
That was all they needed.
[* Not sure about the woodwork teacher, who was permanently off sick,
letting a brand new woodwork room and equipment go to waste.]
QUOTE
Do I need a degree in order to qualify as a solicitor or barrister?
Copilot
To become a solicitor or barrister in England, you don't necessarily
need a law degree, but you do need to complete specific qualifications
and training
For solicitors, you can take different paths to qualify
. One common route is to complete a *law* *degree* (LLB) or an
equivalent qualification, followed by the Solicitors Qualifying
Examination (SQE), which consists of two stages
. You'll also need two years of qualifying work experience and pass a
character and suitability assessment1
For barristers, the route is slightly different. You'll typically need
to complete a *law* *degree* (LLB) or an equivalent qualification,
followed by the Bar Course and Bar Vocational Course (BVC), or the new
Bar Transfer Test (BTT) if you're transferring from another jurisdiction2
. You'll also need to join one of the four Inns of Court and complete a
period of pupillage (a type of apprenticeship).
So, while *a degree is a common starting point*, there are alternative
pathways to becoming a solicitor or barrister
ENDQUOTE (my emphases)
Not, perhaps, as clear as one would wish.

You invited me to "make of it what [I] will" so I've concluded that it
is errant nonsense, as it typical of the output from many LLMs, Copilot
being no exception, it seems.

For the avoidance of doubt, the path to qualifying as a solicitor in the
UK is:

(1) Have a degree in any subject or equivalent qualification or work
experience;

For UK-based qualifications, that means a UK degree awarded at level 6
(or above) [^3] by a recognised degree-awarding body [^4], usually an
undergraduate degree but can also be diplomas or other qualifications.

An "Equivalent [UK] qualification" means:

(a) An accredited qualification at level 6 (or above) of the Framework
for Higher Education Qualifications, awarded by a recognised
degree-awarding body;

(b) A regulated qualification [^4] at level 6 (or above) of the
Regulated Qualifications Framework (England, Wales and Northern
Ireland). This includes CILEx level 6 qualifications;

(c) An apprenticeship at level 6 or above, approved by the government
departments of England, Wales, or Northern Ireland; or

(d) A qualification or apprenticeship at level 9 or above of the
Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, accredited by the Scottish
Qualifications Authority (SQA) [^6] or awarded by a Scottish degree
awarding body.

For qualifications obtained outside the UK, that means:

(a) A qualification shown to be equivalent to either a UK
degree/equivalent qualification; or

(b) An accredited qualification at level 6 (or above) of the European
Qualifications Framework; or

"Work experience equivalent to a UK degree/equivalent qualification" is
considered on a case-by-case basis but requires demonstrating a
sufficient standard of general education and learning (level 3
equivalent of the Regulated Qualifications Framework [^3]) and
"considerable work-based learning".

The SRA check compliance with the above when one applies for admission.

(2) Pass the the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) which is comprised of
two assessments, imaginatively titled SQE1 (functional legal knowledge)
and SQE2 (practical legal skills and knowledge).

(3) Have two years' Qualifying Work Experience [^7].

(4) Meet the SRA's character and suitability requirements [^8].

As is clear from the above details, there are numerous routes to passing
stage (1) besides holding a degree. The most common of which is the
solicitor apprenticeship which is aimed at post A-level students the
typical path of which is:

- Apply for a solicitor apprenticeship.
- Start work and training, typically split 80% on the job and 20% study.
- Pass SQE1 during the apprenticeship.
- Take SQE2 at the end of the apprenticeship.
- Register the Qualifying Work Experience (which needs to be confirmed
by a solicitor)
- Apply to the SRA for admission (which will include checks for
character and suitability)

Nary a degree in sight in the above process, unless you can point out to
me where I've missed it.

The difference between my answer and that spat out by Copilot is that my
answer is correct and I've included relevant citations whereas, by your
own admission, Copilot's answer contradicts itself and is unclear and
is, well, wrong.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.sra.org.uk/become-solicitor/sqe/solicitor-apprenticeships/

[^2]
https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/solicitor-v1-1

[^3]
https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels

[^4] https://www.gov.uk/check-university-award-degree

[^5] https://www.gov.uk/find-a-regulated-qualification

[^6]
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_ccc/Guide_to_Scottish_Qualifications.pdf

[^7]
https://sqe.sra.org.uk/about-sqe/what-is-the-sqe/qualifying-work-experience

[^8]
https://www.sra.org.uk/trainees/period-recognised-training/character-and-suitability/

[kat]

Post by JNugent

Post by Pancho
If you think people get good jobs because of skill and application, you
haven't been paying attention.

You won't get a job in law, teaching, medicine or similar without a degree.

I know several people who became solicitors without having degrees. I think
it's still possible.

I should have been more specific about law. These days, whatever the situation
was in the past (and I know it was different), one needs a degree in order to
qualify as a solicitor or barrister.
It is true - AIUI - that it is possible - and perhaps normal - to become a legal
executive by other routes.

They did the Legal Executive exams, then a conversion course to the Solicitors
Qualifying Exam and didn't even need a training contract.
And back in the day a Teacher Training qualification did not equate to a
degree. At my school there were quite a few elderly male teachers with
Oxbridge degrees who didn't even need teacher training qualifications and were
rubbish teachers.

Yes - at the grammar school I attended, every teacher* had a degree. That was
all they needed.

And they learned the teaching bit on the job, which is very little different
today. A post-grad PGCE consists of 9 months (full time, or longer part time) of
placements in 2 schools plus a bit of theoretical stuff.

I believe there are teachers in private schools who don't have that certificate
even now.