Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Changes destroying Scouting and Guiding in the UK.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sabado Galvanischer
    replied
    Originally posted by Wanderlust View Post
    After that last bit of debate concerning the wee ones shot in that US town, I've been a bit loathe to enter any kind of debatnin' round here, but I will say I'm struck with awe that this thread, two pages in . . . has no mention of this:

    http://www.debate.org/opinions/shoul...ow-gay-members

    There are court-cases on the roll right now in both Canada and the US, of (whatever one calls it in their respective country) child molestations/rapes in the scouts.

    I'm amazed with all the other bits in here, this was not noticed.
    The whole gay scouts thing. (Sigh). Notice how many of the posts in the poll that are to the negative rely on-

    Anecdotal fear-mongering; x was raped by a gay scout, x gays scouts are more likely to grow up into scout masters with proclivities towards boys, scouts who are gay may put the moves on my straight boy how-will-his-fragile-mind-ever-survive, et cetera. Note that the "argument" here typifies the beast-versus-the innocent arguments used to prop up much of the sentiment behind Jim Crow and any other apartheid. It is fake reasoning, argument from repugnance.

    Or, the other argument..."we're not getting in their way, let them found their own group, why do they have to be in ours?" This line of reasoning ignores most of the real sense of why a "gay movement" would bother with the scouts...that being, gay men and yes, gay adolescents are already in the scouts. Right now, though, they have to hide like criminals. It's an indignity for an organization to be deliberately set up to persecute even a segment of its own membership.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wanderlust
    replied
    After that last bit of debate concerning the wee ones shot in that US town, I've been a bit loathe to enter any kind of debatnin' round here, but I will say I'm struck with awe that this thread, two pages in . . . has no mention of this:

    http://www.debate.org/opinions/shoul...ow-gay-members

    There are court-cases on the roll right now in both Canada and the US, of (whatever one calls it in their respective country) child molestations/rapes in the scouts.

    I'm amazed with all the other bits in here, this was not noticed.
    Last edited by Wanderlust; 03-18-2013, 06:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The English Assassin
    replied
    Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    Yes, I agree - the problem to my mind is the fact that we assess and grade children throughout their lives, that teachers teacher children how to pass these tests rather than assist children in learning.
    add "are forced to" before "childredn how to pass..." and I think we might agree.
    Of course, we live in a world ruled by endless procedures

    Leave a comment:


  • Nathaniel
    replied
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    Yes, I agree - the problem to my mind is the fact that we assess and grade children throughout their lives, that teachers teacher children how to pass these tests rather than assist children in learning.
    add "are forced to" before "childredn how to pass..." and I think we might agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • The English Assassin
    replied
    I though this graphic made interesting reading re schooling in Finland... the comparisons are between Finland and the US/Canada, but I sure they apply equally to the UK and almost every other country as well.
    Last edited by The English Assassin; 03-17-2013, 02:08 PM. Reason: forgot to add the link... d'oh!

    Leave a comment:


  • The English Assassin
    replied
    Yes, I agree - the problem to my mind is the fact that we assess and grade children throughout their lives, that teachers teacher children how to pass these tests rather than assist children in learning.

    Originally posted by zilch View Post
    A study by Bristol University found that 88% of its state-school-educated graduates gained an upper second class degree or better, compared with 85% of those from public schools. Among the Russell Group and 1994 Group universities, more than 20% of state school pupils who graduated between 2009 and 2011 achieved first-class degrees, against 18% of those from the independent sector.

    However, superior academic performance is not matched by similar access to the jobs market, with just 58% of state-school-educated graduates finding a professional job, compared with 74% of independently educated graduates in the same period
    Old school tie, the right sort, nicely spoken .....
    Those are interesting statistics, although I'm very sceptical about those numbers... they smell like an un-normalized national averages to me, which would tell us very little indeed.

    As any one knows who's been to uni - all degrees are not equal and nor are all universities. How many of those from public schools do mickey mouse or soft degree subjects? A degree from an Oxbridge or any other Russell Group unit will have much tougher standards than any old poly will ever have. Simply in terms of workload a history degree at Oxford would make the students I went to uni with shit their pants. Sure, they get one to one tutorials, but then they also have to do tutorial essays every week - which isn't even assessed as part of their final mark. You simply can't slack off in the same way. Whereas most of the students I've met struggled to get their handful of essays per year in on time.

    Indeed, a friend of mine never went into the library once in his undergraduate degree and with help form some group work he still squeezed out a 2:2! This was in a hard science subject and as I did the same degree I can tell you that it wasn't a mickey mouse affair (and much less than 20% got a first class grade). You try that in a Russell Group uni... no chance! He'd have failed the first year. Or put it another way, I'd swap a first from an old poly for a third from Cambridge any day of the week - I sadly believe the difference is that great between the two types of uni and any employer of any worth should know that too.

    I have no idea how those stats were determined, but I would think they'd have had to have analysed them on a like for like basis for them to be a valid comparison: course for course per uni: then uni for uni: then normalize the data for a national average... which I think would have been a significant undertaking in data gathering (if such a database exists), so I expect that this wasn't the case, although I could be wrong. It is possible that the study quoted in the Guradian did do this, but I'd be very surprised if the journalist who wrote this read it or understood it. Newspapers are very famous for taking statistics from scientific or academic papers and mangling them. I could be wrong and these might be very accurately reported, but I suspect not...

    However I will say that I wouldn't be surprised if those from state schools do very well in the top universities, as for them to stand a chance of even getting in they'd have to be very dedicated students indeed. Yet, ultimately the stats can say anything - anybody who's ever watched university challenge knows which universities have the most smarts and can guess which schools they probably came from.

    I'd also argue that public schools and a wealthy background have to be an advantage, otherwise the rich would just send their offspring to the state school on the edge of the sink council estate and put the money to better use for I have never met a properly monied person who is a fool with their money.

    No, I'm afraid that I don't take any comfort from those statistics. I simply do not believe them as they are written in a newspaper.

    Leave a comment:


  • zilch
    replied
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    The obvious inference from your comment is that myself, Octo, Zilch and, by association, everyone else who might agree with us or could be included in the statement were guilty of "mess[ing] around in class." That's mind-reading. How do you know? I can only speak for myself, while I wasn't a model pupil, I did NOT "mess around in class" any more than the majority - in fact a lot less. You're assuming that those kids who suffer at the hands of teachers and their institutions that they did not chose to attend are at fault. I disagree. Different people progress at different speeds, school rarely takes account of this and excludes or stigmatises those who fall behind.
    It was an attempt to accommodate the different rates of development which dragged my school down in an ill-fated experiment called the "comprehensive system". It did not raise up the level of the slower students, it dragged down the brighter ones. The time and place didn't help, the 70s and early 80s in NE England did not fill young minds with a sense of positive optimism.

    I don't think we should grade intelligence by academic aptitude.

    Interesting article in the Guardian today

    A study by Bristol University found that 88% of its state-school-educated graduates gained an upper second class degree or better, compared with 85% of those from public schools. Among the Russell Group and 1994 Group universities, more than 20% of state school pupils who graduated between 2009 and 2011 achieved first-class degrees, against 18% of those from the independent sector.

    However, superior academic performance is not matched by similar access to the jobs market, with just 58% of state-school-educated graduates finding a professional job, compared with 74% of independently educated graduates in the same period
    Old school tie, the right sort, nicely spoken .....

    Leave a comment:


  • Pebble
    replied
    A full and sincere apology, to The English Assassin and any one else who took offensive to my earlier comment.

    I was a model pupil in secondary school, but it was only because I was shocked into it and disliked my fellows who didn't want to be there. My mother, in laws and friends were/are teachers, so I feel they need to be defended at times as they put in a lot of effort to help and support their pupils.

    Yep, agree, it is tough being a parent as I found out last year.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    I said earlier at this thread about school teachers I had good memories . But If think of college, I will probably mention only 4. I was not a "loving student" teachers like either. School was always a painful experience that was rather more focused on memorizing than thinking.

    I am not even speaking of critical thinking, just about making the kids going beyond the "memorize all these exercises and you will do well" limitations.

    Leave a comment:


  • The English Assassin
    replied
    Originally posted by Pebble View Post
    Originally posted by Octo Seven View Post
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    Indeed, I'd argue that school damaged me across most subject areas than it ever taught me.
    I couldn't agree more, school was a detriment to my learning and development, certainly high school anyway. I'm not saying the school system is completely flawed, it just doesn't cater for everyone and leaves too many kids behind, just like society itself.
    Sorry, I disagree. Of course, the curriculum does not cater for every one, but as long as you have the basics, then you can improve yourself. If you are going to mess around in class, then it is your own fault.
    The obvious inference from your comment is that myself, Octo, Zilch and, by association, everyone else who might agree with us or could be included in the statement were guilty of "mess[ing] around in class." That's mind-reading. How do you know? I can only speak for myself, while I wasn't a model pupil, I did NOT "mess around in class" any more than the majority - in fact a lot less. You're assuming that those kids who suffer at the hands of teachers and their institutions that they did not chose to attend are at fault. I disagree. Different people progress at different speeds, school rarely takes account of this and excludes or stigmatises those who fall behind. There's many reasons outside a child's control for falling behind the average. Some kids may also have "messed around" as a means of coping with the process or whatever, but that's not the entire story. I'd argue that the institutionalising effect of school damages the individuality of all children. Even if you think that damage is for a greater good (society) - it still crushes the individual who cannot cope with the process. Why blame those kids?

    I admit that I'm a passionate hater of school, so apologies if I'm over reacting, but I can point to countless incidence in my school life of teachers wilfully undermining me (and other pupils) simply because they could. I can point to many decisions I have made in later life that in retrospect were not good decisions, and I can now see a clear link between those decisions and what I can only describe as psychological damage caused at school by teachers against their pupils. I've heard many anecdotes of similar incidence by other people who still have 'hang-ups' caused by those incidence. If I had a child, I wouldn't send them to school. I see no difference between school damage and child abuse. I realise I am an extremist in this regard, but that's the way I see it. I understand that most teachers try their best and their task is a difficult one, but I cannot believe that institutionalising our young is the best system to enhance their learning. I'm always amazed at how many parents are prepared to compromise over this or even not think about it at all, but then I'm not a parent. I realise that being a parent, like being a teacher or a child, is no piece of cake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rothgo
    replied
    Originally posted by zilch View Post
    ... though I do like Grayson Perry a lot...
    He's great isn't he? Most of the rest will be forgotten soon enough, but I think Perry will still be relevant in a century and thereon.

    Leave a comment:


  • zilch
    replied
    Originally posted by Pebble View Post

    Zilch - I would be interested why the school did not provide a temporary art teacher to take over the class for the period. My art teacher told us in the second week of the 4th year (two year course), that he could tell us what to do and you get a grade three or find it yourself with some guidance. I wouldn't necessarily compare yourself to Damian Hirst who is a very poor artist, admittedly, a rich one. Just an over-hyped individual by advertising guru - Charles Saatchi.

    You only have to look at the differences in the world where education is looked down upon the developed world, but is highly respected in the less developed world.
    I'm not comparing myself to Hirst, just pointing out how a failure at my school hindered my opportunities, as it turned out I ended up doing a creative job since that's where my talents lie, but the road would have been a lot straighter if I hadn't followed that poor advice. To be brutally frank I don't rate any of that group of artists, though I do like Grayson Perry a lot.

    They didn't replace the teacher because he was an alcoholic and they were covering for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pebble
    replied
    Originally posted by Octo Seven View Post
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    Indeed, I'd argue that school damaged me across most subject areas than it ever taught me.
    I couldn't agree more, school was a detriment to my learning and development, certainly high school anyway. I'm not saying the school system is completely flawed, it just doesn't cater for everyone and leaves too many kids behind, just like society itself.
    Sorry, I disagree. Of course, the curriculum does not cater for every one, but as long as you have the basics, then you can improve yourself. If you are going to mess around in class, then it is your own fault.

    Zilch - I would be interested why the school did not provide a temporary art teacher to take over the class for the period. My art teacher told us in the second week of the 4th year (two year course), that he could tell us what to do and you get a grade three or find it yourself with some guidance. I wouldn't necessarily compare yourself to Damian Hirst who is a very poor artist, admittedly, a rich one. Just an over-hyped individual by advertising guru - Charles Saatchi.

    You only have to look at the differences in the world where education is looked down upon the developed world, but is highly respected in the less developed world.
    Last edited by Pebble; 01-11-2013, 04:52 AM. Reason: Extra added

    Leave a comment:


  • zilch
    replied
    Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
    Originally posted by zilch View Post
    Originally posted by Timberwolf View Post

    It is, however, no different to the oath of allegience taken in the United States ... simply replace Queen and country with Constitution and country (there has even been talk of taking God out of the oath there ... which again would be a good thing).
    Except you can vote your president in and out in the USA.

    I was a scout, it was a great education, I learnt more useful skills there than at school. However I do have reservations about oaths of allegiance taken by rote, very insidious.
    Zilch, as a school teacher, can I say how pleased I am to hear that. Especially as you wrote it in such good English, properly punctuated and in a tone appropriate for the setting, meaning that you transmitted information in a manner most likely to be absorbed by your audience. Those scouts did teach you well, since there is no way you would have learned that at a school.
    Fair point. I read a lot as a child.

    I entered a recently mixed grammar school, it became a comprehensive, the year after I left it became a sixth form college, the teachers were demoralized by this constant politically driven interference. The art teacher didn't attend my final two years of art lessons, the entire class flunked, with the exception of one pupil whose father taught art at another school. This is a shame because we were the same generation as Damien Hirst, the generation that put paid to the phrase "you'll never make any money as an artist", which happened to be the advice I was given.

    However I take your point, school does equip us with tools. Perhaps I would be more accurate if I said while we looked at the world map in geography, we learnt to read an Ordnance Survey map in scouts.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    Originally posted by Octo Seven View Post
    Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
    Indeed, I'd argue that school damaged me across most subject areas than it ever taught me.
    I couldn't agree more, school was a detriment to my learning and development, certainly high school anyway. I'm not saying the school system is completely flawed, it just doesn't cater for everyone and leaves too many kids behind, just like society itself.
    I have to think a lot about a teacher I have fond memories. Despite my science teacher and later physics teacher who was extremely hot for my 14 years eyes( forgive me anyway but she is a good memory ), I can think of two Portuguese teachers I had, a Geography and a biology teachers and that is all. The only good thing at school was playing basketball and that we did not have classes after lunch.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X