I think the last one sort-of applies too, posh, with one modification - the poorer people I know will balk at loans (scary paperwork and justifying yourself to a bank manager = no way), but have no problem running up credit card debt, even though the interest rates are vastly lower for loans. Most of them don't have high enough credit limits to cover a degree's worth of tuition, though, and the creditor would send out the knee-breakers well before one finished one's course.
The increase in the repayment threshold is up to £21,000 in 2016. This means that while it is probably a good thing, how good depends on the rate of inflation and how much graduate salaries change within the intervening years. In all likelihood, the increase to the threshold won't change much for graduates in real terms.
The threshold is tied to the rate of inflation.
Edit: misread what you said there. But an increase from £15000 to £21000 is substantial enough to not be wiped out by inflation over this period, unless we hit 70s level inflation. And I am glad it links to inflation after this date. Good last minute amendment.
I think that the confusion for you is caused by this: different people view debt differently.
As an (older) working class person, I have three big problems with borrowing:
(1) rational: I'm scared of not being able to pay it off, and there's no-one to help me out, ever. No-one in my family has any money to sort me out if I get in trouble.
(2) semi-rational: I have little experience of major borrowing (within my family) and so it's hard for me to judge whether it's a good idea.
(3) irrational: in the culture I grew up in (very poor London Irish) you just don't borrow because it's wrong to borrow.
Now, I'm oldish, but I think the first two still apply to modern working-class/underclass/poor people. I have a lot of middle and upper class friends, and their attitude to borrowing is radically different from mine. They're secure in it, used to it, and it's just a part of life.
So that's why increasing the post-graduate debt is going to discourage the poorest people from going to university.
That's a very interesting perspective, and I'm aware that I have very little idea of the cultural stigmas surrounding borrowing. Please forgive me if anything that I'm about to say is horrendously off base and inadvertently insulting.
(1) Wouldn't the terms of the loan mean that you're at absolutely no risk of getting into a hole with student debt? It's tied to your wages; my girlfriend only works part-time, doesn't earn enough to pay it back, so she doesn't have to at the moment. As soon as her wages go above the threshold, it gets taken before she even sees her wage slip. My pay is partly commission-based, and if I get a larger pay packet one month, slightly more gets taken off for repayments, and the reverse is true as well. It's not like a credit card (my only other form of debt), where you have the option of putting off the payments until the bailiffs break down your door and take your stuff.
I know that you probably know this already, but to me that would make the rational argument less rational.
(2) That's why the media coverage is a joke - they're focusing on the raw numbers rather than the actual impact of the loans in real terms. My sixth form explained how the loans worked to everyone in a careers advice type way, the same way they explained how you could get the army to pay for your schooling.
(3) What would your culture's reaction be to free money from the government?
The reason that I ask is because the far more pressing financial issue with university is the cost of living. Not everybody can work their way through university, and it's unreasonable to expect poor families to support a child living away from home. That's why there are means-tested grants available for maintenance, as well as maintenance loans. It's basically a handout from the government.
Should government policy be dictated by irrationalities, anyway? Some cultures have a crab mentality when it comes to people going to university; should that be taken into account?
I think that the confusion for you is caused by this: different people view debt differently.
As an (older) working class person, I have three big problems with borrowing:
(1) rational: I'm scared of not being able to pay it off, and there's no-one to help me out, ever. No-one in my family has any money to sort me out if I get in trouble.
(2) semi-rational: I have little experience of major borrowing (within my family) and so it's hard for me to judge whether it's a good idea.
(3) irrational: in the culture I grew up in (very poor London Irish) you just don't borrow because it's wrong to borrow.
Now, I'm oldish, but I think the first two still apply to modern working-class/underclass/poor people. I have a lot of middle and upper class friends, and their attitude to borrowing is radically different from mine. They're secure in it, used to it, and it's just a part of life.
So that's why increasing the post-graduate debt is going to discourage the poorest people from going to university.
That's a very interesting perspective, and I'm aware that I have very little idea of the cultural stigmas surrounding borrowing. Please forgive me if anything that I'm about to say is horrendously off base and inadvertently insulting.
(1) Wouldn't the terms of the loan mean that you're at absolutely no risk of getting into a hole with student debt? It's tied to your wages; my girlfriend only works part-time, doesn't earn enough to pay it back, so she doesn't have to at the moment. As soon as her wages go above the threshold, it gets taken before she even sees her wage slip. My pay is partly commission-based, and if I get a larger pay packet one month, slightly more gets taken off for repayments, and the reverse is true as well. It's not like a credit card (my only other form of debt), where you have the option of putting off the payments until the bailiffs break down your door and take your stuff.
I know that you probably know this already, but to me that would make the rational argument less rational.
(2) That's why the media coverage is a joke - they're focusing on the raw numbers rather than the actual impact of the loans in real terms. My sixth form explained how the loans worked to everyone in a careers advice type way, the same way they explained how you could get the army to pay for your schooling.
(3) What would your culture's reaction be to free money from the government?
The reason that I ask is because the far more pressing financial issue with university is the cost of living. Not everybody can work their way through university, and it's unreasonable to expect poor families to support a child living away from home. That's why there are means-tested grants available for maintenance, as well as maintenance loans. It's basically a handout from the government.
Should government policy be dictated by irrationalities, anyway? Some cultures have a crab mentality when it comes to people going to university; should that be taken into account?
No worries, what you say is fine, excepting the worry that you might never earn enough to pay it back, or the worry that the government's idea of 'minimum salary before repayment starts' might not match what you need to live. Or a lot of other financial worries based on having no safety nets at all if your sensible-seeming predictions turn out to be wrong.
But I do think it's more about fear of borrowing than stigma, at least nowadays. And, as Cat said, not just fear of borrowing, but of that whole middle-class world. Hell, when I was young I didn't have any ID! Didn't have a driving license, didn't have a credit card, didn't have a bank account, didn't have a passport. I remember the first time I wanted to open an account at a DVD rental place it was such a ball-ache - I had to use my birth certificate! I'm sure that's much less common nowadays, but it's just an example of how there are people who live a life outside the world that seems normal to many.
Oh, and a lot of kids from poorer families still live at home while going to university. They're pretty much the only people who do, I guess.
There's so much difference specifically on the subject of university, as well. For example, I went to university, and studied English Language, because I had no idea about universities, love language, and just imagined that degree=success. I had no idea about university because I didn't know anyone who'd ever been to university. Another mate of mine was just told 'University - not for you' and went when he was thirty and a mature student.
As for the 'should government be guided by irrationality' question - yes, absolutely yes. Or rather, they should rationally take into account the irrationality of others. This is a fundamental of almost all facets of public policy.
I think that irrationality should only be taken into account to the extent that any specific fears should be addressed when explaining the legislation. Then again, I like to think that I live in a world where people can be cured of irrationality through information, when I know not even I'm like that (scared of spiders, for example).
I think that irrationality should only be taken into account to the extent that any specific fears should be addressed when explaining the legislation. Then again, I like to think that I live in a world where people can be cured of irrationality through information, when I know not even I'm like that (scared of spiders, for example).
Yeah, that you like to think that is irrational, though ;-)
And anyway, the majority of those fears are rational, though they appear irrational because they live in a different paradigm.
So, Bob Ainsworth came out in support of drug decriminalisation, which is nice, but a bit late in the day considering he's no longer a minister. This was unsurprising really, what was surprising was the response of the Daily Mail readers to the news - unexpected to say the least: 73% in support of decriminalisation? Really?
It's actually rather sad when the majority of people are in support of something, but government action is instead dictated by the media
I'm not sure what I think about decriminalisation. On the one hand I can see that it would be a massive economic boon, would decrease drug related crime and would be useful for medical purposes.
On the other I just see kids on the street taking government funded ecstacy before going into clubs. As wacky and improbable as that sounds.
I'm not sure what I think about decriminalisation. On the one hand I can see that it would be a massive economic boon, would decrease drug related crime and would be useful for medical purposes.
On the other I just see kids on the street taking government funded ecstacy before going into clubs. As wacky and improbable as that sounds.
Decriminilisation doesn't mean subsidised drugs o_O
I'm not sure what I think about decriminalisation. On the one hand I can see that it would be a massive economic boon, would decrease drug related crime and would be useful for medical purposes.
On the other I just see kids on the street taking government funded ecstacy before going into clubs. As wacky and improbable as that sounds.
The biggest issue facing decriminalisation is uncoupling "it's no longer a crime" to "government endorsement". Despite all the hypocrisy over cigarettes (strong pressure from certain groups to make smoking them as difficult as possible, but never outright banning them due to the massive loss in revenue now as opposed to increased healthcare costs in 50 years time), the general impression seems to be - "if the government allows something to be legal, then it can be said to be endorsing it as a legitimate lifestyle". Alchohol and tobacco have been an endemic part of the culture since long before these laws were made, but legalising/criminalising anything even relatively new can and will be seen as aligned with the ruling government's beliefs, and no-one has been willing to make that potentially suicidal politcal move yet.
Cable, you utter berk. I don't care if you thought they were your constituents, you should have the nous to realise saying that kind of thing compromises both you and everything you might hope to do. You pillock.
Cable, you utter berk. I don't care if you thought they were your constituents, you should have the nous to realise saying that kind of thing compromises both you and everything you might hope to do. You pillock.
The really gutting thing was that he was engaged in a secret war against Murdoch where he held the trump card. And then he spoiled it.
I can only image this round of 'revelations' is going to shore up the LD support on the left of the party which is where they've been haemorrhaging it recently..
I can only image this round of 'revelations' is going to shore up the LD support on the left of the party which is where they've been haemorrhaging it recently..
As well as strengthen divisions between the two parties in the coalition, and give those in the press who want the Lib Dems out, or at least neutered, more ammunition.
I loathe our press sometimes. The one really juicy bit from the Cable sting was the Murdoch stuff, and that was suppressed by the Telegraph because they want him blocking the takeover. Justifications of the sting in 'the public interest' ring pretty hollow when you sit on the most serious bits. Is it so much to ask that our press isn't entirely owner by third-rate Bond villains who live on private islands and stuff?
Cable, you utter berk. I don't care if you thought they were your constituents, you should have the nous to realise saying that kind of thing compromises both you and everything you might hope to do. You pillock.
Yeah, this might compromise your pledge to stop tuition fees!
So Britain is apparently training death squads in Bangladesh that the United States refused to train because they think they violate human rights too much. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12057400
I mean shit, if the world's premier death-squad trainer thinks these guys are going a bit too far, something is wrong.
And the hits keep coming. It isn't so much that the Lib Dems look wrong when they say Cameron and Osborne are out of touch with us common folk, more that they look like a bunch of clueless idiots who'll blab compromising stuff to anyone who rocks up to their office door. They look like amateurs.
I'm usually pretty supportive of the police, but tactics like this don't do their image any favours.
That's just standard kettling tactics*. If that was appalling then I long to hear what she thinks of the videos of protesters with their hands up being batoned across the knee and the like.
* i.e. illegally detain people in a small space then use the disorder that causes as justification for the kettling.
I'm usually pretty supportive of the police, but tactics like this don't do their image any favours.
The British police as a whole seem to have no fucking idea how to deal with large gatherings of unruly people. And this shit has been going on for fucking years. They beat a man walking by a protest, not involved in, just walking by, gave him a heart attack and he died. And afaik, those officers are still on duty today. Two weeks later, nobody remembers.
At this point I honestly don't know what its going to take for changes to be made. I guess they'd have to beat someone "important" to death. If I sound a little bitter about this, its because I fucking well am.
I guess I should elaborate.
A friend of mine has been a victim of such "kettling" several times. The worst of which involved a group of people, including himself, being herded towards a fucking 20-foot cliff.
He's the guy with the beard and glasses at 0:51. And then he gets pushed down a hill, towards said 20-foot drop. As far as I know nothing came of this either.
I quoted him on the first page, and I'll quote him again -
"Gangsters, Ted! They're all a bunch of gangsters!" - Father Liam Deliverance, from Father Ted.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
The release of the new league tables has resulted in one of the worst lines in UK political history.
Education Secretary Michael Gove says he wants parents to "go compare".
A change to school league tables:
How are the tables different this year?
At primary level, this was the first year the government dropped Sats tests in science.
The percentage of children attaining Level 4 - the expected level for their age - in maths and English remains a government benchmark. But previously, an "aggregate" score, out of 300, was calculated for schools' results across maths, English and science - this is no longer used.
At secondary level, the government is also including two new measures. One is the proportion of pupils gaining the equivalent of the new English baccalaureate - a qualification which will be given to any pupil gaining an A*-C pass in maths, English, a science, a modern or ancient language, and history or geography. The other is a "basics" measure - the proportion of students gaining A*-C passes in maths and English. The benchmark measure has previously been the number of pupils gaining five A*-C passes, including maths and English, at GCSE or GCSE equivalent.
Some International GCSE qualifications will also be included, although not all. Many independent schools use these qualifications, which they consider to be more challenging, and its exclusion from the tables in the past has meant lower scores for highly academic schools in the tables.
The change has divided opinions. On the one hand, it will encourage a higher proportion of students to do more academic subjects, especially sciences and languages, which looked like they were increasingly being dropped as 'core' subjects. On the other, the change will disincentivize schools from encouraging their students into courses that are more suited to them. For example, music, art, drama and vocational subjects will mean less for a school's league ranking, so there would be less of an impetus towards those subjects, even though it would benefit the individual student.
How many GCSEs does a student typically do nowadays? Is it around the 8-10 mark?
Certainly, schools will put more time into the core subjects, but that's the point I guess. I think making languages a measure of success is a great change.
I would have liked to see Economics in the humanities bracket though.
Wow, getting an English Baccalaureate is like getting a small badge saying you bothered turning up and paid attention occasionally. Good to see the government aiming high.
Wow, getting an English Baccalaureate is like getting a small badge saying you bothered turning up and paid attention occasionally. Good to see the government aiming high.
Gove's target for the education department is still 35% of all pupils in a school should get 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and maths, not based on the English Baccalaureate, so you could argue that the government wants schools to aim higher for them.
How many GCSEs does a student typically do nowadays? Is it around the 8-10 mark?
Certainly, schools will put more time into the core subjects, but that's the point I guess. I think making languages a measure of success is a great change.
I would have liked to see Economics in the humanities bracket though.
If it leads to better teaching of languages that is. Right now the state of that is fairly awful, and will just markedly screw with the statistics (of note, my old school dropped the pass rate by almost 90% under this system).
Why are there so many corrupt politicians and government officials in the UK?
I was just linked this big list of people who has used tax money for non-work related stuff ranging from chocolate to a floating house for a private duck pond.
How many GCSEs does a student typically do nowadays? Is it around the 8-10 mark?
Certainly, schools will put more time into the core subjects, but that's the point I guess. I think making languages a measure of success is a great change.
I would have liked to see Economics in the humanities bracket though.
If it leads to better teaching of languages that is. Right now the state of that is fairly awful, and will just markedly screw with the statistics (of note, my old school dropped the pass rate by almost 90% under this system).
Yep, I remember my days at school learning French. Did my GCSE oral exam, and when I couldn't think of a word, my tutor help up a piece of paper in her hand, and pointed to the sentence I should say. Great stuff.
I think part of the problem with language learning is how sporadic the lessons are. Without any pressure on the student to do home study, they'll never pick up another language. But I think by making a language one of the core lessons, more school hours will be spent, and more effort will obviously go into getting their grade up. I just hope now the sort of effort my school employed.
Here are my old schools results (still waiting for Business and Science grades to come through, apparently)
A* to C: 91%
A* to C including English and Maths: 64%
So I'm guessing it'll be fairly low for the EB grade. Not on the guardian website, for some reason. Is it because it's an Academy?
Why are there so many corrupt politicians and government officials in the UK?
I was just linked this big list of people who has used tax money for non-work related stuff ranging from chocolate to a floating house for a private duck pond.
So many corrupt ones compared to where, exactly? Are we more corrupt than the US, France, Italy or Ireland?
Why are there so many corrupt politicians and government officials in the UK?
I was just linked this big list of people who has used tax money for non-work related stuff ranging from chocolate to a floating house for a private duck pond.
We're not?
People have missused their expenses yes. Something that has been cracked down on. But on a global scale we're better then average, and in most of the real areas (lobbying, media, etc) we're well above average.
Posts
Yeah, getting that sort of loan and repaying it is going to be a bitch.
The threshold is tied to the rate of inflation.
Edit: misread what you said there. But an increase from £15000 to £21000 is substantial enough to not be wiped out by inflation over this period, unless we hit 70s level inflation. And I am glad it links to inflation after this date. Good last minute amendment.
That's a very interesting perspective, and I'm aware that I have very little idea of the cultural stigmas surrounding borrowing. Please forgive me if anything that I'm about to say is horrendously off base and inadvertently insulting.
(1) Wouldn't the terms of the loan mean that you're at absolutely no risk of getting into a hole with student debt? It's tied to your wages; my girlfriend only works part-time, doesn't earn enough to pay it back, so she doesn't have to at the moment. As soon as her wages go above the threshold, it gets taken before she even sees her wage slip. My pay is partly commission-based, and if I get a larger pay packet one month, slightly more gets taken off for repayments, and the reverse is true as well. It's not like a credit card (my only other form of debt), where you have the option of putting off the payments until the bailiffs break down your door and take your stuff.
I know that you probably know this already, but to me that would make the rational argument less rational.
(2) That's why the media coverage is a joke - they're focusing on the raw numbers rather than the actual impact of the loans in real terms. My sixth form explained how the loans worked to everyone in a careers advice type way, the same way they explained how you could get the army to pay for your schooling.
(3) What would your culture's reaction be to free money from the government?
The reason that I ask is because the far more pressing financial issue with university is the cost of living. Not everybody can work their way through university, and it's unreasonable to expect poor families to support a child living away from home. That's why there are means-tested grants available for maintenance, as well as maintenance loans. It's basically a handout from the government.
Should government policy be dictated by irrationalities, anyway? Some cultures have a crab mentality when it comes to people going to university; should that be taken into account?
No worries, what you say is fine, excepting the worry that you might never earn enough to pay it back, or the worry that the government's idea of 'minimum salary before repayment starts' might not match what you need to live. Or a lot of other financial worries based on having no safety nets at all if your sensible-seeming predictions turn out to be wrong.
But I do think it's more about fear of borrowing than stigma, at least nowadays. And, as Cat said, not just fear of borrowing, but of that whole middle-class world. Hell, when I was young I didn't have any ID! Didn't have a driving license, didn't have a credit card, didn't have a bank account, didn't have a passport. I remember the first time I wanted to open an account at a DVD rental place it was such a ball-ache - I had to use my birth certificate! I'm sure that's much less common nowadays, but it's just an example of how there are people who live a life outside the world that seems normal to many.
Oh, and a lot of kids from poorer families still live at home while going to university. They're pretty much the only people who do, I guess.
There's so much difference specifically on the subject of university, as well. For example, I went to university, and studied English Language, because I had no idea about universities, love language, and just imagined that degree=success. I had no idea about university because I didn't know anyone who'd ever been to university. Another mate of mine was just told 'University - not for you' and went when he was thirty and a mature student.
As for the 'should government be guided by irrationality' question - yes, absolutely yes. Or rather, they should rationally take into account the irrationality of others. This is a fundamental of almost all facets of public policy.
Yeah, that you like to think that is irrational, though ;-)
And anyway, the majority of those fears are rational, though they appear irrational because they live in a different paradigm.
73% in support of decriminalisation? Really?
It's actually rather sad when the majority of people are in support of something, but government action is instead dictated by the media
On the other I just see kids on the street taking government funded ecstacy before going into clubs. As wacky and improbable as that sounds.
Decriminilisation doesn't mean subsidised drugs o_O
Where did you get that idea from?
The biggest issue facing decriminalisation is uncoupling "it's no longer a crime" to "government endorsement". Despite all the hypocrisy over cigarettes (strong pressure from certain groups to make smoking them as difficult as possible, but never outright banning them due to the massive loss in revenue now as opposed to increased healthcare costs in 50 years time), the general impression seems to be - "if the government allows something to be legal, then it can be said to be endorsing it as a legitimate lifestyle". Alchohol and tobacco have been an endemic part of the culture since long before these laws were made, but legalising/criminalising anything even relatively new can and will be seen as aligned with the ruling government's beliefs, and no-one has been willing to make that potentially suicidal politcal move yet.
Er....okay....
Tara Vince Cable.
Hopefully somebody will be able to explain why I'm wrong, though, as it seems that my default position with politics at the moment is "meh".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12053656
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The really gutting thing was that he was engaged in a secret war against Murdoch where he held the trump card. And then he spoiled it.
I can only image this round of 'revelations' is going to shore up the LD support on the left of the party which is where they've been haemorrhaging it recently..
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Hahahaha.
Take heed; these people are in Government.
As well as strengthen divisions between the two parties in the coalition, and give those in the press who want the Lib Dems out, or at least neutered, more ammunition.
I loathe our press sometimes. The one really juicy bit from the Cable sting was the Murdoch stuff, and that was suppressed by the Telegraph because they want him blocking the takeover. Justifications of the sting in 'the public interest' ring pretty hollow when you sit on the most serious bits. Is it so much to ask that our press isn't entirely owner by third-rate Bond villains who live on private islands and stuff?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Yeah, this might compromise your pledge to stop tuition fees!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12057400
I mean shit, if the world's premier death-squad trainer thinks these guys are going a bit too far, something is wrong.
I'm usually pretty supportive of the police, but tactics like this don't do their image any favours.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
That's just standard kettling tactics*. If that was appalling then I long to hear what she thinks of the videos of protesters with their hands up being batoned across the knee and the like.
* i.e. illegally detain people in a small space then use the disorder that causes as justification for the kettling.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The British police as a whole seem to have no fucking idea how to deal with large gatherings of unruly people. And this shit has been going on for fucking years. They beat a man walking by a protest, not involved in, just walking by, gave him a heart attack and he died. And afaik, those officers are still on duty today. Two weeks later, nobody remembers.
At this point I honestly don't know what its going to take for changes to be made. I guess they'd have to beat someone "important" to death. If I sound a little bitter about this, its because I fucking well am.
I guess I should elaborate.
A friend of mine has been a victim of such "kettling" several times. The worst of which involved a group of people, including himself, being herded towards a fucking 20-foot cliff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUsNQkV6o04
He's the guy with the beard and glasses at 0:51. And then he gets pushed down a hill, towards said 20-foot drop. As far as I know nothing came of this either.
So nice to have clean politicians.
I cut my consumption by 2.5%, obviously
I quoted him on the first page, and I'll quote him again -
"Gangsters, Ted! They're all a bunch of gangsters!" - Father Liam Deliverance, from Father Ted.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Well they'll be gone in a month or two, the question is if the next lot will be much better. I can't see how they'll be any worse.
Surely you only cut your consumption of VAT-able goods by 2.5% so in real terms that's only a 1.372% cut in consumption?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The release of the new league tables has resulted in one of the worst lines in UK political history.
A change to school league tables:
The change has divided opinions. On the one hand, it will encourage a higher proportion of students to do more academic subjects, especially sciences and languages, which looked like they were increasingly being dropped as 'core' subjects. On the other, the change will disincentivize schools from encouraging their students into courses that are more suited to them. For example, music, art, drama and vocational subjects will mean less for a school's league ranking, so there would be less of an impetus towards those subjects, even though it would benefit the individual student.
Certainly, schools will put more time into the core subjects, but that's the point I guess. I think making languages a measure of success is a great change.
I would have liked to see Economics in the humanities bracket though.
Gove's target for the education department is still 35% of all pupils in a school should get 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and maths, not based on the English Baccalaureate, so you could argue that the government wants schools to aim higher for them.
If it leads to better teaching of languages that is. Right now the state of that is fairly awful, and will just markedly screw with the statistics (of note, my old school dropped the pass rate by almost 90% under this system).
I was just linked this big list of people who has used tax money for non-work related stuff ranging from chocolate to a floating house for a private duck pond.
Yep, I remember my days at school learning French. Did my GCSE oral exam, and when I couldn't think of a word, my tutor help up a piece of paper in her hand, and pointed to the sentence I should say. Great stuff.
I think part of the problem with language learning is how sporadic the lessons are. Without any pressure on the student to do home study, they'll never pick up another language. But I think by making a language one of the core lessons, more school hours will be spent, and more effort will obviously go into getting their grade up. I just hope now the sort of effort my school employed.
Here are my old schools results (still waiting for Business and Science grades to come through, apparently)
A* to C: 91%
A* to C including English and Maths: 64%
So I'm guessing it'll be fairly low for the EB grade. Not on the guardian website, for some reason. Is it because it's an Academy?
So many corrupt ones compared to where, exactly? Are we more corrupt than the US, France, Italy or Ireland?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
We're not?
People have missused their expenses yes. Something that has been cracked down on. But on a global scale we're better then average, and in most of the real areas (lobbying, media, etc) we're well above average.