I see the Saturday evening Conservative love-in is underway.
Apparently we are to give children "Saturday jobs" - these are presumably the same children who have just been advised to "revise seven hours per day over Easter" so presumably 7 hours revision, 7 hours work, 7 hours sleep gives them a full 3 hours for life every day.
How magnanimous these Conservatives are ?
Now, according to the Government's Chief Apologist on here, they are generously "helping the homeless" - how, by building some houses they can afford to live in or by providing adequate funding to provide the mental health care so many of them seem to need ?
How caring - makes a change from slagging off Labour I suppose.
Just remind us which Tory said kids should revise 7 hours per day over Easter?
Just remind us which Tory said kids should revise 7 hours per day over Easter?
So what do you think a teenager should do on a Saturday - work, revise or enjoy life ?
Work and enjoy life. Revision is mostly a waste of time. If they want to do schoolwork, do problem-solving using covered material, not revision.
Personally, I believe, as did my schoolteacher father, that kids should not be given homework - they do a full day's work at school already. Furthermore, latest research on learning shows that revision (in the form of re-reading notes or a text book) is particularly useless.
For those interested, Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Brown, Roediger and McDaniel is very informative.
We had no homework until secondary school, though I gather these days it is common even for the youngest pupils. Perhaps historians of education can tell us whether homework was originally introduced for any other purpose than keeping boarders occupied in our great public schools.
I did no revision for O Levels and about one day per subject for A levels. If you really learn the subject as you go - and that's largely on the instructor to present the materials in an engaging manner relevant to the learner - you don't need to revise the fundamentals, only polish up on the details.
The media do seem to be running a remarkable number of stories inconvenient for Labour, and especially for Corbyn, at the moment. Coincidence? Coordination? If coordination, coordination by whom? Or is it simply that Corbyn's long honeymoon period is belatedly over, and he is now getting fair coverage?
Careful, it's not many steps from co-ordination to a Momentumesque conspiracy theory about stateless oligarchs who control the media...
I see the Saturday evening Conservative love-in is underway.
Apparently we are to give children "Saturday jobs" - these are presumably the same children who have just been advised to "revise seven hours per day over Easter" so presumably 7 hours revision, 7 hours work, 7 hours sleep gives them a full 3 hours for life every day.
How magnanimous these Conservatives are ?
Now, according to the Government's Chief Apologist on here, they are generously "helping the homeless" - how, by building some houses they can afford to live in or by providing adequate funding to provide the mental health care so many of them seem to need ?
How caring - makes a change from slagging off Labour I suppose.
Just remind us which Tory said kids should revise 7 hours per day over Easter?
My 15 year old granddaughter started a saturday job three months ago and loves it
It means so much to my wife and I
"It means so much to MY WIFE AND ME."
(Grammar Pedant mode!)
I have checked with the oracle who knows everything (wife)
She thinks I am right - she was brought up proper like unlike me :-)
She is wrong. Leave her out of the sentence, and consider whether "It means so much to I" sounds like something you would say.
If you put her back in again, which you should always do with your wife, it sounds OK. I think "my wife and I" can be an atomic phrase here.
I think Sunil is right here. I take your point about how "my wife and I" can be thought of as an atomic phrase, but that would also apply to "me and my wife".
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Anyone who has to work that hard to get the grades is only setting themselves up for an unpleasant life as a fish out of water.
I will never, beyond the end of my days, understand the conceit that one shouldn't work too hard. You'll be talking about "quality of life" or "gap years" next. "Striving" is not something to be ashamed of, and for many people it cannot be avoided. Troubles and gladness will arrive when they will, but until then one strives for better. This is how we got out of the mud.
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Never heard anyone advocate banning revision before.
Anyone who has to work that hard to get the grades is only setting themselves up for an unpleasant life as a fish out of water.
I will never, beyond the end of my days, understand the conceit that one shouldn't work too hard. You'll be talking about "quality of life" or "gap years" next. "Striving" is not something to be ashamed of, and for many people it cannot be avoided. Troubles and gladness will arrive when they will, but until then one strives for better. This is how we got out of the mud.
You may not have noticed, but I'm not entirely serious.
That said, I have seen more than one person end up deeply unfulfilled after achieving academic selection or elevation at work beyond their ability on the back of serious hard work. It's a great tactic in a race with a defined finish line, but if it just gains access to an even faster treadmill when you were already straining at your limit, I can't say I blame the majority for not even trying to do that.
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Never heard anyone advocate banning revision before.
If we were serious about removing middle class bias in the education system it would be one approach to take - or at least placing much more focus on decontextualised testing where preparation is of less use.
As it stands, currently long run life chances are heavily influenced by how much your parents nag you to revise. There's no real long-term benefit to society from kids having revised that material at all - it just results in an extra advantage for kids from 'better' backgrounds.
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Never heard anyone advocate banning revision before.
If we were serious about removing middle class bias in the education system it would be one approach to take - or at least placing much more focus on decontextualised testing where preparation is of less use.
As it stands, currently long run life chances are heavily influenced by how much your parents nag you to revise. There's no real long-term benefit to society from kids having revised that material at all - it just results in an extra advantage for kids from 'better' backgrounds.
I'm in favour of promoting middle-class values throughout society so I probably wouldn't support this idea. Interesting though to hear what others with different views are thinking about.
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Never heard anyone advocate banning revision before.
If we were serious about removing middle class bias in the education system it would be one approach to take - or at least placing much more focus on decontextualised testing where preparation is of less use.
As it stands, currently long run life chances are heavily influenced by how much your parents nag you to revise. There's no real long-term benefit to society from kids having revised that material at all - it just results in an extra advantage for kids from 'better' backgrounds.
I'm in favour of promoting middle-class values throughout society so I probably wouldn't support this idea. Interesting though to hear what others with different views are thinking about.
Allowing middle class children to achieve ahead of brighter kids from poorer backgrounds doesn't promote middle class values at all. They're best spread through-out society through social mobility which a more level playing field would help to promote.
Thinking about this a little more, revision should be banned, or at least frowned upon.
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
Never heard anyone advocate banning revision before.
If we were serious about removing middle class bias in the education system it would be one approach to take - or at least placing much more focus on decontextualised testing where preparation is of less use.
As it stands, currently long run life chances are heavily influenced by how much your parents nag you to revise. There's no real long-term benefit to society from kids having revised that material at all - it just results in an extra advantage for kids from 'better' backgrounds.
Why not ban job interviews too as clearly they advantage middle class parents who have encouraged their children to read widely and be articulate and pursue extra curricular activities they can talk about at the interview.
In any case decontextualised testing surely just favours genetics
Completely disagreed. If Labour win enough seats in England to win power with the support of the SNP then do you seriously suggest that the SNP will prop up the Tories instead of installing Labour?
Especially bearing in mind that the next election if it runs to term will be in 2022 and the Tories would have been in Downing Street for a dozen years. The SNP won't want to be seen to maintain that for longer.
Well it was thanks to the SNP we had 18 years of Tory rule/Thatcherism.
You could also argue that the SNP helped the Tories win a majority in 2015, instead of the Tories being the largest party in the Parliament.
There was also a de facto SNP/Tory alliance at Holyrood between 2007-11.
Comments
Most public exams are in subjects where the content is of no ongoing use whatsoever, so the only function they hold is a screening and sorting exercise for selection in to the next stage, either higher education or work.
Frankly revising is a form of cheating which allows the less gifted to steal the future of a more talented peer. A mutual non-aggression pact between all students to just have a crack based on whatever they retained from lessons would save everyone an awful lot of effort, and allow the exams to serve their function much more effectively.
That said, I have seen more than one person end up deeply unfulfilled after achieving academic selection or elevation at work beyond their ability on the back of serious hard work. It's a great tactic in a race with a defined finish line, but if it just gains access to an even faster treadmill when you were already straining at your limit, I can't say I blame the majority for not even trying to do that.
As it stands, currently long run life chances are heavily influenced by how much your parents nag you to revise. There's no real long-term benefit to society from kids having revised that material at all - it just results in an extra advantage for kids from 'better' backgrounds.
In any case decontextualised testing surely just favours genetics