Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one thing we are not getting st the moment is a clear pict

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one thing we are not getting st the moment is a clear picture from the polls

Conference season is now over and we now face the final few months before Britain is scheduled to leave the EU. UK politics is set to go through a period of turmoil and there’s not an insignificant chance that there could be an early general election.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • But the leadership ratings are pointing one way.
  • I'm hoping we see a few more polls tonight.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 11,786
    Second
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,285
    We can safely say either Labour or the Tories will win the most seats if there was a GE tommorow though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,379
    At the moment I think the general picture from the polls is the Tories and Labour are largely level pegging with the Tories maybe having a small advantage, the likeliest outcome if there was a general election tomorrow is the Tories would still be largest party but the LDs, not the DUP would hold the balance of power
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 11,786
    Polling in the next election is going to be as unreliable as in the last. If in probably a quite different way.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,447
    Not too surprising, but given the inaccuracy of polls in the UK generally, perhaps not especially significant.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,801
    Pulpstar said:

    We can safely say either Labour or the Tories will win the most seats if there was a GE tommorow though.

    They could be tied
  • Jose's getting sacked in the morning?

    That Rafa might be responsible is delicious.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,963
    edited October 6
    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,198

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,779
    I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

    Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

    Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,964

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    .

    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
    🎁
    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
    That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.

    I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
    Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
    Could I have a source for those figures please?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,379
    edited October 6

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    The Tories narrowly won graduates in 2015 but younger people are now significantly more likely to have degrees than older people and younger people are always more likely to be leftwing than their older peers so it is largely a reflection of university expansion than the young having much higher IQs than their grandparents
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,963
    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    Society views a degree as a standard measure of level of education. Modern degrees may be crap etc etc, but it is still the measure (although some employers now seeking post-grad level education as the new standard) and doesn't change the point about changing vote patterns I don't think.

    Incidentally, Pickett's work might help explain why Mansfield went Tory and Canterbury went Labour.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,024

    I'm hoping we see a few more polls tonight.

    If you go to Warsaw, you'll see a lot of Poles :lol:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,024
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    .

    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.
    🎁
    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
    That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.

    I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
    Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
    Could I have a source for those figures please?
    77.78674% of statistics are made up on the spot :)
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,316
    The most recent BMG poll, a couple of days back, has Labour with a 1% lead.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,384
    edited October 6
    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

    Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

    Its an age and generational effect.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,447
    F1: giving the timing of the race, betting markets etc I thought I'd give the markets another look.

    More thingummyjigs have gone up, and one is making me ponder it.

    Group betting, Ericsson (who starts last) is 3.75 to beat Stroll, Sirotkin and Vandoorne. His team mate Leclerc starts 10th, and the Sauber is almost certainly faster than the Williams/McLaren.

    Hmm.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,852
    Utd are 0-2 down at half time to Newcastle United, a team yet to win so far this season, but Betfair still have Newcastle at 1.4 to win. Which team does this say more about?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,697
    brendan16 said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

    Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

    Its an age and generational effect.
    Theresa May's got a geography degree. Most degrees are not vocational but rely on the gullibility of employers who believe that, for instance, when it comes to reading an autocue, an Oxford degree is better than an Oxford Brookes one. It is all nonsense, but the former plays to the bias of recruiters at the BBC, banks, law firms and well, most other places.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121
    edited October 6
    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,591
    brendan16 said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

    Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

    Its an age and generational effect.
    The whole world is getting more educated, in South Korea nearly 70% have tertiary education, and most of our economic competitors are in the 35-50% range.

    While it is quite possible that Brits are thicker than other nations, to me the numbers going onto higher education seem about right for a knowledge based service economy. I do accept that much of the Tertiary education here is poor quality and expensive, but that is a different isdue to whether 50% ish are capable of benefiting from higher education.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,801
    ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,596
    Quincel said:

    Utd are 0-2 down at half time to Newcastle United, a team yet to win so far this season, but Betfair still have Newcastle at 1.4 to win. Which team does this say more about?

    Shelvey makes a big difference to them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 924
    It's a good evening to be a Geordie so far. :smiley:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,254

    ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns

    a City rejoices
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228
    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,447
    Mr. Smithson, some say a Leeds by-law makes it a criminal offence to support Manchester United.

    A few years ago when Leeds United beat them in the FA Cup, the main BBC news didn't 'spoil it' because Match of the Day was on later. The local news showed the goal (or goals, I forget) at the top of the headlines, in the main story, and again at the end just in case anyone missed it :p

    Anyway, I'm off. Always weird when F1 starts so early. Let's hope Verstappen wins, Leclerc is second, and Hartley/Gasly third and fourth.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,254
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
  • That
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228

    ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns

    Will you luv it if Newcastle beat them Mike?

    IIRC its not a good look.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,585
    On Topic


    Survation
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
    What stage is he at in terms of picking subjects? I don’t know exactly how the Scottish system works.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,254
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
    Its a bit of a lottery in any case
    having put 3 through uni in the last decade Id say chose subjects he enjoys doing and a uni where he feels comfortable
    for you theres the added complication of fees as they are considerable if he goes outside Scotland
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228

    That

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.


    He'll certainly be doing maths and English to higher. He will probably want to study economics. But the views of top English Universities seem to have got harsher in recent years. Highers seem to count for less than they once did and advanced highers seem to be treated as A level equivalents which is a little unfair.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,254
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
    ps

    why not look at a joint degree - Brooke Jnr did Chemistry and Management

    this also allows you to shift subjects a bit if you find one of your topics isnt quite to your liking
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,024
    DavidL said:

    ManU getting beaten. A nation mourns

    Will you luv it if Newcastle beat them Mike?

    IIRC its not a good look.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121
    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.

    The answer however is sort of yes and sort of no. My personal view is that rather than two there are four categories of A-level. The top tier, the two which are so complex, so demanding and so rigorous that any University and any course will accept a top grade in them for any course are Physics and Maths. Then here is a second tier, where the subjects are rigorous and versatile but not quite so prestigious. Here I would put the other sciences, modern languages, Economics, History, Geography, and possibly English and EPRS if you get good grades. Then there is a third tier, of subjects rigorous and useful in particular fields but that are of limited transferable use. Here I would out the likes of Art, PE, Music, Drama and again perhaps English and Philosophy.And at the bottom are the qualifications I don't personally rate and that are sometimes looked down on as 'soft' options. Business, Accounting, Media Studies etc would come in here.

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
    Its a bit of a lottery in any case
    having put 3 through uni in the last decade Id say chose subjects he enjoys doing and a uni where he feels comfortable
    for you theres the added complication of fees as they are considerable if he goes outside Scotland
    FWIW My son is loving Dundee. He had offers from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Heriot Watt as well - but chose Dundee after doing his visits and research. He felt that the on campus accommodation in 1st year, the department facilities (Engineering) and student satisfaction scores were the key thing.

    My eldest chose Exeter over the stress of Oxbridge & Warwick because she couild still play hockey at the top level. She loves it there too (Economics) - now on a gap year (loving that too)

    The key is letting them do the research, work out the pros and cons, and choose for themselves. Various of their friends were pushed to go to unis that the parents preferred based on kudos - it hasn't worked out well in some cases because it wasn't actually what the kids really wanted to do.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    Doesnt that depend more on what he wants to do later in life ?
    Not at this stage. He loves economics but he also loves science. His results are excellent for both. At this stage it is really about what university he can get in.
    ps

    why not look at a joint degree - Brooke Jnr did Chemistry and Management

    this also allows you to shift subjects a bit if you find one of your topics isnt quite to your liking
    He's a lot brighter than his dad but I thought one subject was hard enough!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121

    That

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.
    Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

    Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw! :smiley:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,032
    HYUFD said:
    I think the message is rather that people will not quietly give in to being cheated out of Brexit by "the People's Vote", Anna.

    Anyway, it's all moot:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45768848
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121

    FWIW My son is loving Dundee. He had offers from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Heriot Watt as well - but chose Dundee after doing his visits and research. He felt that the on campus accommodation in 1st year, the department facilities (Engineering) and student satisfaction scores were the key thing.

    My eldest chose Exeter over the stress of Oxbridge & Warwick because she couild still play hockey at the top level. She loves it there too (Economics) - now on a gap year (loving that too)

    The key is letting them do the research, work out the pros and cons, and choose for themselves. Various of their friends were pushed to go to unis that the parents preferred based on kudos - it hasn't worked out well in some cases because it wasn't actually what the kids really wanted to do.

    That I would certainly agree with.

    It's also worth adding many second tier universities - e.g. Lancaster - have genuinely outstanding teaching, and that therefore paradoxically the less prestigious degree, followed by a Masters elsewhere, is sometimes the better route to go down.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 381
    Given the pig's ear most polls made of the last three national votes, why do people bother with them at all?
  • ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.

    The answer however is sort of yes and sort of no. My personal view is that rather than two there are four categories of A-level. The top tier, the two which are so complex, so demanding and so rigorous that any University and any course will accept a top grade in them for any course are Physics and Maths. Then here is a second tier, where the subjects are rigorous and versatile but not quite so prestigious. Here I would put the other sciences, modern languages, Economics, History, Geography, and possibly English and EPRS if you get good grades. Then there is a third tier, of subjects rigorous and useful in particular fields but that are of limited transferable use. Here I would out the likes of Art, PE, Music, Drama and again perhaps English and Philosophy.And at the bottom are the qualifications I don't personally rate and that are sometimes looked down on as 'soft' options. Business, Accounting, Media Studies etc would come in here.

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,782

    I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

    Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

    Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

    The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

    Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,974
    its 2-2 now
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,596

    The key is letting them do the research, work out the pros and cons, and choose for themselves. Various of their friends were pushed to go to unis that the parents preferred based on kudos - it hasn't worked out well in some cases because it wasn't actually what the kids really wanted to do.

    This is a very true. And it's worth remembering that a certain employer - the civil service - now has a policy of being blind to an applicant's alma mater:

    https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2015/11/05/name-blind-recruitment-a-commitment-to-diversity/

    Not that I'm bitter...
  • ydoethur said:

    That

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.
    Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

    Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw! :smiley:
    I may be too close to it: I think it’s easy and I we got some pretty good results last summer from my our students.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.

    The answer however is sort of yes and sort of no. My personal view is that rather than two there are four categories of A-level. The top tier, the two which are so complex, so demanding and so rigorous that any University and any course will accept a top grade in them for any course are Physics and Maths. Then here is a second tier, where the subjects are rigorous and versatile but not quite so prestigious. Here I would put the other sciences, modern languages, Economics, History, Geography, and possibly English and EPRS if you get good grades. Then there is a third tier, of subjects rigorous and useful in particular fields but that are of limited transferable use. Here I would out the likes of Art, PE, Music, Drama and again perhaps English and Philosophy.And at the bottom are the qualifications I don't personally rate and that are sometimes looked down on as 'soft' options. Business, Accounting, Media Studies etc would come in here.

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    Many thanks for that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121

    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.

    I will admit I still think the worst mistake I ever made in my life was not to do Physics A-level. I was good at it and didn't find it hard. It is highly prestigious and eminently valuable, as of course is a physics degree (which is why of course you are such a rara Avis these days).

    I was asked for advice by the very able son of a colleague on his A-levels. He loves History and is doing it for A-level, but he also loved Physics. He asked me if they went together. I replied I thought that it could be an error to see which ones went 'together' and it was as well to keep a spread. But, I added, nobody will lose out in life from having a physics a-level. So he's doing that too.

    The stuff about 7s I had from an Oxford admissions tutor. How truthful she was being I don't know, but it seems plausible, and with the effective end of AS levels (which actually I think was one of Gove's better ideas) it will only become more so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.

    The answer however is sort of yes and sort of no. My personal view is that rather than two there are four categories of A-level. The top tier, the two which are so complex, so demanding and so rigorous that any University and any course will accept a top grade in them for any course are Physics and Maths. Then here is a second tier, where the subjects are rigorous and versatile but not quite so prestigious. Here I would put the other sciences, modern languages, Economics, History, Geography, and possibly English and EPRS if you get good grades. Then there is a third tier, of subjects rigorous and useful in particular fields but that are of limited transferable use. Here I would out the likes of Art, PE, Music, Drama and again perhaps English and Philosophy.And at the bottom are the qualifications I don't personally rate and that are sometimes looked down on as 'soft' options. Business, Accounting, Media Studies etc would come in here.

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,964
    brendan16 said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    Exactly - education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Less than 10 per cent of people used to go to university - now its nearly 50 per cent. Having a degree now does not equate to what that meant 20 or 30 years ago as they are two a penny and thus devalued.

    Getting educated by experiencing a longer life, working and getting a practical skill, bringing up a family may etc actually be more useful to society than a media studies degree from a former poly that gets you a job at Poundland.

    Its an age and generational effect.
    There are two separate issues here.

    1. The rapid expansion of university education has resulted in people going to University who would not previously have qualified. It, therefore, does not indicate a top 20% intellectual ability like it might have done in the past. At the same time, "commercial" vice chancellors have created some courses which - how to put this - lack intellectual rigour.

    2. The number of "skilled working class" jobs is collapsing across the developed world. Automation is replacing assembly and manufacturing jobs. If you go into a modern car plant, you see a lot of people with technical degrees, and a falling number of people without degrees. In Germany and Switzerland, they've done a very good job of providing tertiary education that makes people employable, in a way we simply haven't. But the answer to an automating and globalising world is not "less education".
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 924
    Correction, being a Geordie is bad forever.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121
    edited October 6

    ydoethur said:

    That

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.
    Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

    Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw! :smiley:
    I may be too close to it: I think it’s easy and I we got some pretty good results last summer from my our students.
    You may find this article of interest (and potentially useful for recruitment):

    https://www.cityjobs.com/cityblog/2015/05/06/banks-physics-maths-grads/

    It mentions ComSci in the same breath as well, but at A-level I would say that's third tier. We crash through it in a year at my school, and they still get good grades.

    PS - should you wish me to give this spiel to your GCSE students, my hourly rate is very reasonable...
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,198
    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    They will have had more education. Quantity does not of itself have a direct link to quality.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,974
    3=2 Mr Smithson mourns
  • DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    .

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    The point is that when students apply for university the only objective thing the admissions tutors have to go on is their GCSEs (or equivalents). Predicted results are not reliable at all : we get pressure from parents to upgrade them to what are often highly optimistic levels and it is all too common for schools to cave in for the sake of a quiet life.
  • ydoethur said:

    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.

    I will admit I still think the worst mistake I ever made in my life was not to do Physics A-level. I was good at it and didn't find it hard. It is highly prestigious and eminently valuable, as of course is a physics degree (which is why of course you are such a rara Avis these days).

    I was asked for advice by the very able son of a colleague on his A-levels. He loves History and is doing it for A-level, but he also loved Physics. He asked me if they went together. I replied I thought that it could be an error to see which ones went 'together' and it was as well to keep a spread. But, I added, nobody will lose out in life from having a physics a-level. So he's doing that too.

    The stuff about 7s I had from an Oxford admissions tutor. How truthful she was being I don't know, but it seems plausible, and with the effective end of AS levels (which actually I think was one of Gove's better ideas) it will only become more so.
    Ironically one of my major regrets is not doing History at A-level. I would have dropped Chemistry though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,228
    edited October 6

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    .

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    The point is that when students apply for university the only objective thing the admissions tutors have to go on is their GCSEs (or equivalents). Predicted results are not reliable at all : we get pressure from parents to upgrade them to what are often highly optimistic levels and it is all too common for schools to cave in for the sake of a quiet life.
    I didn't do 6th year because someone promised me beer money a grant if I went to University but my daughter had her Higher results when she applied and she got an unconditional from Edinburgh as a result. At which point her 6th year rather fizzled out.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    That

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    From last thread:

    Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html

    Equating more degree holders with better educated is a reasoning fail of itself. There’s a very strong column in the business section of today’s Times on the gullibility of students and the pathetic lies universities tell.
    By definition someone who has a degree is 'better educated' than someone who does not. Whether that makes them more intelligent, more skilful or more productive, is a different question.
    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.
    That would depend on what he wants to read. If his ambitions include the LSE then Physics and Chemistry probably won’t help, though Maths should.

    University prospectuses and websites are usually a good source for the subjects they favour, and in the summer there are a lot of open days where you can quiz admissions tutors.
    Chemistry wouldn't be of much use. Physics would, because of the problem solving and analytical skills involved. I would have thought top grades in maths, physics and economics would do.

    Surprised to find me rather than you banging the drum for physics, btw! :smiley:
    I may be too close to it: I think it’s easy and I we got some pretty good results last summer from my our students.
    You may find this article of interest (and potentially useful for recruitment):

    https://www.cityjobs.com/cityblog/2015/05/06/banks-physics-maths-grads/

    It mentions ComSci in the same breath as well, but at A-level I would say that's third tier. We crash through it in a year at my school, and they still get good grades.

    PS - should you wish me to give this spiel to your GCSE students, my hourly rate is very reasonable...
    I’ll pass that on to my HoD: thanks!
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    .

    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    The point is that when students apply for university the only objective thing the admissions tutors have to go on is their GCSEs (or equivalents). Predicted results are not reliable at all : we get pressure from parents to upgrade them to what are often highly optimistic levels and it is all too common for schools to cave in for the sake of a quiet life.
    I didn't do 6th year because someone promised me beer money a grant if I went to University but my daughter had her Higher results when she applied and she got an unconditional from Edinburgh as a result. At which point her 6th year rather fizzled out.
    You need to translate that for us poor English types; here Year 6 means last year of Primary School. While I did know a Scottish mathematician who was 16 when he started his degree (and only 18 when he got a first), I assume most Scottish students aren’t that precocious.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    edited October 6
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.



    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
    Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.
  • justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.



    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
    Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.
    Things have changed quite a bit since the sixties...
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    I must admit to having rather messed up my O levels in 1970 in terms of Pass Grades. Entirely my own fault, but June 1970 did coincide with the General Election campaign - and I was just as obsessed with the psephology of polls etc as I am today.It was a serious distraction for me, and Harold Wilson did me no favours - nor indeed himself! - by calling the election at that time.
  • as noted BMG has reverted somewhat from its outlier position

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,503
    On topic: "So which pollsters’ numbers do you prefer?"

    You shouldn't prefer any. You should take a moving average of them all. That will give a much more accurate picture.

    The biggest source of variation is random error, typically +/- 3% in any individual poll.

    There are also "house" effects caused by differences in pollsters' methodology. These seem to be much smaller than the random effects of individual polls.

    For instance, I have compared the last 48 YouGov polls with the moving average at the time of the poll. The difference for each party range between about +/- 3% as you might expect. But the average difference over 48 datapoints is a measure of the house effect.

    YouGov seems to overestimate the Tory vote by 0.4% on average, underestimate the Labour vote by 0.7% and overestimate the LibDem vote by 0.4%. This is swamped by the random error in individual polls.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,379
    edited October 6
    Noel Gallagher says he would rather reform Oasis than see 'lunatic' Corbyn as PM
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/noel-gallagher-says-hed-rather-reform-oasis-than-see-lunatic-corbyn-as-pm-while-momentum-boss-who-went-to-£21000-a-year-school-says-rockers-working-class-hero-days-are-over/ar-BBO1svL?ocid=spartanntp

    He has now clearly moved away from Labour having previously attended a reception with Blair at No 10
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,379

    I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

    Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

    Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

    The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

    Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.
    If that was the case UKIP would not be on up to triple their 2017 score, mainly from Tories and the Tories still at least level with Labour
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    Barnesian said:

    On topic: "So which pollsters’ numbers do you prefer?"

    You shouldn't prefer any. You should take a moving average of them all. That will give a much more accurate picture.

    The biggest source of variation is random error, typically +/- 3% in any individual poll.

    There are also "house" effects caused by differences in pollsters' methodology. These seem to be much smaller than the random effects of individual polls.

    For instance, I have compared the last 48 YouGov polls with the moving average at the time of the poll. The difference for each party range between about +/- 3% as you might expect. But the average difference over 48 datapoints is a measure of the house effect.

    YouGov seems to overestimate the Tory vote by 0.4% on average, underestimate the Labour vote by 0.7% and overestimate the LibDem vote by 0.4%. This is swamped by the random error in individual polls.

    For some reason YouGov seems to go through extended phases of being out of line with other pollsters. We have now had several weeks of this pollster coming up with the biggest Tory leads and the lowest Labour vote shares. Something similar happened in the early Autumn of 2016 when YouGov suddenly went from being Labour's best pollster to being its worst. That pattern continued throughout the Winter of 2016/2017 until a week or so into the election campaign when it appeared to fall into line with other pollsters. Rather puzzling - but that does not mean that YouGov is wrong now!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,379
    HYUFD said:

    I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

    Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

    Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

    The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

    Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.
    If that was the case UKIP would not be on up to triple their 2017 score, mainly from Tories and the Tories still at least level with Labour
    According to the latest YouGov 7% of 2017 Tories now back UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 6% of 2017 LDs have switched to the Tories

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,195

    HYUFD said:
    I think the message is rather that people will not quietly give in to being cheated out of Brexit by "the People's Vote", Anna.

    Anyway, it's all moot:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45768848
    How - how could people be 'cheated out of Brexit' by another referendum?
    It'd need the people to vote to Remain after all, which they won't do if they want Brexit after all.
    Were the people 'cheated out of' a Conservative majority last year?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'd say the two major parties are about level pegging - but, the Cons vote is heavily skewed to people who historically have voted, while Lab is skewed towards people who haven't. Of course past performance is no guide to future outcomes.

    Also for well over a year into a parliament for an unpopular, widely seen as shambolic, government to be level pegging with the opposition is no mean feat - for the government.

    Thatcher used to complain that early in a term the government should be well behind the opposition in the polls, and if they weren't it showed they weren't taking the unpopular decisions they should be.

    The last time this came up I wondered about how large a drag Corbyn must be on the Labour poll score (at least with his current media coverage).

    Today I am wondering whether there is a Brexit loyalty effect boosting the Conservative poll score. Perhaps Brexit supporters are loyal until Brexit is achieved. After that, and a brief Brexit honeymoon, their support might go into freefall.
    If that was the case UKIP would not be on up to triple their 2017 score, mainly from Tories and the Tories still at least level with Labour
    According to the latest YouGov 7% of 2017 Tories now back UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 6% of 2017 LDs have switched to the Tories

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
    The level of UKIP support has to be in genuine doubt due to lack of clarity as to how many seats the party would contest at any election in the near future. Had it fought 600 seats last time , UKIP probably would have managed circa 3.5%.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,964
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.



    However, I should stress that for the majority of courses at the majority of universities they still count as A-levels and it is the grade that would matter more than the subject, because A-levels, even easier ones, are bloody hard. Writing a doctorate was an absolute cinch compared to the work involved in getting an A in A-level history.

    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
    Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.
    I got into Cambridge with only two GCSE "A" grades back in 1992. (Maths and History. And my maths teacher said in the first lesson of A Level maths: "Of course, Robert's "A" wasn't as good as Ian's." It's fair to say that I didn't get on well with (one of) my maths teachers.
  • justin124 said:

    I must admit to having rather messed up my O levels in 1970 in terms of Pass Grades. Entirely my own fault, but June 1970 did coincide with the General Election campaign - and I was just as obsessed with the psephology of polls etc as I am today.It was a serious distraction for me, and Harold Wilson did me no favours - nor indeed himself! - by calling the election at that time.

    I did my A levels in 1997 at the same time as a general election campaign and the start of The Ashes and I did very well.

    A good mind can multi-task.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,062
    Barnesian said:

    On topic: "So which pollsters’ numbers do you prefer?"

    You shouldn't prefer any. You should take a moving average of them all. That will give a much more accurate picture.

    The biggest source of variation is random error, typically +/- 3% in any individual poll.

    Clearly incorrect. A moving average of all polls need not give a much more accurate picture.

    If pollsters X has no systematic bias and pollster Y has, then averaging the polls of X and Y makes a more inaccurate result than using X alone.

    In general, as the pollsters use different corrections (e.g., for turnout, for weighting, for treatment of undecideds), then averaging them all to produce a poll of polls is Frankenstein nonsense, statistically speaking.

    You are simply hoping that the pollsters are all wrong in different ways and the errors cancel out.

    But, there is no reason to believe this.

    I also don’t agree that the biggest source of error is random. There is plenty of evidence that the biggest source of error is systematic.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,538
    HYUFD said:

    Noel Gallagher says he would rather reform Oasis than see 'lunatic' Corbyn as PM
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/noel-gallagher-says-hed-rather-reform-oasis-than-see-lunatic-corbyn-as-pm-while-momentum-boss-who-went-to-£21000-a-year-school-says-rockers-working-class-hero-days-are-over/ar-BBO1svL?ocid=spartanntp

    He has now clearly moved away from Labour having previously attended a reception with Blair at No 10

    Or maybe he's still a Blairite and hasn't moved at all, Labour has moved quite a bit from Blair's time.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.


    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
    Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.
    I got into Cambridge with only two GCSE "A" grades back in 1992. (Maths and History. And my maths teacher said in the first lesson of A Level maths: "Of course, Robert's "A" wasn't as good as Ian's." It's fair to say that I didn't get on well with (one of) my maths teachers.
    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,672
    edited October 6

    justin124 said:

    I must admit to having rather messed up my O levels in 1970 in terms of Pass Grades. Entirely my own fault, but June 1970 did coincide with the General Election campaign - and I was just as obsessed with the psephology of polls etc as I am today.It was a serious distraction for me, and Harold Wilson did me no favours - nor indeed himself! - by calling the election at that time.

    I did my A levels in 1997 at the same time as a general election campaign and the start of The Ashes and I did very well.

    A good mind can multi-task.
    Touche sir! I was doubtless much more obsessive and emotionally immature than yourself.
    I would point out though that the 1997 election took place on May 1st - whilst Polling Day in 1970 was on 18th June. Surely the election in 1997 had finished circa a month before A Level exams were due?
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    Very much on topic of this thread, conference season can be a funny time for polling as it gives oxygen of publicity to parties almost sequentially, so bounces and falls should be expected. Having said that though, the rule of thumb I personally use when polls don’t seem to give us a clear picture is not to look at the gap between parties, but the level being reported since the last poll from same pollster. For example, 6 polls, 4 have a ahead 2 b ahead, but in those two b are ahead by 4 and 5 points, but a leads are no bigger than 2 in 2 and 1 in 2. However all polls have a 38 or 39, where b ranged 37 to 43. If I was a I would be quite happy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,285
    edited October 6
    From several freds back:


    Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

    Pulpstar said:


    The allegations will disappear like snow in May if he isn't confirmed

    Guess works if he is confirmed as well, but colour me shocked:
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,828
    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.
  • justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Do the top Universities have an A and B category for subjects at school level or are they simply looking for "A"s or A+? My son has ambitions for LSE or possibly even Oxbridge. Would he find that more difficult if his highers included Economics and computing rather than physics and chemistry? I would be grateful for any observations you could make.

    Difficult question to answer, because it tends to depend on the course. I would have said that he needs to do more research into that on his own account. For example, to do economics at LSE I am pretty sure they will want economics and maths. To do philosophy, however, I would have thought any three A-levels would suffice as long as they represented a decent spread of subjects.


    As an aside that you may find useful, recent indications are that Oxbridge are now informally discarding all applicants who do not have straight 7s (or As) at GCSE as well as A-level. That of course would apply to the equivalent Scottish grades.
    I’ll graciously accept your verdict on the pre-eminence of Physics (though I did it as the easy option). I’d like to add to your point about GCSEs (or their Scottish equivalents) and say that 5A*s or so is the point where they start thinking about if there are any reasons for not accepting a student. I’ve seen students I thought were dead certs not get an offer though.
    When I was a lad my O levels were pretty much forgotten when I got my highers but in those days everyone didn't get As.
    Back in the 1960s & 1970s I am not sure that O level grades counted for much re- Oxbridge entry - indeed not even A level grades appeared to be crucial. The key was performance in the Entrance Exam and the interview which followed it.I recall pupils who had gained 3 A grades plus a distinction in a Special Paper failing to gain entry whilst a friend managed to win a place at Oxford to read Modern Languages in 1973 having achieved A level grades of 2Bs and a D.
    Having said that, at my Boys' Grammar School pupils tended not to apply unless invited to do so by the Headmaster.
    I got into Cambridge with only two GCSE "A" grades back in 1992. (Maths and History. And my maths teacher said in the first lesson of A Level maths: "Of course, Robert's "A" wasn't as good as Ian's." It's fair to say that I didn't get on well with (one of) my maths teachers.
    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.
    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,828
    Jonathan said:

    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

    Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

    As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

    Has been thus for months.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,121

    justin124 said:

    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,591
    edited October 6
    Anazina said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

    Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

    As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

    Has been thus for months.
    Indeed, I don't think there has been a significant polling change in over a year. Its a stalemate. I cannot recall a longer period of stasis.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,006

    HYUFD said:
    I think the message is rather that people will not quietly give in to being cheated out of Brexit by "the People's Vote", Anna.

    Anyway, it's all moot:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45768848
    How - how could people be 'cheated out of Brexit' by another referendum?
    It'd need the people to vote to Remain after all, which they won't do if they want Brexit after all.
    Were the people 'cheated out of' a Conservative majority last year?
    Because we haven’t implemented the result of the last one yet...
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 960
    edited October 6
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?
    I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

    They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,964
    @LordOfReason:

    As you're here now...

    Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.

    Could I have a source for those figures please?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,503
    Foxy said:

    Anazina said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

    Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

    As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

    Has been thus for months.
    Indeed, I don't think there has been a significant polling change in over a year. Its a stalemate. I cannot recall a longer period of stasis.
    I agree
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,591

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?
    I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

    They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...
    My Med School offer was BBC, though I got AAAB, similar to my peers. It gave a margin of safety when facing finals.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,006
    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    Anazina said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

    Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

    As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

    Has been thus for months.
    Indeed, I don't think there has been a significant polling change in over a year. Its a stalemate. I cannot recall a longer period of stasis.
    I agree
    Yep, and I don’t think things will move much until after Brexit.

    Will be interesting to see where the Remainers go after that...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,828

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?
    I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

    They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...
    To be fair, Imperial is a dump. They take anyone.
  • Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Had the Entrance Exam disappeared by 1992? I suspect it had.

    The Cambridge Sixth Term Entrance Paper (known to generations of students as STEP) is still used for Maths, usually on top of an A* or two at A-level.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go (to be replaced just by interviews) and then come back?
    I’m fairly certain the Maths ones never went away. I’ve taught a lot of students who had offers like A*A*AA STEP 1.

    They were less than impressed when I told them what my offers were back in the day: two Cs from Imperial being the highest...
    My Med School offer was BBC, though I got AAAB, similar to my peers. It gave a margin of safety when facing finals.
    You need a bit more than BBC now...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,596
    Foxy said:

    Anazina said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remind me, when did poll cease to be quoted with the +/- 3% error margin?

    If you chuck that back in, the polls are very consistent.

    Indeed. People must be exceptionally bored to even bother to comment on these polls.

    As Tim would say: MOE, ignore.

    Has been thus for months.
    Indeed, I don't think there has been a significant polling change in over a year. Its a stalemate. I cannot recall a longer period of stasis.
    What has changed since the election is that the Lib Dems and Ukip have risen at the expense of the Tories and Labour.
This discussion has been closed.