On 11 Oct, 19:57, Bruce wrote:
cut stuff

This indicates a massive failure of the education system. *

Labour's "remedy" was simply to accept lower academic standards and
reduce pass marks so it appeared that most school students passed
their exams. *That might have fooled the voting public for a while,
but it didn't fool employers who increasingly employed better educated
Eastern Europeans. *Neither did it fool the Universities who have had
to set up remedial classes to bring new entrants up to the academic
standards needed to start a degree course.

By what means did Labour reduce pass marks? I think you'll find that
all but one of the awarding bodies for GCSEs and A Levels are
charities, rather than government agencies, and the other one is owned
by a publisher. They are all regulated and are not allowed to vary
the standards. Any significant change in pass rates has to be
explained to the regulators.

But you'll go on saying stuff with equal certainty whether you know
anything about it or not.


cut stuff

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Brimstone
writes

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Brimstone
writes
There is also the aspect that TPTB don't want bright,, educated people
in their workforce. They cause "trouble".

Well, maybe not universally but yes, in my experience that's *very*
true!


It may have been quite generally true at one time, but it isn't now.
There used to be many millions of jobs available for people who were
illiterate and/or innumerate, but the number of these opportunities is
diminishing extremely rapidly. There are now very few jobs where at
least basic numeracy, literacy and computer skills are not essential
requirements - even ten years ago, similar jobs would not have needed
all three.

Employers can solve this problem quite easily, and do, by employing
people from the eastern "accession" states of the EU. Principally,
they employ from Poland because so many young Poles are well educated.
Polish numeracy and literacy standards are comparatively high. Such
is the low standard of so much of the UK's public sector education
that many young Poles also speak better English than people educated
here.

There is now a hard core of young British people who are virtually
unemployable because they lack one or more of the three basic, core
skills (numeracy, literacy and computer skills). They may drift into
and out of casual, unskilled jobs or they may face going through their
lives without ever being employed.

This indicates a massive failure of the education system.

Labour's "remedy" was simply to accept lower academic standards and
reduce pass marks so it appeared that most school students passed
their exams. That might have fooled the voting public for a while,
but it didn't fool employers who increasingly employed better educated
Eastern Europeans. Neither did it fool the Universities who have had
to set up remedial classes to bring new entrants up to the academic
standards needed to start a degree course.

You would think that this situation would cause the British working
class to look at their situation and decide to improve their lot by
working hard at school and going to college or university to gain more
and/or better qualifications. Alas, while middle class parents have
recognised the need for higher educational standards to have a better
chance of a career, the British working classes seem to have a culture
that is strongly anti-education.

They still expect their kids to get a good, well paid job when they
leave school as though it is a divine right. But many of them do
nothing to encourage their children's development. Some even deter
them from taking their studies seriously. Peer pressure also tends to
discourage serious study.

The inevitable result is an growing, uneducated underclass who will be
increasingly dependent on the state for most or all of their "working"
lives. Meanwhile, the jobs will go to immigrants, or companies will
move their operations overseas.

It seems to me that it is you who is illiterate if you cannot understand a
simple sentence, despite being able to write endlessly.

Yes, that was (sort of) my (puzzled) reaction when I read the (long) reply
to (my) post. (Seem to have bracket obsession tonight!)

Where did my assertion that employers can be in a way "frightened" by
"bright, educated people" lead to an assertion that the education system
has failed? In many ways I think it has and the early post about the
huge reduction in jobs requiring higher basic skills has much merit. But
the reply didn't seem to follow logically from what I'd said.

I think we're seeing the Usenet equivalent of someone being "Intoxicated
with the exuberance of his own verbosity".

On 12/10/2010 09:00, Brimstone wrote:

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Brimstone
writes

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Brimstone
writes
There is also the aspect that TPTB don't want bright,, educated
people
in their workforce. They cause "trouble".

Well, maybe not universally but yes, in my experience that's *very*
true!


It may have been quite generally true at one time, but it isn't now.
There used to be many millions of jobs available for people who were
illiterate and/or innumerate, but the number of these opportunities is
diminishing extremely rapidly. There are now very few jobs where at
least basic numeracy, literacy and computer skills are not essential
requirements - even ten years ago, similar jobs would not have needed
all three.

Employers can solve this problem quite easily, and do, by employing
people from the eastern "accession" states of the EU. Principally,
they employ from Poland because so many young Poles are well educated.
Polish numeracy and literacy standards are comparatively high. Such
is the low standard of so much of the UK's public sector education
that many young Poles also speak better English than people educated
here.

There is now a hard core of young British people who are virtually
unemployable because they lack one or more of the three basic, core
skills (numeracy, literacy and computer skills). They may drift into
and out of casual, unskilled jobs or they may face going through their
lives without ever being employed.

This indicates a massive failure of the education system.

Labour's "remedy" was simply to accept lower academic standards and
reduce pass marks so it appeared that most school students passed
their exams. That might have fooled the voting public for a while,
but it didn't fool employers who increasingly employed better educated
Eastern Europeans. Neither did it fool the Universities who have had
to set up remedial classes to bring new entrants up to the academic
standards needed to start a degree course.

You would think that this situation would cause the British working
class to look at their situation and decide to improve their lot by
working hard at school and going to college or university to gain more
and/or better qualifications. Alas, while middle class parents have
recognised the need for higher educational standards to have a better
chance of a career, the British working classes seem to have a culture
that is strongly anti-education.

They still expect their kids to get a good, well paid job when they
leave school as though it is a divine right. But many of them do
nothing to encourage their children's development. Some even deter
them from taking their studies seriously. Peer pressure also tends to
discourage serious study.

The inevitable result is an growing, uneducated underclass who will be
increasingly dependent on the state for most or all of their "working"
lives. Meanwhile, the jobs will go to immigrants, or companies will
move their operations overseas.

It seems to me that it is you who is illiterate if you cannot
understand a simple sentence, despite being able to write endlessly.

Yes, that was (sort of) my (puzzled) reaction when I read the (long)
reply to (my) post. (Seem to have bracket obsession tonight!)

Where did my assertion that employers can be in a way "frightened" by
"bright, educated people" lead to an assertion that the education
system has failed? In many ways I think it has and the early post
about the huge reduction in jobs requiring higher basic skills has
much merit. But the reply didn't seem to follow logically from what
I'd said.

I think we're seeing the Usenet equivalent of someone being "Intoxicated
with the exuberance of his own verbosity".


Or, had it been spoken, it could be abbreviated to VD or verbal diarrhoea.

;-)


--
Moving things in still pictures

Bruce wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:


Physics can be used to communicate too - the Yanks certainly got their
message across in Hiroshima.


Surprisingly, the Americans *didn't* actually get their message across
in Hiroshima. Their "communication" had to be repeated at Nagasaki
before the message got across to the Japanese that they were beaten.


IIRC, the Japanese got the Hiroshima message just fine, and probably
would've surrendered given a bit more time. Nagasaki was sending a
totally different message: telling the Soviets that the first nuke
wasn't a fluke.

" wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
Physics can be used to communicate too - the Yanks certainly got their
message across in Hiroshima.

Surprisingly, the Americans *didn't* actually get their message across
in Hiroshima. Their "communication" had to be repeated at Nagasaki
before the message got across to the Japanese that they were beaten.


IIRC, the Japanese got the Hiroshima message just fine, and probably
would've surrendered given a bit more time. Nagasaki was sending a
totally different message: telling the Soviets that the first nuke
wasn't a fluke.


An interesting rewriting of history. Do let us know when your next
book is published - I'm always game for a laugh. ;-)

wrote in message
...
IIRC, the Japanese got the Hiroshima message just fine, and probably
would've surrendered given a bit more time. Nagasaki was sending a
totally different message: telling the Soviets that the first nuke
wasn't a fluke.

The first was a simple bomb to shock the Japanese, the second was a
effectively a field test of a different type of nuke.
The first one was a simple, ineffecient but reliable design that basically
involved slamming two subcritical masses of uranium together. Fairly sure
that it would work.
The second was much more risky design involving compressing plutonium very
precisely to increase neutron density enough to start a chain reaction.
There was a risk that this would not work as it pushed engineering to it's
limit. Bad idea to use it as a message, as it happened it was a very
effective message.

Andy

In message , at 14:56:57 on Tue, 12
Oct 2010, AndyW remarked:
IIRC, the Japanese got the Hiroshima message just fine, and probably
would've surrendered given a bit more time. Nagasaki was sending a
totally different message: telling the Soviets that the first nuke
wasn't a fluke.

The first was a simple bomb to shock the Japanese, the second was a
effectively a field test of a different type of nuke.
The first one was a simple, ineffecient but reliable design that basically
involved slamming two subcritical masses of uranium together. Fairly sure
that it would work.
The second was much more risky design involving compressing plutonium very
precisely to increase neutron density enough to start a chain reaction.
There was a risk that this would not work as it pushed engineering to it's
limit. Bad idea to use it as a message, as it happened it was a very
effective message.

But if it hadn't worked, surely they'd just keep schtum about it, and
try again another day.
--
Roland Perry