david_carnell

Now you've stumped me. I have no idea. And obviously some people find maths very easy because they're wired like that yet they find PE very fustrating. And there are those who find the reverse. How do we judge worth? Or difficulty? I genuinely don't know but I think we need to try. Edit: and just for the record, I have no problem with woodwork. I love woodwork. I do an evening class in it and am in awe of the skill of cabinet makers and carpenters.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes d_c I did think that someone might pull me up > on that for it being a great leap. > > I am not denying that to be a good engineer (and > am agreed about the lack of them in the UK), there > is a necessity to have decent grades in > academically important subjects such as maths and > science. What I was trying to say (not very well > I grant you) was that being good at those subjects > does not necessarily enthuse or inspire pupils to > take up such careers in the first place. Agreed - a passion for a subject cannot be taught by rote. A good teacher and exciting practical lessons can help tremendously. > In some cases of course it may but you cannot > under-estimate the value of practical activities > that help people to see their connection with > maths and science. So if vocational subjects were > deemed not as important, we may not get the > benefit anyway. I think the key is that they should be seen as supplementary rather than of equal weight. > I was also trying to point out that it was perhaps > a case of some vocational subjects holding greater > value than others, for example, I would be > dismayed if someone studying 'customer service' > skills expected that to be weighted the same as a > subject such as english or maths. Agreed - as would I. See my earlier post. There is a clear and obvious hierarchy of "worth" although we persist in deluding ourselves to the contrary. > Literacy and numeracy are vital - as said above by > others. But there are equally good practical > subjects out there too. Some people are better at > the purely academic subjects; some people better > at vocational stuff; some people work well > choosing a mixture of both. Again, agreed. A mix of subjects equates to more well rounded characters. And people should be free to follow vocational subjects if this is what they excel at. The chances are that passion should lead to an apprenticeship to learn industry skills. But the government is failing to help provide these where they are needed. > Look at home ecomomics. I feel so old saying this > but back in my day that encompassed: food & > nutrition theory (yay), practical cookery, > textiles & fabrics theory, practical sewing (ugh), > making and mending type stuff. Now many people > may view that as not quite as academically > important as sciences, languages for the > economy/job market. But I can think of plenty > small (artisan if you like) food and drink > producers, bespoke hand-made products being > artfully produced by small businesses. So > whetting people's appetites in some subject from a > young age is pretty useful. That's a good example - and I think home economics is a vital subject but perhaps where I differ from you is that I think it's vital for turning out decent citizens rather than artisan craft workers. The inability to cook decent food from scratch leads to further, expensive social problems down the line. Also, and this pains me, Quids is bang on the money (no pun intended) with his idea to teach personal finance. I can do a quadratic equation but have little idea how a mortgage works. That's an appalling state of affairs in the teaching of maths.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But what if young David is top of the class in his > academic subjects, but happens to enjoy CDT, and > becomes inspired by it? > > You seem to be making this about academic subjects > for clever kids, and vocational for thick kids, > and it should just be about having the choice. > > Having said that, there clearly will be those kids > who don't excel academically, and yet work just as > hard on their vocational subject as the geek who > got the A* in maths, English, and all the > sciences.. Why should they be told that their > effort isn't worth as much, and what sort of > message is that sending them in to the world > with? > > "Work as hard as you like, you'll always be second > rate". Otta - you're trying to second guess my thoughts and getting it wrong. I have no problem with schools offering a diverse range of subjects, both academic and vocational. In fact I think it should be encouraged as it will be more likely to turn out well rounded pupils. Clearly some children will thrive at some subjects and struggle at others. But I just struggle with the idea that all subjects are of equal worth and merit and should therefore be given equal qualifications. An A* in Chinese or Maths or Chemistry is demonstrably more "difficult" than one in Media Studies, Hairdressing or Woodwork. I'd like to see that recognised either through a thorough reworking of the exam system. It doesn't send the wrong message to pupils at all. Yours on the other hand - that all subjects are equal and valued as such by the outside world - is merely deluding children until the moment the step outside the school gates and discover that media studies equates to a hill of beans compared to their friends with a science a-level.

It's taught at Harris girls, I believe. Katie - ill come back to your points shortly.

Katie. All good points except the idea that, not being much cop at academic subjects, young David does his woodwork course and finds great satisfaction from making things. All good stuff. To then leap to him taking up engineering (a profession Britain woefully lacks) because he likes making stuff is simply too great. And I agree we need to teach customer service skills to those who work in those roles. But putting on your clothes te right way round, smiling and being polite and helpful do not require a qualification. And anyone saying otherwise in the education world is good winking our youth. You can learn all that in a week on a shop floor.

I was suggesting that people taught critical thinking maybe more useful to our economy, disagreeing with your suggestion, than those who can knock out a well turned table leg - but you clearly missed that point. And whilst I agreed with El Pibe, I don't remember anything being taught at GCSE to a level sufficient to allow a school leaver to possess the skills or processes beneficial for the economy. A good reason to continue some form of education till 18 perhaps. I'm still not sure how a GCSE in a vocational subject should be of equal worth to one in a foreign language or maths though. We need vocational skills, for sure, but our economy isn't going to be built on them in the same way it was 50 years ago. Those jobs simply don't exist in the same way. So why give them equal merit in education?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for the not belittling individual users, I > though that was your hobby!! Cheek. ;-) Well, one or two maybe....

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree that teaching history should be more about > teaching critical thinking, but at GCSE it most > certainly isn't it's just rote learning some > shallow narrative essays. > Perhaps a more important subject these days should > be 'reading the internet' with a particular > emphasis on not believing all the crap you read on > the internet. I agree with all of that but I think that is an inditement of the curriculum and an obsession with exams, league tables and parental choice. Teaching critical thinking doesn't equal a good league table place if your syllabus requires listing the definitive moments of the Weimar Republic. On the other hand, you should be a dab hand at discussing this quantative easing malarky. > I can't help but feel the likes of new nexus are a > generational phenomenon who sailed (bored) through > school on a bunch of media studies type subjects > and have nurtured an autodidactic world view > without having previously developed the skills > necessary to critically sift the overwhelming > abundance of information we have to hand. I don't want to belittle individual users but you're right that information sifting is going to become a heightened skill. Whilst books allowed for a more bite-sized approach to learning and mining of data, the near infinite availability of information online does tend to lead to thought becoming redudant. I'm guilty even on this thread of repackaging some of David Lammy MP's words for my own means. But only because his were more eloquent than mine. Accuracy is very different.

Really? What sort of "vocational, hands-on stuff"? I'd be interested to see any stats on the backgrounds of engineers or engineering degree entrants to prove your hypothesis.

I think there are two arguments here that are in danger of confusion. The first is whether vocational subjects should be "worth" the same as a GCSE in a "traditional" subject. On this I'm ambivilent. Perhaps, but if you are pursuing that vocational subject into employment the chances are you will have gained further qualifications or your employer will value whatever other version of a qualification you have achieved. Second, what should we be teaching our children? This is a massive, complex and emotive subject. My t'penneth worth is that vocational skills are of limited use in schools. They are better taught by an employer (in the form of an apprenticeship) who can teach them alongside on-the-job skills to a higher level and to a more specialist level. For society these skills are clearly essential - we cannot outsource plumbing or electricians. But nor are we going to progress as a country churning out schoolleavers with hairdressing certificates. Otta asks why teach history or RE or Sociology? I presume he means why teach those things when only a very few people will become historians, theologians or sociologists. The answer is because you are teaching thought. You are teaching people, or should be, how to think. How to learn from history, the context of events and their implications on the present. Teaching people about tolerance for those of different or no faiths through better understanding of their tenets. Teaching how society functions, how citizenship works and what it means for an individual. These subjects should teach thought patterns, abilities of logic and rhetoric, of syntax and emotional maturity that cannot always be learned inthe vocational workshop. They are of enormous value. The presence of liberal arts in education provides a voice of sanity, of cultural analysis and resistance that business and science do not. The arts are not all pretty rhymes and sunsets, but rife with philosophical, social, historical and economic insights about the modern, complex societies we live in.

Do we need to be training metal and wood workers? I don't mean that disparidgingly, I'm most envious of those are skilled carpenters, cabinet makers and the like. But I do question whether we really need to be training them at school in any sizable numbers. It's not really what the British economy is going to be needing in 20 years time is it? It's a hobby, not an industry. Engineers on the other hand.....

Don't put "CV" or "Curriculum Vitae" at the top. We all know what it is.

MM - Glad you had a good time. I've done London to Florence by train. I can offer the following advice: - Go premium again. We didn't and found wandering around Florence for 5 hours in the clothes we travelled in without having had a shower to be unpleasant. Arriving early in the morning is fab but if you can't check-in has its downsides. - Buy your own food. Much like SNCF, the food on board (considering it travels from Paris to Florence) is appalling and very expensive. Use the time you have between the Eurostar and the onward journey for Gare d'Est to buy bread and wine. - Try and visit Bologna whilst you're there. I much preferred it to Florence and the food is probably the best I've ever eaten over two days. We flew home from there but you can easily do the train in reverse. If you'd like tips on restaurants and sites etc then I'm happy to offer them but I expect you'll be well prepped.

I'm not a hillbilly or a survivalist so I won't be buying it but I have to love the idea of this: Gerber Apocalypse Kit

Trouble is I've never had previous printers installed.....this is the first one. And it won't let me "Add printer" or install drivers due to the spooler not working. It won't start manually either. Didn't get a chance to try everything suggested here last night so may try tonight.

Cheers. Will try these tonight and report back. Many thanks.

Is he?! That's news to me! Bizarre. But yeah - no chance he'll play then. Edit - I've just googled and it's his brother Alesana heading to the land of the rising sun, not Manu. That's alright then.

Thanks. I tried that last night but no luck - even trying to manually start the spooler didn't work. Still nothing.

Prey? Oh dear. The shame.

Hoping some of the techno-rati can help me with this one as I'm at a loss. Bought a new HP printer for my Dell laptop (running Windows 7). Can't install the driver due to the print spooler not starting. Ergo, printer no worky. Have hunted around forums and tech support sites and done everything suggested but nadda. Can anyone offer any insight?

I've got to agree with Alan. England have played the (seemingly) two worst teams in the tournament so far and scraped wins over both whilst not looking fluid or consistent. Three losses in the next three would not be a surprise. But I think that's ok. If we learn from each and progress then the future could be bright with lots of new, promising players being blooded and gaining experience ready for the Autumn internationals against the Southern Hemisphere teams. And we need to make progress fast otherwise those will be truly frightening. Front row looks good although Hartley is not the most consistent thrower from the line out. Useful in the loose though and has calmed his temper. Botha seems to have a good work rate and should play well alongside Lawes when he returns from injury. Palmer needs to improve to keep a place. The back row is competitive. Haskell, Croft, Robshaw, Woods, Morgan and Dowson are all decent but we lack a true out and out 7. Dickson improved things massively with quick ball when he came on at scrum half against Italy. He should start with Youngs dropped. Hodgson has played well enough to keep Flood out of the team when the latter returns from injury. He also has the experience needed for a young back line. Midfield is tricky. Barrit has played well but Farrel's kicking is superb and we need that. When Tuilagi returns it will probably be at Barrit's expense. I'd like to see more of Turner-Hall too. Ashton and Strettle need to see more of the ball but appear to be first choices on the wings. Sharples should be pushing for a place. Foden had a dreadful game and it might be worth giving Brown a full 80mins to show his worth. How did the Saxons do btw?

M&S - you clearly don't know our Rosie! Annette's nailed it there btw. Let us know how well it goes, Miss H.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I personally don't think religion should be > anywhere near politics, but it is. Err....wha? So what, you just can't be bothered to do anything about it? Do you actually agree with this ruling but can't be arsed to care? Well, more than it takes to post here at least? Gobsmacking. Quids - I don't think you're a right-wing nut job. And slinging stereotypes around is something you excel at far more than I do. If you need a label to make you feel better though.... Unsurprisingly I'm with SJ on this one. The court threw out the wacky, human rights based issues in this case (hands up who bothered to read the judgement) and solely said that prayers were not an acceptable element of formal council proceedings. Anyone who wants to prey, do it on your own time. How on earth can that be a bad thing?

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about faggots, mash and mushy peas, followed > by Viennetta? (I've been (un)reliably > informed..) Marry me?

Nothing with lyrics - you'll end up listening to them rather than reading. So instrumental stuff only I reckon. The soundtrack to Bladerunner might work according to your book. Mike Oldfield, Eno, Tangerine Dreams....etc. Classical - go for Brahms, Wagner, Rachmaninov.....the heavier guys as Gary Oldman would say.