Nice People 13: Nice Save

GDB2222

PasturesNew wrote: »

I think that's for younger people. Studies have been done in the elderly (I googled it). How will you fare when you're 90? It seems iron supplements, lotions/potions, pills and stuff aren't something that would turn things around.

Yes, I see. I just meant there is some hope, depending on what is wrong, of course. Let's hope for the best.

lostinrates

zagubov wrote: »

In Scotland instead of A levels you did between four and six H grades in one year, and you had to mix literate and numerate subjects. My subjects were English French, Latin, Physics, Chemistry and Maths. I dropped French halfway through which was a big mistake.

When you go to uni at 17 which was the norm back then, but rarer now, you'd join a faculty not a department in the first year, so you could mix subjects from outside your faculty. Makes it easy to change direction if needed. So I kept on English and took up Philosophy as humanity subjects. Very much enjoyed them, although I focused on Biology later.

I suppose this is what the struggle is....the balance between basic education and not stunting enthusiasm and even unbalanced extraordinary ability. Would it have mattered if Chaucer could not have mastered Pythagoras? Or if Faraday was hopeless at English literature and languages? We know Shakespeare's history was, well, perhaps better for a course in politics sometimes. .

IMO the impetus should be to keep children's options broad for as long as possible. But with the best will in the world, if a child is NOT an artist! why put them through an art course. If a child is not a linguist, why an exam in it. ( better frankly, IMO, an immersion course in a summer in there late teens , where they will actually learn conversational language, and some cultural affinity and adult skills rath than exam that teaches them how to ask where the beach is.....for god sake...they could follow their noses for that).

While there should be encouragement for breadth of ability , and its something to be fostered, there is no shame in having a great weighting one way. Of course its good to work on the skills we do not have.....presentation skills for the awkward, prediction skills for those with flair but flamboyant enthusiasm they get carried away with. But its also good to let see how far taken takes us.

I think in an ideal world we would not be forced to specialise till later but have the ability to do so earlier if its clear where our abilities do or do not rest. So long as we can do basic maths and English. ( read tax forms, fill 'em in, add 'em up. )


I purposely kept my choice broad til university, partly because I wasn't sure till the very last minute which way I was going to jump for my university choice. But I hated having to drop subjects I really loved for things I didn't love. I might have done different choices beyond had I not had to make those choices at thirteen about what I'd study at fourteen that might impact on the rest of my life. I'm sure lots of people must feel that way?

lostinrates

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=79

Nikkster

lostinrates wrote: »

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=79

Thanks for pointing it out PN - I even got out of my nice hot-water-bottle-bed to look at it. Then I text my mum to tell her about it as I know she'd like it (I described it as a 'halo' which I see from LIR's link was a good guess ).

There is what looks (from here anyway) like a single star, close in the sky to the moon. I think that might be Jupiter.

lostinrates

I like 'glory '.

zagubov

lostinrates wrote: »

I suppose this is what the struggle is....the balance between basic education and not stunting enthusiasm and even unbalanced extraordinary ability. Would it have mattered if Chaucer could not have mastered Pythagoras? Or if Faraday was hopeless at English literature and languages? We know Shakespeare's history was, well, perhaps better for a course in politics sometimes. .

IMO the impetus should be to keep children's options broad for as long as possible. But with the best will in the world, if a child is NOT an artist! why put them through an art course. If a child is not a linguist, why an exam in it. ( better frankly, IMO, an immersion course in a summer in there late teens , where they will actually learn conversational language, and some cultural affinity and adult skills rath than exam that teaches them how to ask where the beach is.....for god sake...they could follow their noses for that).

While there should be encouragement for breadth of ability , and its something to be fostered, there is no shame in having a great weighting one way. Of course its good to work on the skills we do not have.....presentation skills for the awkward, prediction skills for those with flair but flamboyant enthusiasm they get carried away with. But its also good to let see how far taken takes us.

I think in an ideal world we would not be forced to specialise till later but have the ability to do so earlier if its clear where our abilities do or do not rest. So long as we can do basic maths and English. ( read tax forms, fill 'em in, add 'em up. )


I purposely kept my choice broad til university, partly because I wasn't sure till the very last minute which way I was going to jump for my university choice. But I hated having to drop subjects I really loved for things I didn't love. I might have done different choices beyond had I not had to make those choices at thirteen about what I'd study at fourteen that might impact on the rest of my life. I'm sure lots of people must feel that way?

It seems to me the A level system only caters for those who have an obvious path clear at 16, which is rarer than it sounds. Your future career's almost determined at 16. At least I had flexibility at 17 on leaving school and even the option of switching faculties at 18 after 1st year uni.

There's a move to switch too far the other way via the International Baccalaureate which has an enforced mixture of subjects but lacks flexibility - you couldn't include three sciences in your mix so it's not such a good base for say medical subjects.

vivatifosi

SingleSue wrote: »

Youngest, even when not being stressy, still had his ministry of funny noises going on...by the by, his latest one is shouting 'cheese' at weird and wonderful moments :rotfl:

I hope he won't mind me suggesting this, but in the fantasy land in which I live, I imagine fir standing on a bench in Speakers Corner and doing that.

lostinrates

Hmmm, just seen how many typos in my post. Ironic that 'precision' got lir'd. Rofl.

I must be getting tired.

Shame. Without a broken brain I might have been about to design the perfect education system.....I felt very, very close to seeing a workable solution. Then I started wondering whether I should buy some more cerinthe seeds as have been chatting about that glorious garden must have with davesnave et al this evening.

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

Teachers would in theory have more free periods than in state schools with the expectation that some of their non-timetabled slots be used to offer help to students. Quite a few subjects were taught by 2 teachers, so out of lessons you could find either if you needed help.

Most state schools have about 25 hours of timetabled lessons per week. Full timers teach 20 of them and get 5 off to do PPA (planning, preparation and assessment, also includes report writing, pastoral issues with kids, communicating with parents etc etc etc) on school premises in addition to the (uncounted) hours they spend on PPA in the evenings. Where I teach (independent, as most of you know) our full timers also do 20 hours a week in the classroom, but because our school day has an extra hour of timetabled lessons, they then get 10 hours a week of PPA time on site. Of course, this is not actually "extra" time in any meaningful sense, because the later end to the school day means you are home later, thus squeezing the time available in the evening for doing PPA at home.

We also have two teachers per set for sixth form classes. At present it's easy enough to divide stuff up because A-levels are modular, so one teacher teaches this module and the other teacher teaches the other module. With the new linear A-levels coming in from next autumn, it'll be less clear cut how we split it, and practising on past papers will be less straightforward.

lostinrates wrote: »

There were all the normal tormenting teachers and ...

While of course I accept that there are some teachers who torment students, it's a sad day if we start describing that as normal rather than unacceptable.

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agreed with that post so much that I was banging the table and shouting "yes, yes, yes".

Awww thank you.

vivatifosi wrote: »

That's where the When Harry Met Sally similarities end though.

Errr.... phew! :rotfl:

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I hope he won't mind me suggesting this, but in the fantasy land in which I live, I imagine fir standing on a bench in Speakers Corner and doing that.

I think fir is in a cheese abstinence phase ATM. Sort of getting a head start on spring giving things up period of time.


He is also currently the leader of the gym fitness challenge. Although he recognises so early in the month the chances are he will be beaten very soon. I asked what do you win? He said....your name at the top of the board.

Oh.

I always thought I was quite competitive, but their had to be a reason to be. At the top of a list of people I don't know wouldn't do it for me. I might even flunk it on purpose tbh to keep a low profile.