BBC let something slip through today
 

In article ,
says...


I'm aware of that from the University side of things. An increasing number
of students have started to assume "We pay the fees so we should *expect*
to pass the exams with good results." The thinking being that the main
responsibility is on those teaching to ensure they pass. Not on the student
to learn.


On the other hand, not everybody teaches a subject in the same way,
which can have a marked affect on how easy or otherwise the student
finds it to absorb and understand ...


--

Terry

BBC let something slip through today
 

In article ,
Terry
Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...


I'm aware of that from the University side of things. An increasing
number of students have started to assume "We pay the fees so we
should *expect* to pass the exams with good results." The thinking
being that the main responsibility is on those teaching to ensure they
pass. Not on the student to learn.


On the other hand, not everybody teaches a subject in the same way,
which can have a marked affect on how easy or otherwise the student
finds it to absorb and understand ...

Even harder to decide for the students who didn't turn up for most lectures
in a course. And whose handwriting sic seems to be an unearthly script
for which no Rosetta Stone has yet been discovered. :-)

In practice, though, variables like the above tend to be approached in
terms of the overall statistics and having others of the staff doing things
like sitting in lectures, cross-checking material, marks, discussions in
their tutorials, etc. I can't speak for every uni. But my experience is
that for decades the lectures/tuts/labs were all ranked by feedback, from
students as well as staff, and the person giving the material expected to
show they'd deal with relevant comments and outcomes.

Also, for something like a first degree you can expect a range of courses,
some optional alternatives, and are then judged overall. Indeed, usually on
the 'best results'. So the marks from the worst exam results for a student
get ignored. Just as courses that statistically return oddly high or low
results tend to be checked and questioned by other staff.

But, yes, no single approach or teaching style will suit all students. Just
as teachers vary. Ditto for ability or interest in each specific topic.
That's why something like a first degree generally involves a number of
staff and courses, plus all the cross-checks and so on.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC let something slip through today
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'm rather more "alarmed" by the way the rich and powerful exploit their
ability to dodge taxes or manipulate the papers, polticians, etc, into
letting them hide their behaviour and make use of the poor as a diversion
target. I suspect this costs us far more - in both money *and* social
terms

Yes, it seems that you're right, from the figures now appearing.
However, it look like there's some tightening up going on. This
morning's lead story in the Times concerns Google's tax affairs!

I've seen that. I've also seen staff abuse patients. The reality can be
that people behave badly at times of stress.
And their baseline behaviour is often pretty poor. Some of them just
aren't socialised.
However, when I was leaving the hospital on Mar 9th having just been
told that my wife had a 2% chance of survival I was, I have to admit,
less than courteous to a car park park attendant who was concerned that
my vehicle was not entirely within its allocated rectangle. But never
mind. I'm sure the man will, with time and therapy, recover...

Particularly if mental illness
is a pre-existing factor. And some medical staff can be arrogant and
uncaring, if only as a reaction to cope with deathly worries all around
them.
I think some of them are much too big for their boots. And some of the
auxiliaries are appalling. I had cause to write a letter of complaint
after I took father for an eye examination. The woman who was doing the
basic eye test treated him like a farm animal. She was meanwhile having
a shouted conversation with her mate in the next booth about the merits
of various Spanish resorts.
Having said that, our experience has been 99% good.


Of course, a central problem with these people is that they lack
intelligence, and in particular social intelligence. That's why they
can't hold down a job, and that's why they don't know how to get the
best out of those who are trying to help them.

The problem with discussing this is the way it vanishes into vague and
sweeping categories like "these people" which allow the Daily Hate and its
owners to shove as many of the poor into such a bag as they can.
Well yes, but we can only speak from our own experience, and since we
aren't social scientists we are bound to generalise. It's pub talk
really isn't it? But I accept your point.


And IIUC most of the "poor" do have jobs and tend to work long hours.
That's very true. Funnily enough I've recently been involved with a
couple in their 40s who are living with her mum. It's unsatisfactory.
There's a house for sale across the road. They could have it for £90k,
and he's good at DIY so I reckon he could make something of it. Both of
them work, there's no chance of kids, but they are in low paid jobs and
they simply can't get a mortgage. Yet you couldn't have a more genuine,
hard working pair. We tried all roads to get this set up. If they rented
the house for a while would they eventually be able to get a mortgage,
when they can show that they are financially responsible? No. It seems
ridiculous that two hard working people can't get on the housing ladder.

I
think they is also true for most on benefits. How intelligent they are, I
don't know.
From much experience working in council flats and prisons I can tell
you that there's a preponderance of low intelligence types. Not
dreadfully low, just not all that brainy. The ones who would have been
in the C and D streams at the secondary modern I attended. There are
also a few who are seriously thick, often couples who have met at
special school. They are generally nice people and absolutely harmless
(although they breed). Then there are the ones who are as bright as a
button and have either been very unlucky or very foolish (failed
attempts at criminality, failed businesses, etc). And of course the ones
who have a crippling mental illness that simply prevents them
functioning in society. They can be very intelligent.
All the above reinforces your concerns about generalisation of course.

Incidentally, immigrants are underrepresented in social housing. I
suspect anyone having the chutzpah to change country probably has a bit
of drive!

Bill

BBC let something slip through today
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:


Even harder to decide for the students who didn't turn up for most lectures
in a course. And whose handwriting sic seems to be an unearthly script
for which no Rosetta Stone has yet been discovered. :-)
Do they still do handwriting? I thought it was compulsory to submit work
on line these days?

Bill

BBC let something slip through today
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'm rather more "alarmed" by the way the rich and powerful exploit
their ability to dodge taxes or manipulate the papers, polticians,
etc, into letting them hide their behaviour and make use of the poor
as a diversion target. I suspect this costs us far more - in both
money *and* social terms

Yes, it seems that you're right, from the figures now appearing.
However, it look like there's some tightening up going on. This
morning's lead story in the Times concerns Google's tax affairs!

Possibly. However my impression of earlier such "campaigns" to have more
taxmen chasing 'dodgers' is that they go for the easy targets. i.e. They
focus on sole traders, self employed people working from home, etc. Those
who can't afford to have a big team of lawyers/accountants and who may
simply cave in to demands and assessments for more tax. This looks good
from the government POV as they can say that "There have been X successes
in getting more tax". But many such small fish may come no-where near what
might be obtained from a few very large companies *if* the effort was made.

Private Eye have been asking HMRC/Treasury for details of their 'successes'
in getting in tax from those the revenue think have been dodging. The
responses essentially show cases settled out of court for tiny fractions of
the sums involved. Essentially no big cases taken though a court to a
verdict. Although the PR puffs try to give a different impression.


Particularly if mental illness is a pre-existing factor. And some
medical staff can be arrogant and uncaring, if only as a reaction to
cope with deathly worries all around them.
I think some of them are much too big for their boots. And some of the
auxiliaries are appalling. I had cause to write a letter of complaint
after I took father for an eye examination.

I could relate examples like a consultant who laughed in the face of
someone who was explaining they'd had problems leading to a recent suicide
attempt. Causing the patient to storm out in distress... and make another
attempt within a week. The driving reason for the attempts was the feeling
that things were hopeless, and that the medics, etc, didn't understand and
couldn't be bothered to help.

It really was disgraceful behaviour, unforgivable for a consultant who was
dealing with such matters. I also know of a case where nurses simply
ignored one patient *repeatedly* walking over to a bed and hitting another
patient in the face.

In both cases it was reported to GP and hospital. For the first case the
response was the predictable short term of "gardening leave" followed by a
return to post. Dunno about the second. But you may have noticed that even
when a medic is "struck off" this generally is only for a short time. Then
back seeing patients. The public seem to assume "struck off" means
permanent. But that often isn't so.

But, like yourself, my experience is that *most* people in the NHS do a
decent job given the circumstances. The real problem is that the system
wears down people and they can lose any real sense of compassion or
empathy. Or simply be too tired and busy. On top of this, consultants and
managers who play power-games. More interested in internal 'politics' than
the patients. The outcome is poor treatment, delays, missed opportunities,
etc. These probable do more harm in total than the really bad behaviour of
a few. Just that some examples of bad behaviour are so spectacularly
alarming or shocking.


I
think they is also true for most on benefits. How intelligent they
are, I don't know.
From much experience working in council flats and prisons I can tell
you that there's a preponderance of low intelligence types.

Well, I did live in a council flat for about 20 years. :-) So I may be
biassed. My experience was that many lacked education, but I didn't see a
"prepondrance of low intelligence". I can't comment about prisons.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC let something slip through today
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Even harder to decide for the students who didn't turn up for most
lectures in a course. And whose handwriting sic seems to be an
unearthly script for which no Rosetta Stone has yet been discovered.
:-)
Do they still do handwriting? I thought it was compulsory to submit work
on line these days?

Certainly was handwritten here up until the last exams I set and marked a
couple of years ago. One advantage of handwriting is that it can be used
later to check who actually wrote the answers.

However courses that require an essay or report to be handed in did/do
expect printed material. Potentially easier to read, but also easier for
the student to do things like lift sections from elsewhere or have someone
else do it for them!

Alas, some students still seem to have no idea of any need for paragraphs,
page numbers, sections, etc. But others did excellent reports.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

BBC let something slip through today
 

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 11:31:48 PM UTC, Max Demian wrote:

ISTR that 'prudence' was a favourite word of Gordon Brown's, and see where
that got us.

Saying and doing are very different!

BBC let something slip through today
 

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


The other trick is to split the treatment, possibly by not telling the
customer, so that more charges can be made. That way, the dentist can
make a
lot more money with separate session when all of the work should have
been
for the top payment.

The charge is for a COURSE of treatment. It makes no difference if the
course is completed in one visit or spread over a number of visits.

What you are saying is tantamount to fraud ...

No, it's 'monetisation'.

--
Max Demian

BBC let something slip through today
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Alas, some students still seem to have no idea of any need for paragraphs,
page numbers, sections, etc.
Are these things still taught in schools?

Bill

BBC let something slip through today
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Well, I did live in a council flat for about 20 years. :-) So I may be
biassed. My experience was that many lacked education, but I didn't see a
"prepondrance of low intelligence". I can't comment about prisons.

I'm sorry. I re-read that and realised I hadn't written what I meant.
There are lots of hard working clever people in social housing. But
there are the others...
Incidentally I was brought up on a council estate.
Bill