Thursday, March 29, 2007

Okay, just one more...


To follow on from the story below, for fans of 80s pop music you can now study an MA in Madonna studies in the US.

And if you can't decide on the course for you then why not go to Luton Uni to study BSc Decision Making!

It would probably take half an hour for each lecture to start as eager students decide on where to sit. And as for course social events... 'where should we go?' 'I don't know you decide'...'no, you decide'... 'no, I insist, you decide' - you get the picture.

But with the intensive training the course provides, within three years you too can be a whizz at making decisions.

Hooray for British Unis! The future is safe in their hands.

Been to 'uni'? Who cares!

Never has a word entered the English language that has made me more disappointed in the Oxford English Dictionary. But now a new word has seeped through British culture and is now in use from every studenty-type with long hair, growing debt and a laziness that would challenge even the sloth.


And that word is... uni.

In 1992, the number of universities in Britain almost doubled, as 38 former polytechnic schools or colleges changed status and names - ending a distinction that had existed for hundreds of years.

Now, you an get a degree from anywhere - the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN), Northumbria, University of East Anglia and a whole host of other 'unis' which have sprung up.

Almost 50per cent of school leavers now attend a university - many of whom go to uni to do what would, 15 years ago, have been a vocational course (see BsC Glass at Sunderland Uni for example) and come out with a degree.

The idea was quite simply ridiculous. The very notion that if we hand out degrees like sweets at a fun fair, we would make our nation more intelligent was, well, just wrong.

With 50per cent of 19-26 year olds now gettng a degree whether from Oxford and Cambridge or from Middle-of-Nowhere uni, there are far too many graduates on the job market.

A graduate used to be able to walk into a well-paid job, employed safe in the knowledge that he or she had had the very best education and was the best candidate for the job. Nut now, Sainsbury's are getting just as many graduates apply to be check-out girls as some of Britain's top companies.

And why? Because a degree is almost worthless - almost everyone has them now. We (and yes, I am a student) spend three or four years shielded from the real world living off state and parental handouts to get our degrees but, after three or four years of partying/studying (delete as appropriate) we are no better prepared to go out to work.

There is little to distinguish between people academically as governments try year on year to put more and more underacheivers into Uni simply to pad out their statistics - all the while making a bigger and bigger profit on student debt.

Surely it is time they realised that, in order for the cream to rise to the top, there needs to be more stringent selection and we need to stop handing out degrees in Celebrity Studies and, yes it does exist, BsC David Beckham.

Universities offering opportunities for only the brightest young students? What a novel idea, who'd have thunk it? And technical colleges offering good, useful vocational courses - why, by George, I think I'm on to something here!

Monday, March 19, 2007

Funny news for the hard of hearing...

Ah, Stanstead Airport!

Quite possibly one of the most painful traveling experiences you're likely to find - the queues, the security checks, the waiting... not exactly a stress-free way to travel.



The mainstay of the departure lounge is of course 'anxious dad' - the stereotypical man who sits watching the departure screen to see what gate to go to. GO! GATE 85! RUN! FOR GODS SAKE... RUN! 85! FORGET YOUR BAGS, GOOOO! he screams as the gate number pops up, still at least half an hour before the plane actually boards.

Usually, watching anxious dad brightens up my waiting experience as I chew on my jumbo toblerone (well, you have to really) in the departure lounge. But today I found even better amusement - courtesy of Sky News.

As i watched the screens, i noticed a subtitled Sky News bulletin and keen to see what was going on in the world - besides anxious dad and that stubborn bit of toblerone stuck in my teeth - I watched.

But what I read on screen as Eamon Holmes (or whoever) read the news was pure comedy.

Speaking of the notorious Kensal Green Tribe muggings on the London Underground outside crown court, the subtitles read:

'They asked people for their mobile phones. And when people refused they resorted to threats of violence - often with knives or sisters.'

That's right - SISTERS!



Trying my best to stiffle the laughter I continued to watch as the subtitle machine made a flurry of comedy errors one after the other.

I'm sure you can imagine, come to the Freddie Flintoff story, what the subtitles translated 'pedalo' as...

Monday, March 05, 2007

Move over Jamie Oliver!



If only they taught that in schools!

BBC spit out their dummy

A short entry today you may be relieved to hear - I have a presentation to give on Wednesday and it is about as complete as a Virgin TV channel package.

Today it was announced that the BBC was finally allowed to reveal the contents of a key document in the cash for honours enquiry.

'A cover-up' the BBC call it. John Snow announces it on Channel 4 news and many others see a victory for the BBC, with the story surely being carried in many of tuesday's papers.

But whilst the BBC may gloat and present this as a victory, it is something far short of that - it is downright childish.

Revealing it is not, surely. Afterall, it is one of their main functions to peel back the veneer of government spin and present us - the public - with all the facts. But when this flies in the face of the law it is something quite different.

The Attorney General postponed the reporting of the document by taking out an injunction against the BBC. This may scream cover up, but in fact, he is well within his rights to do so. Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act allows "the postponement of publication of a report or any part of a report to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice" (yep, still haven't pawned my law textbook!).

The case is sure to go in front of a jury, and reporting on vital evidence would no doubt have an effect on potential jurors. Some may argue that any trial is a long way off and any potential juror would have forgotten the report by then.

But the case is now so famous that reports such as these would lead many to the presumption of guilt on the part of Ruth Turner - resulting in what could only be seen as an unfair trial. Afterall, it is a pillar of the British justice system that someone is held innocent until proven guilty.

So for all its gloating and declarations of victory, the BBC is misrepresenting the ruling as it was (and is) nothing more than a fair and accurate use of the law, one that upholds a key principle of our justice system.

While the BBC whinge about 'cover-ups' and Government having one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, they would be wise to read the law and realise that no, in this case it really is one rule for everyone and surely they should be big enough not to spit the dummy out when it's used against them!