Big Brother

[Patmobile]

When I wrote, "...the members of...", I meant, and should have written, "..those members of...". 

Yes, possibly I have been influenced by conservative commentators, but not by the Daily Mail.  I didn't even read it when I worked for Associated Newspapers, and once got severely bollocked for tossing my free daily copy directly into the bin. 

I knew, from the way he writes so passionately and sensibly about education, that Dick could not be one of the teachers to whom I was referring.  I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

It surely is true, though, that many of the ideas about education that have hindered, to say the least, the improvement of educational standards in Britain, have come from influential groups within the  teaching profession itself. 

Patrick

[Dick Smith]

That only makes sense, Pat, if you buy into the completely unproven hypothesis that education in the UK (or anywhere else) has 'gone backwards'. It hasn't - all the measurable outcomes are positive.

I'd like to see one evidenced example of the teaching profession hindering the improvement of educational standards? Except, perhaps, manifestly failing in teaching critical thinking.

[Patmobile]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

Exactly. The idea that education is a way to improve one's life chances is becoming rather quaint in the eyes of many. Not all, yet, fortunately, and rather less so in ethnic minority groups.

[/quote]

Might that not be because of the dumbing down of standards, so that some academic qualifications qualifications are seen as being virtually worthless?

Patrick 

[Dick Smith]

Now you are back into Daily Mail rubbish.

I assume you are talking about Media Studies et al?

It's fairly simple.

• Studying to degree level has many positive social and financial outcomes.
• There are many students who have the capability to study at degree level who do not. Many of these are working-class or from ethnic minorities.
• A major reason for that is that they come from families who have no experience of Higher Education. For proof of this look at the very high proportion of students on high-prestige and later-life-benefit courses in law and medicine whose parents also studied those courses.
• Social justice and economic commonsense suggests that something is put in place to help those students with potential to equalise their position with regard to those from education-rich middle-class families.
• That is now done (the programme is called Aimhigher - I run it in my school). However, the process is still hard - although these students have lots of potential they don't always gain high grades or find it easy. They haven't got the advantage of knowing how the system works, for example.

• Courses in media studies etc. provide an entry route into undergraduate courses, where of course it is as much the process of self-development that is important as what is actually studied - see comments about law and medicine.
• Therefore the courses so derided by the educational experts of the Daily Mail (non-graduate readership btw) actually provide a bridge for non-HE-family students to move up in the world (a very valid olde worlde phrase), the hope and expectation is that once they have 'joined the system' their children will study for more academic degrees or vocational qualifications such as law or medicine.

Not as simple as a Daily Mail quote, though...

[Deimos]

I've not seen it, only the excerpts on the news. I would wonder why a government subsidised channel is providing a platform to such behaviour, then when the problems start start justifying it as starting a "valuable public debate". I do think that if Channel 4 cannot raise it's level of programming a bit then its ownership and effective public subsidy should be "changed"

[quote user="Dick Smith"]What scares me is that Jade Goody represents so much that I have spent my professional life trying to overcome! She is unintelligent, unrepentantly ignorant, crude and unpleasant and she becomes a millionaire and widely admired by other unintelligent and ignorant people who now believe that you don't need to work or improve yourself to be successful you just have to distill all of your negative characteristics and display them as often and as loudly as possible.
[/quote]

I totally agree (though it is not something I have spent my professional life trying to address).

[quote user="Dick Smith"]I read that Carphone Warehouse's sponsorship of BB was worth £3 million! However, I imagine that will be partly made up for C4 from the phone votes which will now increase in number as people take sides.
[/quote]

C4 have now announced that the profit from the phone vote charges will be given to charity - which presumably means they want a bit of positive publicity to try and calm things.

I have only ever caught a few moments of Big Brother by accident and it is rubbish. Sort of sad that so many people find it stimulating - when there is so much more to life. Totally confuses me how somebody can become a celebrity through just "being on TV" (i.e. no talents, no abilities, done nothing worthwhile, etc. - just being seen !!). I suppose it make quite a contrast with the original days of Channel 4 when they made some better quality stuff - and this just shows how things can slide.

Ian

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

edit - I've just had a look at the discussion 'elsewhere' - I'm glad to see they are keeping up their reputation for incisive comments, social integration and logical thinking...
[/quote]

At least they don't seem to feel the need to make snide comments about what goes on on here.... Gosh, it only seems like yesterday that they were being applauded by another poster on this thread for having a thread about BB when it appeared to be the feeling on here that it would just be too controversial.

 

[Dick Smith]

Not by me, they weren't! That's the forum where I was insulted for 'knowing things' - says it all, really.

The point Will was making was that at one time this forum was capable of running robust and honest discussions with a minimum of moderation. Nowadays...

[Hoddy]

In defence of Media Studies ........

at least people who have done such a course will understand something of how heavily edited and manipulated the programme is.

Hoddy

[Will]

Yes Dick's got it right. As it turned out, the first BB post here was made by a moderator, and instantly removed by the same person for unknown and probably irrelevant reasons. So it turnedout not to have been 'moderated' in that sense after all.

I am not really bothered what they say on the other forum, and would certainly not want to appear snide by commenting on its quality, I was just saying that it was the sort of discussion that we used to enjoy here, so that was really a compliment to the other forum.

Anyway, we now have our own BB discussion, which is attracting a lot of the 'usual suspects' and staying good humoured (at least last time I looked, but it is Friday, and the alcohol may come out this evening) so the original comments have been overtaken by events.

[Unknown]

I have watched most of the BB and CBB shows, though half the time the celebrities on these shows are hardly that.  I find them addictive viewing. 

The process of locking up 10 or 12 people, confining them to a limited area for a period of time, then watching them form friendships and enemies is very interesting to me.

It amuses me, when folk say, 'BB I have never watched that load of c rap.'  How can you form a real opinion of something and make a statement like that if you have never seen it?

I don't understand why folk blame the likes of Miss Goody for being a bad roll model, why do parents allow their kids to watch these programmes if they are so bad?

Why do we get into such a tizz over some brainless, rude, ignorant, multi million heiress, because that's what she is.  I kind of get the feeling there are quite a few green eyes out there.  We, the public make these so called celebrities who they are, so why are we giving them a hard time for something we have done.

Of course this is just my opinion, I'm waiting for the sticky stuff to hit the fan now.

[YCCMB]

Sorry, but if we're so clearly operating on a higher intellectual plane on here, then could I ask why it would appear that my brief comment on this thread seems to have proved rather difficult to read?

Dick, I didn't say you applauded anything on another forum. I clearly said "another poster"

Will, I said that another poster (you) "applauded" the the other forum. I believe that's similar to a compliment, isn't it?

I'm pretty sure that both of you, given your obvious intelligence, knew which bits of my post were directed at whom.

[Will]

I worked for the Daily Mail group too, and never read it. We didn't get free copies in our bit of the empire, but even if I did it would not have cured my irrational hatred of the nasty little paper and the attitudes it conveys.

I do find it bizarre that people can apparently think that things only changed for the better in education - though in a lot of cases that is perfectly true. More equality of opportunity (for those who take it), less bullying (by staff, not by fellow pupils) and generally a better learning environment are some improvements. But I did not receive a university education - when I could (or should) have gone it was still unusual for somebody from my own social background to go on to further full-time education (it was even out of the ordinary to go to grammar school, as I did). Yet does that mean I am badly educated or ignorant? I don't think so. When I see what current graduates actually know, and can do, it doesn't stack up too well. And I'm not talking about media studies, politics, sociology, sport studies, art history or any of the sort of degrees mocked by the Daily Mail types. I would expect a recent English graduate to wipe the floor with me when it comes to language and general knowledge, but I am sorry to say that is not the case. Compared with my eight GCEs, they, with their BAs and second class honours come across as just plain thick.

Sorry to say so Dick & Co - I cannot believe standards have really dropped that much, but I do have to say that the value of a degree must have at least changed, if not actually fallen, even if only due to the fact that nearly everybody seems to get one whereas it was just the top 5% or so in my time.

Not really Big Brother related, I know. I do endorse what Dotty says, the actual tedium of what goes on inside the house is not really the point. The interest is in the reflection of the human condition, or perhaps what the human condition is becoming. I think one of the most telling things of this series of BB is that fact that Ken Russell (an even older generation) and Leo Sayer (an actual contemporary of mine on the south coast in the 1960s) walked so early on. They couldn't cope with being dragged down to that level.

Edit - thanks Betty. I probably read too much into your comment rather than failed to read it... [;-)]

[Dick Smith]

Why have so many people now got degrees, discuss!

Firstly, a lot of people who were fully capable of degree level study never got the chance. True of Will (and me to an extent - I went for a teaching degree, which was pretty much the media studies of the time) and many others - I could show you dozens. The equivalent people now stand a much higher chance of being educated to somwhere nearer their potential. That, I suggest, is good. Current thinking is that closer to 50% of people are capable of undergraduate-level courses (although many would be vocational equivalents) and that is a current educational target. Incidentally misrepresented on several occasions by the Daily Mail...

Secondly I think that a lot of degree work is 'easier' in that it is less formal. That doesn't mean that the important part, which is training in higher-level thinking and operating skills, is in any way diluted. There is less emphasis, in some areas, on formal skills. This is partly due to specialisation in degree courses. At one time a journalist would have read English, history, P&P or similar. Now many read journalism, or print and media studies - verging on a vocational study.

Nowadays, if you want to show any distinction, you have to take a second, academic, degree.

So yes, the meaning, if not necessarily the value, of a degree has changed to reflect changing work and societal patterns.

[Patmobile]

This thread moves so fast I'm already a page behind!

Actually, I meant that perhaps the pupils themselves, and their parents, regard the qualifications as having little worth.

That's why they all want to be "celebrities" rather than pass any exams at school, or go into higher education.  This is how you get the underclass - ultimately, they are not convinced the schools can offer them anything useful, - and the responsibility for that rests with.....?

Patrick

[Dick Smith]

Yes, Pat, we've heard it all before. We go into work every day for pretty low pay in difficult circumstances in order to reduce the expectation and life chances of the kids we teach. It's a kind of anti-vocation.

Tell me, is the weather nice on your planet?

[Patmobile]

No, Dick.  I'm living on Earth, same as the rest of us.  I hardly dare to say more, since you do seem to take any comment as personal criticism.

I left the question hanging, hoping for enlightenment, not to be told I'm a silly boy and should go and stand in the corner.

Patrick. 

[Will]

Pat - don't know about wanting to be celebrities, but one thing I have noticed is that nearly all school and college leavers seem to have the idea that they will go into 'management' (whatever that is - it often seems to involve working as a glorified shop assistant). The idea of taking a normal job and progressing to be a proper manager seems quite an alien concept.

I suppose there's no harm in being ambitious, but being in charge of the software counter in Currys or whatever doesn't seem much of a goal in life.

Nothing to do with BB or celebrities I know, just an observation based on your previous comment. I don't blame Dick for defending his profession, it does come in for a lot of stick and often gets blamed for things that in my opinion should be the responsibility of the parents.

[Dick Smith]

There you go again. You make slighting statements, with no substantiation, against an entire profession, and then revert to silly school-jokes when confronted. Surely that is the sort of behaviour that most of us are complaining about in BB?

And be honest - it wasn't a question, it was a statement, it wasn't left hanging, it was aimed.

And who called you a silly boy, then? Putting words and attitudes into other people's mouths, now? The old straw man pose? Always the refuge of - well, fill in your own description.

Actually, Pat, it makes me really angry that you feel you can badmouth an entire profession and then try to escape any responsibility by weasel words.

Now how about a sensible response? Like some proof of what you say.

[Zak Dingle]

Phew! Forget big Brother, there's plenty to observe here.

best regards

Zak

[Dick Smith]

It's what we like to think of as robust...

[Patmobile]

Dick,  I have not bad-mouthed a whole profession.  And not you personally either.

Actually I am convinced that you are an excellent and dedicated teacher.  Can you accept that not all teachers are as good or as dedicated as you?

Could you find it possible to accept that sometimes even good teachers don't achieve the best results because they are mistakenly using methods that don't work as well as they might?  If teaching could be made more effective by using, for instance, testing methods that seemed to work reasonably well, would it not be a good idea to use them?  

As for proof, even the most rigorous scientists will sometimes accept empirical results as reasonable proof. 

I give you the young Jade Goody and a multitude like her.  You are a teacher - this is your challenge, to turn this material into something better.

Patrick

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Patmobile"]Actually, I meant that perhaps the pupils themselves, and their parents, regard the qualifications as having little worth. That's why they all want to be "celebrities" rather than pass any exams at school, or go into higher education.  This is how you get the underclass - ultimately, they are not convinced the schools can offer them anything useful, - and the responsibility for that rests with.....?

[/quote]

... with the presently popular belief that fame and money should be handed to you without you having to do anything difficult - such as study for (and worry about) exams, exist on a shoestring while you get your degree, work your way up in a company or trade by starting in a junior post, working long hours and studying. Working hard to achieve an ambition - as opposed to appearing on a reality tv show or going out with a footballer - is not respected by a sizeable slice of the British population. And I do not believe that is anything to do with the teaching profession. It probably does have something to do with parental role models and attitudes.

[Patf]

Just be careful about what you say about Jade Goody and her education - she's written a book and it was in the best seller list for a while! Pat.

[Catalpa]

Have you heard of ghost writers, Pat?? [:D] But that may highlight what I was saying above... who the hell was buying the book? Jade wanabees?? [:-))]

[Beryl]

[quote user="Patmobile"]
I give you the young Jade Goody and a multitude like her.  You are a teacher - this is your challenge, to turn this material into something better.

Patrick
[/quote]

But teachers are fighting against everything else! Sure one teacher may  for a variety of reasons be able to reach a particular child and inspire them but for every teacher that the child meets to do this is unrealistic and it is not anyones fault.

Moreover, very often teachers standards and moral codes are very high, the background that the child comes from may not be, this teachers have to tread very carefully.