Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DustyBin]

I'm such a person, I have an engineering degree and post-O-level qualifications in mathematics and physics.

There were no barriers to my progression, but this came with

• Entry to grammar school through entrance examination (1973)
• Free place through local authority examination
• Train and bus fares paid for by local authority
• No university tuition fees (1980) plus means-tested grant
• Tube fares paid by local authority once I moved more than a certain distance from university (1982)
• Supplementary benefit payable during university holidays
• Housing benefit payable as contribution to rent (1983)
• Addition year's tuition and means-tested grant because I failed my exams and changed course (1981)

The problem is, we can't put the clock back. Some was mainly a subsidy to the middle classes which couldn't be sustained either morally or because of vastly increasing university attendance. The abolition of the direct grant system was controversial but it happened and it had its reasons.

I'll also say that I would have progressed without some of this anyway, and it would have been harder without other bits.

So if we can't turn back the clock, what do we do instead? I'm sure I don't know.

This is an interesting post, to me anyway!

I have a BSc (Hons) in a very useful subject that has provided excellent career opportunities. I had to finance my degree (and accommodation etc.) via a student loan, and benefitted from a few bursaries although they weren't much really. I also worked part time to make some money. So all in all it was an expensive experience and involved making some sacrifices, but was always going to be worthwhile. This is the bit I don't get; there's no reason not to go to university as long as you are going to study a subject which offers decent career prospects. If there's a shortage of people studying STEM subjects, I suspect it's due to a lack of interest and/or awareness more than anything. Indeed my own journey through academia reflects this; at no point was I encouraged to study anything science or engineering related, I made the decision for myself!

 

[jfollows]

This is an interesting post, to me anyway!

I have a BSc (Hons) in a very useful subject that has provided excellent career opportunities. I had to finance my degree (and accommodation etc.) via a student loan, and benefitted from a few bursaries although they weren't much really. I also worked part time to make some money. So all in all it was an expensive experience and involved making some sacrifices, but was always going to be worthwhile. This is the bit I don't get; there's no reason not to go to university as long as you are going to study a subject which offers decent career prospects. If there's a shortage of people studying STEM subjects, I suspect it's due to a lack of interest and/or awareness more than anything. Indeed my own journey through academia reflects this; at no point was I encouraged to study anything science or engineering related, I made the decision for myself!

Yes, I've got a lost of respect to people like you who take on the challenge of funding higher education, it's still worth it I'm sure but in comparison to me it's a lot harder. I left university after 4 years with about £100 debt on my credit card and went into a job.
Trying to get back on topic, though, the thing I've always remembered is that the politicians who are imposing tuition fees and the like all used to benefit like I did. It's only really now that politicians are coming through who themselves had student loans and the like - tuition fees were introduced in 1998 for example, and student loans replaced grants. Even back then tuition fees were "only" £1,000 a year, which had only risen to £1,225 by 2007 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_tuition_fees_in_the_United_Kingdom, at which point they increased to £3,000 a year and more in due course. So politicians who paid £3,000 a year and more were students in 2006 or later, and since Rishi Sunak started university in 1998 he may have just been in the very first year of tuition fees. I suspect today's students will mainly say that they dream of "only" paying £1,000/year in tuition fees.

Oh yes, plus you can see from my narrative that there were other "freebies" to students in the past which don't apply now, we all used to "sign on" in the holidays and if we'd contributed by working before being a student (as I had) even got a slightly increased rate of supplementary benefit. Of course the staff in the unemployment exchanges all knew we weren't seriously looking for work, so they played the game too and didn't bother looking for jobs for us either. Plus whereas "real" job seekers had to turn up once a week, we students were generally told not to bother and only show up in person once every two weeks to save wasting everybody's time.

 

[Gloster]

I took my O-Level early, did well (Grade A; boast, boast), moved on to Advanced Maths and crashed into a brick wall. I failed my Advanced O-Level, but still got shoved into Double Maths A-Level as that was what my parents wanted and fee paying schools want to keep the bill-payers happy. I wasted the vital first term trying to cope and neglected my other subjects: when I was allowed to change I never managed to catch up.

What do the great majority need to know:

How to add subtract, divide, multiply;
Percentages and fraction;
Basic statistics and probability;
Simple trigonometry (How much paint do we need? Is the ladder long enough?).

There are no doubt a few other areas that could be added, but the majority of pupils are only going to use a limited range of areas, so concentrate on ramming a competence in these into their heads. Anyone who is interested or looks promising can be given more, but the majority don’t need it. If we had a better apprenticeship or college system, it could be used to top up school teaching with the job specific specialities.

 

[SuspectUsual]

ow to add subtract, divide, multiply;
Percentages and fraction;
Basic statistics and probability;
Simple trigonometry (How much paint do we need? Is the ladder long enough?).

There are no doubt a few other areas that could be added

That’s a solid start, but as has already been mentioned I’d add in some practical applications of it like basic spreadsheet use.

And more than anything, something to give kids a mindset that can validate stuff. Too many rely on a calculator and trust the answer - musk eyes numbers and all - implicitly. I can remember saying to one of my kids when he was maybe 9 or 10 “I don’t expect you to know 19 x 21, but you know 20 x 20 is 400 so if you get an answer miles from 400 you’re wrong, try again”

 

[nw1]

Oh no, Rishi has reappeared and come up with a typical politician's wheeze intended to generate positive headlines about making studying mathematics compulsory (or somesuch) until the age of 18.

Now, I was good at mathematics up to that age, but I didn't learn anything which I would call "useful" in real life after 16 if not before. I mean, differential and integral calculus is interesting and all that, but it doesn't help me with my electricity bills or in Sainsbury's.

That's the thing. Much as I believe maths is a very valuable skill to have, I'm not sure that I would make A-level maths, or equivalent, compulsory for everyone. I did A-level maths a good number of years ago now but like you it was mostly about differentiation, integration, Newtonian mechanics, and statistics. Useful stuff for those who want a career in science or technology, and statistics in a range of professions, but most of it shouldn't, I think, be compulsory for all.

Just a headline grabber aimed at targeting a particular demographic which is drifting away from the Tories, I suspect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2023 ==

He needs a sixth - get the blooming trains running properly. This is a higher priority to me and the economy than boats in the channel.

A seventh, call a General Election for this spring.

 

[yorksrob]

A seventh, call a General Election for this spring.

Yes, that should be 1

 

[nw1]

That’s a solid start, but as has already been mentioned I’d add in some practical applications of it like basic spreadsheet use.

And more than anything, something to give kids a mindset that can validate stuff. Too many rely on a calculator and trust the answer - musk eyes numbers and all - implicitly. I can remember saying to one of my kids when he was maybe 9 or 10 “I don’t expect you to know 19 x 21, but you know 20 x 20 is 400 so if you get an answer miles from 400 you’re wrong, try again”

Of course there's a useful trick for (a-1)(a+1), it's always a^2 - 1 due to expanding it into a quadratic equation. (a^2 -1a +1a - 1). Still remember much of this X years later, where X is way too big. This of course is pre-16 maths, and not A-level; I'd agree with other posters that pre-16 maths is useful in everyday life.

 

[edwin_m]

Well they didn't operate the machinery, plough the fields, pick the fruit, transport the goods, stack the shelves, serve the customers, or drive the buses taking the customers to the shops.

But they did design the machinery, ploughs, trucks, cash tills and buses...

 

[Kite159]

A-Level Maths isn't really that suitable for everybody, instead they should have the option of a basic finance course along with maths for everyday life.

 

[Parjon]

But they did design the machinery, ploughs, trucks, cash tills and buses...

And everyone can do that instead of picking fruit, ploughing fields and stacking shelves can they?

Honestly, I'd expect a billionaire like Sunak to be out of touch as to the labours of the majority of everyday ordinary people, but is it not obvious that the vast majority of people cannot and shouldn't work in "STEM". And therefore that A level maths is a niche need.

 

[brad465]

Someone I know has said they wouldn't be surprised if the Government were secretly paying/urging Prince Harry to keep saying and doing controversial stuff so he keeps getting the headlines, which takes attention away from their ineptness. Personally I think this is very cynical, even as someone opposed to them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Government were at least grateful for Harry's antics right now.

 

[edwin_m]

And everyone can do that instead of picking fruit, ploughing fields and stacking shelves can they?

Well obviously not, but if they didn't have the equipment the stackers and pickers would still be doing the same jobs, just less efficiently.

While teaching maths to uninterested 16-18 year olds isn't a solution to it, we do have a problem with not enough people making careers in STEM. Many that do engineering degrees go off to do jobs in finance, which while remunerative for the people concerned tend to be parasitic on the economy while delivering little wider benefit (and this was Sunak's previous career). Meanwhile there were large numbers of EU citizens doing engineering jobs in Britain, and many are now leaving with corresponding damage to Britain's skill base and exports.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Trying to get back on topic, though, the thing I've always remembered is that the politicians who are imposing tuition fees and the like all used to benefit like I did. It's only really now that politicians are coming through who themselves had student loans and the like - tuition fees were introduced in 1998 for example, and student loans replaced grants.

That's kinda an inevitable thing if the Government decides to make any adverse change that mainly impact younger people: The politicians making the change will be older and therefore have benefitted from the previous situation - which opens them to a charge of double standards. That doesn't by itself amount to a decent argument against the change though: Sometimes, changes that affect people adversely need to be made. I guess the killer argument for loans is that swapping from grants to loans came alongside a large increase in the numbers of people going to University, and that may well have been unaffordable if everyone was still getting grants and tuition paid for. I therefore don't really see the hypocrisy that you seem to be implying.

 

[najaB]

And less cynically, the right-wing press are doubtless prioritising Harry over the government for two reasons: a) more juicy, and b) distracts attention away from a government who they would like to remain in power for the next 5 decades years.

Indeed. If it wasn't Harry v William it would be something else to distract the masses.

 

[Howardh]

For the first time, the wholesale price of gas appears to be below what it was before Ukraine invasion, presumably the government are quietly watching this so any pronouncement of "inflation halved by next year" almost can't go wrong...as long as energy companies buy wholesale at the right time and pass on the savings.

Mitigating factor,s demand is lower due to the excessively mild winter in central Europe, and the cost meaning customers use their energy sparingly?

 

[najaB]

Mitigating factor,s demand is lower due to the excessively mild winter in central Europe, and the cost meaning customers use their energy sparingly?

Yup. Those two factors plus the fact that most European countries were able to fill their storage and Germany in particular has increased their ability to import LNG mean that there's a lot less demand for Russian gas.

 

[Pete_uk]

For the first time, the wholesale price of gas appears to be below what it was before Ukraine invasion, presumably the government are quietly watching this so any pronouncement of "inflation halved by next year" almost can't go wrong...as long as energy companies buy wholesale at the right time and pass on the savings.

Mitigating factor,s demand is lower due to the excessively mild winter in central Europe, and the cost meaning customers use their energy sparingly?

Looking forward to lower gas bills in a few months then...

 

[Howardh]

Looking forward to lower gas bills in a few months then...

The country will feel we're being well ripped off if they aren't. And if energy prices are lower, should be cheaper to produce goods, heat hospitality places etc; so watching those carefully!

 

[takno]

The country will feel we're being well ripped off if they aren't. And if energy prices are lower, should be cheaper to produce goods, heat hospitality places etc; so watching those carefully!

It's more likely to mean that the government can get rid of the energy price support they are currently shelling out to both people and businesses without the prices going any higher. The current energy price caps are pretty close to the ones set in March based on pre-war rises in costs.

It's pretty easy to buy into the idea that the energy market was just fine before the war, and Sunak almost certainly wants you to believe it, but the whole thing has been collapsing for longer than that. We haven't had a meaningful energy supply policy for donkeys years, and the "regulator" spent years building a bubble based on small unviable energy firms charging less than a reasonable long-term cost for energy.

 

[jfollows]

From an email I received today: "More than 60% of voters don’t trust PM to achieve his promise to ‘fix Britain’".

Actually, the figure I'm more interested in, which needs some slight digging to find, is that the same poll shows 24% of voters do trust the PM to achieve his promise. The >60% figure isn't surprising, the 24% figure might be more interesting.

 

[Cowley]

There’s a new thread for discussing higher education funding here now:

How Should University Education be Funded?

That's kinda an inevitable thing if the Government decides to make any adverse change that mainly impact younger people: The politicians making the change will be older and therefore have benefitted from the previous situation - which opens them to a charge of double standards. That doesn't by...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[takno]

From an email I received today: "More than 60% of voters don’t trust PM to achieve his promise to ‘fix Britain’".

Actually, the figure I'm more interested in, which needs some slight digging to find, is that the same poll shows 24% of voters do trust the PM to achieve his promise. The >60% figure isn't surprising, the 24% figure might be more interesting.

Maybe 24% of voters subconsciously added "up like a kipper" to the question before answering?

 

[nw1]

From an email I received today: "More than 60% of voters don’t trust PM to achieve his promise to ‘fix Britain’".

Actually, the figure I'm more interested in, which needs some slight digging to find, is that the same poll shows 24% of voters do trust the PM to achieve his promise. The >60% figure isn't surprising, the 24% figure might be more interesting.

But isn't 24% probably a good approximation to the percentage of the adult population who are die-hard Tories who will always support the party no matter what?

 

[The Ham]

From an email I received today: "More than 60% of voters don’t trust PM to achieve his promise to ‘fix Britain’".

Actually, the figure I'm more interested in, which needs some slight digging to find, is that the same poll shows 24% of voters do trust the PM to achieve his promise. The >60% figure isn't surprising, the 24% figure might be more interesting.

Although even that 24% maybe made up of those of actually trust him to deliver as well as those who are willing to give him the benefit of letting him to try, it very much depends on the question asked and the options for answers permitted.

 

[Typhoon]

The best teachers and lessons I had at school were the ones which made me question things and think for myself, in whatever sphere.

One of the problems I have found in school syllabuses is the tendency to expand them - making them wider, not deeper.

Somewhere previously, I mentioned that I studied calculus for 'O' level at the expense of some Euclidean geometry. So a new area of maths added and part of one removed. We certainly did vectors at 'A' level - that was new because it was new to the teacher! I can't remember when complex numbers came in, matrices came in with modern maths but precious little gets discarded; all of this puts more and more pressure on teachers just to get through the syllabus. One reason for my moving to teaching at FE and, in particular, HE level. Vaguer syllabuses, exams set more locally. I expected the students to contribute more than I did*; by and large students have more knowledge than they realise even if it is just thinking through what they know and taking the next steps on, especially mature students, but are tied down by 'teacher knows best'. I enjoyed having to 'think on my feet'. As I used to say 'Every day is a learning day', and that applied to me as well as the others in the room. Too much of education is students 'learning', much of which is pointless in the era of 'google'; if Sunak is proposing that the 16-18 stuff will look in depth at maths skills which will actually help students in their course of study, fine, but my gut feeling is that it will just be more of the same, with little reason why it is being studied. There needs to be more asking 'why'!


* - I will admit, as course director, tending to teach the modules that enabled me to do that; helped by having colleagues who didn't want to teach them.

 

[edwin_m]

if Sunak is proposing that the 16-18 stuff will look in depth at maths skills which will actually help students in their course of study, fine, but my gut feeling is that it will just be more of the same, with little reason why it is being studied. There needs to be more asking 'why'!

Maths A level is essential for any STEM degree in any case. So this "initiative", if we can even call it that, is aimed at those who will be doing a non-STEM degree or none at all. Surely more logical to put any maths that is thought to be widely useful into the GCSE, and if necessary push some more specialist stuff out of GCSE and into A level?

 

[brad465]

It's more likely to mean that the government can get rid of the energy price support they are currently shelling out to both people and businesses without the prices going any higher. The current energy price caps are pretty close to the ones set in March based on pre-war rises in costs.

It's pretty easy to buy into the idea that the energy market was just fine before the war, and Sunak almost certainly wants you to believe it, but the whole thing has been collapsing for longer than that. We haven't had a meaningful energy supply policy for donkeys years, and the "regulator" spent years building a bubble based on small unviable energy firms charging less than a reasonable long-term cost for energy.

Many of those unviable firms went bust, although Bulb was somehow big enough to get a very large taxpayer bailout, so the questions that needs asking the Government are why they got this funding, and whether the privatised model for a strategic industry is feasible.

 

[takno]

Many of those unviable firms went bust, although Bulb was somehow big enough to get a very large taxpayer bailout, so the questions that needs asking the Government are why they got this funding, and whether the privatised model for a strategic industry is feasible.

I agree. As far as I can see all the "competitive market" in energy supply has ever done for me is given me an occasional small discount (in the years when I remembered to waste a couple of hours a year changing supplier) in return for lack of long-term security and energy price shocks. And the admin.... at least 80 hours over the whole period spent on the phone trying to sort out the mess, after I've been slammed onto a new supplier and the wrong meter readings have been taken.

The more recent Cameron-era just supported a market of moneysupermarket addicts getting below-cost energy from dodgy suppliers, safe in the knowledge that the rest of us were effectively paying for an industry support package when they inevitably went bust.

I like my utility pricing boring and fair.

 

[jfollows]

I like my utility pricing boring and fair.

Yes, the old ways work for a reason I think.
After a number of years fiddling around with direct debits, changing supplier, getting incorrect meter readings fixed, paying administrators after two of them went bust, it's really nice now to have a quarterly bill and two weeks to pay it. Because it's now such a lot of money I put money aside each month, and I can now pay on the last possible day rather than having to post a cheque a few days beforehand, but not a lot has changed.
Mind you, my supplier forgot to bill me for 3Q22 until I reminded them, that could have led to annoyance if I'd ignored it. They got 4Q22 right because I'm paying the bill on Monday.

 

[nw1]

I find the whole idea of competition in energy supply a bit strange.

Some suppliers claim to be greener than others. This is, as far as I can tell, blatantly not the case.

As far as I know, there is not an entirely separate network of green-coloured pylons crossing the country, which is only connected to green sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar etc.

So any supplier which claims to be "green" is surely telling porkies, and the energy you receive will still contain energy generated from Coalborough-on-Trent coal-fired power station as much as any other supplier - because there is only one National Grid and only one local power supply network.

As far as I can see there are actually only two meaningful electricity suppliers, the National Grid and the local electricity distribution company (Southern Electric, Seeboard, MEB, SWEB etc - apologies if those names are no longer current but hopefully you know what I mean), and all else is just smoke and mirrors.

As for billing, I think some robust legislation needs to be put in here. BT overcharged me for months for no apparent reason, which now means they owe me money so have cut their bills to almost nothing for two or three months as a result. Why do they not just consistently charge the line rental plus cost of calls made every month? If they overcharge it looks, to me, like theft, and is surely morally equivalent to fare-dodging - though the law obviously says otherwise.