26 Sep
Otherwise check out the rest of the site!
10 Sep
Here is the News drinking game:
Take any programme which is supposed to be the News (BBC is for those not wanting to drink much, ITV for a fair bit, Five for quite a lot). Get ready for shots of any drink you fancy. One shot for whenever the presenter wears a garish tie; big numbers appear almost out of nowhere; the journalists making almighty alliterations in their reports; the report ending on some bad pun (two shots if the pun is accompanied by a bad visual metaphor); when the anchor has to have a sudden intake of breath and change or character when they move from serious news to light hearted news and so on…
The News in many ways does seem to be dumbing down. Whilst it’s fair to say the type of news covered is different from the News at 6 to Newsbeat to Newsnight in each of them you bear witness to an influx of relatively recent changes. There’s increased focus on getting random members of the public to air their views. Do they represent the public? No, they represent themselves, and even then not very well. So instead of being provided with facts and analysis we’re presented with opinions, and usually ones that don’t add anything to the report.
What’s also worrying is how the footage used to accompany the report seems to be so vaguely tied in to the story that it provides not additional benefit for the viewer. What’s even worse is when the story itself seems to change just so that a piece of footage can be put in (if you ever change the nature of your academic essay just so you can put in a ‘cool’ fact or in joke you know you’re going to do badly).
What’s also strange is how the graphics department is getting even more creative. With the recent airline bomb stories there really is no need to put the world bomb in red letters to make it stand out from the words in black – ‘airline’ and ‘threat’ – I can work out myself that bomb is a bad word without needing it colour coded. And of course there are ever more fancy graphical ways to display the same routine numbers and statistics – you can imagine the excitement they had when the first saw what Excel could do.
Whilst these alterations may make the news more accessible to some you do question whether they also detract from the stories themselves – the big graphics, numbers floating around, puns, visual metaphors and so on. Maybe the best way to make the news accessible is to just explain it well, the best way to make someone interested in something is to explain it in clear and understandable language.
8 Sep
Recently new regulations have meant traditional lightbulbs can no longer be imported into the UK with many (well, one or two who were interviewed on the streets by BBC News) complaining they should have the choice to buy traditional lightbulbs. Choice eh?
Since when do we actually have choice? We’re constrained by the technology available – fairly obvious but if it’s not invented we can’t have it. We’re constrained by what manufacturers choose to produce – numerous brilliant products have been discontinued even though we think they’re better than their successors. We’re constrained by money – we don’t have the money to buy what we want or to then run it as much as we want afterwards. We’re constrained by what we know – if we’re not told about products or educated by what’s good and what’s not we are limited once again (the brilliance of this article is constrained by my Comprehensive school education, a lack of thesaurus and slight drowsiness).
To have our choices limited isn’t necessarily bad though. When we drive we’re limited by pavements and traffic lights, both making it safer for pedestrians and other road users. When we go out into the big bad world we’re (supposedly) constrained by laws of what we can’t do. Rules and laws may hinder the individual but help people en masse by ensuring we know where we stand and are prevented from doing things that may benefit us but can be damaging to others.
So when we pass laws we generally are hindering the few who would have been benefitted in the hope that it benefits the many. There are many occassions where stopping people having choice over there actions is difficult because naturally they want to maintain a degree of autonomy but also potential to change their minds. But whilst it may be difficult to change what people believe and do sometimes it is necessary for the world at large and that is the case when it comes to the environment. There are perverse incentives at play – the rich are the ones primarily damaging the world and it’s the poor, usually in far flung countries, who are suffering. Therefore it’s the choices of the rich – those who usually have plenty of choice at their disposal (and lobbying power to0) – that we most need to constrain. But whilst it may hinder them (although come on, not really with new enery efficient lightbulbs) as individuals it’s much more beneficial for the rest of the world.
Courage to remove people’s choices and change what they can and can’t do is difficult to muster. But if we want to help the environment it’s necessary. And the courage mustered in this instance is a welcome relief when so many other efforts have been frustrated. Long may it continue.
8 Sep
According to BritishDebate.com Birmingham are 11th in the European University Debating Rankings. This means we’re higher than our local rivals Warick and also, amongst many others, Bristol, MIT, Yale, Harvard, Cardiff, Newcastle and Edinburgh.
6 Sep
A lot of arguments, whether in social policy or politics, emphasise the economic rational for making a change. Think of the economic impact of divorce or flexible working. But is the economic argument always the most effective?
There are very good reasons to encourage smoking on economic grounds. Firstly the extra revenues from taxes on cigarettes and smoking producers could cover the costs of treating smokers. Secondly many smokers will die before reaching retirement therefore reducing the burden on the nation’s pension problems because the government can transfer the now deceased pension’s to those who have made it to retirement.
Both arguments in the above paragraph seem to make economic sense – they free up more money thereby diverting problems or meaning something else can have more money spent on it. But both neglect the moral arguments - such as the impact on relatives and loved ones or the difficulties one has valuing health or well being.
Whilst the economic argument sometimes does have its uses it can be overblown too. Sometimes morality is more important than good business practice. To what extent though is another matter.
6 Jul
University is a time where students can figure out who they are and how they do things, without the worry that a simple mistake will result in them being fired. Whilst I appreciate that should alter the way I view some people’s attempts in the Times Herbert Smith Competition I am still left feeling slightly perplexed and, if I think about it too much, saddened.
The question revolves around the class barrier in the legal profession; is it breakable or there for good? Outside the confines of a University competition this debate deals with many students who for one reason or another are excluded from the legal profession and the thought of some of the entrants trying to shatter the barrier is worrying. We’re not only dealing with students who practically can’t enter the profession, for example because of overwhelmingly extravagant tuition fees. We’re dealing with student after student who believes that even if they did pile debt upon themselves they could still not enter the profession; their background would prohibit getting an interview, having a successful interview, or any progression within the profession. We don’t need to just inform, we need to inspire.
And that is what debating is about. It’s not about giving people facts from which they can digest, it’s also the way that you present those facts. Facts can carry gravitas and the conviction of the speaker can make others truely believe what they are saying is gospel. So from watching some of the entrants here are my thoughts on what makes a good speaker:
- Karl Marx can be an interesing platform from which to base your ideas. Using Marx as the reason why your ideas are correct is less clever.
- I’ve come to listen to you inspire me, not to just inform me. Therefore don’t give me an exact audio edition of your script.
- If the issue is on class don’t choose a setting that makes you look like you’re rolling in it.
- If you have to play around with camera affects then you clearly lack confidence in the way you present. You should be modest and humble but that doesn’t deny you from still coming across as knowing what you’re talking about. Plus, if it’s a two button shirt don’t do up both buttons, it spoils the lining.
- It’s worrying if you can’t string your presentation along for more than 30 seconds without having to switch to a new scene.
- They say the most intelligent people lack common sense. But if it says it shouldn’t be more than 90 seconds and yours goes on for 3 minutes, there’s a big problem.
Granted, many of the people I have put as examples here will go on to beat me. Also, I am not the sort of person that this debate needs to persuade or inspire. And I know my performance is neither gospel nor worthy of being on the same level as any of the great speeches in history. Indeed the structure and contect of my speech could have been improved. But it leaves a worrying feeling when so many pe0ple clearly intent on achieving things can make simple mistakes in public speaking. Obama didn’t get to where he is because he’s able to read a script without emotion, so why should ‘advocates’ feel they can succeed the same way?
What I think the competition goes to show is that debating has a step up on the rather dry mooting when it comes to persuading a wider audience. Hence last year a debater won. Fingers crossed this year a debater will win again. But unfortunately for me i’ve recognised another debater who has entered. And she’s actually gotten to IV finals…
But one last thing… I still think hand movements are the shizzle.
14 Jun
Many go to University not because they want to go into academia but because they have some other career aspiration that their degree helps them towards. Many want to go on to help people – through becoming involved in human rights, charities or politics. This ambition can be lost along the way though because of studies.
Whilst studying it becomes very apparent the need to do well in terms of degree marks. Without a 2.1 it’s hard to go into many graduate jobs because so many other graduates are getting those grades too. As a result students focus incredibly hardly on anything and everything that will benefit their degree. If something seems to take time out of something directly connected with their degree then they’re likely not to do it (unless of course it involves socialising which is seen as the necessary rest/play juxtaposition to the work).
The problem with doing a degree though is that when assessed it involves an almost incomprehensibly capable brain to remember all the facts and arguments. Take Law for an example. Reading cases over and over and over means the individuals in each case turn into amorphic souless characters. Students can find it easy to lose empathy with people who are reduced to being a name in a short story. Students started out wanting to help those who had suffered injustice but instead lost empathy with the characters in the cases.
Volunteering, work experience and internships need to be encouraged at University as it’s the best way for students to re-engage with what it is they originally wanted to do. When reading a case it’s sanitary. When out on the streets of Birmingham meeting those who the justice system has failed it hits home the sheer magnitude and reality of the problem.
Granted, many students start at University hoping to do one thing but change their minds along the way. That’s good, but also that’s what volunteering and work experience can help with. They also show not only what we want to do but also what we don’t want to do.
Whilst at University students will make many friends and through inspirational teachers change the way they argue and think. But if we want to make sure that University is valuable in the long term for students we also need to show them just how applicable it is to the real world and their future aspirations. When students graduate with a Law degree their volunteering and work experience will not only show them that the world needs changing but also how they can use their new found skills to do so. And that applies to everyone in every subject.
4 Jun
Do exams really test what we know and can do? Or do they just test to see if we can do exams?
There will be jobs that we’ll go into where we need to know how to work under pressure, how to apply our knowledge and how to structure our arguments. These are skills tested by exams. However it must be remembered that just because someone has done well in their exams doesn’t mean they will do well in their chosen career path. Just because someone got lots of 1sts doesn’t mean they also have the other skills that careers need. These include sociability, teamwork, oral presentation. Exams just demonstrate that someone is capable of doing very well academically, but even then only in exams.
When Oxford University started awarding History degrees in the nineteenth century a number of its professors were concerned with how students could be assessed. If there is no right answer in History then how can we ensure degree marks are awarded consistently?
It seems unfair that in a year of potentially hundreds of different students there is only one method of assessment. One size doesn’t fit all but we try to make it. It would be nice if there was greater flexibility in how we chose to be assessed. But given the lack of funding and academics on campus (compared to the numbers of students) this doesn’t seem viable.
The method of assessment at the moment may seem unfair but seems like one of the few practical methods. If we can’t change the methof of assessment then instead we should focus on how to prepare students for exams. One student once asked what’s the point of writing exams if they were unassessed. It’s for the very same reason that before a final footballers practice pentalties – practice makes (near) perfect. Whilst the content of what you write may not come up in the exams it’s the ability to write that is key. A well structured argument makes points easier to follow.
As such one thing that needs improving at University is unassessed essays and feedback. Students need to know quickly where they went wrong and how to improve. They need more practice at exams and essays.
And finally it should also be made clear to students at the beginning of the year that revision doesn’t start a month before exams. It starts at the beginning of the year, with notes that you can refer to and supervisions that were worthwhile rather than a test of avoiding questions.
The way we are assessed doesn’t show us at our best, but we can do things that minimise the problems of exams. That involves work on part of the University as much as it does the student.
30 May
Many recent political debates normally refer to people’s ‘fear’ of the BNP being voted into office or why they think the BNP is ‘wrong’. Whether or not the BNP, or any organisation or person, is ‘wrong’ is an individual’s opinion. The problem with recent debates though is that the the thrust of some people’s arguments is simply that the BNP are ‘wrong’ without looking in to why they are wrong.
This could actually infuriate the problem. By only saying that someone’s views are wrong without telling them why they are wrong patronises them and does nothing to convince them why your view is correct and theirs is not. This leaves the person holding apparently incorrect views infuriated that they can neither be taken seriously or have an informed debate. It is unsurprising then that so many people are willing to turn towards a group that they believe has some merit when other political parties do nothing to engage with them and dismiss them.
Perhaps the best route to argue is based on what the BNP is in essence. The BNP are fundamentally based around protecting the idea of Britishness and try to define it in a biological-geographical way under Art 2 of their 9th constitution. However Britishness is not based on where one is born. Rather it’s a fluid concept, symbolising an attitude and outlook that has helped this country prosper. One of the reasons why these islands have prospered over thousands of years is partly a geographical stroke of luck – they’re hard to invade. As such a country under less threat of invasion has provided a safe place for threatened people to find refuge in. These people have then maintained contacts from their home countries encouraging shipping and trade routes. Businesses as a result prosper in places where it’s both safe and full of good trade routes. Britain has provided a safe and relatively accepting country of people of different backgrounds and faiths and it is this acceptance that may infact be what ‘Britishness’ is. After all, it is argued, this is one of the reasons why this country has prosperred.
If politicians want to stop people voting BNP their strategy should stop treating them as morons incapable of engaging in arguments. Rather politicians need to engage with the public, explaining why not only the BNP is bad but also why they are better. The best way to do this is to argue what it is to be British and why immigration is not only beneficial but is one of the key characteristics of Britain’s history. The longer that they treat the public in a patronising and condescending way the more likely it will be that their fears of the BNP being voted in will become a reality.
8 May
Lawyers are reportedly discontent with government plans to extend the system of on-the-spot fines and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for criminal offences. However, is the criticism justified?
The measures were originally intended to increase the efficient administration of criminal justice. Fines were imposed in order to deal with small-scale offending, such as drunken behaviour experienced in most town centres on a Saturday night. FPNs were aimed at reducing the burden on the heavily stretched courts system and free up police time for investigation into more serious offences.
The main objection to the measures is that they circumvent ordinary criminal procedure. Offenders are judged to be guilty without being brought in front of a magistrate or jury. As such, arguments have been made that the measures amount to a violation of habeas corpus. Campaigners are particularly concerned at the proposed extension of the scheme to a wider range of offences, further eroding the role of the traditional justice system.
It may be argued, however, that this concern is misplaced. No right-thinking police officer would issue a fine or FPN for violent crime or sexual offences, as protestors suggest. The fact remains that the Ministry of Justice budget, encompassing prisons and the courts service, is simply not equipped to handle every minor complaint across the country. Common sense dictates that certain misdemeanours, such as being drunk in a public place, are best dealt with through the efficient imposition of a penalty. In the vast majority of cases, most people wake up in the morning and realise what a fool they have been when they notice an £80 hole in their wallet. There is no need for them to be brought before a magistrate and involved in the expenditure of public money.
Of course, proper safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the measures remain proportionate and that police officers do not abuse their power in the imposition of penalties. If this is guaranteed, the scheme remains a pragmatic response to the need to balance the administration of justice with the ever more pressing limits on the public purse.
Recent Comments