How boring are those curling stones matches at the winter olympic ?

[redgunamo]

But that's not true in my experience. Yes, my LSE degree was '89-92, but the history OU BA and UKC MA were in the last decade.

All my OU tutors were sound as ****. One did his BA, MA and PhD at Oxford and Cambridge and came to the OU cos that's what he believed in. Another had a couple of books and had done a couple of BBC docs about the slave trade.

The WW1 section of my Total War course was controlled by Annika Mombauer, one of the top experts globally on the Fischer Thesis and the organiser of the 5`0th anniversary conference at the IWM in 2011, and one of the 4 experts in the Brit Library debate on the centenary of WW1. {She was on the sensible side along side Gary Sheffield.} I spoke to her after both events.

My UKC tutor was one of the country's very top experts on WW1 - book published by CUP as the post-grad handbook on the BEF on the western front. He got into it as a ten year old and had just spent his whole life studying WW1.

And none of them would have been for sale to the highest bidder. They were all into it for the pwoppa academic reasons of just objective historical understanding.

I know what you read in the press about these former Polys doing anything the Chinks want etc.

But the idea that all academics are like that is just silly. As I say, all the ones I've studied with have been the complete opposite. And I spent a lot more time than the other students talking to them cos not only did I have all the free time cos I don't work, I was generally the brightest in the group and therefore the one they enjoyed speaking to.

In short, I've spent loads of 1-2-1 time with most of my tutors and they are exactly what you'd expect of an honourable British academic. I would trust their academic integrity with my life. {Just like they trusted me when occasionally I'd tell them some assumption about India would be wrong cos they knew I knew what I was talking about and would be objective in my analyses.}

But you can't say all academics are like that just cos some of them are.

Cider is lush. I've started using it instead of white wine in creamy recipes, just cos a can of cider is cheaper than a bottle of wine.

With mussels etc. Or the glw's invention that I cook, fresh spag with scallops and prawns in a cider, cream and garlic sauce with fresh parsley. Or a chicken casserole with cider, cream and chicken stock, with leeks, shallots, shrooms, spuds, pancetta cubes etc.

What I like about cider is you can get the tramp stuff I drink at 7.5-9% - for crusties too poor to afford Spesh {back when it was the real recipe at 9% before Cameron ****ed it up with his 4 units per can limit.}

Or you can get normal, Strongbow style. Or the sweeter Irish ones like Magners and Bulmers. Get a can/bottle and raise a glass to Arsenal having the most successful of seasons.

Sounds like you've been had, successfully distracted from the pursuit of the important things in life; making some money, finding your girl, raising a family. Your kin become the living embodiment of your "workings"; the world can actually observe them so you don't feel the need to have to explain yourself all the time.

[Peter]

Sounds like you've been had, successfully distracted from the pursuit of the important things in life; making some money, finding your girl, raising a family. Your kin become the living embodiment of your "workings"; the world can actually observe them so you don't feel the need to have to explain yourself all the time.

The problem is that these academic pursuits were only valuable, in a personal sense, because of their exclusivity. Free high education kept the numbers down and kept out the riff raff. So a degree in history, or art, or the history of art marked one down as superior.

When they brought in tuition fees and lifted the cap on numbers, everyone could go to university. So now you're in a crowded market with an army of sociology graduates.

What started out as the noble training of young gentlemen is now a product- the keys to a better life. And unfortunately, for that life to be 'better' there can only be so many keys.

The student life as we knew it is gone. And with it, slowly, those subjects of pure academic virtue- history, philosophy, literature etc. It's all vocational subjects now- accountants, computer scientists, lawyers, engineers.

[redgunamo]

The problem is that these academic pursuits were only valuable, in a personal sense, because of their exclusivity. Free high education kept the numbers down and kept out the riff raff. So a degree in history, or art, or the history of art marked one down as superior.

When they brought in tuition fees and lifted the cap on numbers, everyone could go to university. So now you're in a crowded market with an army of sociology graduates.

What started out as the noble training of young gentlemen is now a product- the keys to a better life. And unfortunately, for that life to be 'better' there can only be so many keys.

The student life as we knew it is gone. And with it, slowly, those subjects of pure academic virtue- history, philosophy, literature etc. It's all vocational subjects now- accountants, computer scientists, lawyers, engineers.

Yes, people do think awfully highly of themselves nowadays. I blame New Labour.

What was your first proper job? I was a kitchen porter, un plongeur basically, at the John Radcliffe in Oxford. On Sunday mornings when there was no nibs about, you got all the bacon and eggs and tea you could manage. Lovely.

[Peter]

Yes, people do think awfully highly of themselves nowadays. I blame New Labour.

What was your first proper job? I was a kitchen porter, un plongeur basically, at the John Radcliffe in Oxford. On Sunday mornings when there was no nibs about, you got all the bacon and eggs and tea you could manage. Lovely.

Cleaning betting shops for Mecca Bookmakers.

Three shops a night, two hours work, 90 quid a week. Cash.

I loved that work.

It certainly is New Labour's fault, but then there is a certain justice in the democratisation of higher education. Why should the rest of us pay to allow the top 2 or 3% to spend three years on a subsidised ego trip?

It was, if you'll pardon the phrase, a middle-class rip off.

[redgunamo]

Cleaning betting shops for Mecca Bookmakers.

Three shops a night, two hours work, 90 quid a week. Cash.

I loved that work.

It certainly is New Labour's fault, but then there is a certain justice in the democratisation of higher education. Why should the rest of us pay to allow the top 2 or 3% to spend three years on a subsidised ego trip?

It was, if you'll pardon the phrase, a middle-class rip off.

Very droll.

That's the thing; you never really know if it's all about envy or is it simply about ruining things for everyone. And for money, of course.

In my experience, people who have worked their way up to privilege and wealth are even more sticklers for correct form, protocol and "aristocratic" behaviour than even royals.

[Peter]

Very droll.

That's the thing; you never really know if it's all about envy or is it simply about ruining things for everyone. And for money, of course.

In my experience, people who have worked their way up to privilege and wealth are even more sticklers for correct form, protocol and "aristocratic" behaviour than even royals.

Yes. What used to be known as 'pull the ladder up'......

I dont think it is envy. It was the accepted route to success because it is what the well to do did. 'Getting to university' was seen as the goal. It meant you had arrived. Achieved something.

And in the old days, you had. Because entry requirements were set high to manage demand, not to ensure students were able. Meeting those requirements meant something.

But what happens when everyone else arrives at the same time? The advantage is gone. You're now 30 grand in debt.....

I've always wondered why airlines dont create a worse product than economy. As soon as economy is an upgrade on something, it looks more attractive....

[PSRB]

Yes. What used to be known as 'pull the ladder up'......

I dont think it is envy. It was the accepted route to success because it is what the well to do did. 'Getting to university' was seen as the goal. It meant you had arrived. Achieved something.

And in the old days, you had. Because entry requirements were set high to manage demand, not to ensure students were able. Meeting those requirements meant something.

But what happens when everyone else arrives at the same time? The advantage is gone. You're now 30 grand in debt.....

I've always wondered why airlines dont create a worse product than economy. As soon as economy is an upgrade on something, it looks more attractive....

Ryanair?

[Peter]

Ryanair?

Ryanair go out of their way to seem **** but the basic product- the seat on the plane- is no worse than a British Airways on similar routes.

I love Ryanair. But then I am entirely self sufficient at airports and at getting to and from them. I dont want services. I dont need help. And I dont need a smile or a kind word.

Just let me on the plane and land it where it is supposed to go. I can do the rest. 30 quid each way

[redgunamo]

Yes. What used to be known as 'pull the ladder up'......

I dont think it is envy. It was the accepted route to success because it is what the well to do did. 'Getting to university' was seen as the goal. It meant you had arrived. Achieved something.

And in the old days, you had. Because entry requirements were set high to manage demand, not to ensure students were able. Meeting those requirements meant something.

But what happens when everyone else arrives at the same time? The advantage is gone. You're now 30 grand in debt.....

I've always wondered why airlines dont create a worse product than economy. As soon as economy is an upgrade on something, it looks more attractive....

Right, but the concept of getting to university was always the preserve of people that ordinarily had no business going to university. Anyone who should be there could afford it, without subsidy.

It's probably not New Labour after all, rather the "democratisation of higher education"; Democracy itself even. I mean to say, if you tell everyone their vote, and therefore their opinion matters, they are bound to get ideas, aren't they. Simply asking for it, stands to reason. All the really old nations, the ones that have been around the block of history many times already, remain unconvinced by the "right to vote". They know it will ultimately turn out to be just another scam on the poor, to keep them quiet.

If working class folk felt useless unless they studied, going to uni just made them even more useless as they couldn't even be convincingly, plausibly working class anymore. Who goes to Cambridge only to be satisfied fixing roofs for a living, despite that being decent, honest, wholesome work.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Cleaning betting shops for Mecca Bookmakers.

Three shops a night, two hours work, 90 quid a week. Cash.

I loved that work.

It certainly is New Labour's fault, but then there is a certain justice in the democratisation of higher education. Why should the rest of us pay to allow the top 2 or 3% to spend three years on a subsidised ego trip?

It was, if you'll pardon the phrase, a middle-class rip off.

It was about 10% when I went to uni in '89. And it was socially mixed. Lots of working class Scousers etc at the LSE when I was there.