And the fees race is on... The future of Higher Education in the UK

So, Cambridge University jumps first in stating ALL courses will set fees of £9000 per year (that's approx. 14,500 US Dollars)*.

I can't imagine the Universities who believe themselves to be 'high status' will be far behind (indeed, Oxford has made similar noises).

The logic behind charging the top amount that will be allowed by the new government-set maximum fee?

An internal report seen by the BBC News website argues that to charge any less than the maximum would be "fiscally irresponsible" and would raise doubts about the university's "commitment to excellence".

Oh well, that makes it alright then. As Cloud said last night, "It's the same logic that banks use to justify bonuses: it's the only way to ensure we get the best." Well quite.

Our response to the Oxbridge logic = cobblers.

So much for the Parliamentary idea that "fees of £9,000 will be allowed only in 'exceptional circumstances'" (as said by David Willetts. universities minister) . Watch the Russell Group et al leap to match the Oxbridge stance.

Thing is, it isn't as straightforward as saying that poorer students will be put off going to University (or even from applying to 'good' universities - good for what? good how?). I don't doubt some will be - much as at the moment. Rather, as has been the case since the Higher Education system became something explicitly paid for by students (whether during or after graduation), there will be an increased expectation that - whatever the course - the product (the degree) will be expected to be awarded. And nothing less than a 2:1 will do. The product purchased by all those fees isn't 'an education' but the final classification of degree: as one student said recently to a tutor "I only got a 2:2 mark - what are you going to do about it?"

I don't believe that better teaching cannot be delivered to enable students to do as well as they are able, but this idea that the effort to improve should come entirely from the tutor is surely unsustainable and will lead to a devalued degree system and marking. How will external moderation of marking work effectively? The two-tier nature of higher education has never gone away, but these fee changes will surely reinforce it --- and not in a good way.

I feel pretty miserable about the future of Higher Education in the UK** I wish I didn't, but I do.

* Yes, I know many US Universities and colleges offering higher education qualifications charge this and more.

** Actually, education full-stop isn't looking healthy at present. The whole thing has lurched from reinvention to reinvention since the early 1980s and not much has made the situation better (or at least is still going to survive the cuts of the current government...)

The 'relevant' information for selecting students for Higher Education

Am so hopping mad, I've come on to blog when what I really want to do is check for that still-outstanding email confirmation for Much Ado tickets.

Priorities Lisa, priorities.

Anyway:

I'm going to quote the line that has just wound me up (the rest of the letter from Dr. Kathy Fawcett is pretty much okay, but this particular line made me yell in the kitchen cooking tea)

Universities rightly select the best students on the basis of the only relevant information – exam results.

NO.

No, they do NOT.

Not only are exam results not the "only relevant information", but Universities do NOT select on the basis of them.

They select on the basis of PREDICTIONS on A-levels (and sometimes equivalent qualifications) which are not necessarily based solely on examination results. They also select on the basis of GCSEs (which are often used as a key indicator used for A levels prediction scores - though why, I've never understood). Some more enlightened Universities also look at the context within which qualification achievements and predictions are being gained --- when (inverted commas) "so many" are predicted/achieve top grades how else to distinguish between candidates? I'm not saying all get it right, but...

My underlying frustration is that selection is not on the "basis of the only relevant information – exam results", selection is the thing that comes first to making an offer --- actual places are on the basis of results, but if you're already out of the running at the pre-results day stage, what then???

As another correspondent (Tony Burgess) notes:

Last year we were told that pupils from independent schools achieved less than 30% of the total number of A* grades at A-level, which means that over 70% of all A* grades were achieved in state schools. In other words, well over twice as many A* grades at A-level were achieved in state schools than independents.

Despite this, privately educated pupils, already advantaged by being taught in smaller classes etc, are apparently entitled to almost half the places at Oxbridge. Doesn't research also show, when comparing students with similar A-level grades on entry, that state school students outperform the privately educated at university? There may be many reasons why relatively few students from comprehensives get into Oxbridge, but it is not their lack of ability.

Indeed.

And though I'd like to take the focus on Oxbridge off the table (GOD, it's as if the rest didn't count for anything), proportionality demands that we look at how and why students apply and are accepted at University. If they're being asked to take on the level of debt demanded by higher fees then the least we can do is sort out getting the doors properly open.

It ties up with another long-running bug this household has about 'we select only the best' (and its usually unspoken extension 'and they prove themselves to be so'. This applies for jobs, university places and more.

NO, AGAIN, NO.

Your selections are those that you believe WILL BE the best, based on whatever evidence you wish to prioritise at the offer/selection stages.

Since you (quite obviously) didn't select any of those you DIDN'T choose, you have no way of evaluating whether they would have proven themselves to be as good, worse or better than those you DID choose.

I'm not saying that the system could intentionally choose seemingly incapable candidates to test out the fairness of offer/selection policies - that would clearly be unfair to those candidates flailing to survive, but clearly there needs to be some way of looking again at thinking 'exam results' etc necessarily result in "the best" being chosen.

NO: we are NOT "all in this together". Moreover, the cuts will not "affect everyone"

Can we just nip this utter cobblers in the bud please?

We are NOT all in this together. And frankly the only way canyone can state "cuts will affect everyone" is if you finish it by adding "... but some rather more so than others".

Millionaires: unless you are going to start getting taxed at 95% on your income and assets holding, and the loopholes get closed, AND you get prosecuted for not paying up, then quite honestly your 'fair share' of the burden of spending cuts and tax rises going to hit you negligably - if at all.

So SHUT UP and FUCK OFF.

Proportionately, those least well-off will always pay a higher price for reductions in the state and increased costs.

Questions, Strikes and Benefits: a Rullsenberg Rant

Three areas to exercise my political muscles this evening. The inevitable Question Time debacle; the current postal strike; and the think-tank proposals to scrap universal benefits.

Question Time

QT is many things but it is not a rational interrogative forum for unpicking political party policies, ideologies or public attitudes. It is an arena, not unlike the Coliseum for spectator sport mouthing-off by participants and audiences for the usually non-edification of the viewing public. A sense of legitimacy is lent to all manner of opinion in this faux-serious programme (as Neil Postman discussed, TV is never so dangerous as when it thinks it is being serious). More lightweight panelists are perhaps unlikely to take certain opinions to task enough, whilst simultaneously including more heavyweight participants would lend further legitimacy. Unless I feel happy at throwing things at my TV I suspect I will not be watching this evening, pretty much the same as any other week.

For latecomers to this discussion: a bunch of racist fascist exploiters of white-working class poverty are participating in Question Time. Support 'Hope not Hate'.

Postal Strikes

The UK is a small place. We need and benefit from a national postal system for letters and packages. The Post Office is a fine institution which knows it needs to update its structures, technology and processes.

Unfortunately, it is ostensibly owned by the government (we, the taxpayers) but systematic failures to defend it properly have left it and its employees ragged and bruised. Shifts are too long, involve too much work and place workers under enormous stress. Post Offices are closing, deemed to be economically unviable with little heed to their broader social purpose. One of the failings overseen by consecutive governments was the way in which the company was allowed to plunder its pension pot by reducing employer contributions during the 'good times'. Guess what? We now have 'bad times' and the pension pot is screwed.

I support the strikes, despite the impact it has on individuals because the workforce has been left with few other options. I wouldn't trust Adam Crozier to take care of a pet for 5 minutes for fear he'd be 'modernising' how it looks by losing a few limbs (hat tip to Steve Bell who nails this mentality).

Plus, courier services are SHITE. Whenever a mail-order supplier DOESN'T use Royal Mail, I get a note through saying the parcel is in a safe place. So far these have included in my bin (on a bin-day) and thrown over my garden gate. If you too have had crap service from Home Delivery Network Ltd then do write to them at Customer Services, Home Delivery Network Ltd, Phoenix House, Moorgate Road, Knowsley L33 7RX.

Benefits

Universal benefits may not target those in greatest need, but they are easy to deliver for everyone involved. Means-testing places the responsibility to get what you are entitled to on the most vulnerable of society. It costs to decide whether people meet the criteria or do not. It depends on usually fairly arbitrary boundaries as to what marks a person out as poor enough to deserve the benefit. Sliding scales to avoid immediate loss of a benefit when they earn above a limit only succeed in making the system more complex and costly to operate. And anyway, since when has middle-class been just about income? (That's even before you get to the figures proposed as being a 'middle-class income').

I would argue for the abolition of all targeted benefits - universal or means tested. Instead let us have a guaranteed income, sufficient to cover the sorts of income benefits, housing benefits, child benefits etc etc, and set up alongside it a proper and rigorous tax system. There would be little to gain from 'fiddling' the benefits system - the figures scarcely acknowledge the millions that are not taken up from benefits by those who would probably need them most.

Additionally, any attempts to dodge paying tax on all income above the guaranteed income would be easily visible - loopholes would be highlighted more quickly (and it would be hoped could be closed more swiftly and diligently than any recent governments have attempted).

Think tanks such as Reform look at the cost savings, but I don't think they look enough at the big picture. At the social picture. At how we live alongside each other paying fair taxes on fair earnings. We need to stop ignoring the widening gap between the haves and have-nots and look at makes the situation more even-handed for all. More universality, not less.

A Medicare Rant -- not mine, but brilliantly ranty!

PortlyDyke over at Shakespeare's Sister has given a priceless rant on the topic of the US Medicare system.

It opens with the best defense ever of having a rant:

This is a rant. This is only a rant. For the next few minutes, you will be experiencing a rant. If this were an actual political-action item, the rant you are about to read would be followed by official information, news, or instructions.

Pure Awesome.

A short Rullsenberg Rant: Abortion amendments - now I can go to bed

I have to say that the debates over recent weeks and days about reducing the abortion time limit from 24 weeks have disturbed me greatly. I don't often watch Parliamentary votes, but this was one I felt I had to know before I could begin to try and rest in my bed.

No-one has an abortion lightly. The reasons for doing so are always hard and complex and have social ramifications. Frankly, I don't care how much science can advance the survival rates for a foetus; the limit is now 24 weeks and I want it to remain that and not to be reduced. Taking and thinking through the decision to have an abortion takes time; some, already vulnerable women - exactly the women that the self-same MPs voting to cut the abortion limit would prefer not to have children at all - need more time and support to get to the position to have an abortion even when it is clearly the right thing for all concerned. Making that decision harder, more rushed and more complicated does no-one in society any favours.

I'm glad that the limit is staying at 24 weeks...

Shuggy's reasonable rant

Is it possible to have a 'reasonable rant'? Is that an oxymoron? But how else do you describe a post like this when it may be ranty but you totally agree?!

Dopes

Having spent most of the day immersed in the final Harry Potter (more on which in another post), I have also therefore been conveniently missing most of the claptrap being bandied about in relation to drugs on todays' news programmes. Given that by the time Cloud left for work this morning I was practically screaming at the radio for its nonsensical claptrap, this was probably a good move on my part. [Best line if Cloud hasn't stolen it already, 'Eminem became addicted to sleeping pills because of cannabis': to echo Kate Ashfield "WHAAAATTT?!!!"]

Despite repeated attempts by journalists/interviewers to make a claim otherwise for what the study said, it is NOT the case that if you smoke cannabis once or twice you are 40% more likely to experience mental health problems.

What the study actually said - as far as said journalists/interviewers would allow the authors and commentators to say - was that looking at the group as a whole of those who smoked cannabis (from those imbibing every week, day, hour to those who had had some occasional, irregular or one-off usage), users were 40% more likely to develop some mental health problems. So the impact is averaged out. I would say that suggested that high users were much more likely: a fact that has been well-known for many years, if not decades, and that frankly you'd have to be pretty dense not to have anticipated. Although, there is the issue of whether the propensity of mental ill health comes before the drug use, stimulates the likelihood of drug use, and how it exacerbates the effects of drug use: heck, even the BBC site had to allow them this one -

[the authors] could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug

So my point is this. We're generally getting muddled on cause and effect here. Also, screaming about classification is misdirection. I don't think it was especially smart to change the classification, but it was changed and despite a lot of shouting by all accounts "the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years" despite (any) changes in cannabis usage. I can't find the figures but I'm also pretty sure that cannabis use isn't particularly rising, but what is/may be changing is the type of cannabis generally available.

So, how helpful is the current media attention on this particular study into the existing research on the impact of cannabis use and its association with mental health difficulties? [Note how I'm on about the media coverage more especially than the Lancet's meta-study of existing research].

I would actually say the hoo-ha 'not very helpful at all'. Why? Because it isn't really telling us anything most people didn't already know. Doing something excessively doesn't do you any good. Moreover, the definition of 'excessively' may be difficult to define and could vary across individuals. So it's probably not a great idea to do it at all but mostly the paranoia surrounding an individual's usage is - for most people - going to be much worse than any impact the drug may have. Oh My God! You smoked one spliff! You're obviously now going to be 40% more likely to develop schizophrenia!

Er. No.

The study's public profile has more particularly been linked with the perception/reality that Gordon Brown would like to roll back the Blair government's previous decision to reclassify cannabis. Well, as I have already indicated, I actually think closer review of current figures may reveal classification to be something of a decoy duck problem. Would it be practical to establish particular forms of cannabis as a higher category? Not sure? But if you can't split it - and my sense is it would be a 'mare to do so for all regulatory and policing bodies concerned - then how would raising back up the classification help? Would that discourage (young) users? I don't think so.

Mental health difficulties cause incredible pain and distress to those experiencing them, and to the people around them. I have no wish to dismiss just how painful that can be. But it seems to be a gross misuse of statistics to lay so much blame at the door of one drug and to scaremonger the public's perception of its impact. Having seen first hand the negative impact of any excess on the people around me - cannabis, alcohol, tobacco - I would never allow anyone to think that I am blase about the effects of such habits. But what I do rail against is indiscriminate use of statistics to make crappy soundbite points about such a serious issue as the overall mental wellbeing of human beings.

Rant over.

Feminism, blogging and the art of saying no

Here's the thing: some weeks ago - and thanks to the vagaries of net provision, working hours and sheer idle ineptitude on my part it has been weeks - I wrote a forward hinting post regarding feminist blogging. It was prompted by Amanda at Pandagon's thoughts on the topic and was subsequently reinforced by Ilyka's Pandagon post about women saying no. Back then, I indicated that these had spurred some thoughts in me and, whilst they're probably no longer that interesting, I thought I had better post them. It's not as if they can become irrelevant or out-of-date, but merely that events have overtaken things somewhat and other topics are pushing to be written about (not least of which, Daleks. Go figure my logic in that prioritising...).

Anyway, here I am presenting the musings that were originally pondered some weeks ago, first written some weeks ago, had a troubled gestation period during which Joe prompted for its posting, needed some serious editing for coherance, and which - in a neat twist - found an interesting echo in Lynsey Thomas's piece in the Guardian for Saturday 28 April 2007. So, with some updating, here are my thoughts:

***

The original prompt for Amanda's post was a male blogger writing about his response to and wish to engage with the feminist blogosphere [scroll to second part of his post]. And yes, I know, that term 'blogosphere' isn't well liked or accepted, but lets let that one go for the moment. Anyway, his gist came down to him wanting to read more personal narratives, the day-to-day engagement with feminism, rather than more theoretical, ideological, distant analyses in the vein of political writing. The strict binary that his remarks suggested exists is problematic in itself of course since rarely are sites an either/or. Amanda Marcotte's valid risposte was that whilst there was some legitimacy in seeing personal narratives as more engaging and illustrative of contemporary women's relationship, debate and their living with feminism, writing about issues from the personal perspective presents its own difficulties. One of these comes with the perils of blogging, its openness to comments from all and sundry and how certain topics can be almost guaranteed to set off some vile commentators. The example Amanda talked through was around pornography, but it could easily have been around any number of other topics. I'm a pretty small scale blog, but sometimes - as any trawl of site visits and searches can reveal - you can easily draw the ire and some seriously nasty comments on all manner of subjects.

In such an overheated atmosphere, even presenting the personal angle around particular debates such as porn can spur barbs and torments that overshadow the positive responses. Seasoned blog veterans may be able to brush the worst vileness away - or at least convince themselves they are unhurt by it. But smaller-scale blogs may find themselves stung. It can be less painful to be less contentious, to be less emotionally open about issues affecting our lives as women. How often do we hear phrases like "you're taking this too personally" in response to a criticism or comment made, especially when the implied or explicit suggestion is that any expression of feeling is clearly too much feeling?

As Amanda goes on:

... the thing to realize is that when we're intimidated away from telling our stories by the abuse and sexist stereotypes, we've been deprived of feminism's best rhetorical weapon. Stories are how people link the personal and the political, which is why our political enemies are hell bent on depriving us of those stories.

Of course, as she concludes, "... the telling stories thing is easier said than done". Perhaps this is why a number of explicitly feminist blogs do focus on commentary on current events, activism and/or ideology; to engage otherwise leaves them open to (accusations of) vulnerability or the dangers of writing purely personal confessionals that do little other than lay out the difficulties of life without considering the tangled motivations - both social and personal - as to how and why those difficulties arise.

The thing is that whilst I read several collective and feminist orientated blogs (Pandagon is just one of them), I am personally drawn to those blogs which rarely explicitly cite the concept of feminism but which are inherantly engaged with feminism. The very issues that challenge women in day to day existence; that force the politics of daily life to the foreground; that demand feminist awareness even if the word is not used.

Interestingly, something I have occasionally done is go through posts I have enjoyed reading and save the text, annotating it where it engages with debates key to feminism and its discourses. Whether it is around how we dress, how we work, our responses to representations of women on TV, our relationship to our bodies, our ways of dealing with emotions (bereavement, pregnancy, being single, being in a relationship, being angry, being happy) --- all of these engage with core debates from feminism. Dressing for whom? For the pleasure of whom? are you comfortable, or agonisedly on display? Can we get the time off we need to deal with family crises, caring duties? Why are the caring duties largely women's anyway? What about how work deals with male involvment with caring? How seriously are workers taken if alongside caring they also want to advance a career? What if we do/do not want to advance our careers? What should our relationship to work be? How do we deal with the behaviour of those above us? [I'm noting here the age-old debates about female dominated work environments and female bosses being rarely devoid of the same difficulties as mixed-sex ones - including why women bosses are often seen as harder, often more unsympathetic, or unable to be heard over male voices]. And that list just raises issues arising from the first two topics. But what those questions highlight is that it doesn't have to be an overtly feminist blog to be engaging with feminism or usefully contributing to feminist discourses. The debates of feminism are everywhere in the lives of women (and that also goes for those who actively disavow feminism as irrelevant to them - sadly, that would include many of the students I encounter).

Anyway, in a round-about way, thinking about what feminist blogging would, should or does like, also drew me to Ilyka's aforementioned post on 'saying no'. For surely one of the ideas underpinning both Amanda's post and the responses it drew in the comments box centres on the socialised difficulty of women saying 'no'? To be able to say 'no', to be able to express our discomfort - with porn for example - involves dealing with so many ingrained attitudes which historically have been socialised into many women that it can hurt to even confront the possibility of saying no. To be able to recognise our own feelings as ones which need us to say no, and then to actually say it.

Ilyka wrote:

I’ve been caught in the first trap, the fear of saying “no,” dozens of times–someone close to me asks for something they don’t particularly need (or don’t particularly need from me, specifically); I hesitate just a second too long; having hesitated, I then get anxious, because now it looks like (dear heavens!) I might have been thinking of saying That Word; and so to cover up for it, I shower the other person in an effusive “yes.” Yes, of course! I only paused for a second because [some bullshit reason].

But I’ve been caught in the second trap even more often, where I unthinkingly say “yes,” and only afterwards let my real feelings bubble up to the surface, and realize, “I don’t want to do this. I should have said ‘no.’”

I wouldn’t be too surprised if incidents like that help shore up the women-can’t-make-up-their-minds trope, either, because there have been occasions on which I’ve reversed myself just in time, just at the last minute, to say, “Wait–I meant ‘no’.” What looks like indecision or flightiness to an outside observer, though, is actually delayed recognition of feeling on my part. It isn’t that I have suddenly and arbitrarily changed my mind; it’s that I didn’t bother to consult my mind in the first place.

I think this is a powerful demonstration of why we need feminist debates, feminist ideas, experiences, to be presented and explored and considered. But it is not without difficulty, and it is one I feel quite powerfully. Emily Jane writing in the comments to Ilyka's post remarked that "socialization... teaches us to undervalue women's time and commitment". In being 'giving' of her time, in saying 'yes' to every event and activity, she actually made herself undervalued by colleagues; now she does none of the extra activities or tasks, even those she previously enjoyed doing to help others, but she has now got the respect of her (new) colleagues.

Whilst part of me wants to cheer for her new-found respect in having learnt to say no, there is another part of me whose heart sinks at how this perpetuates the need to be ruthless in order to be taken seriously. Is there not a way in which we can learn to say 'no' sometimes without abandoning others to their fate, usually failure (who the hell would read exams to a blind student if someone doesn't say 'yes'?). Perhaps part of my desire to engage with the debate of 'saying no/yes' comes from my own struggles with the action. It's a contradiction born from the fact that saying 'yes' can often mean not being taken seriously whilst saying 'no' can sometimes cut us off from the very positive actions with which institutions and individuals should engage. Can there really only be one way to 'be' successful in the world? Does it have to always mean trampling, not accommodating, not helping others?

Ultimately of course one of the reasons why the 'saying no' debates is important to feminism is that often it is bound up with subjugating what we want to please other people: the idea of 'everyone else ahead of ourselves'. Whether we like it or not it is often perceived as a feminine trait; correspondingly it then becomes a feminist debate. Lynsey Thomas doesn't mention feminism in her piece in yesterday's Guardian Work supplement, but when she writes about her deep-seated and life-long (destructive) desire to please others and make then happy, I not only recognise something of myself but also mentally added my usual feminist debate annotations to the article. For the crux is that in saying 'yes' we often succeed only in making others happy: whilst that can provide second-hand happiness to us, the effect it can have on our self-esteem and therefore on our ability to ever say 'no' can be immense. Once the habit of saying yes is there, how can we achieve a comparable happiness in saying no since that at least suggests the probability of making someone unhappy? For women to learn to say no successfully is hard, and part of that is around how saying no is perceived. Responses to a woman saying no often fall into either "that's hard", as in unfeminine [negative sense] or a desexed sense of respecting being "appropriately tough on others" [positive sense]. Can there only be self-sacrifice or the sacrifice of others?

What we have to do is learn to live with ourselves, but also recognise that we have to fight to change the systems that rely on us saying yes and exploit our guilt when we say no. That means challenging assumptions that a well-placed 'no' does not make us arrogant and mean (pace Alix's comments in Ilyka's post) and that systems of work which demand, say, unreasonable flexibility need to change for the good of everyone (not just the person put under pressure to say 'yes').

And it also means we have to think about why saying 'yes' rarely stimulates the need to expand on why we say yes, but saying 'no' will almost always demand an explanation as to why, an unburdening and justifying of the action (as per thinking girl's comment in Ilyka's post). What we have to learn is to be comfortable in our saying no as well as yes, and to recognise where the difference between the two may demand changes not just in ourselves but also in the world around us.


I'm done. I can't even think straight to edit this damn post no more. Was it worth the wait?

[Apologies for typos, blogger spell-checker keeps wibbling]

The Writer's reply: Michael Bywater

For those who don't always get chance to read back over old post comments, you may like to know that Michael Bywater took the time to respond to my rant!.

In other news, this writer is feeling a bit tired after being woken at 5am by a grumbling fire / smoke alarm. Not a battery one; a main-powered one. Apparantly it thought we hadn't tested it enough recently so beeped at us. After removing the battery from the nearby battery-powered one and not resolving the problem Cloud investigated the other. We think it is now resolved!!!

Growing Up, Growing Old: A Rullsenberg Rant

ARGH! Michael Bywater!

I can't even begin to express how cranky this piece made me yesterday, not least because of its inconsistencies.

It's not all bad. For example, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are okay. 8, 9, 10, and 12 have merits. 11 presents an uncomfortable possible truth that maybe even undermines my own railing against the piece. 23 is very apt in a world where Jimmy Carr is deemed suitable for a Front Row focus on Radio 4. Urgh. And as for Kirsty interviewing Madge: I know it has political ramifications but really, isn't it an excuse to have celebrity at the forefront of debate? And 24 and 25 have a positive idea within them even if they are - ironically - rather childishly phrased (yes, the words we use ARE important: that's why I want to scream at the "political correctness gone mad" crew; yes, excuses for 'surveillance are to be thwarted, though I think phrasing this as "Hide" doesn't help articulate this as a rational adult argument).

Equally, 27, the idea of "commensality" promotes the valuable idea that eating is public is unnecessary and should be dropped in favour of eating with family and friends. I can't disagree with that, except to say that the basis for the circumstances that urge people into eating in public (longer working hours, managing lunch-breaks etc) maybe deserve a more thoughtful analysis than provided here. 28 and 29 I have no problems with, although 30 does raise some problems less to do with the idea - "Demand - and display - good manners" - than with the manner in which the list that is given after it creates a litany less effective than its individual parts ...

Still, those were the ones I more broadly agreed with. The others got onto my less-than-happy radar...

Firstly, example 1: Pro-autonomy. Seems fine on a superficial glance. But am I alone in thinking this smacks a little of "you should not depend on anyone for anything"? Which seems only a snapshot away from sounding a tad like community/society is a myth propagated by lefties who believe in (horror, horror) helping and supporting other people. Not a route I wish to go down.

How about example 3: "Don't be affronted". Again, seems superficially okay, expecting the world to conform to your world view has proved the basis of many a reactionary ideologue. But scratch at it and you come to the idea that getting angry about things, wanting to change things, is itself a bad idea. I am affronted by the daily acceptance of poverty, of talking about human beings as if there was a 'deserving poor' and an 'undeserving poor'; as if to get help you have to be 'worthy'. Presumably, by Bywater's stance, being angry and wanting to talk about the basis of such ideas, wanting to change those attitudes, is immature. Erm, no actually. It's called humanity.

13 and 14 present some problems as well: "Do not love yourself unconditionally." Well, I think his emphasis is on the 'unconditional' element rather than saying 'do not love yourself'. At least I hope so, because [a] if you can't love yourself how can you expect others to do so? and [b] I'm in favour of good quality self-pleasuring. Anyway, back to Bywater. "Unconditional love is for babies and comes from their mothers [emphasis added]". Urgh. Okay, bit retrograde for a start in identifying mothers (and not, say, fathers, might have a role in this. And surely it relies on the idea that mothers inherently give their children unconditional love. Am sure that all those mothers who have felt ambivalence and struggled with post-natal depression or even difficulty of loving their child at all will feel greatly reassured by Bywater's statement. Obviously they are damaged and not normal and socially inferior. Yeah, your remarks are gonna help them a lot.

And as for 14... Whilst saying "Self-hatred is a problem too" is fine, that he continues with "But rather too much self-hatred than too much self-love" suggests that I wasn't too far wrong to question whether he was emphasising the word 'unconditional' in his attack on loving yourself. I don't get it. How can self-hatred help anyone? That too has often been the basis for damaged people hurting themselves and society. How does this help?

How about 15 and the dismissal, even despising, of "Desiderata". Whilst I personally find the 'verse' a bit on the syrupy side, a bit too 'Hallmark' for my liking, there are a number of elements that articulate wise suggestions. It also seems at odds in a piece about how people should 'grow up' that he should take against a verse that says "Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth." Has Bywater actually read "Desiderata" recently or is he just working on old memories? Okay, the idealism of the hippies hasn't prevented some catastrophic managing of the earth. And the idea of the "universe unfolding as it should" rather suggests passive acceptance of the status quo that I find unsustainable. But seeing ourselves as part of the wider eco-system of life and universe doesn't seem so unreasonable. Surely it has been humanity's lack of consideration for the planet and prioritising of our own needs that has brought earth to the brink of potential eco-disaster that we now face. A little more care for seeing ourselves as just one element of the universe - instead of (God's) special creatures with inalienable rights (to bear arms/plunder natural resources) - might just help humanity survive.

Let's take 16 and 17: "Ignore fashion". I've been reading Marjorie Garber's collection of essays "Quotation Marks" (picked up from the LRB) and it's full of great stuff. I've just finished reading her essay on 'fashion'/'fashionability' and the meaning of these concepts. It's an insightful interrogation of the critical views embedded in uses of the terms. In regards to clothes, I kinda get his point. Anyone who knows me, knows that I have little time for fashion or even for dressing appropriately (which is why I'm dealing with Bywater's example 18 separately). But in terms of his discussion on music, I really got cross. If you're going to bemoan adults liking pop music as an attempt to be 'down wiv the kids' or even as an extension of childhood at least have the decency to talk to a young person to find out what is hip at the moment. Invoking Eminem is just so off-base. Or maybe that was his point, to choose a ever-so-slightly-several-years-ago-hot-thing? He goes on "A middle-aged person 'Keeping Up with the Trends in Music' is as lamentable and as infantile as a middle-aged person in Lycra." Hmm. Well, it kinda depends on the body of the person wearing lycra as well as what it is they are wearing. Few people over 12 probably wear items entirely made of Lycra anyway, but as a part of the material it can help add shape to an outfit. Or presumably as soon as we hit 40 we should just all wear sacks? Thanks. Why not put bags on our heads while you're at it (or does that cross over to other debates)? But back to music. Again, as with fashion I make no pretence to be up-to-date. I know what I like and am open to discovering new things. For Cloud, at the moment, a lot of those new things are quite old: e.g. classical music or from well-established genres e.g. country, folk, Yiddish music. For both of us, we continue to like things that sound new and exciting. Things like they cover on Radio 3's Mixing It featuring Lullaby Arkestra and the Modified Toy Orchestra, and obscure examples of music from Africa. Some stuff is new, current, and from young artistes. Others as I say are just new to us. And there is always the complex issue of what current trends actually sound like: there is a lot of offensively inoffensive/bland rubbish out there. We have long since reached the point where, say "the stuff we liked when we were young" (to quote Bywater) is actually far more radical than much current music, or that current stuff is merely a re-hash of that stuff from our youth. Sometimes these returns of styles from the past are great reinvigorations: Post-Rock may be a reinvention of some of Prog's finer moments but when it's top quality stuff it can rival the best of classically inspired music (GodspeedYouBlackEmperor, Rachel's, Mono to name but three artistes). We're not "keeping up with current trends", we're prepared to like what we like regardless of fashionability, whether its fashionable or not. So being a story-song kinda girl I stand by my right to love "When the Sun Goes Down" by the Arctic Monkeys without caring whether anyone else likes it or not.

So we get to 18: don't follow fashion especially if you're a woman. Hmm. Well, we're back to the semi-agreement points in terms of me saying I'm against fatuous pursuit of 'youthfulness' whatever the cost (plastic surgery! 55 hours at the gym per week! Creams and cover-ups for wrinkles - aka polyfilla for skin). But "You don't want to look like a teenager forever"? I accept that some may find my style, my dress sense, rather ridiculous. And I can 'scrub up well' for occasions that demand plainer or formal attire. But I neither look nor feel right in 'plain clothes' (in all senses). Maybe that is down to a lack of confidence, but I am as much 'performing being Lisa' as anything else. And doing that demands I get into 'costume'. I have enough character traits that make me lose confidence without not being able to use clothes as a boost to my persona. (Indeed, colleagues will usually ask if something is wrong if I'm NOT wearing something of a vivid colour or stripes, so much has it become associated with myself.) Besides, my style is more under-12s than teenager. A bit Helena Cardboard-Box crossed with the dress of your average 5-8 year old...

How about 19 and 20 (I'll come to 22 in a moment and 21 is just laughable: it's the full expression of someone's beliefs that I want to challenge and if they want to believe in God, Allah, green fairies, or Harvey the rabbit that's fine by them. I'll reserve the right to get them to talk through their justification and their beliefs but I won't inherently distrust them until they start spouting garbage that damages humanity, like condemning homosexuals to death) Anyway: "Denounce relativism at every turn" - specifically in religious debates since if we believe something is right we will try and defend and argue it is right against those that disagree rather than accepting things having equal relevance. Well, that seems fine to a point, but seems awfully tied to the agnosticism of 20 which is less convincing. Why not atheism?

22 on God loving us? I refer readers to the fine series of graphic novels "Preacher". A fine discussion of God's role in the universe.

And what might 26 mean: "Eat it Up"? Whilst the rise of western culture's 'faddism' is one thing, there is a difference between eating choices and allergies, physical reactions, and in some instances death. I prefer not to eat nuts because generally I don't like the taste. But if the food is tasty I have been known to unknowingly - or with wilful ignorance of my tastes - eat the damn things. But I won't develop a body destroying allergic reaction as some people can do, have done, which in some instances can seriously impair their health if not kill them. Are our bodies more picky because of our over-developed selective tastes or is there a genuine health risk for some people to eat certain things? Well, I suspect that evolution isn't working THAT fast so I'm prepared to reserve judgement and in the meantime not force people to eat anything and everything. Otherwise you end up eating the diet prefer by Heston Blumenthal, and that would just be wrong.

And finally, let's take his example 31: so it's a good thing to lie and let people down. Yes, that's an adult trait I really want to commit to.


Hmm. That was quite a rant. And I should fully expect some people to take issue. Oh well, I can deal. I know what to expect...

Marie's rant against baby boomers

Marie had a bit of a rant yesterday after having drawn in an audience to see Martha Kearney pretending to be Pete Doherty (but presumbly with a passport). Okay, so she took back some of the venom this morning, but damn it is a fine rant.

I caught part of a similarly stupid overview on the earlier news last night. Which classically featured some marketing types musing about baby boomers and what they were like and what they wanted. Of course, they weren't actually TALKING to any baby boomers about what they like or want... marketeers are just intuitive and they know...

Sheesh, it's hard to assess which is worse: blathering boomers or blathering marketeers...

Widening Participation

Recently, Radio FiveLive, forgetting to say for just a few minutes that they are the official World Cup Radio Station, did a special report on the 'problems' of widening participation strategies at university level. Part of the programme focused on talking to some incredibly smart teenagers who had failed to get interviews/offers at university for courses which, by most standards, are generally accepted to be significantly oversubscribed in terms of applicants. Their beef was that, having been predicted straight "A-triple-stars" (or whatever this week's grading system is) and perhaps even having got excellent work experience, they found that places had been "given away" to students who were predicted far worse grades, offered places requiring lower grades, and who lacked their experience.

"This is outrageous" shrieked their parents; "we've struggled to send our child to a good school, they've always wanted to be a vet/doctor and this is how all their hard work gets rewarded!" Meanwhile in the report, other, more multi-lingual and multi-regional-accented, teenagers fought to develop their articulacy expressing how brilliant it was to get a chance to do such a degree despite not having spent their entire life working towards the right qualifications for the right university for this particular course.

Hmmm. Doesn't seem very fair does it?

Except...

Let's clear up two key problems in the argument FiveLive presented.

1. if it wasn't for these pesky upstarts with less wonderful predicted A levels, the lovely hardworking teenagers would be guaranteed their places.

WRONG.

Sorry, but there aren't enough places even if NONE of the "I've been encouraged through widening participation strategies" pupils got anywhere near applying let alone being offered places.

2. certain children were being given an unfair advantage in being offered places with lower predicted grades and offers requiring less perfect achieved grades

PROBLEMATIC AS WELL AS WRONG.

There are two issues at stake here. One is to do with the idea of unfairness and lower grades. Is it fair that some students, having been 'lucky' enough to have families who recognise and can act upon giving their children chances to go to good schools (I use the terms advisedly since I know all too many who went to 'good schools' and had the most miserable and destructive experience imaginable because of the competitive ambition and expectations demanded of them) should be 'penalised' for their success?

Well it depends partly on how you see the penalties that are already stacked up against other students: those whose families are unable or unwilling or inexperienced at being able to get their children out of attending less good schools; those who have no family experience of higher education and perhaps would struggle to recognise the value of continued education. One could make an argument that their potential or even actual lower grades have added value - that because things are much harder for them to do well at all, that their achievements should count higher.

Ouch. I know what some of you are thinking, so let's mention the phrase that's no doubt in some readers minds: social engineering.

It seems so simple for some to get indignant about the concept of recognising inequalities and trying to do something to change the impact of those inequalities. Because of course all that is required is harder work. And then they would get the same grades and could properly and fairly compete for the limited places.

Except that this isn't really the case is it? It's like simplistically claiming that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. Hmmm. Your job is a shit shoveller. Chances are that despite working long exhausting hours, your chances of some great reward are slender.

Yes, it is undoubtedly tough to see your motivated hard-working offspring fail to get what they feel they deserve. But it is hardly as if students are being told they can get absolutely rubbish grades to be offered interviews and places ahead of all the predicted-to-be-high achieving students. The difference in their PREDICTIONS (a key point I will come back to shortly) is often less than a couple of overall grades (say three Bs rather than ABB or AAB). Moreover, it was revealing that even amongst the carefully selected students on the programme complaining about not being given a chance despite their hard work and predicted successful grades, all was not lost. Indeed, one young man said that after taking a year out he had since reapplied and HAD been offered a place. Additionally, when he had asked for feedback about why he had not been offered interviews or a place, he was told that his personal statement was flawed. (He actually complained about how short the word limit was to be able to explain and cover all his amazing experience and commitment to doing the course. Hah. Welcome to the world of having to write succinctly, of making careful choices in what you include and what you prioritise. Skills that usually better educated students are well taught in but clearly this one hadn't grasped. There is actually more to getting a place than just good predicted grades).

Which brings me to the second issue within the debate about the 'unfair advantage' in offering places for 'lower predicted grades'.

I have always held that students applying to university before their results is utterly flawed and generally nonsensical. How many people do you know - you may be one yourself - who had great predicted grades and then flunked the entire thing. Cloud did. So did someone else I know. The reasons for flunking are pretty irrelevant, but flunking happens. Illness, a death in the family, just being stoned. Predicted grades are often useless in ascertaining what someone actually achieves in terms of grades.

And that is before we even get to the matter of how helpful A level grades are as an indicator of university level success or even of being inspired by university education (these may not be the same thing). Given that actually many older universities have relatively small proportions of non-traditional A-level route students, for example, it is interesting that still so many can find it difficult to adjust to university life and the requirements of degree-level education. This DESPITE all the perceived preparation of 'good schools' and high A levels. Predicted or even achieved A level grades also do not necessarily tell you much about how wonderful you will be at the job (which is where the topic of work experience etc DOES present some problems but more on that later).

Anyway, my ill-made point is this. Even discounting that for some achieving an excellent set of A-level grades is made easier by their circumstances, the point is that university places are (pre-clearing) NOT offered on actual grades but predicted ones. Less good schools unfortunately often deflate predicted grades, as much as better schools often inflate. It's an expectation thing. So why wouldn't other issues - why SHOULDN'T other issues - count? Potential, for example?

Arguably, where students have not JUST been working to get high predictions (and perhaps achieve those predictions) AND have also got excellent experience, that should clearly count for something, as evidence of potential. But there can be all sorts of reasons why obtaining such experience might also be as shaped by circumstances beyond the control of the student (e.g. not being bought up on a farm) that again have nothing to do with the actual potential and talent a young person may have to contribute to a degree subject and ultimately perhaps the profession. And as the example of the young man from the programme showed, just getting the experience and the high predicted grades does not in itself mean a perfect application: you can still end up screwing up the personal statement.


Now I'm not prepared to go so far as to say that all Widening Participation strategies are good and well thought through. But rarely is it the case that ALL places on a course are set aside for students targeted through Widening Participation - it's usually just a proportion (though thankfully most places have realised that it does have to a reasonable proportion if you're not just going to replicate social division with token non-traditional entrants). And what often lets down Widening Participation is what happens when the students walk through the door of the institution. Transition is also vital. Some universities have received criticism for WP because, looking at some statistics, completion and success can still be hard for students coming through non-standard routes or from non-traditional backgrounds. But let's just take a simple example like obtaining work experience in vacation-time: it is not unreasonable to see that for students from economically more secure backgrounds, for those prepared/able to economically support their offspring through education, obtaining unpaid work experience is going to be much easier. Whilst such work experience might not be deemed essential in terms of university insisting or providing these opportunities - it may be 'optional' - for some it is going to be much harder to take up these valuable 'optional ' opportunities than for others. Does that make those less financially able to take these chances less capable than their counter-parts? I doubt it? So just getting students in through the front door and feeling that the Widening Participation job is done and from now it IS the mythical level playing field is farcical.

I'm going to duck and cover now because I suspect I will just find it easier to slip back into popular and high culture discussions. Rant partially over, but I will be returning to related issues (hopefully before the end of the week) regarding dyslexia.

Rullsenberg Rants

In case people have forgotten that the key purpose of this blog was not to attempt erudite debate but to provide "random discussion" of a number of pop/high culture topics and passions of mine, it is maybe worth interjecting one of my Rullsenberg Rants. Just to remind people that for rants to work, they really do need to be interjected between less diatribe-like mutterings. How else can the reader know that they are being flagged to consider something provocative?

Anyway, I could feel myself from prevented from delving into these dangerous waters by the fear that I'm not articulate enough to deal with such serious topics, that far more eloquent - and some less eloquent - commentators will soon spot the flaws in my arguments, or that my remarks are unnecessary amidst such a cacophany of internet voices.

Well, I kinda don't care. You don't have to read what I write. You never have to do that. I started the blog with NO readers - as we pretty much all do unless we have already established ourselves as commentators elsewhere. And I am daily amazed that anyone should come back here (though I would be happy to see some names/ISPs never again listed on my visitation list). Yet I love doing this, despite all the criticism and disagreements. But you can easily move along if you don't like something. There are already more blogs on even my limited list than I can keep up with regularly and I don't always read everything that even my most favourite writers produce. Sometimes I look at posts and think, "Oh that's just going to wind me up" or "nah... not gripping enough" and frankly if you have any sense you would do the same here. Its your - and my - perogative. Just because all this stuff is there, you don't have to read it.

All this is by way of an introduction to a new Rant.

Swearing and the dial-a-rant offer

If you don't like the language then avoid (though I would have to ask you what you're doing here!) but this post and exchange in the comments between Rob and Clare is brilliant. I demand a rant-line!

Cloud and his rant on geneaology

Cloud, I think, has written before on his loathing of the kennel club approach to geneology [tell me where!]. Here, he goes at the topic again.

I have to confess I have an ambivalence on the topic as I too have done a little in the way of family tree hunting, though as a visual and cultural historian, I'm a bit more interested in all the family photographs I have (their siginificance, who took them, why, the clothes, the costs etc) and issues of social relationships than just clocking up names back to the Norman Conquest. Also, as I watched Cloud typing up his blog last night - Broadband! Weeee! - it was interesting to see how the rant could take over constructing his argument. Cloud is one of the smartest people I know, but as I know from studying alongside him on the OU, he can make some really big assumptions that his meaning comes across clearly. In this instance, he was so incensed by the poorly written argument in the Grundie that he was in danger at several points of confusing his readers further rather than illuminating her inadquate comments.

It's still a corking post though: even has a biblical quote alongside Billy Bragg.

The HolyHose rant on crises

Great review of the role played by the impact of Thatcher and the long previous reign of Tory government in several current crises. Go read.

Aspect Ratio: a world-wide gripe

Aspect ratio! See: all the way across to Australia there are grumbles about this. Still, out of politeness I haven't cluttered Casyn's comments box with my ranting, and have instead brought the topic over to Rullsenberg.

Casyn gives a good impression of a growling beastie complaining about the DVD release of films, but especially television programmes, that do not present the product using the aspect-ratio in which the product was filmed. Now I have always been keen on seeing the correct ratio, though with some pleasure in widescreen formatting (hey, I actually LIKE the black borders at the top and bottom... if they are there for a purpose!): especially with films, since most are filmed in widescreen.

Anyway, my obsession with aspect-ratios hit a peak when our pal George moved in with us in autumn 2003 with a gloriously huge widescreen TV that could adapt its display to suit the ratio of the broadcast/DVD/tape. And when inducting him into the ways of Buffy: well, that was when things got alarming.

Let us take Buffy DVDs. Seasons 1-3 are fine. Filmed in 4:3 and released in 4:3. Seasons 4-6, filmed in 4:3...

...released in the UK in anamorphic widescreen. Cropped to create black bands at the top and bottom AND revealing info at the sides that was never intended to be seen! ARGH!!!!

Whedon intended Buffy to be 4:3. Except for Once More, With Feeling (which on the urgh widescreen crop is still wrong: just check out the title screen. URGH!) Only when we got to Season 7 - which was filmed in widescreen - did we get a widescreen release that actually was intended to be that!

Hilariously, on the UK VHS videos, seasons 4-6 were released on 4:3, with Once More, With Feeling in the appropriate widescreen format.

When George left, Cloud and I initially tried to replace the departing widescreen TV with another (albeit smaller). What did we get? Some sucky stupid widescreen TV that made 4:3 filmed works into 'fit-the-widescreen-TV' display! I wanted to see the 4:3 image in the centre of the widescreen with the appropriate black borders at the sides! Needless to say, especially since the sound was also rubbish, that beastie went back to the shop and we settled for a much less snazzy standard TV that at least showed stuff at the aspect-ratio of the product. Sigh.

Okay. Rant over.

Rullsenberg's random ramblings on class, culture and education

Have recently been in correspondence with the lovely John over at Counago&Spaves (coo-ee!) discussing class origins and culture. There we were, intellectuals with degrees, postgraduate qualifications and academic/literary based jobs comparing notes on working class origins. Yet the truth is always so much more complicated than a straightforward ellision of working with labouring. Do we control the means of production, our labour properly rewarded for the hours invested, for our benefit? So despite much joshing over how to be prolier-than-thou, the correspondence nevertheless stirred some interesting thoughts on how we identify ourselves and our class. What makes for a working class identity, mentality, history, state of being?

Since one always speak best from personal experience, and it seems pretty arrogant to try and speak on behalf of others who may or may not share my sentiments or experiences, I'll present a case study in shifting cultural, social and economic class identity (or not so shifting as the case may be).

Back at the turn of the 20th century, my maternal line was in Lowdham, Notts and subsequently the Leicestershire regions of Wymeswold before coming back to the city of Nottingham. Farm/general labourers, seamstresses and cleaners/housekeepers mostly. Great gran did sewing work for Griffin and Spalding (who used to own the store that is now Debenhams in Nottingham). My nan was unmarried at the time her only child (my mum, 1931) was born - a fact not known till after nan's death - and made a living through house cleaning: a job she didn't give up work till around the time mum gave birth to me (she'd have been around 70).

It wasn't well paid work, but she worked hard. Indeed, this observation is at the heart one of the biggest fallacies of current political thinking: hard work is rewarded. Is it boswellocks. You can work all your life shovelling shit 20 hours a day and it doesn't make it well-rewarded. What if you train / get lucky with the hierarchy and become the manager? You know, you're still shovelling shit (you're just getting other people to do it). And whose shit are we talking about? Who granted the options that got you into shit-shovelling?

I mean, come on, there's all this talk of opportunities, but most of the time it isn't about actively chosing against certain opportunities : it's about them being conceivable, practical on both an ideological basis and within real social relationships.

Anyway, to return to the history, my maternal family was pretty much rooted in being working-class and wouldn't have comprehended concepts such as owning their own house. It was council rented accommodation all the way. 2up/2down terraced house with yard and no bath till age 8 (just visits to gran with tin bath in front of a coal fire: you should see the eyes widen in incomprehension on the part of some of the utterly middle-class students I have taught over the years!) and it was a big step up to move to gardens front and back and a porch located toilet with a bathroom off the kitchen.

Interestingly my parents didn't have much truck with those who purchased the council houses: not just financially how, but why? Why was 'owning' property such a good thing? - my parents didn't have the working income or working lifetime (married late) to finance purchasing a house. My dad's, by then ongoing and ultimately life-long, ill health would have scuppered meeting mortgage costs. All the talk of rent being wasted money was a mystery to them: we had a roof over our heads, the council covered repairs. Leaving it to me? Me benefit from something I hadn't worked for and that took a roof away from another potential council tenant? - even the idea of it was baffling and abhorrant.

But despite the difficulties, there was always a sense of engaging with culture in the house. Music (classical and pop, operettas and musicals, country, folk, some jazz). Reading was key: enrolled at the local library aged 3 as soon as I qualified for my own ticket but already well-read to at home. (Remember public libraries, with books, open at least 5 days a week till late evening?) Dad had been a languages student in his youth - nine languages! - but had been drafted into the German army, located to Italy and captured as a POW by the Allies before he could reach university. Being the stubbon ass that I am, as a teenager learning languages at school I shunned his help, believing that I had to learn on my own abilities or it misrepresented what the school was trying/able to do. I felt it would be taking an unfair advantage to get dad to tutor me at home (I was a self-righteous and ultimately failed languages student at school).

And history: mum had loved history at school and she undoubtedly instilled in me the importance of understanding not only what happened but also why; the little details within events. Personal histories, political histories: people whose stories went untold or ignored and observational details of the world around us (date marks on buildings, architectural features above street level, the life histories within grave stone marks, dates of death).

It was from these beginnings that I developed my sense of culture, but also my sense of self and how others would always seek to define me. That the practicalities of life, my place in the social hierarchy could never be entirely undone by acquisition of money per se, or knowledge, but that I could certainly use the latter to gain greater understanding of the structures - to teach others how to understand and fight to undo the inequalities built in to the systems of power.

As Dark Willow says: "I get it now, it's about the power".

To draw on an art historical analogy, it is insufficent to add on women artists to the history of art or to ghettoise these into separate disciplines (women's studies): this just lets the existing hierarchy continue to define itself with reference to all that it is not. But it leaves it fundamentally intact. To truly challenge the system, you cannot just have an feminist approach to art history: you have to reinvent the structures, the very foundations of power that allow the structure to marginalise and keep down the role and contribution of women. Whatever you are looking at, you have to explore the power structures and the cultural knowledge that keeps people in their places.

Without wishing to get into Ripping Yarns/Python territory for 'so-bad' upbringing, I do still like to upset the apple cart of expectations at places like Nottingham Uni, which has a high quota of "nice" (urgh) middle class boys and gals utterly disconnected from the real world. I like to mention that my secondary school alma mater was second joint worse school on country at one point and is now closed. It wasn't that we were actively discouraged from going further but that our ambitions and options were horribly low unless you already came from the appropriate background. And judging the school by artificial criteria such as league tables helps no one - least of all the pupils.

Nevertheless, having this history, however much one can critique how it occurs (what is education and what is the role of schools?), can be helpful when Nottingham Uni dabbles its toes into the muddy waters of widening participation work: having a local girl come through the ranks as it were. But you still long to explain to them that class - the power to control your own destiny economically, socially etc - is more than just whether you have a certain number of pasta types in your home. Economically at the moment our house could be said to be deeply middle class (though we're far below several averages), but it is unstable income which hardly lends itself to any ideas of controlling or contributing to the control of the economic and social structure. Culturally we have followed early interests in broad bits of culture - both high and popular (come on Cloud you do like SOME examples of popular/mass culture!) - and arrived at a point where culturally we are deeply middle class. But there are plenty of houses who are economically far more working class in this current moment who maintain an interest in all aspects of culture and plenty of those nearer the top who have no books and little engagement with cultural events, social ideas or political understandings of culture.

To follow through on the issue of unstable income, many a wry smile has been generated by me when people would hear I worked in academia (until this recent post I was always in temporary employment). Especially when they heard the hourly rate of pay: anything between £15 and £25 per hour! Good lord. And then I would tell them that that was just for the hours of contact. No travel time or expenses; no preparation time (usually at least 2-4 times as long as were the hours in front of the class); no marking time; no pay for meetings, time spent photocopying materials, or providing tutorial support. Final pay: much less than any minimum, flipping burgers more profitable. And of course no sick pay (up to you to reschedule your classes - nigh impossible in practice), no pay for holidays (so halfterms, Xmas, easter and summer were just months with reduced or no income). I have written elsewhere on this blog on the income /pensions impact that has had on my lifetime of earnings. And whilst I'm currently grateful to be in a proper post, its temporary and at most will turn into a series of rolling ficed term contracts. There's security.

Incidentally, it has always amused me that just as work became less secure, we were suddenly expected to pay for more stuff ourselves directly (school, health, pensions) and take up ownership costs (mortgages) that operate on systems dependent on secure regular incomes. Odd, or a conspiracy against the working classes newly ordered to particular forms of aspiration?

This is a rather incoherent ramble across these issues but then again I am still hungover...

Rullsenberg Rants: Barfing over the "sunshine of hope"

Cloud nearly split his sides laughing at my expression as I caught Howard's plea to the 'peepel' to vote Conservative: "let the sunshine of hope break through the clouds of disappointment." Dear Lord,where to start with this nonsense?

Not sure whether it was the purple prose that got to me or just my non-too-fond memories of the Tories years I grew up with. Reminded me of Thatcher's citing of St. Francis as she entered No.10. We were a resolutely Daily Mirror reading household and had no truck with the Conservatives whatever the dilemmas of the previous winter had thrown at us. Open-jawed at the misuse of St. Francis' sentiments and furious at the claims of dancing in the streets, we shook our heads and spotted it was more likely dancing with rage, frustration and anticipation of the horrors to come. We weren't wrong. Purple prose = purple bruises on the broken bodies and minds of those injured by Conservative policies.

So, returning to my barf-like gut reaction to that "sunshine" (ooh...urlgh...spit...s'cuz me... that's better) can I take just one point: "hard-working families".

Presumably those who are going to lose their jobs as part of the 'efficiency savings' are not actually hard-working (and heaven forefend those who haven't committed themselves to breeding). Concomitantly, when these people lose their jobs, the additional costs in redundancy, benefits and subsequent loss of tax revenue, family spending power towards the economy etc. will have zero impact on the economy (or else how would these job losses result in savings?).

Don't get me wrong: I'm quite aware that this shambles of a 'not-really-for-labouring folk' government has similar plans for shedding people's livelihoods. But as part of the Tories' campaign to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst the electorate's prejudices - hardly seemed possible given what New Labour has always said and done, did it? - these shambolic and delusional plans for savings are just bogwash. In fact, I can't even think of words to describe their plans (well I could, but then this would be even more of a rant).