Page 4 of 5

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Mon 06 Aug, 2012 21.31
by bilky asko
Dr Lobster* wrote:i heard an interview on the radio today where somebody was saying how they were hoping that the olympics would inspire a new generation of sportsman.

are they having a laugh?

a good proportion (over 50% in some areas according to the league tables) of pupils that leave high school fail to achieve a decent gcse in english, maths or science.... i would have thought it should be a priority to get this sorted out first.
71.5% of pupils in 2011 achieved a Level 2 English qualification at A*-C or equivalent by age 19, and 65.8% did so in Maths. There has been a year-on-year increase in these rates since 2008, so it seems like this is already a priority.
Dr Lobster* wrote: but anyway. the olympics. enough already. this faux patriotism is wearing a bit thin now. can't stand another 'team gb' update on facebook.

what are these people doing, anyway? sitting perched in front of the telly, plate of sausage and mash on their knees frantically updating their social network status with messages of support? have they all gone mad?
I don't think you realise that patriotism isn't some sort of myth, and people can actually feel patriotic. Whether or not you agree with being patriotic, you can't dismiss it as non-existant.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Mon 06 Aug, 2012 22.00
by Dr Lobster*
remember bilky, those national figures can be misleading. for instance, some schools will not enter some lower achieving pupils into subjects which are used for the league table benchmark and will instead opt for functional skills and so on which are significantly easier and so their a*-c passrate will seem higher, but my statistic was really based on the result of schools in rural areas with a more diverse catchment and it's these areas which tend to have the least investment in infrastructure and schools.

actually, i'm not saying that patriotism is a myth - i just don't see how supporting a sports team counts as being patriotic.

i always thought being patriotic was more like joining the army and letting the taliban take a few pot shots at you, not sitting on the sofa watching bbc 1.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Mon 06 Aug, 2012 22.34
by bilky asko
Dr Lobster* wrote:remember bilky, those national figures can be misleading. for instance, some schools will not enter some lower achieving pupils into subjects which are used for the league table benchmark and will instead opt for functional skills and so on which are significantly easier and so their a*-c passrate will seem higher, but my statistic was really based on the result of schools in rural areas with a more diverse catchment and it's these areas which tend to have the least investment in infrastructure and schools.
This would be a valid point were it not for the fact that this has always been the case. Although the overall figures may be exaggerated, the trends are still valid.
Dr Lobster* wrote: actually, i'm not saying that patriotism is a myth - i just don't see how supporting a sports team counts a being patriotic.

i always thought being patriotic was more like joining the army and letting the taliban take a few pot shots at you, not sitting on the sofa watching bbc 1.
Patriotism is devotion to one's country - whether that devotion is eked out into the public domain through a sociocultural event like the Olympics, or sociopolitically by being in the armed forces, or even through economic reasons, it is still patriotism. To say someone is less patriotic by not being in the armed forces is reminiscent of the propaganda presented during the World Wars - it's simply untrue.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Wed 08 Aug, 2012 14.00
by wells
I don't think David Cameron is doing himself any favours being seen at so many events at these games. I don't think him taking advantage of his position, to go to so many events many members of the public would have missed out reflects too well on him.

As our prime minister I'd expect him to be there a few times as well the opening and closing ceremonies, but he's been seen far too much.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Thu 09 Aug, 2012 10.29
by tillyoshea
According to the latest polling, 11% of people say the Olympics have made them more likely to take up sport themselves. I was surprised by how low that figure is. Given the gap between intention and reality, plus a degree of social desirability bias, the number actually influenced to take up sport is likely to be small. Although, in fairness, it was't a poll of children.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Thu 09 Aug, 2012 14.56
by all new Phil
My gym seems quieter than ever at the moment.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Thu 09 Aug, 2012 16.30
by Alexia
All this stuff about inspiring a generation to want to become the next Jessica Ennis I find very odd. Why is that any more acceptable than telling children they should aspire to be the next X Factor winner or TOWIE star?
It's infinitely more acceptable. X Factor winners aren't really winners, they're carefully selected, homogenised products of a mass-media marketing machine which are created with the "help" of a heavily manipulated braindead sheeplike public (god I sound like Ronnie Rowlands!) -- is it any surprise that since the original unhyped "winner", Steve Brookstein, the winners have either been young white men or young black women? Is that really representative of talent in this country? And how many of those winners still have "careers"? Leona Lewis? Is that it? Pop music nowadays is a flash in the pan. Even Lady Ga Ga will become yesterday's news soon enough.

As for TOWIE, please excuse me while I vomit very very hard.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Thu 09 Aug, 2012 20.18
by Sput
Oh god, you've got him started on music.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 15.47
by JAS84
All this stuff about inspiring a generation to want to become the next Jessica Ennis I find very odd. Why is that any more acceptable than telling children they should aspire to be the next X Factor winner or TOWIE star?
Because Jess worked hard to get where she is, and those Z-lister no-talents had it all served on a proverbial silver platter - and will have it snatched away equally fast.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 16.57
by Gavin Scott
Its actually a legitimate point.

The way the media is, you're as likely to see a reality star as Jessica Ennis on the cover of a magazine. There's nothing between them as far as a child is concerned - and you can't say that one is worthier than the other in the eyes of a kid because that calls for the operation of their mind, which you don't have.

It is for PARENTS to teach their kids their values (in the hope that they rub off) and lead by example, so that their children feel inspired. There's no point in laying on the sofa grazing on snack foods and hoping your kids will want to be sportsmen just because of three weeks of televised Olympics.

But at the same time, if all mummy wants to do is watch "Katie" on Sky Living, then you can't blame a young girl for wanting to make her money by getting her chebs out for photographers.

Such is life.

Re: The Olympics

Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 17.51
by Ronnie Rowlands
Alexia wrote: It's infinitely more acceptable. X Factor winners aren't really winners, they're carefully selected, homogenised products of a mass-media marketing machine which are created with the "help" of a heavily manipulated braindead sheeplike public (god I sound like Ronnie Rowlands!)
It's true, though.