James Hall's Awful
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Mr Gumba!
Rodean isn't what it was, is it.
Well James, you'll just have to stick them in a rant thread then.
Rodean isn't what it was, is it.
Well James, you'll just have to stick them in a rant thread then.
-
Andrew Wood
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 23.24
- Location: Location: Location
- Contact:
Train fare oddities
Last night we wanted to go up to town to see a film. As the car's out of action, we decided to take the train, but even being a major tourist town, there's no train back home from the city (21 miles away) after 8.30pm, so we had to return by going to a parkway station(8 miles away) and getting a taxi back.
Crux of the matter is, we were expecting to pay £6 each for a single to town, then another £6 each for a single to the parkway. However, at the ticket office, the other half asked if there was a cheaper option. Surprisingly, the chap suggested we each buy single to the parkway (which is on another line from home, but again not used after 8pm) for £4.70 and take the city as a 'permitted route' - which even allows for a break.
So, for a ticket costing less than a single to the city, we got there, stopped off and watched the film, and on the same ticket got to our destination - a distance of 40 odd miles. And the saving paid for the taxi.
It didn't seem right, but the ticket checkers on each train didn't bat an eyelid.
It pays to ask.
Last night we wanted to go up to town to see a film. As the car's out of action, we decided to take the train, but even being a major tourist town, there's no train back home from the city (21 miles away) after 8.30pm, so we had to return by going to a parkway station(8 miles away) and getting a taxi back.
Crux of the matter is, we were expecting to pay £6 each for a single to town, then another £6 each for a single to the parkway. However, at the ticket office, the other half asked if there was a cheaper option. Surprisingly, the chap suggested we each buy single to the parkway (which is on another line from home, but again not used after 8pm) for £4.70 and take the city as a 'permitted route' - which even allows for a break.
So, for a ticket costing less than a single to the city, we got there, stopped off and watched the film, and on the same ticket got to our destination - a distance of 40 odd miles. And the saving paid for the taxi.
It didn't seem right, but the ticket checkers on each train didn't bat an eyelid.
It pays to ask.
This is an archive column from 2007. James is away
I can’t take the subject I want to next year. Lots of people can, but I can’t. No doubt it’s probably because of some of them that I can’t. And I’m annoyed. Well, I should think I’d have a right to be, don’t you? I hope you do. Maybe you were one of the ignorant twits who said to me, and countless others, “Performance Studies?! That’s not a real subject!”
Not for you, maybe. Where do you intend to go to university? Ah, Oxford. What do you want to study? Medicine? Ah, ok. What, then, will you do in your spare time in your hall of residence or dingy little flat? Watch television? Listen to music? Go and see a film? Go to the theatre? OK. Now, tell me this, young Mr “I want to be a doctor”, who would you watch on TV, or listen to on the radio, or download onto your iPod, if these people didn’t take Music, Performance Studies, Theatre Studies, Drama and the like? Presumably, more of the dreck and dross that comes out of The X Factor.
I really don’t see the point in belittling other subjects because you happen to take yours far more seriously than I do. I did separate sciences and Maths up to GCSE standard, and achieved respectable, but by no means excellent, grades in all four. Well, I got an A in IGCSE Maths, but I assume that was down to pot luck. I took the first opportunity I had to drop these four subjects because I wanted to focus on what I wanted to do. And at the time, certain teachers came up to me and offered me some advice. This advice was wrong.
They assume that subjects like Music, Performance Studies and Theatre Studies are, to borrow a phrase from Sister Act II, ‘bird’ courses – i.e. those who take them ‘fly’ through them. You couldn’t be further from the truth, and this is because you fundamentally don’t know what in God’s name you’re talking about. Those who say that the arts can’t be real subjects because they don’t involve lengthy equations to learn or complex algebra to remember are simply kidding themselves into thinking that they teach a ‘proper’ subject, and that – in some way – their subject is far more respected by universities than anything the Performing Arts department has to offer.
But why kid yourselves? If you are that confident about your subject’s value, why deliberately try and put other students off taking a subject that they want to do, just to fit your own niche agenda? Do you do it because it gives you some kind of overarching power? Do you feel content at robbing the students of their chance to do something which matters to them just to get a grade which they’ll only grudgingly accept?
This is the case across the board, I’m afraid. When I was busy rehearsing for the performance element of one of these subjects, many teachers simply failed to understand what I was doing. I don’t know how many times I had to explain why I couldn’t be somewhere because it was part of my grade. It wasn’t just something I was doing on a whim, or something I was doing solely to please me. But than again, it’s not a real subject, is it? And how can you get a grade in a subject that’s not real? You want to take something like Biology. That’s a proper subject. That’ll get you a good grade.
No, what will get me a good grade, you arrogant sod, is if I take a subject that; a) I enjoy, and b) I am good at. What is the point in taking a subject which interests me about as much as the life cycle of a coconut, and which I got a ‘C’ for at GCSE? The answer: there is no point whatsoever!
I recognise, of course, that a student can take academic/science subjects with arts-style subjects and still be good at both. For example, we had three girls this year in our Performance Studies set who took either Biology, Chemistry, Maths, or any combination of the three (the fourth girl took History, the fifth girl – well, we didn’t like her very much). All five of my fellow students in the subject happened to be extremely talented and probably very good at their academic/science subjects as well.
However, if you, or any teacher, or any student, suggests that the two cannot go hand in hand, that it’s “one or the other”, or even that it’s just that Performing Arts aren’t meant to be studied by people wanting serious qualifications – then I’ll tell you something; you’ve got another thing coming. I expect those people who disagree with me to try and act, sing, or dance, or do all three, for two hours on a stage most nights. I’d imagine that without their Bunsen burners, they’d sink without a trace.
Before I forget – how is Art regarded as a real subject and not something like Performance Studies? Art is a ridiculous exam. Students shouldn’t have to respond to given stimuli by the exam boards – and this must surely frustrate Art teachers to no end. Art is a subject which can be purely opinion-based at times, but that’s a proper subject! Is the fact that students have to bear a painful 400 hours exam a qualification that Art is a real subject?
And let’s not forget English. Ah, dear old English. How is being taught someone else’s opinion, or the exam board’s opinion, on what an author was thinking when he or she wrote a play, a good subject? I realise Art is more student-based in the Sixth Form, but still, I have a sneaky feeling Charlotte Brontë didn’t write Jane Eyre, all the time thinking, “clearly, in two hundred years’ time, the exam will ask about Jane’s emotional discomfort in Chapter 34. So, I’ll have to gear my book around that, then!” Books were written to be enjoyed, not analysed to death. English should be a test of whether you can write, not whether or not you can detect subtle nuances in a piece of text by someone who’s dead.
French, German, and Spanish, are all rightly ‘proper’ subjects. So please, someone tell me conclusively and completely, why Performance Studies isn’t a proper subject. I can guarantee you nearly every single member of the Music and Drama department at this school will shoot your argument into oblivion.
Just remember this: the Arts are real subjects.
Not like that Chemistry crap.
This Week James rehearsed every night of the week for three different shows. James wrote of his indifference to his acceptance letter on Facebook. James saw John Barrowman: "Yes, we know you're gay, darling, but that in itself isn't entertaining."
I can’t take the subject I want to next year. Lots of people can, but I can’t. No doubt it’s probably because of some of them that I can’t. And I’m annoyed. Well, I should think I’d have a right to be, don’t you? I hope you do. Maybe you were one of the ignorant twits who said to me, and countless others, “Performance Studies?! That’s not a real subject!”
Not for you, maybe. Where do you intend to go to university? Ah, Oxford. What do you want to study? Medicine? Ah, ok. What, then, will you do in your spare time in your hall of residence or dingy little flat? Watch television? Listen to music? Go and see a film? Go to the theatre? OK. Now, tell me this, young Mr “I want to be a doctor”, who would you watch on TV, or listen to on the radio, or download onto your iPod, if these people didn’t take Music, Performance Studies, Theatre Studies, Drama and the like? Presumably, more of the dreck and dross that comes out of The X Factor.
I really don’t see the point in belittling other subjects because you happen to take yours far more seriously than I do. I did separate sciences and Maths up to GCSE standard, and achieved respectable, but by no means excellent, grades in all four. Well, I got an A in IGCSE Maths, but I assume that was down to pot luck. I took the first opportunity I had to drop these four subjects because I wanted to focus on what I wanted to do. And at the time, certain teachers came up to me and offered me some advice. This advice was wrong.
They assume that subjects like Music, Performance Studies and Theatre Studies are, to borrow a phrase from Sister Act II, ‘bird’ courses – i.e. those who take them ‘fly’ through them. You couldn’t be further from the truth, and this is because you fundamentally don’t know what in God’s name you’re talking about. Those who say that the arts can’t be real subjects because they don’t involve lengthy equations to learn or complex algebra to remember are simply kidding themselves into thinking that they teach a ‘proper’ subject, and that – in some way – their subject is far more respected by universities than anything the Performing Arts department has to offer.
But why kid yourselves? If you are that confident about your subject’s value, why deliberately try and put other students off taking a subject that they want to do, just to fit your own niche agenda? Do you do it because it gives you some kind of overarching power? Do you feel content at robbing the students of their chance to do something which matters to them just to get a grade which they’ll only grudgingly accept?
This is the case across the board, I’m afraid. When I was busy rehearsing for the performance element of one of these subjects, many teachers simply failed to understand what I was doing. I don’t know how many times I had to explain why I couldn’t be somewhere because it was part of my grade. It wasn’t just something I was doing on a whim, or something I was doing solely to please me. But than again, it’s not a real subject, is it? And how can you get a grade in a subject that’s not real? You want to take something like Biology. That’s a proper subject. That’ll get you a good grade.
No, what will get me a good grade, you arrogant sod, is if I take a subject that; a) I enjoy, and b) I am good at. What is the point in taking a subject which interests me about as much as the life cycle of a coconut, and which I got a ‘C’ for at GCSE? The answer: there is no point whatsoever!
I recognise, of course, that a student can take academic/science subjects with arts-style subjects and still be good at both. For example, we had three girls this year in our Performance Studies set who took either Biology, Chemistry, Maths, or any combination of the three (the fourth girl took History, the fifth girl – well, we didn’t like her very much). All five of my fellow students in the subject happened to be extremely talented and probably very good at their academic/science subjects as well.
However, if you, or any teacher, or any student, suggests that the two cannot go hand in hand, that it’s “one or the other”, or even that it’s just that Performing Arts aren’t meant to be studied by people wanting serious qualifications – then I’ll tell you something; you’ve got another thing coming. I expect those people who disagree with me to try and act, sing, or dance, or do all three, for two hours on a stage most nights. I’d imagine that without their Bunsen burners, they’d sink without a trace.
Before I forget – how is Art regarded as a real subject and not something like Performance Studies? Art is a ridiculous exam. Students shouldn’t have to respond to given stimuli by the exam boards – and this must surely frustrate Art teachers to no end. Art is a subject which can be purely opinion-based at times, but that’s a proper subject! Is the fact that students have to bear a painful 400 hours exam a qualification that Art is a real subject?
And let’s not forget English. Ah, dear old English. How is being taught someone else’s opinion, or the exam board’s opinion, on what an author was thinking when he or she wrote a play, a good subject? I realise Art is more student-based in the Sixth Form, but still, I have a sneaky feeling Charlotte Brontë didn’t write Jane Eyre, all the time thinking, “clearly, in two hundred years’ time, the exam will ask about Jane’s emotional discomfort in Chapter 34. So, I’ll have to gear my book around that, then!” Books were written to be enjoyed, not analysed to death. English should be a test of whether you can write, not whether or not you can detect subtle nuances in a piece of text by someone who’s dead.
French, German, and Spanish, are all rightly ‘proper’ subjects. So please, someone tell me conclusively and completely, why Performance Studies isn’t a proper subject. I can guarantee you nearly every single member of the Music and Drama department at this school will shoot your argument into oblivion.
Just remember this: the Arts are real subjects.
Not like that Chemistry crap.
This Week James rehearsed every night of the week for three different shows. James wrote of his indifference to his acceptance letter on Facebook. James saw John Barrowman: "Yes, we know you're gay, darling, but that in itself isn't entertaining."
The difference between an arts degree and a science degree (and I write as someone who suffers from the latter) is that a science degree has associated with it certain guaranteed transferrable skills like analytical ability, critical thinking, presentation and report writing and numerical ability - in many cases, even programming. The knowledge acquired in a science degree is also directly applicable to any technical or financial job job, whereas with arts it's not so clear-cut. This is even more true of an engineering degree. Quite simply, the value of a science degree is far more obvious than the value of an arts degree. This is why they're held in higher esteem than arts degrees.
The fact that arts degrees are just so damned ill-defined and varied in their content and requirements is another way they hurt themselves, take Manchester Met and Manchester Univeristy for example, HUGE gulf in teaching time, courses and "usefulness" reputation (and not with the relationship between these 3 parameters you'd expect). There's a certain minumum standard you HAVE to have to have in order to succeed in a science degree and in arts it's not clear. The perception is you can coast through. Science is seen as much less forgiving.
I'm not saying science is better than arts, it's just you have to work harder to communicate the benefits of arts. To be honest, I do think science is harder intellectually. You have to spend a hell of a lot of time getting your head round things with baffling consequences (imagine a vector rotating in 4-dimensional space), whereas arts has more of a reputation for just banging your head against a wall until it works (rehearsal).
The fact that arts degrees are just so damned ill-defined and varied in their content and requirements is another way they hurt themselves, take Manchester Met and Manchester Univeristy for example, HUGE gulf in teaching time, courses and "usefulness" reputation (and not with the relationship between these 3 parameters you'd expect). There's a certain minumum standard you HAVE to have to have in order to succeed in a science degree and in arts it's not clear. The perception is you can coast through. Science is seen as much less forgiving.
I'm not saying science is better than arts, it's just you have to work harder to communicate the benefits of arts. To be honest, I do think science is harder intellectually. You have to spend a hell of a lot of time getting your head round things with baffling consequences (imagine a vector rotating in 4-dimensional space), whereas arts has more of a reputation for just banging your head against a wall until it works (rehearsal).
Knight knight
I notice we're lumping all of my bilge into one all-purpose thread.
Can someone nice please change its title then to "James Hall's Awful World of Rant" or something probably more fab than that?
Normal column service will resume on Monday. Maybe.
Can someone nice please change its title then to "James Hall's Awful World of Rant" or something probably more fab than that?
Normal column service will resume on Monday. Maybe.