Right, and exams aren't a great way of showing who the intelligent kids are either. But nobody has come up with a workable alternative, so until someone's at a point where they have experience and references, the ability to gain a qualification at least gives an indication of the quality of the candidate.
Poll: The official I voted/election results thread
- Thread starter Dark Light
- Start date
Right, and exams aren't a great way of showing who the intelligent kids are either. But nobody has come up with a workable alternative, so until someone's at a point where they have experience and references, the ability to gain a qualification at least gives an indication of the quality of the candidate.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You must be a proper nuisance when going out for a meal with mates.
5 of you, 2 vote for pizza, 1 for curry, one for indian and 1 for a chinese.
You then spend the rest of the night crying about how 60% of you VOTED AGAINST PIZZA and how it's just not democracy.
No, just a very easy 13 i found on top of the other three earlier. Read my post.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;28019213 said:
Well, i'd like to point out that how you decide where to go for a meal isn't a great basis for how you decide who should run a country. But also, yeah, that's a terrible method of choosing somewhere to eat because quite often most people will end up unhappy. Much better to ask who's okay with each option and allow people to vote more than once
^ That is quite funny actually Fox that you chose going for a meal as your example. In reality a group of friends would make allowances to maximise satisfaction. E.g. a few people want pizza but are OK with curry, and nobody else agrees but are all so-so with a curry, you'd go for a curry, because it's the best result when considering weighted preferences.
Would you want an unqualified surgeon operating on you? Would you want someone without a pilot's license flying you? Qualifications maintain basic minimum standards.
If someone is a great teacher, they should fly through teacher training.
Outcomes are important and that's why modern teaching has moved away from Gove's ideas. They do not work.
What we had before was drawn up by people with experience in the education sector. It was based on evidence and research. Gove swept all of that away because apparently he knew better.
Again - if he and his changes were so bad, why weren't Labour going to roll them back? If it was the case, that would have been sensible in of itself and a massive help politically.
Labour would have changed the curriculum and the coalition backtracked on ditching GCSEs. It wouldn't be practical to demolish free schools though.
If Gove did such a great job, why was he effectively sacked?
who would you think would make a better maths teacher someone with a masters degree in maths, or someone with a teaching degree?
Soldato
Probably someone with a teaching degree?
Clearly qualified then aren't they?
But then i've had to deal with teachers who just blurt out a textbook, which helps no one.
Think that over. I don't think you really would want that. It's just not proportional to the crime.
Emotion should never be part of sentencing. Defacing a war memorial should be treated no differently to defacing any other building.
but defacing a church or a mosque should be treated much more harshly than any other building?
They signifies a hate crime, which its own sentences.
A war memorial is symbolic piece of stone no less, it hasn't been knocked down and can be cleaned/repaired. Why they chose a memorial though, i dunno, not exactly respectful, but the news would pick that up much quicker than anywhere else, so the logic is there i guess.
The BBC has amazingly ignored most of this, not a smart thing and the nationalists are already grumbling.
Soldato
How many do you need? You claimed they didn't exist.
Soldato
No, i asked you to show me them. Point being that they're uncommon. Yes, they exist, but does their existence justify the rest of the seats where the majority of voters actually voted against the incumbent, or the fact that even with a 60% majority, 40% of the voters are completely without representation in the commons, or the fact that you can change the outcome of an election completely just by changing where the constituency borders are drawn? STV can solve all of this, and i really don't see how you can be idealistically opposed to that no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
[TW]Fox;28019213 said:
The person voting for curry, did he not want Indian...
On a serious note I think that your example does highlight the problem with FPTP. But the real issue is that people have underlying different preference so unless you can get them all to agree then you can't have a fair democratic system, which is mathematically proven. The late ative is you actually just don't bother giving the public a vote anyway since it is inevitable a horrible mix of selfish interest (don't want to pay tax/want loads of benefits), psychological bias (parents vote for this so will,X is evil capatalists/communist), media manuipulation, misunderstanding, decision making without facts/experience/knowledge/relevant education, and just plain ignorance/stupidity/racism etc. So I don't really care what democratic system is in place but it fails on the the fact that it requires humans to vote, however FPTP has some advantage in mitigating the extreme wackos from getting anywhere but suffers from the need of parties to appease the mob rather.
Have to agree with you here, having a masters in maths is fairly irrelevant to being able to teach math?
Doesn't mean they are a good teacher though sadly - I had an electronics lecturer who was an absolute genius at electronics, highly qualified and an absolute disaster at teaching :S
Caporegime
Suspended
Teaching is an innate ability, you are either good at it or you aren't. A degree in a particular subject simply confirms a recognised level of knowledge, not how skilled one is in presenting that knowledge to others.