I tend to thnk of Winter time as 'real' time and Daylight Savings as 'Pretend' time in a way that said "well, if you want everything to happen an hour earlier, adjust the time at which you do things.
I'm probably being ridiculously simplistic with this point of view - are people more attached to the clock than the sun these days?
Most people have to be. They have to be in work at a set time. Their children need to be in school for a set time. Shops open and close at set times. Even if their work has flexibility, chances are that their partner's doesn't, or their friends don't.
I'd be happy to either have it, or not have it. But the idea that most companies are going to allow more flexibility feels more like a pipe-dream than anything that's likely to happen soon (and it's not just public sector stuff, only one private-sector job I've had has had flexitime, and private schools are similarly regimented).
"And I'm not talking about unhappy cows or other animals who don't understand the time change and don't understand that the milkmaid is going to milk them at a different time."
Do the milkmaids just refuse to get up if the clock is showing the wrong time or something? Surely farmers need to do work when the animals need it, not because of what the clock reads. Is it really that much of a hardship to go to work at 8am-4pm during the summer instead of going to work from 9am-5pm but redefining the time? You're getting up an hour earlier either way!
Some politicians have cited changing our clocks so they match European working hours. How about we take this a step further and have a single universal time across the entire planet (like the Swatch time or something). 12 oclock happens when the sun is directly over some particular point in the planet, and everyone takes that as their reference, getting up at a time that suits them. Simple, non-confusing, cost effective. It just happens that only people who live at the reference point work from 9am-5pm (and puts people who write clock changing software out of work).
The whole concept of changing your clocks strikes me as the worst possible solution. Plus it makes sundials wrong.
This only works if your office, school, etc. are all incredibly flexible, so that your schedule can fit in with all of them. We're lucky where I work, because flexitime means we can start work between 7:30 and 10am. But in offices where there isn't such flexibility, having the school change to start an hour earlier, without the office doing likewise means that you're fucked.
Then you'd be swapping cultural shift instead of clock shift -- you'd go abroad and find that 8pm means breakfast. There's some of that already, say, with evening mealtimes in different countries. But let the technology take the strain, eh?
Absolutely. Those people that need to worry about international coordination (a small percentage) can use UTC. The rest of us can continue to use the times we've been used to all our lives.
Well I wish they did -- as I may have remarked to you in person, am FED UP with bloody Americans who in an international context expect to be able to gives times as EST or fuckwhat. Yes -- those of us who need to talk to people in foreign climes can just use UTC and everyone knows their offset from it.
The anaemia thing has been a massive medical issue for me, and it is very difficult to get it taken seriously. I urge all men reading this to support your girlfriend in this. Back her up, she's going to need it.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2011-02-10 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Makes the A level choice for people who want to study sciences pretty quick and easy.
I thought that. But from the point of view of someone who recruits graduates, it would be nice if they did at least one subject at A-level that required writing skills.
I agree. I think demanding three sciences for an undergraduate science degree is a bit daft, and overly restrictive. Allowing a combination of mathematics, a science and one non-science A-level would encourage students who have a broader range of intellectual tastes, as well as making it more likely that they can actually write.
I did a history A level alongside my sciences and have never regretted it one bit. My teacher was a stickler for good written English and it's thanks to him that I now have a career in science because I can write better than the majority of my peers.
These days Oxbridge will likely expect 4 A-levels anyway, and they're happy for you to have your 4th be an essay subject.
(I got into Cambridge Maths-with-Computer-Science with A-levels in Maths, Further Maths, Chemistry and French, albeit with a raised eyebrow for not doing Physics.)
I found the Oxbridge entrance vs subjects taught article fascinating.
From a purely Machiavellian, 'Tiger Mum/Dad' point of view, I can see the list of preferred A level subjects at Trinity being used a guidebook for 'encouraged subjects' by some parents.
I spoke to dalglivk about it and she was able to rattle off the most preferred subjects without even seeing the article.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If I was a parent of a clever sixteen year old child about to choose A-level subjects, I would have researched this.
But if nobody in my family or friends had been to university before, then I might well believe that all A-levels were equal, especially if that's what the teachers told me.
I was even worse than that. I just drifted, not even considering that they might not be. It took me a long time to realise that taking some control of my life might be a good idea (or, indeed, possible).
The preferred subjects list seems to be much the same as it's been for quite some time, Maths + 2 other sciences to study a science is normal in my opinion. If your school has not brought this to pupils attention and let them do unlisted subjects then it's the schools (and pupils) fault not the universities and changes should be made at school level not at universities. The current trend to bash the top universities for expecting standards is ridiculous. Private schools prepare their pupils for top level university study - if I was a fee paying parent I would expect that as a matter of course. Some schools are bad, some are good - ranting in the media about preferencial treatment does not help this. Improving bad comprehensives is a large task that may never bear fruit.
"If your school has not brought this to pupils attention and let them do unlisted subjects then it's the schools (and pupils) fault not the universities and changes should be made at school level not at universities."
Yes, I agree completely. A school I was at for some volunteering (www.youarehiredplymouth.co.uk) last week had most of their sixth formers doing stuff like Business and Travel & Tourism at A-level. That essentially makes it impossible for that school ever to send candidates to the best universities.
Are the top universities expecting standards, or are they simply prejudiced? I really don't know. Is there a study showing that non-traditional A levels are correlated with lower final degree classifications?
Because on the face of it, it seems perfectly plausible that admissions tutors are just selecting people like themselves and subjects like they did back in the 20th century.
In the short term, it makes no difference to students' best choices for getting into uni, but in the medium to long term it makes a hell of a lot of difference.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Spotify: Excellent.
Russia: Hooray!
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm probably being ridiculously simplistic with this point of view - are people more attached to the clock than the sun these days?
no subject
no subject
I'm acctually less hung up on it than I used to be, but Summer Time always felt artificial.
no subject
I'd be happy to either have it, or not have it. But the idea that most companies are going to allow more flexibility feels more like a pipe-dream than anything that's likely to happen soon (and it's not just public sector stuff, only one private-sector job I've had has had flexitime, and private schools are similarly regimented).
no subject
no subject
I think it's also good for the company too. And I wish more companies would take it on. But I'm not holding my breath.
no subject
Do the milkmaids just refuse to get up if the clock is showing the wrong time or something? Surely farmers need to do work when the animals need it, not because of what the clock reads. Is it really that much of a hardship to go to work at 8am-4pm during the summer instead of going to work from 9am-5pm but redefining the time? You're getting up an hour earlier either way!
Some politicians have cited changing our clocks so they match European working hours. How about we take this a step further and have a single universal time across the entire planet (like the Swatch time or something). 12 oclock happens when the sun is directly over some particular point in the planet, and everyone takes that as their reference, getting up at a time that suits them. Simple, non-confusing, cost effective. It just happens that only people who live at the reference point work from 9am-5pm (and puts people who write clock changing software out of work).
The whole concept of changing your clocks strikes me as the worst possible solution. Plus it makes sundials wrong.
no subject
no subject
But let the technology take the strain, eh?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Shocking but not surprising.
no subject
AAARGH! BAD WRONG. 'Saving' SINGULAR.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(I got into Cambridge Maths-with-Computer-Science with A-levels in Maths, Further Maths, Chemistry and French, albeit with a raised eyebrow for not doing Physics.)
no subject
From a purely Machiavellian, 'Tiger Mum/Dad' point of view, I can see the list of preferred A level subjects at Trinity being used a guidebook for 'encouraged subjects' by some parents.
I spoke to dalglivk about it and she was able to rattle off the most preferred subjects without even seeing the article.
no subject
But if nobody in my family or friends had been to university before, then I might well believe that all A-levels were equal, especially if that's what the teachers told me.
no subject
no subject
If your school has not brought this to pupils attention and let them do unlisted subjects then it's the schools (and pupils) fault not the universities and changes should be made at school level not at universities.
The current trend to bash the top universities for expecting standards is ridiculous. Private schools prepare their pupils for top level university study - if I was a fee paying parent I would expect that as a matter of course.
Some schools are bad, some are good - ranting in the media about preferencial treatment does not help this. Improving bad comprehensives is a large task that may never bear fruit.
no subject
Yes, I agree completely. A school I was at for some volunteering (www.youarehiredplymouth.co.uk) last week had most of their sixth formers doing stuff like Business and Travel & Tourism at A-level. That essentially makes it impossible for that school ever to send candidates to the best universities.
no subject
Because on the face of it, it seems perfectly plausible that admissions tutors are just selecting people like themselves and subjects like they did back in the 20th century.
In the short term, it makes no difference to students' best choices for getting into uni, but in the medium to long term it makes a hell of a lot of difference.
no subject
Original Reg article that led me to the full report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/15/royal_society_report/
no subject