niq’s soapbox

… those who can neither do nor teach, run the NUT.

Today I’m glad I don’t have children, as the National Union of Teachers (one of several teaching unions) goes on strike over pay, and (according to the meeja, at least) lots of parents have to make one-off arrangements to take care of their kiddies.

Nothing new in that: they were messing us all about in my schooldays back in the 1970s[1]. That’s also when I firmly convinced myself of the truth of George Bernard Shaw’s famous quip (albeit out-of-context), when it was clear that most of my teachers were frankly not very bright at all. They remained amongst those who whinged the loudest throughout the Thatcher years, and … well, I haven’t paid so much attention of late, but they clearly haven’t grown up yet.

The NUT and others tell us that teaching is a profession, and teachers are professionals. Yet the NUT itself is, and always(?) has been, a complete antithesis to all that professionalism stands for. A professional may detest and despise the boss (c.f. Dilbert), but doesn’t take it out on the customer. Whereas a professional does the job and expects his/her hours will routinely exceed what he/she is contracted for, the NUT whinges and “works to rule” or even strikes. Nowadays our local bus drivers are clearly more professional than the NUT.

This time they’re striking about pay. Unlike the police - who have legitimate (albeit exaggerated) cause to be aggrieved - teachers have not been short-changed: it’s the full award of the independent review body they’re striking against. Historically, teachers salaries were below average for graduates (though their starting salaries were pretty good) but they made that up with excellent pensions and far more holiday than anyone else. Nowadays they still have the benefits, but pay has also risen very substantially in recent years. Those who don’t own their own homes even qualify as “key workers” for subsidised housing, which can leave them better-off than almost anyone in the private sector apart from a handful of celebrities and “city fat-cats”.

Guess who doesn’t have my sympathy.

[1] Even in my day, it was (some of) the inadequate teachers who participated in union-inspired disruption. The good teachers very definitely didn’t.

Got a begging ‘phone call this afternoon.

Not the usual spam at all, but one from my alma mater. They would like their alumni to make contributions of a financial nature, and they’re targeting people like me who they suppose to have money.

‘Twas a young lady who called (I expect that’s best marketing practice when targeting middle-aged men). I didn’t catch her name, but she’s a third-year undergrad. She caught me at a good time, so we had a bit of a chat, and she told me of some recent developments at the old place.

Turns out she’s a singer (too), and Girton now has a real musical reputation. Well, that’s quite a contrast from my time, when it had very little, and the organ scholar in my year was making valiant efforts (some funnier than others) to get at least something going. So we exchanged anecdotes on music then and now, all of which was mildly interesting.

But it occurs to me: if I donate to education (other than through my taxes), should that donation really be targeted at Cambridge? Yes, I loved my time there, and would recommend it to anyone. But it’s one of two universities in my past: some years after my Cambridge days I did research at Sheffield.

Now Sheffield is well-reputed, but not ivy-league, and it doesn’t have the luxury Cambridge does of a large surplus of the strongest applicants in every year. Nor does it have Cambridge’s historical legacy of immense wealth (admittedly, neither does Girton). Yet my impression was that many of the Sheffield students I encountered were doing much better work than my contemporaries and I had done at Cambridge.

Which of these institutions should be more deserving of my hypothetical largesse? Answer I think: neither as such. If I were to donate to either of them, it would be have to be to something rather more specific. And yes, today’s girton girl mentioned a specific project, but minor building works in the tower area don’t really catch the imagination very powerfully. Cambridge’s strongest claim to precedence would perhaps be in the context of helping some brilliant but impoverished young person realise a dream.

I wonder how many of our non-ivy-league universities make this kind of efforts to tap their alumni?

On the news today: we may be about to see a shift in emphasis from coursework to exams, in the UK national qualifications for 16 year olds. First, a few weeks ago, it was announced that coursework will be reduced in some subjects because of concerns about cheating. Second, and new today, there’s pressure for the government to allow an alternative “international” qualification, already popular in some private schools, in the state sector.

Here’s a prediction: a move from coursework assessment to exams will improve boys results relative to girls.

That calls for some context. The most widely reported context is that, for some years, published statistics have shown girls significantly outperforming boys at school.

The background to that, and what made it inevitable, is the Agenda of promoting womens issues, that has been dominant in this country’s culture since the middle of the last century. It’s one of those things that’s taken as an article of faith by our Powers That Be, and can’t be questioned. The move from exams to coursework was in part tied in with that agenda: at the time, boys were outperforming girls, and some commentators rightly predicted that the changes (of which coursework was an important part) would help close that gap.