Hi WK. There is certainly a section of female society that view having kids as a meal ticket. The Council house them, and the Social put money in their pocket. If the errant father gives a few bob here and there that is a bonus. OK it's a grade C life with a screaming kid, but it's better that working for a living stacking shelves in a supermarket.

There is also an added dimension to this as well. Many young women see having kids as an insurance policy for their old age. It's not likely this government will do anything for me when I get old they say, but if I've got a couple of kids, at least I've got some chance of being looked after when I can't manage.

It's a whole vicious circle that just carries on ...

"There is certainly" does not sound to me like opinion. Chris, do you have any evidence to support this view of "a section of female society"?

As for the "teenagers" and Titanic, did the Telegraph researchers establish the ages of the tweeters? Did they establish their location? [ETA] One of them appears to be US based, and I don't believe we've had quite the media saturation that you mention. [/ETA]

As for education failing them, what is the historical significance of the Titanic to anybody other than cruise ship designers and friends and relatives of those directly involved in the accident? While the sinking of this ship may have been one of the largest peacetime accidents at sea, imho that does not make it required learning at school.

I will concede one thing appears to be in evidence from the tweets, and that is a lack of ability to judge the merits of movies, the tweets say "just a movie" and "just a film", no mention of how bad it was ;-), and lack comparisons with the, to my mind, superior "A Night to Remember". Perhaps film studies has some merit after all ...

The UK figures for 2008 (latest available) show that nearly 50% of all births are to unmarried mothers, with variations from 20% in Chelsea and Kensington in London to nearly 70% in one part of Liverpool.

Re the Titanic even the History of the USA sites I looked at all list the sinking and the election of Woodrow Wilson as significant events for 1912.

Hi WK. There is certainly a section of female society that view having kids as a meal ticket. The Council house them, and the Social put money in their pocket. If the errant father gives a few bob here and there that is a bonus. OK it's a grade C life with a screaming kid, but it's better that working for a living stacking shelves in a supermarket.

There is also an added dimension to this as well. Many young women see having kids as an insurance policy for their old age. It's not likely this government will do anything for me when I get old they say, but if I've got a couple of kids, at least I've got some chance of being looked after when I can't manage.

It's a whole vicious circle that just carries on ...

"There is certainly" does not sound to me like opinion. Chris, do you have any evidence to support this view of "a section of female society"?

As for the "teenagers" and Titanic, did the Telegraph researchers establish the ages of the tweeters? Did they establish their location? [ETA] One of them appears to be US based, and I don't believe we've had quite the media saturation that you mention. [/ETA]

As for education failing them, what is the historical significance of the Titanic to anybody other than cruise ship designers and friends and relatives of those directly involved in the accident? While the sinking of this ship may have been one of the largest peacetime accidents at sea, imho that does not make it required learning at school.

I will concede one thing appears to be in evidence from the tweets, and that is a lack of ability to judge the merits of movies, the tweets say "just a movie" and "just a film", no mention of how bad it was ;-), and lack comparisons with the, to my mind, superior "A Night to Remember". Perhaps film studies has some merit after all ...

The UK figures for 2008 (latest available) show that nearly 50% of all births are to unmarried mothers, with variations from 20% in Chelsea and Kensington in London to nearly 70% in one part of Liverpool.

Re the Titanic even the History of the USA sites I looked at all list the sinking and the election of Woodrow Wilson as significant events for 1912.

Does "unmarried mother" = "expectation that the Council house them, and the Social put money in their pocket"?

[ETA]This book, which appears to be primarily for educational use, does not appear to show that the sinking of RMS Titanic is essential knowledge of US History for the period.[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Does "unmarried mother" = "expectation that the Council house them, and the Social put money in their pocket"?

The mother can apply for council housing, or can ask the social services to pay rent to a private landlord. Alongside this claim there will also be one for local council tax benefits. All mothers in the UK get child benefit for all children, £20.30 for eldest, £13.40 for all additional. And single parents can currently receive Income Support without having to seek work until their youngest child is 16. In 2006 Income support for lone parents cost the UK goverment nearly £4 billion.

In 2008 the minimum income for a lone parent with 1 child was £210/week, excluding rent. Which was more than a worker on minimum wages (£5.73 taxable) would get for a 40hr week at that time.

edit]The min wage quoted was for person over 25, there are lower rates for 16-18, 18-21 and 21-25. The 16-18 has been phased out as they are now meant to be in either in training or education.

Does "unmarried mother" = "expectation that the Council house them, and the Social put money in their pocket"?

The mother can apply for council housing, or can ask the social services to pay rent to a private landlord. Alongside this claim there will also be one for local council tax benefits. All mothers in the UK get child benefit for all children, £20.30 for eldest, £13.40 for all additional. And single parents can currently receive Income Support without having to seek work until their youngest child is 16. In 2006 Income support for lone parents cost the UK goverment nearly £4 billion.

In 2008 the minimum income for a lone parent with 1 child was £210/week, excluding rent. Which was more than a worker on minimum wages (£5.73 taxable) would get for a 40hr week at that time.

edit]The min wage quoted was for person over 25, there are lower rates for 16-18, 18-21 and 21-25. The 16-18 has been phased out as they are now meant to be in either in training or education.

Chris's statement was "[t]here is certainly a section of female society that view having kids as a meal ticket". Are you suggesting that all (or a sizable portion) of unmarried mothers have their children so that they can live off £210/week? Other than figures of how many births were to unmarried mothers, and the potential for benefits, which are, at best, indirect indicators, is there any direct evidence to support a "meal ticket" motive?

I am not convinced the two measures you have provided add up to certainty.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am not convinced the two measures you have provided add up to certainty.

Probably you have to see it personally. My Fathers home town, about 20 miles from here, ex cotton industry with not much replacing it, certainly has more young women with children roaming the town centre, than the town nearest to me, or the towns near my son who lives down south.

I admit, it could be that these women, probably those who didn't, for whatever reason, get suitable qualifications at school, see it as a viable alternative to low paying part time jobs.

In the 60's when I left school, if you didn't get an apprenticeship (about 60% of population), or go to University (less than 10%), then in East Lancashire you went into the cotton industry. But even then the cotton industry could see the end as production went to India, Eygpt and Brazil, helped, of course by a local firm that took contacts to build newer better cotton machinery for those countries, often with government grants.

Lets get back to education. Just red this on the Wshington Post site.

I went to some of D.C.’s better schools ...

Winterknight - -you read?? You realize that is unAmerican -- certainly something to be legislated against by TeaPublican legislatures.

Lets get back to education. Just read this on the Wshington Post site.

I went to some of D.C.’s better schools ...

As I read that don't know why I didn't add "Piranhas" into any earlier posts, as my son has one living about 200m from where he lives in Sussex. My son only found out at Easter when he met the son for the first time, he goes to boarding school in H_____, who mentioned who his Dad was and he had spent half term with his father in B__ O_______ ski resort.

As usual I hate quoting from the Mail but it is relevant. I think you will find Bobby that there are both upmarket and down-market meal tickets so to speak. This is nothing new, it's been going on since WWII. It's just these days a more liberal society tends to shrug their shoulders and accept it instead of moralising about it.

Piranhas

But the overall effect that it has on education standards is there for all to see, and it doesn't take much to see a causal link.

I admit, it could be that these women, probably those who didn't, for whatever reason, get suitable qualifications at school, see it as a viable alternative to low paying part time jobs.

WK is quite right and holds the view that I do. Which is why I think its a downward spiral that I don't foresee ending any time soon.

A newspaper published anecdote is little better than one posted to these forums. Comments like:

"Soaring numbers of men are being forced to part with their money once they have been ensnared in this way by pretty young females."

tell us little, an increase from 5 to 50 might well be called soaring, though from a population of potentially several million, is still relatively trivial from a public policy (or indeed moralizing) perspective.

Further, the lawyer in question appears to represent the men in the circumstances described in the article, those poor, unfortunate men that are now expected by law (courtesy of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, damn those liberals for introducing that one ;-)) to support their offspring. Ascribing motive of financial benefit to the women that become pregnant may benefit this lawyer's practice, though appears to have no foundation provided in the articles themselves other than the lawyer's word.

Sorry Chris, while you and the lawyer might agree, it's still not verifiable evidence of anything other than a shared opinion.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"Some men are paying money because they are too thick to understand, because of a lack of education, that irresponsible casual encounters with females might result in unwanted offspring".

Isn't there an old maxim about fools and money describing the length of time the former can retain the latter?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Getting back to education, and the claim by politicians and some of the teaching fraternity that exam have not got easier. Well this report if nothing else probably kills that lie stone dead.

'Worrying'

The authors said the exams failed to assess the full range of maths skills needed for the subjects.

They added that the exams often also failed to meet the requirements for A-level science qualifications set out by the exams regulator Ofqual.

Professor Graham Hutchings, chairman of Score, said: "Our findings are worrying. A significant proportion of the mathematical requirements put in place by the examinations regulator, Ofqual, for each of the sciences were simply not assessed and, if they were, it was often in a very limited way."

The report also claimed that the Ofqual requirements were themselves inadequate in that they left out areas of mathematics which underpinned the sciences.

For example the requirements for physics and chemistry A-level left out calculus and the requirements for biology A-level ignored the maths needed to convert between different units.

How the hell can somebody get to university to study physics without knowing calculus. I'm gobsmacked.

The Nuffield Foundation examined the 2010 A-level papers for business studies, computing, economics, geography, psychology and sociology.

The report concluded that with the exception of computing, the variation in mathematical content was so great that the qualifications did not give universities or employers a meaningful indication of students' level of mathematical skill or understanding.

The two reports were carried out in response to research last year that suggested two-thirds of science undergraduates did not have the necessary mathematical skills for their course.

Full story on the beeb, A-level sciences 'lack the maths students need'

How the hell can somebody get to university to study physics without knowing calculus. I'm gobsmacked.

There has been calculuse-based vs. algebra-based physics for at least 27 years.
Those only going so far can do the algebra-based physics if they like.
Someone that majors in it will be better off already knowing calculus (though I know from experience 1 year high school calculus is not as good as the first two semesters of univerity calculus). But, the major can also learn the calculus in their first year of college.

Getting back to education, and the claim by politicians and some of the teaching fraternity that exam have not got easier. Well this report if nothing else probably kills that lie stone dead.

Perhaps you could tell me where in the article it is suggested that the same findings could not have been discovered a year ago, a decade ago, or 50 years ago? It is also not clear that the level of mathematic skill development is the only measure of the difficulty of courses in sociology, psychology, etc.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's official.
A-level overhaul to halt "rampant grade inflation"

Sweeping reforms to the “gold standard” A-level exams have been signalled by the head of the exam watchdog.

Glenys Stacey, the chief executive of Ofqual, said that after more than a decade of “persistent grade inflation” in exams, which was “impossible to justify”, the value of A-levels and GCSEs have been undermined.

It's official.
A-level overhaul to halt "rampant grade inflation"

Sweeping reforms to the “gold standard” A-level exams have been signalled by the head of the exam watchdog.

Glenys Stacey, the chief executive of Ofqual, said that after more than a decade of “persistent grade inflation” in exams, which was “impossible to justify”, the value of A-levels and GCSEs have been undermined.

An official has said that there is "grade inflation", no supporting evidence is included or referenced. Apologies if this appears to be nit-picking, though there was more evidence in favor of superluminal neutrinos last year than there appears to be in all the articles on this subject.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's official.
A-level overhaul to halt "rampant grade inflation"

Sweeping reforms to the “gold standard” A-level exams have been signalled by the head of the exam watchdog.

Glenys Stacey, the chief executive of Ofqual, said that after more than a decade of “persistent grade inflation” in exams, which was “impossible to justify”, the value of A-levels and GCSEs have been undermined.

An official has said that there is "grade inflation", no supporting evidence is included or referenced. Apologies if this appears to be nit-picking, though there was more evidence in favor of superluminal neutrinos last year than there appears to be in all the articles on this subject.

As Chief Exec of OFfice of QUALifications, I would assume she knows what she is talking about, and has all the information available.

Another report from the Office of Qualifications, that says exams in English schools have got easier.

Science and geography exams easier, Ofqual says

Another report from the Office of Qualifications, that says exams in English schools have got easier.

Science and geography exams easier, Ofqual says

This appears to be the source of the BBC article. A fairly quick look through the A level Chemistry report will reveal lots of graphs and tables, though there does not appear to be a measure of how much less demanding the 2008 papers were compared to the 2003 papers. It's unclear, to me at least, how many of the 2008 'A' grades would not have been awarded had the students taken the 2003 papers.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Another report from the Office of Qualifications, that says exams in English schools have got easier.

Science and geography exams easier, Ofqual says

This appears to be the source of the BBC article. A fairly quick look through the A level Chemistry report will reveal lots of graphs and tables, though there does not appear to be a measure of how much less demanding the 2008 papers were compared to the 2003 papers. It's unclear, to me at least, how many of the 2008 'A' grades would not have been awarded had the students taken the 2003 papers.

Bobby,
There isn't much I can do to help you on this. Reports like this, full of graphs and tables, are all we have have had for the last 40 years. In the last 20 years they have insisted that the exams have not got easier and that is down to better teaching and the pupils made to work harder.
This at last appears to be an official reversal of those statements. Which is what people, like Chris S and I, have been saying for eons.

Another report from the Office of Qualifications, that says exams in English schools have got easier.

Science and geography exams easier, Ofqual says

This appears to be the source of the BBC article. A fairly quick look through the A level Chemistry report will reveal lots of graphs and tables, though there does not appear to be a measure of how much less demanding the 2008 papers were compared to the 2003 papers. It's unclear, to me at least, how many of the 2008 'A' grades would not have been awarded had the students taken the 2003 papers.

Bobby,
There isn't much I can do to help you on this. Reports like this, full of graphs and tables, are all we have have had for the last 40 years. In the last 20 years they have insisted that the exams have not got easier and that is down to better teaching and the pupils made to work harder.
This at last appears to be an official reversal of those statements. Which is what people, like Chris S and I, have been saying for eons.

Seems to me that's a little sweeping, the report says that some A levels became less demanding between 2003 and 2008, nothing about reversing previous statements of improvements. The report says how levels of demand were measured, though appears to fail to show how the levels of demand compared between 2003 and 2008. I'm pretty sure I have not ruled out the possibility of exams becoming easier over time, only that the evidence for such a conclusion is to a significant degree lacking.

Guesses (aka opinion) in the absence of evidence are "expressions of prejudice" (thanks Michael Crichton).

It seems to me only sensible that curricula change over time, for instance the theory plate tectonics was part of the GCE O level Geography curricula by the early 1980s, though was absent in the early 1960s. Prof. Richard Dawkins' work that resulted in his book "The Selfish Gene" was part of BSc Biology by the end of the 1980s, though was absent in the 1970s. Do such changes make courses less or more demanding? How would one know without systematic reviews? If the reviews provide evidence to suggest courses are maintaining levels of demand, what evidence do we have to believe otherwise?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...