Author Topic: what I have learned today.  (Read 847243 times)

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2700 on: 09 September, 2018, 07:19:06 pm »
Perhaps we should make fluency in English a requirement for University entrance here?

It usually is, Shirley?

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2701 on: 09 September, 2018, 07:24:20 pm »
Doesn't it depend on course requirements?

Or is it solely the size of the cheque?
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2702 on: 09 September, 2018, 07:34:31 pm »
I think Chris may be referring to the UK undergraduates' command of their native tongue...

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2703 on: 09 September, 2018, 07:38:06 pm »
I think Chris may be referring to the UK undergraduates' command of their native tongue...

Where they usually require a C at GCSE[1].

Special arrangements for international students, where size of the cheque does appear to be a factor.


[1] Which in my day was all about counterpointing the vogonity of the underlying metaphor, but now appears to include actual English skills.

Beardy

  • Shedist
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2704 on: 09 September, 2018, 07:47:30 pm »
It took me 5 attempts to get an o level in English, although it was my first attempt at an o level English exam that was successful.

From what Dr Beardy (Mrs) recounts - frequently - there are very few requirements to get into a degree course these days, other than the ability to secure funding. With the current system whereby the universities are now businesses and unconditional offers are becoming the norm, i wouldn’t be surprised if the Student Loan Company doesn’t start imposing a minimum academic standard to secure a loan.
For every complex problem in the world, there is a simple and easily understood solution that’s wrong.

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2705 on: 09 September, 2018, 08:05:03 pm »
(edited for posting weirdness)
I think Chris may be referring to the UK undergraduates' command of their native tongue...

Where they usually require a C at GCSE[1].
Which, in practice - based on some of the UG essays I've seen - appears to provide bugger-all evidence that they can actually string a sentence together, never mind craft an argument or structure a piece of writing.

Quote
Special arrangements for international students, where size of the cheque does appear to be a factor.
I think this may depend on the institution; as an UG at an institution where overseas students paid extortionate fees I never encountered anyone who was struggling because of lack of English, but I've heard horror stories from elsewhere. Ironically PG courses may be more susceptible, though even they pretty much universally require IELTS or equivalent.
Quote
[1] Which in my day was all about counterpointing the vogonity of the underlying metaphor, but now appears to include actual English skills.
And you learned a useful skill! Again, many UGs wouldn't know a metaphor if it bit them in the *redacted*.

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2706 on: 09 September, 2018, 08:51:00 pm »
That most bar showers have 150mm between pipe centres and the same fittings. Unfortunately how far the fitting needs to stick out from the tiles isnt standardised ....

Luckily an extra rubber washer in each fitting sorted it.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2707 on: 09 September, 2018, 09:31:42 pm »
That most bar showers have 150mm between pipe centres and the same fittings. Unfortunately how far the fitting needs to stick out from the tiles isnt standardised ....

Luckily an extra rubber washer in each fitting sorted it.

Fascinating. Are those used to make t-shirts wet? I don't normally visit that type of bar, I didn't realise they had standards.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2708 on: 09 September, 2018, 10:09:17 pm »
I think Chris may be referring to the UK undergraduates' command of their native tongue...

Where they usually require a C at GCSE[1].

Special arrangements for international students, where size of the cheque does appear to be a factor.


[1] Which in my day was all about counterpointing the vogonity of the underlying metaphor, but now appears to include actual English skills.

Not for an engineering degree surprisingly.  My offer was basically pass chemisty and maths A-levels, but then I was going to Bath and had indicated enthusiasm for rugby and beer and the west country in general ;D
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2709 on: 09 September, 2018, 10:54:25 pm »
Yeahbut the average home student has already got their GCSE results and declared them on the application form, so they're only going to become conditions if the pass in English or Maths is conspicuously absent.

ian

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2710 on: 10 September, 2018, 09:43:04 am »
I'm oldish so it might have changed, but in my day you needed both maths and English O Level*/GCSE to stay on sixth-form or go to college, so if you failed them the first around, you had resit them. Those less academically inclined could do CSEs where they got a pass for turning up and managing to put their name on the paper.

*we were the last lot to sit O levels.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2711 on: 10 September, 2018, 10:21:13 am »
it's almost 30 years ago now that I was applying to universities, I can't remember is much attention was paid to GCSEs or that was just a given, considering you were already studying subjects relevant to desired degree at A level.

GCSE maths and Chemistry being clearly required at GCSE to do those at A-level and form the basis of university offers for example - English admittedly less directly linked, but nonetheless useful for report writing etc
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Blazer

  • One too many mornings and a thousand miles behind
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2712 on: 10 September, 2018, 10:59:44 am »
That I didn't have enough diesel to make the Shell garage at Farlington and should have stopped (of my own accord) before joining the A27  :hand:

Blazer

  • One too many mornings and a thousand miles behind
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2713 on: 10 September, 2018, 11:01:18 am »
That the breakdown assistance as part of bank account works well, especially when they classify that you've broken down in a high risk location...

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2714 on: 10 September, 2018, 12:49:16 pm »
it's almost 30 years ago now that I was applying to universities, I can't remember is much attention was paid to GCSEs or that was just a given, considering you were already studying subjects relevant to desired degree at A level.

GCSE maths and Chemistry being clearly required at GCSE to do those at A-level and form the basis of university offers for example - English admittedly less directly linked, but nonetheless useful for report writing etc

In the early 80s you needed Maths and English O'level or GCSE equivalent for university or you weren't considered to have matriculated, didn't matter what the course was. This was certainly still the case in the late 80s as it caused my sister no end of trouble trying to get into uni as a mature student - she just doesn't get maths and had retry at night school several times. She has a masters now mind and they keep asking her to do a doctorate.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

ian

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2715 on: 10 September, 2018, 01:01:49 pm »
Can't remember what went on the old university application forms, but they didn't let us get into sixth form without O Level passes in Maths and English. It still makes me laugh when I get job applications from people in the forties who still diligently list their O and A levels and the fact that they were head girl or some such in 1984 or a got prize for a best essay in a school competition when they were 11. I got a fleet of O Level, though I can't remember them all, probably all As apart from French. My deep abiding shame, like everyone in the East Midlands we weren't allowed to do O Level French and had to the do CSE. I got a grade 2. I think the simple expedient of being about to stay conscious for the entire exam got you that. Je suis le factuer!

My niece just scraped through her GCSEs this year, so that it – I'm the one and only person ever in my family to go to university.

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2716 on: 10 September, 2018, 01:51:36 pm »
R2D2 who does the announcements on Southeastern trains pronounces Meopham as Meffam but I've never ever ever heard a real live actual person say it that way.
I've done the rail journey between Bromley South and Whitstable more times than I've had hot dinners (albeit probably not as many as you, D)
Travelling in either direction, the train always stops at Meopham.
I have never, ever seen anyone board or alight from the train at this station.
Does it stop there because it is the longest linear village in Kent / England / The World?

I have got on and off trains at Meopham many times, but only ever before or after an audax ride - which to my mind is the only reason to visit the place (esteemed audax organiser Tom OTP lives there, so maybe he'll be along shortly to big up its charms, which I'm sure are many).

I didn't know that interesting fact about it being the longest linear village in England, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I remember at the end of one audax after climbing Wrotham hill (ugh!), passing the village sign and thinking, 'Oh good, nearly finished,' and it was most dispiriting to then find myself riding for several more miles before reaching the scout hut - although at least it's mostly downhill.

Anyway, back to the -ham place names, I just remembered that Faversham is Faver-sham rather than Favers-ham - it's rendered as Father's Ham in Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker though, but that's an invention; the original etymology is related to an Old English word for metal workers.
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2717 on: 11 September, 2018, 09:37:32 am »
That really only PET and HDPE plastics (codes 1 and 2 - "soda" bottles and milk bottles) are recycled in the UK.  :-\  This was prompted by looking at a small pot that had had rollmops in it. It carried the recycling triangle and the number 5. But the label stated that it wasn't currently recycled. Curious, I googled it. It's PP - and so are all those "fresh" soup pots that have taken over from cans because they're "better"  ::-) and it's not currently collected for recycling, although it is recyclable.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

andytheflyer

  • Andytheex-flyer.....
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2718 on: 11 September, 2018, 10:44:56 am »
That really only PET and HDPE plastics (codes 1 and 2 - "soda" bottles and milk bottles) are recycled in the UK.  :-\  This was prompted by looking at a small pot that had had rollmops in it. It carried the recycling triangle and the number 5. But the label stated that it wasn't currently recycled. Curious, I googled it. It's PP - and so are all those "fresh" soup pots that have taken over from cans because they're "better"  ::-) and it's not currently collected for recycling, although it is recyclable.

I worked in municipal waste management for about 25 years, as an engineering geologist designing, building and rehabilitating landfills, and landfill gas collection and energy recovery systems.  The national game plan changed with the EU Landfill Directive around 2000, with financial instruments steering the nation away from landfill, now very successfully.  We now collect much more msw for recycling, but not all of it can be.  Particularly some plastics.  As you found, PET (polyester - think fleeces) and PE (polyethylene - milk bottles) are easily recycled, but most plastics are not.  But they have huge energy value, which can be (and is) recovered in Energy from Waste plants. So, the plastic you put out for recycling may not be recycled (which is the best way) but can be recovered (which is maybe second best).  Whatever, local authorities don't want to landfill it because they have to pay landfill tax on each tonne, it's better to sell it to an EfW plant.

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2719 on: 11 September, 2018, 12:26:35 pm »
How does that compare to recycling a metal or glass container, thobut?  I'm guessing it's a no-brainer if it's aluminium, but the energy costs get pretty marginal for glass...

andytheflyer

  • Andytheex-flyer.....
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2720 on: 11 September, 2018, 01:13:33 pm »
How does that compare to recycling a metal or glass container, thobut?  I'm guessing it's a no-brainer if it's aluminium, but the energy costs get pretty marginal for glass...
As I recall, the economics of glass recycling are marginal.  IIRC, some local authorities, remote from the glass factories, found that it cost them to get the cullet to the factory for recycling, Anglesey springs to kind.  There's value in clear glass, but much less in green or brown because we don't make many wine bottles in the UK.

The opening of the new glass plant near Ellesmere Port may have changed the balance a bit - they make beer bottles AIUI.

There have been research projects into alternative uses for bulk low-value glass, in concrete and non-skid road surfaces for example.  You can get a low-volume glass bottle crusher which produces cullet with no sharps - I've specified that in some small recycling projects - in a small Caribbean island for example.  They were to use the crushed glass as construction aggregate.

And yes, there's a lot of value in an aluminium can, a bit less so in a steel can. But they are very recyclable.

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2721 on: 11 September, 2018, 01:20:40 pm »
There have been research projects into alternative uses for bulk low-value glass, in concrete and non-skid road surfaces for example.  You can get a low-volume glass bottle crusher which produces cullet with no sharps - I've specified that in some small recycling projects - in a small Caribbean island for example.  They were to use the crushed glass as construction aggregate.

I recall Greenwich council experimenting with using it to grit cyclepaths at one point.  With hilarious consequences.

Construction aggregate makes a lot more sense...

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2722 on: 11 September, 2018, 01:34:24 pm »
That really only PET and HDPE plastics (codes 1 and 2 - "soda" bottles and milk bottles) are recycled in the UK.  :-\  This was prompted by looking at a small pot that had had rollmops in it. It carried the recycling triangle and the number 5. But the label stated that it wasn't currently recycled. Curious, I googled it. It's PP - and so are all those "fresh" soup pots that have taken over from cans because they're "better"  ::-) and it's not currently collected for recycling, although it is recyclable.

I worked in municipal waste management for about 25 years, as an engineering geologist designing, building and rehabilitating landfills, and landfill gas collection and energy recovery systems.  The national game plan changed with the EU Landfill Directive around 2000, with financial instruments steering the nation away from landfill, now very successfully.  We now collect much more msw for recycling, but not all of it can be.  Particularly some plastics.  As you found, PET (polyester - think fleeces) and PE (polyethylene - milk bottles) are easily recycled, but most plastics are not.  But they have huge energy value, which can be (and is) recovered in Energy from Waste plants. So, the plastic you put out for recycling may not be recycled (which is the best way) but can be recovered (which is maybe second best).  Whatever, local authorities don't want to landfill it because they have to pay landfill tax on each tonne, it's better to sell it to an EfW plant.

Hmm, good point, tho whether or not our "recycling" gets sorted with the residue sent to EfW plants I don't know - I assume so as Bucks has a relatively new EfW plant not far from us. I hope so. In any event it's got to be better than putting it into the landfill bin.

The comment was also about how the public in general (including me in this case) may be misled by the "recycling" triangle.  It's a bit like Cost coffe sating their cups are recyclable. Well yes, but IIRC only one small plant is equipped so to do, as the film liner takes some separating from the card substrate. Not cost effective for most paper recyclers.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2723 on: 11 September, 2018, 01:40:27 pm »
How does that compare to recycling a metal or glass container, thobut?  I'm guessing it's a no-brainer if it's aluminium, but the energy costs get pretty marginal for glass...
As I recall, the economics of glass recycling are marginal.  IIRC, some local authorities, remote from the glass factories, found that it cost them to get the cullet to the factory for recycling, Anglesey springs to kind.  There's value in clear glass, but much less in green or brown because we don't make many wine bottles in the UK.

The opening of the new glass plant near Ellesmere Port may have changed the balance a bit - they make beer bottles AIUI.

There have been research projects into alternative uses for bulk low-value glass, in concrete and non-skid road surfaces for example.  You can get a low-volume glass bottle crusher which produces cullet with no sharps - I've specified that in some small recycling projects - in a small Caribbean island for example.  They were to use the crushed glass as construction aggregate.

And yes, there's a lot of value in an aluminium can, a bit less so in a steel can. But they are very recyclable.
When I was studying, word was that any aluminium product you had, was composed of ~17% 'new' aluminium - the rest having been recycled.

I cannot for one minute imagine how this was worked out.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: what I have learned today.
« Reply #2724 on: 11 September, 2018, 01:48:06 pm »
How does that compare to recycling a metal or glass container, thobut?  I'm guessing it's a no-brainer if it's aluminium, but the energy costs get pretty marginal for glass...
As I recall, the economics of glass recycling are marginal.  IIRC, some local authorities, remote from the glass factories, found that it cost them to get the cullet to the factory for recycling, Anglesey springs to kind.  There's value in clear glass, but much less in green or brown because we don't make many wine bottles in the UK.

The opening of the new glass plant near Ellesmere Port may have changed the balance a bit - they make beer bottles AIUI.

There have been research projects into alternative uses for bulk low-value glass, in concrete and non-skid road surfaces for example.  You can get a low-volume glass bottle crusher which produces cullet with no sharps - I've specified that in some small recycling projects - in a small Caribbean island for example.  They were to use the crushed glass as construction aggregate.

And yes, there's a lot of value in an aluminium can, a bit less so in a steel can. But they are very recyclable.
I thought most wine, worldwide, was transported in huge cisterns and mise en bouteille au pays de marche. There is a "wine train" that collects them from Avonmouth docks.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.