Wouldn't rewarding success help?

More education and access rah rah on the News at the moment. All difficult and complex, but now increasingly feeling like a retread of every debate of the last 15 years and probably more. I wonder if we're missing a trick that we have tried everywhere else. Specifically, I wonder whether we (the state) should reward universities on results, or rather only allow fee uplifts based on results.

This seems to meet everyone's objectives:
1. Academics want the best students they can get, so presumably they'd be for it.
2. State educated pupils do better, on a grade for grade basis, compared to private, so it would encourage universities to take more.
3. And it engages with the levers that universities control, i.e. what students do at the university, not how well the primary and secondary sectors have done.

Lots of definitional questions here: for a start, you'd have to ensure consistency of degree (which we don't have), though you might have a sliding scale to even out the obvious prestige problem (i.e. a First is worth more in a university that has stupider children). And there are doubtless lots of other issues here. I can see the incentives going a bit wrong in terms of the dynamic between independent and directed undergraduate work. However, in essence this feels to me as if it deserves more consideration, especially compared to the complexity of what OFFA is going to have to do now.

I'm just not sure academics (and civil servants) have given it much.

It's all Greek to me

So, yet again, I find I have comments to make on baptism. It turns out I'm not very interested in other 'sacraments', even the eucharist. But I am fascinated by baptism, because for me the theology of belonging is critical to my sense of what it means to be a church. As an aside, this is my framework for opposing the Romish practice of first communion for children at the age of seven that my church has now instituted, but I digress.

 

This morning, Today had an item on changing the baptism rite to make it 'less archaic.' That's possible I suppose, but the objection made to the baptismal liturgy was that it was hard to understand because it used the phrase 'Kingdom of heaven.' This raises two possibilities:

1. The woman in question is a moron. This is not a complicated phrase to understand. While we do not have a functioning monarchy in most western countries due to democratic government, we do not elect God. That is a fairly simple and understandable concept. Kingdom isn't an odd word.
2. The woman in question is a heretic (or possibly a heathen). Of all the Christians who have spoken of the Kingdom of God, Jesus did it most and did it first. Actually the biblical phrase is basileia tou theou, and the word there could be translated as dominion, but is really Kingdom (or Empire), though that wouldn't really help matters. Saying it feels wrong is a sign you don't know your Greek, haven't read a single commentary and have unfortunately lapsed into heresy. You certainly shouldn't then appear on the radio to talk about it.

So, anathema. Change the liturgy if you must (but it will usually end badly), but not that bit, and not for that reason. People may not be getting their children baptised, but saying citizen of heaven or some other nonsense isn't going to change that.

Bibliography, January 2011

Read (12)

BOTM: H. Lee, To kill a Mockingbird

A.S. Byatt, The Children's book
A. Christie, The mirror crack'd from side to side
A.C. Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles
D. du Maurier, Rebecca
L. Mitchell, Charles James Fox
A. Moore, Watchmen
R.C. O'Brien, Mrs Frisbee and the Rats of NIMH
M. Spark, The girls of slender means
Tacitus, The Histories (K)
Thucydides, The Peleponnesian War (K)
P.G. Wodehouse, Thank You, Jeeves

Bit of a rejig here. Because of what we might call 'Just in time' acquisition I've dropped numbers acquired. I will indicate what I've read on Kindle and what is a reread (with an *), but otherwise, anything else is bought or read from A's list .

I'd also add I almost had a tie here, though Lee's was best. Rebecca deserves an honourable mention. It's one of Anna's, and brilliant. Lushly written, clever in execution, painted with great characters, and fun to read. However, the lean, gentle prose of Mockingbird was better in every respect. Sparse, clever, and almost perfect descriptive prose, particularly at the start. It also had a lot more variation and shadow than I had thought it would.

In fact, neither were the books I expected them to be, and I'd single out two moments in both that were full of pathos almost carelessly thrown in beyond the main arc of narrative or point. In Rebecca there is a brief sequence near the end where Max comments that it is now too late, the nature of the girl he married has irrevocably changed by the knowledge she has gained, though of course the reader knows that knowledge is essential for her own happiness (sorry, that's a bit cryptic, but I'm avoiding spoilers). It's counterpart is the single line of Lee's where Atticus simply says ' Arthur, thank you for my children'. A hadn't remembered it, but it made me cry. That and especially the following sections I find critical to the book, representing a triumphant climax of the weaving together of the double, maybe even triple, narrative, and taking it beyond the already powerful (and famous) set pieces of the trial and its aftermath. A masterpiece.

Posh and posher

I was delighted, on Andrew Neil's programme last night on class, to hear the strains of Cowerd's The Stately homes of England (here, I think) at one point. It's a metaphor for the programme - it was all very enjoyable, and there is a proper point, but it was overly simplistic and the argument relied on sleight of hand.

Now, as I agreed with the answer - more selection, more rigour, now - I wondered why I found it so unsatisfying. And it is the shallowness of the debate, mirrored by the shallowness of the debate A and I then had. Having had time to think about it, the essential problem is that it conflated two quite different things. On the one hand, meritocracy and on the other homogeneity, and this permeated the whole debate. Too often, the problems of access to power (education, network etc) being in the hands of a tiny section of the population became mixed up with 'they all went to similar universities.' These are not necessarily linked. For example, were we to ensure that all the best people, regardless of background, went to Oxbridge, would we care that the cabinet was dominated by them? I suspect more people care about the private school thing; more people should care about the latter. But we should recognise the policy issues are distinct.

As an aside, there were also some unconsidered views on elitism (seen as bad, when it's probably good), and a mix up of causal factors: of course a lot of people who became politicians did politics at university. In fact, it's not even surprising they went to Oxford, which is where those kind of people go. Cambridge has a rubbish Prime Ministerial record.

Deserving of more scrutiny is the selection point. I have neither time and inclination to do so, but it is worth making a few points about this debate.

• Firstly, education is complex. There are obvious variations in focus, and importantly it is the main engine of social mobility. Unlike, say health, rank matters as much as attainment. So, within the country, being the longest lived person is less important than living another ten years; within education, coming first is more important than getting a doctorate. This is critical I think to policy development, and often ignored
• Thus, the debate about rigour often seems one sided. Take for example the English Bac debate. We can all agree that Gove should not have done this retrospectively, but it highlights in that wonderful phrase (used by the Economist last week) 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.' Banging on about the unfairness focusing on those 5 GCSEs misses the point. Life demands maths, English, analytical skill in the scientific and human spheres, and an appreciation of other cultures. By not teaching them, children don't just do badly in things that matter later, they don't even place. There is a debate to be had about whether Law is a harder A level than Maths (it isn't), but it misses most of the point.
• Linked to this is the issue of soft selection. Currently, there is extensive selection in the state system. More subtle than an entrance exam, thus only really discernable to the middle class, thus far far worse than hard selection, whereby everyone knows the rules. I find it astonishing that we decry it (absurdly) when Oxford practises an interview system, but allow 'comprehensives' to select on a variety of aptitudes for a proportion of pupils. Selection is good when it's simple and clear. 
• Finally, fairness. A's objection to selection is always that the 11+ is that it is unfair. Andrew Neil seems to agree. So it is - some people do badly out of it. But so is every other system. The test is not 'is it fair?' but is it fairer or better than the alternative. The evidence from social mobility I think is now pretty clear that comprehensive education has failed; attainment is probably better, but also weak. 

Could we design a better system than that of the 1950s? I suspect so, but it would still be highly selective. In an ideal world, a well-resourced streaming comprehensive would be best. And a lot could be done with precision of requirement and focus on objectives even now. However, resources are constrained, and it is easier and cheaper to group and teach accordingly, allowing cohesion and expectation to do the work of individual attention. Without vast resources, sound selection is the best way to do the most good.

Fight for the right to filibuster

I am loving the Lords debate about electoral reform - especially the bit about prime numbers. I'm most amused to see Labour, who drivelled on about family friendly hours and ending all night sittings in the 1990s suddenly converted to the filibuster (though Faulkner is still denying this is what it is).

I'm delighted they're filibustering and I think the Liberals et al miss the point when they claim that is undemocratic. Firstly, the Lords isn't meant to be, and secondly, if all they did was vote, we could do legislation in minutes. Instead, we debate, and if people feel so strongly they're willing to stay up all night to delay it, that's fine. Electorates won't stand for it being done all the time, and in the end government will pass it. So, another anathema on the Liberals.

To the points of substance. I think the issues under debate are being confused unhelpfully. Let's break them out (apart from AV, because no-one cares)

• Is the constituency plan proposed gerrymandering?
• Is the proposed equalisation plan a good idea?
• Is 600 the right number of constituencies?
• Should AV and the equalisation be yoked in legislation?

Firstly, gerrymandering: now, it may be that the process for carving up the new constituencies is corrupt, but no one has alleged this. Instead the accusation on gerrymandering seems to be that this will benefit the Tories. Indeed it will, but only because the current system benefits Labour. Equalising constituency sizes is, on a numerical basis, fair; not gerrymandering

Is it a good idea? Obviously not. This - hidden in this unhelpfully titled article is the real point. It is pointless to keep constituencies if they don't represent real boundaries. That's a bad idea, but it's not gerrymandering, and it's not that important. It's damning that Labour is up all night to block a reduction in its MPs, but not about 'too far too fast' cuts.

The final two points seem to have become Labour causes and I cannot fathom how they are allowed to get away with it. On numbers, while rhetorically it's easy to shout 'why not 500? why not 700?' but why 651? The number is arbitrary and irrelevant. Just pick one and get on with it. And the yoking point is irrelevant. Lots of things are yoked together, especially in coalitions. I suggest if you want to see irrelevant things yoked together in bills you should visit the States. This is mild, and perfectly reasonable. You could divorce the controversial from the uncontroversial, but you could do that with every bill; we'd be here forever with piecemeal legislation and exhausted parliamentarians.

Ultimately, everyone seems to be under a mistaken view of the purpose of an electoral system. Politics is not there to reflect with accuracy the views of the people, thank God. Rather it's there to ensure stability, law, and then prosperity and well-being. A 'democratic' system isn't better if it leads to chaos or war (as this article on Tunisia fails to understand). So, I would recommend everyone stops quibbling, and stops trying to change things, especially the Lords, for they're the best bit of our parliament, even (nay especially) in filibuster mode.

Bibliography, 2010

As before, here my summary of the year

January - E. Burke, Reflections on the revolution in France
February - R. Gildea, Children of the Revolution
March - N. Gordimer, None to remember me
April - Homer, tr. Lattimore, The Iliad
May - V. Seth, The Golden Gate
June- D. Erasmus, Praise of Folly
July - L. Sciascia, The wine dark sea
August - M.Banffy, They were found wanting
September - G. Elliot, Scenes from clerical life
October - W. Faulkner, Go down, Moses
November - M. Druon, La Louve de France
December -J. Banville, The Untouchable

Interesting. I read a lot this year (145 books, just short of 2008's record 148), but very differently. Must less fiction, only about a third, compared to well over half in the last three years. A lot of history - more (for fun) than fiction for the first time since 2005. However for BOTM, a different picture. No 'cultural' books, and a step up in fiction and history: last year's 6:5:1 has been replaced by 0:8:4. The fiction / non-fiction divide here is a little blurred, but the Iliad should be History, and Druon is historical fiction. Neither are books of the year.

Instead, Fiction has to go to The Golden Gate - a modern classic, even if it has taken me about eight years to read it since someone recommended it to me. Banffy was great too, but nothing like the unrestrained exuberance of what surely will be Seth's only real survival in a generation. His other stuff is fine, but limited. An honourable mention to Banville, but it's just not as good.

Non-fiction is more finely poised: Burke, Erasmus and Gildea were all excellent. But Burke's treatment of the revolution is magisterial, and his language a glory to behold. Brilliant. Everyone should read it; even if everyone doesn't agree. I, of course, did.

Bibliography, December 2010

Acquired (6)
O.S. Card, Xenocide
S. Hill, Howard's End is on the Landing
W.G. Sebald, Austerlitz
A. Trollope, The way we live now
M. Twain, A Tramp Abroad
H. Walpole, The Castle of Otranto
 Read (16)
BOTM: J. Banville, The Untouchable

J. Austen, Northanger Abbey
O.S. Card, Xenocide
E. Cruikshanks (ed.), The Stuart Courts
A. Gide, La symphonie pastorale
D. Goleman, Social Intelligence
R. Mistry, A fine balance
S. Hill, Howard's End is on the Landing
A.W. Montford, The Hockey Stick illusion
A. Ross, The rest is noise
A. Trollope, The way we live now
M. Twain, A Tramp Abroad

H. Walpole, The Castle of Otranto

M. Willaert, Servir au Congo
E. Zola, J'Accuse

New acquisition has begun!

Anyway, book of the month was Banville about the Cambridge spies, which was excellent. Finely tuned, and achingly sad. I think the ending was unnecessary, as the pathos has already happened, the final betrayal wasn't needed, and in some senses was a little overneat. However, it was within acceptable parameters. The rest was very sound indeed.

It's a fascinating area, our western Communists, and I've read a few novels on them. It remains to me astonishing how so many of our elites could be seduced by it, but that's hindsight for you. Christopher Hitchens put it well I think in the Blair debate, when he spoke of communism, in the context of the ANC and the brilliant intellectuals. I'm not sure I believe, as he does that it 'represent[ed] some high points in human history' though it clearly wasn't worth it. However, the attraction of the ideal was a real one, though as this novel shows loaded with ambiguity, self-delusion and a total inability to understand the reality of the game being played. As such, a tragedy for all concerned.