>>Many of the NVQ courses are virtually the same as the old C&G ones - so >>where does that leave all of us who started with them?
>You can still do C&G, Mike. The NVQs at a higher level are pretty good, but >not many people (afaik) take them - but whether that's because the providers >find it more difficult to get the funding for it or not, I don't know. For >the provider, NVQ I and II is easy money (not to be confused with the >assessors who work very hard!).
I'm inclind to agree there Jackie. My only experience of NVQs and the VIP card was that the entire credit for the VIP card went to the training agency, we still had to pay just as much for the trainee's course as we would have anyway, and the standard of training was poorer. And the VIP card was supposed to give a "free market economy" but there was only one engineering training agency in the area!
On 28 Aug 1998 21:49:29 -0000, ri...@global-remove-net.co.uk (Rick
Ansell) wrote:
<Snip>
>And graduate scientists devoid of any great usefulness... I got a >shock when I joined the civil service and found the executive grades >significantly better payed than the scientists. The explanation >'Scientists are specialists, executive grades can turn their hands to >_anything_' Yeah, right.
Yeah, one reason I got out of the Civil Service - the executive grades were better paid, and then got a bonus for having qualifications which we needed to get our jobs in the first place!
> >> .... The real problem is that, in > >> Britain, we have never made the link between intelligence > >> and practical skills.
> >Well said Mike. We have always regarded manual workers as > >being intellectually inferior to office workers, and > >graduate engineers have always been seen as being devoid of > >any great intellect. And us liking to think of ourselves as > >the workshop of the world!!!!!
> And graduate scientists devoid of any great usefulness... I got a > shock when I joined the civil service and found the executive grades > significantly better payed than the scientists. The explanation > 'Scientists are specialists, executive grades can turn their hands to > _anything_' Yeah, right.
Er they also set the salary scales, design the organisational structure. I worked in a steel works where all the management were engineers, guess who were at the bottom of the stack. At the interview the personel officer asked if I could give him a lift to the station, it was the only question he asked. I was so sorry to say no!
nial...@btinternet.com (Niall) wrote: >On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 20:45:55 GMT, can...@tclayton.demon.co.uk (Tony >Clayton) wrote: >>The sad fact is that IMHO the police failed in their duty of care by allowing Mr Hamilton >>a firearms certificate when he was not an active member of a club.
>This was entirly deliberate, due to the fact that he was an active >member of a different kind of club, as was the policeman who signed >his certificate renewals despite advice from his constables that T.H. >was clearly utterly hatstand and a dangerous loony who shouldn't be in >charge of a water pistol.
This was a newspaper story which was discredited. A good way of getting rid of an irritating reporter is to feed him an idea which won't stand a minute or two's examination, hoping that he will rush into print and make a fool of himself (reporters being surprisinly gullible, especially when they *want* to believe something). Didn't work particularly well in this case, because a lot of other gullible people wanted to believe it as well.
The best case of this I have heard was of a reporter who was badgering people at Marconi, during the war. They got fed up with him, and came up with a good idea. They told him that, while they were not doing anything of interest, he should go down the road to De Haviland's, at Hatfield, who were developing bullet-proof paint. They even told him who to speak to. As soon as he left, they phoned thier friend at D.H., and explained their idea. When the reporter arrived, he was taken to the range (where they aligned the guns on fighters). There were two aircraft there, one which had completed alignment and one which was about to be aligned. He was told that they had just finished a test firing; this target (indicating the one in front of the first aircraft) was painted wint normal paint (it was, of course, shot to pieces), while the other one (a new target) was painted with bullet-proof paint. Not even marked. The reporter was overjoyed, and rushed off and wrote his story, and even claimed to have observed the test!
>>>The sad fact is that IMHO the police failed in their duty of care by allowing Mr Hamilton >>>a firearms certificate when he was not an active member of a club.
>>This was entirly deliberate, due to the fact that he was an active >>member of a different kind of club, as was the policeman who signed >>his certificate renewals despite advice from his constables that T.H. >>was clearly utterly hatstand and a dangerous loony who shouldn't be in >>charge of a water pistol.
>This was a newspaper story which was discredited. A good way of >getting rid of an irritating reporter is to feed him an idea which >won't stand a minute or two's examination, hoping that he will rush >into print and make a fool of himself (reporters being surprisinly >gullible, especially when they *want* to believe something). Didn't >work particularly well in this case, because a lot of other gullible >people wanted to believe it as well.
That is of course what they'd like you to believe, at the time it was rather more than *a* newspaper story. Anyway, not being easily convinced by newspaper stories, aat the time I asked someone who was in a position to know, who confirmed that it is true. All we have in public is contradictory claims from both sides; the inquiry strangely decided not to even look at this aspect.
>>And graduate scientists devoid of any great usefulness... I got a >>shock when I joined the civil service and found the executive grades >>significantly better payed than the scientists. The explanation >>'Scientists are specialists, executive grades can turn their hands to >>_anything_' Yeah, right.
>Yeah, one reason I got out of the Civil Service - the executive grades >were better paid, and then got a bonus for having qualifications which >we needed to get our jobs in the first place!
You'l be glad to know that the pay differential steadily been eroded. The 'powers that be' seemed to notice that there weren't enough people to do the actual work.
As an example of the situation, I joined in Sept 1986 with 9 others. Six months later 4 of us remained. A year later two of us were left.
To get back on track, my point was partly that its not just a denigration of 'blue collar' jobs. There is a definite hierarchy where people with practical skills, whether office based or not, are regarded as inferior. The closer you are to actually getting your 'hands dirty' the lower in the pecking order you are.
IMHO things have got worse in recent years, with the arrival of the cult of the manager. The problem isn't that management is not important, and that it needed improving. The problem is threefold. One is the manager who forgets _why_ we have managers, or at least why we _should_ have managers. Another is the distortions created by the financial environment in which companies and public bodies operate. The final one is the rarity of people with a practical or technical background in the corridors of power.
The function of management is to organise and coordinate work. It is to enable something to be produced, whether a service (Advice to someone in my case.) or a physical product. It is not to implement blindly the latest fad.
Management is important. But saying that does not make managers more important than those they manage.(So many managers seem to forget that without someone to do the actual work they are nothing.)
I'd like to say a lot more on these issues but I'm a civil servant and I'd stray into excessively political areas.
Rick --
Hell runs under Win 3.11 Purgatory uses NT Heaven's host is a Linux Box And Valhala owns a Beowulf machine
>>> .... The real problem is that, in >>> Britain, we have never made the link between intelligence >>> and practical skills.
>>Well said Mike. We have always regarded manual workers as >>being intellectually inferior to office workers, and >>graduate engineers have always been seen as being devoid of >>any great intellect. And us liking to think of ourselves as >>the workshop of the world!!!!!
>And graduate scientists devoid of any great usefulness... I got a >shock when I joined the civil service and found the executive grades >significantly better payed than the scientists. The explanation >'Scientists are specialists, executive grades can turn their hands to >_anything_' Yeah, right.
If they can do anything, why do they need scientists? Could you pass on the question and say one of their employers wants to know the answer. :-)
>I'd like to say a lot more on these issues but I'm a civil servant and >I'd stray into excessively political areas.
And there's another problem with modern - and old fashioned - management. The majority just can't stand an employee who has their own opinions and ideas.
>>The underlying basis of the exam was >>more based in the social class of the participants and the affluence of >>the area than in any innate ability
>In this I don't. There is no evidence to suppose that this is the case and >much to say it isn't. Going back to your first statement, there was an >allotted number of passes 'allowed'. Clearly, the bias was therefore >towards those with a better primary education. From this point of view, it >could be argued that for much of the period in which the 11-plus was in >vogue, social class was a factor.
Class, location, primary education provided in the area you attended. I think you've made the point I was trying to but more clearly than me :)
> But it was not class per se, it was the >result of class factors on education. This may be a moot point but it is an >important one because there were many from poor backgrounds (myself and a >number of friends included) who benefited from the 11-plus.
>Although it may have been flawed in its implementation, it nevertheless >awarded opportunities to those who previously would never have had them.
>Jim Pulling
I accept that some benefited from the system who might have not done so otherwise - but my concern is that the system was flawed and caused some of those who should have benefited to fail.
I've just come back to this thread after a few days out so sorry if my replies seem a bit dated - mind you the Llangollen has a marvellously mellowing effect at this end of the year - even some good weather!
Back to boats at last!
Regards
BobG
------------ ** Remove spamguard before replying ** -------------------- Bob Griffith "The Earth is but one country nb "Dormouse" and mankind its citizens" Bob_Griff...@spamguard.bigfoot.com - Baha'u'llah
Oops - sorry Steve - I've just come back from the Llangollen and send a reply to your last post before re-editing the last paragraph. - Perhaps I'll catch you up here sometime in the future or if I can get down to the Oxford and we'll have that discussion on testing (or something more related to boats ;))
Regards
BobG
------------ ** Remove spamguard before replying ** -------------------- Bob Griffith "The Earth is but one country nb "Dormouse" and mankind its citizens" Bob_Griff...@spamguard.bigfoot.com - Baha'u'llah
In article <35e47ef...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>, Jackie Lewis <jale...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>Wow! So you'll know about Basil Bernstein's research as well then? And of >course, we still see the results of his completely concocted research to >this day.
Jus' cos' sum folk doh spake proper like - they cor' be as clever as we.
(or meaningful words to that effect ;->). I had some very entertaining discussions with my lecturers about this. I'm afraid Bernstein's ideas still didn't convince me - it must be my upbringing that's at fault. I am happy to accept that there are environmental differences caused by upbringing but it appears that a lot of researchers have failed to eliminate the bias caused by their own prejudices and made value judgements accordingly.
>>Several students at our school are now following a curriculum >>that is failing them, yet the school is not permitted by law to vary the >>curriculum sufficiently to help these pupils. >Well said, Bob. Who are you? ;-)
Just someone who is becoming a rather cynical teacher in a comprehensive school. I teach IT and business subjects across the age range 11-19 and have noted that some of our most disruptive and difficult pupils in years 10-11 become keen, enthusiastic and successful when faced with a course that allows them to demonstrate and develop the abilities they have got, instead of constantly presenting them with failure.
Regards
BobG ------------ ** Remove spamguard before replying ** -------------------- Bob Griffith "The Earth is but one country nb "Dormouse" and mankind its citizens" Bob_Griff...@spamguard.bigfoot.com - Baha'u'llah
In article <16950367...@cemr.wvu.edu>, Wallace Venable <venable@wvucemr1 .cemr.wvu.edu> writes
>> To return to the canals, if I was hiring out boats I would wish to >> protect my investment enough to at least ensure hirers were either >> already competent or responsible enough to learn quickly.
>Actually, hire boat operators DO THIS, by interviewing the crew at >the start of the trip in the process of releasing the boat. The >"demonstration run" which I have been given on most occasions is both >a practical test and an oral quiz, as well as a tutorial. These have >been far more thorough than the "check-out" in any hire automobile, >and I have always learned something in the process.
Having hired from several different boatyards I/we have never had to prove our competence - we've just been asked about previous experience with, sometimes, a bit of discussion about it.
I've just come back from a cruise from Alvechurch and it was the first time all the crew were gathered together for a safety talk by the yard before we could take the boat. Mind you - it was the "experienced boaters' version of the talk".
Having said all that - our competence at steering out of a tightly packed marina or moorings has always been observed, I would hope that any significant show of incompetence would have precipitated some action from the yard. -- Pete Sykes Brighton, East Sussex, England
Bob Griffith wrote in message <+WJVoFAYQy61E...@adschool.demon.co.uk>... >In article <35ecc5c4.267947...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>, Jim Pulling ><delta...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes >>Bob Griffith <B...@spamguard.adschool.demon.co.uk> recently penned ...
>>>The 11-plus was at best a lottery
Yes...1960 passed my 11+ Not won anything else on the Lottery.....I must be due for a win ??
On 30 Aug 1998 00:37:36 -0000, ri...@global-remove-net.co.uk (Rick
Ansell) wrote:
>You'l be glad to know that the pay differential steadily been eroded. >The 'powers that be' seemed to notice that there weren't enough people >to do the actual work.
To be fair they did up our pay - 2 weeks after I resigned!
>As an example of the situation, I joined in Sept 1986 with 9 others. >Six months later 4 of us remained. A year later two of us were left.
In article <35EBEAC8.A0F48...@consunet.nl>, MartinP <m.pater...@consunet.nl> writes
>I also won UKP100 with one premium bond in 1960, NOTHING since :>(
Ah well - keep trying :)
I read somewhere that the chances of winning a prize on the Premium bonds is now 1 in 19000. How does that compare with the national lottery (avoiding the usual derisive comments I make about it ;))
Regards
BobG
------------ ** Remove spamguard before replying ** -------------------- Bob Griffith "The Earth is but one country nb "Dormouse" and mankind its citizens" Bob_Griff...@spamguard.bigfoot.com - Baha'u'llah
<B...@spamguard.adschool.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <35EBEAC8.A0F48...@consunet.nl>, MartinP ><m.pater...@consunet.nl> writes >>I also won UKP100 with one premium bond in 1960, NOTHING since :>(
>Ah well - keep trying :)
>I read somewhere that the chances of winning a prize on the Premium >bonds is now 1 in 19000. How does that compare with the national >lottery (avoiding the usual derisive comments I make about it ;))
The chances of winning any prize are 1 in 54 - basically it's about 1 in 55 for UKP10, and little chance of anything else!
Richard Lucas wrote: >Hireboat owners must be feeling very uneasy tonight, with visions of >next year's bookings evaporating.
Having watched another disaster in the making at Penkridge, and having called the hireboat company with full details of the mismanagement of their hireboat (which included having an 8-year old on the boat alone, driving it into the lock while the father shouted instructions from lockside), the hireboat company's response was very....... erm........ disinterested. This was two days after the deaths in Gargrave, which I mentioned to the person at the office.
It's not just hireboaters that do stupid or potentially dangerous things at locks, after the six weeks from Manchester to London and back, the list would be too long and depressing.
-Mike and Su and CC, resting comfortably in Castlefield Basin
>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:18:01 GMT, nial...@btinternet.com (Niall) >wrote:
>>.>How do charter companies obtain coverage? >>.> >>.They do require a degree of experience depending on the boat and >>.sailing waters, but in general do *not* insist on paper >>.qualifications, although there is a (regrettable IMO) trend in this >>.direction.
>I'm struggling with this one.
>We have discussed training before, and I really do understand >many people hereabouts who are resisting more paperwork and >officialdom.
>But - would you let your young children go off to school where >teachers had no real qualifications - they had just picked it up >as they went along - would you let your young children go away on >a youth camp with climbing or walking on the moors / hills or >canoeing on the sea - if you were not sure that the people who >were looking after them were up to the job - qualified or >whatever.
>I think the general thread here is that many agreed that people >who take groups of children / adults onto boat should have some >formal training.
>Back to hire boats - would you let your child go away on holiday >on a boat with their friend and family if you thought the other >parent was untrained in the use of the boat.
>Where do we draw the line - ?
>What is wrong with good training ?
Hope you don't mind me re-starting a thread that you thought was dead and buried, but I've been thinking about this one on and off for the last couple of weeks, because for quite a lot of that time I was in effect on a 'youth camp' led by people with 'no real qualifications', who had 'picked it up as they went along'.
I was at the WRG Canal Camp setting up the Salford festival. As with all canal camps, the leaders were experienced and competent and carefully chosen by the WRG organisation, and I believe they did their job well (if a little idiosyncratically in the case of Mick Beattie!), and did their best to ensure that - as much as was possible given the weather conditions - the camp ran smoothly, and everything was done safely.
But they didn't have any official qualifications, or any formal training as camp leaders.
Yes I know that we have our own WRG 'qualifications' - a driver authorisation scheme to control use of plant and vehicles, and a proper start-of-camp safety talk and volunteers health and safety guide, and we don't take children under 17 on our camps (although we do get a lot of 17 year olds).
But we don't have anything that the authorities would regard as 'official', and I worry slightly that any move towards requirement for formal training and qualifications for people organising any activity holidays will eventually hit WRG, and either our insurers or government regulations will put an end to canal camps as we know them, or at least result in us spending a lot more money running a lot fewer camps. -- Martin Ludgate Editor, waterway recovery group 'Navvies' magazine
