YESTERDAY'S news serves those green protesters right for annoying a lot of people. Secret plans revealed for second Gatwick runway, wrote The Times. I am glad their foolish acts got them nowhere.
I don't really know where I stand on the 'green issue', but I certainly know where I stand on the action taken by green protesters two weeks ago this Monday.
Protesters at Heathrow delayed thousands of people flying, for what I think are selfish, self-publicising reasons.
The stupidity of the protesters actions is that, although passive themselves, they tend to cause the opposite in others. They certainly will not be gaining much support from the people they have delayed or the people they delay in future. If they are going to succeed in their aims to prevent the expansion of airports, they need to get others on-side and this is not the way to do that.
I do tend to agree with what they stand for, but the way they are going about trying to make themselves heard disgusts me. Imagine how many of the flights they delayed for people were vital trips. Some would have been more needy to travel than others, but imagine some of the worst-case scenarios: Someone traveling to a funeral will now miss it; someone going to visit someone in dire need of them will not see them; someone attempting to get to see the birth of their child may not be there to see it.
Any of these examples are more worthy of the need to fly than the need of the protesters to stop flights. I hope the news yesterday makes the protesters realise that all the delaying of flights has done is be ineffective and annoy some people with bigger immediate priorities than rallying around the green argument and changes the way they protest in future.
I do fear that plans for another protest will not have been weakened, though.
Another thing that the protesters should consider is, what are people going to do in future if they cannot fly? Perhaps drive more cars around, which, lest they forget, also emit harmful fumes into the atmosphere. I am waiting to see protesters block off the M1 to persuade people to get buses.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Am I too young to get buses properly?
I GOT A TEXT TODAY from my girlfriend complaining about public transport and having to wait around an extra half-hour for a train.
But as much as she would have gladly swapped with me the cold, dreary wait at Blackpool Railway Station for my rather stress-free browse around Aylesbury's shopping centre, assured that my bus was 10 minutes away and I would be there on time, I would quite easily explain to her that she would not like my luck on public transport.
I've been on my first two weeks of placements for my journalism for the past fortnight, working at the Bucks Free Press last week and the Bucks Herald this week. I was fortunate last week that my dad drove me to the Bucks Free Press' headquarters in Loudwater to attend my placement with them, during which the biggest story I wrote was about a bus lane.
I really enjoyed it, writing a story that got published in a regional newspaper and knowing I had been out and counted cars on two half-hour occasions and worked hard for it. It was rewarding, as writing news stories can often be.
But since then, public transport has been paying me back.
This week, I have been getting up early to get a bus to Aylesbury to work on the Bucks Herald. I missed the bus on Wednesday and was going to have to pay a local taxi driver an extortionate £17 to get to the Bucks Herald, more than four times the price of the £4 return trip on the bus.
Granted, taxi drivers have to make some living so of course they will charge more than a bus, and taxis get you to your exact destination with no stops, but this price was just extortionate. Fortunately, my dad offered me a lift. No win for the bus this time.
But today, public transport really did 'do me over.'
Let's go back to Aylesbury shopping centre, browsing the PS3 bundle offers in Game. I went to get my bus and checked as usual the details of my bus on one of those cute, little computers they now provide in any good bus station near you. Time, 17.45: check. Bay number, two: check.
Everything seemed to be going to plan; I was on my bus and happily on my journey home. Until my bus did something like this.
It seemed to go all around the houses, and not just a few. I could have sworn blind it went around every house in Buckinghamshire. I thought it was a bit strange when the journey took a detour through Wendover, where a lot of people got off.
Make that everyone. Everyone had got off the bus, apart from the driver, obviously. 'Something's up', I thought. It became clear when the driver pulled up and turned around on a T-junction ready to turn back that I had got on the wrong bus.
So instead of the bus I checked the details of thoroughly on that ever-so-convenient computer back at the bus station taking me back to my home town Tring, the evil computer had sent me on this route.
That's right. I had ended up in RAF Halton. Fortunately for me, my dad was at hand once again to bail me out of a public transport disaster. Though public transport can defeat me, it certainly cannot defeat my dad.
Perhaps it's an age thing and by his age I will be able to withstand the bullying buses. That would explain why so many old people get buses.
But as much as she would have gladly swapped with me the cold, dreary wait at Blackpool Railway Station for my rather stress-free browse around Aylesbury's shopping centre, assured that my bus was 10 minutes away and I would be there on time, I would quite easily explain to her that she would not like my luck on public transport.
I've been on my first two weeks of placements for my journalism for the past fortnight, working at the Bucks Free Press last week and the Bucks Herald this week. I was fortunate last week that my dad drove me to the Bucks Free Press' headquarters in Loudwater to attend my placement with them, during which the biggest story I wrote was about a bus lane.
I really enjoyed it, writing a story that got published in a regional newspaper and knowing I had been out and counted cars on two half-hour occasions and worked hard for it. It was rewarding, as writing news stories can often be.
But since then, public transport has been paying me back.
This week, I have been getting up early to get a bus to Aylesbury to work on the Bucks Herald. I missed the bus on Wednesday and was going to have to pay a local taxi driver an extortionate £17 to get to the Bucks Herald, more than four times the price of the £4 return trip on the bus.
Granted, taxi drivers have to make some living so of course they will charge more than a bus, and taxis get you to your exact destination with no stops, but this price was just extortionate. Fortunately, my dad offered me a lift. No win for the bus this time.
But today, public transport really did 'do me over.'
Let's go back to Aylesbury shopping centre, browsing the PS3 bundle offers in Game. I went to get my bus and checked as usual the details of my bus on one of those cute, little computers they now provide in any good bus station near you. Time, 17.45: check. Bay number, two: check.
Everything seemed to be going to plan; I was on my bus and happily on my journey home. Until my bus did something like this.
It seemed to go all around the houses, and not just a few. I could have sworn blind it went around every house in Buckinghamshire. I thought it was a bit strange when the journey took a detour through Wendover, where a lot of people got off.
Make that everyone. Everyone had got off the bus, apart from the driver, obviously. 'Something's up', I thought. It became clear when the driver pulled up and turned around on a T-junction ready to turn back that I had got on the wrong bus.
So instead of the bus I checked the details of thoroughly on that ever-so-convenient computer back at the bus station taking me back to my home town Tring, the evil computer had sent me on this route.
That's right. I had ended up in RAF Halton. Fortunately for me, my dad was at hand once again to bail me out of a public transport disaster. Though public transport can defeat me, it certainly cannot defeat my dad.
Perhaps it's an age thing and by his age I will be able to withstand the bullying buses. That would explain why so many old people get buses.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Can journalist's converge themselves? (And why I'm not a broadcast student)
I decided to be advantageous today and try out mixing together a few clips from my Fujifilm camera (recommended on my journalism course) of myself playing my Yamaha keyboard.
Here is how it went:
As you can see, it wasn't a complete disaster, but still overly disappointing from my point of view. But it was my first time attempting to mix together some of my own clips and, bearing in mind that I was using music, I think it was quite ambitious.
It raises the point that is made time and time again throughout my journalism course that journalists should be multi-skilled now in a newsroom that is converging. Obviously, as primarily a print journalist, I would like to improve on my skills using my digital camera, and would be satisfied if I could do it as well as this guy.
Mario Ajero is not a broadcaster. He studies music at a university in Texas, but his video skills are something I aspire to.
In that respect, Mario is like the citizen journalist, and exemplifies why they are a threat to the professional journalist, which I am training to become. It shows that if anyone, no matter what profession they are already in, has a knack for using digital equipment, they can be competition to the professional journalist even only in their spare time.
The convergence of the newsroom means that now journalists have more to do and it is affecting how much they can get out and get stories while they are being told to record this, video that, write this, upload that.etc. Perhaps some of these citizens who have a knack of using equipment and would do it in their spare time could be channeled by newspaper editors into the direction of recording entertaining or exciting events for the newspaper. This could be a cheap option because the newspaper would not have to buy equipment and, perhaps, not buy the labour.
This would free up journalists who are not getting 'out there' enough. Or at least that's what I thought it should do. I have noticed during my work placement this week that barely anyone is in the newsroom because its journalists are 'out there' on their patches getting stories and sending them in by laptop.
The point still stands, though, that citizen journalism could be channeled to better, and cheap, use, especially during these dark days of economic downturn.
Here is how it went:
As you can see, it wasn't a complete disaster, but still overly disappointing from my point of view. But it was my first time attempting to mix together some of my own clips and, bearing in mind that I was using music, I think it was quite ambitious.
It raises the point that is made time and time again throughout my journalism course that journalists should be multi-skilled now in a newsroom that is converging. Obviously, as primarily a print journalist, I would like to improve on my skills using my digital camera, and would be satisfied if I could do it as well as this guy.
Mario Ajero is not a broadcaster. He studies music at a university in Texas, but his video skills are something I aspire to.
In that respect, Mario is like the citizen journalist, and exemplifies why they are a threat to the professional journalist, which I am training to become. It shows that if anyone, no matter what profession they are already in, has a knack for using digital equipment, they can be competition to the professional journalist even only in their spare time.
The convergence of the newsroom means that now journalists have more to do and it is affecting how much they can get out and get stories while they are being told to record this, video that, write this, upload that.etc. Perhaps some of these citizens who have a knack of using equipment and would do it in their spare time could be channeled by newspaper editors into the direction of recording entertaining or exciting events for the newspaper. This could be a cheap option because the newspaper would not have to buy equipment and, perhaps, not buy the labour.
This would free up journalists who are not getting 'out there' enough. Or at least that's what I thought it should do. I have noticed during my work placement this week that barely anyone is in the newsroom because its journalists are 'out there' on their patches getting stories and sending them in by laptop.
The point still stands, though, that citizen journalism could be channeled to better, and cheap, use, especially during these dark days of economic downturn.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Universities should scrap rubbish retake marks
University students will be eagerly searching their university's website this week, in hope of succeeding in retaken exams.
While many successful students have had long, care-free Summers, having passed their exams, the ones who failed have not had the weight of work lifted. Instead, they have been studying hard to achieve a result of 40 per cent, which is the maximum a student can achieve on a retake. On paper, this reflects a mere scrape over the finish line. But in many cases, I'm not convinced that this result even scratches the surface of what many will have achieved in their retakes.
I am one of those who have had to retake an exam in August, having fallen six per cent short of the 40 pass mark May. I was relieved today to find that I had indeed passed, but it wasn't the buzz of elation I had expected. Instead, I felt an undercurrent of disappointment that my result did not reflect how well I may have really done in that exam.
Is, then, the 40 per cent limitation on retakes really necessary? Let's look at the positives: it's a great incentive for students to pass these exams first time around; it may also make the marking process less hassle for tutors; and it prevents the injustice of retakers achieving better marks than those who have passed first time.
As much as the limitation is a great incentive to pass first time around, it can have the adverse effect once a student fails. It is frustrating and demoralising at the very least that a student can know the subject inside out come the time of the retake and know they will pass with ease and still only get 40 per cent, a mark which says nothing on the marking sheet of how much the student might really know.
Whether or not the limitation makes it less hassle for tutors to mark papers should be bottom of the agenda when deciding to impose this limitation. That is not to say that exams should not be structured to make the marking system easier, but that the needs of the candidates sitting the exams should come first.
The strongest argument for the limitation would seem to be that it would be unfair if Jim retaking his exam achieved more than Sally did first time. However, there would be a simple way around this. The system should be changed to allow those who have passed already to improve their marks at the time of the retake should they want to. That would put them on level terms with the candidates retaking and allow the first-time failures to get the mark they deserve the second time around.
Sceptics may argue that there should not be any retakes in the first place and no second chances. However, with something so long as a three-year degree, getting rid of retakes would be an unwise option when failing a module would lead to a complete failure of the degree. When an exam makes up one of many different parts of the degree, it would be an injustice for someone to fail theirs completely based simply on, perhaps, a bad day at the office when it comes to the exam. Instead, it should be the 40 per cent limitations which are scrapped.
Universities should sit up and take notice of this advice, which would produce results which are more reflective of what the student knows come the time of passing their degree, instead of the confusing double-implication that they either failed or passed first time with a mark of 40.
While many successful students have had long, care-free Summers, having passed their exams, the ones who failed have not had the weight of work lifted. Instead, they have been studying hard to achieve a result of 40 per cent, which is the maximum a student can achieve on a retake. On paper, this reflects a mere scrape over the finish line. But in many cases, I'm not convinced that this result even scratches the surface of what many will have achieved in their retakes.
I am one of those who have had to retake an exam in August, having fallen six per cent short of the 40 pass mark May. I was relieved today to find that I had indeed passed, but it wasn't the buzz of elation I had expected. Instead, I felt an undercurrent of disappointment that my result did not reflect how well I may have really done in that exam.
Is, then, the 40 per cent limitation on retakes really necessary? Let's look at the positives: it's a great incentive for students to pass these exams first time around; it may also make the marking process less hassle for tutors; and it prevents the injustice of retakers achieving better marks than those who have passed first time.
As much as the limitation is a great incentive to pass first time around, it can have the adverse effect once a student fails. It is frustrating and demoralising at the very least that a student can know the subject inside out come the time of the retake and know they will pass with ease and still only get 40 per cent, a mark which says nothing on the marking sheet of how much the student might really know.
Whether or not the limitation makes it less hassle for tutors to mark papers should be bottom of the agenda when deciding to impose this limitation. That is not to say that exams should not be structured to make the marking system easier, but that the needs of the candidates sitting the exams should come first.
The strongest argument for the limitation would seem to be that it would be unfair if Jim retaking his exam achieved more than Sally did first time. However, there would be a simple way around this. The system should be changed to allow those who have passed already to improve their marks at the time of the retake should they want to. That would put them on level terms with the candidates retaking and allow the first-time failures to get the mark they deserve the second time around.
Sceptics may argue that there should not be any retakes in the first place and no second chances. However, with something so long as a three-year degree, getting rid of retakes would be an unwise option when failing a module would lead to a complete failure of the degree. When an exam makes up one of many different parts of the degree, it would be an injustice for someone to fail theirs completely based simply on, perhaps, a bad day at the office when it comes to the exam. Instead, it should be the 40 per cent limitations which are scrapped.
Universities should sit up and take notice of this advice, which would produce results which are more reflective of what the student knows come the time of passing their degree, instead of the confusing double-implication that they either failed or passed first time with a mark of 40.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
