I’m writing this as predominantly a whinging exercise whilst trying to defrost after walking back from taking my car to the garage and contemplating ringing up my phone insurance company – attempts at trying to fix two things that have failed on me in the last week.

Fortunately I don’t believe in karma, fate, bad luck or any of that nonsense or I’d be pretty convinced by now that I’d done something terribly wrong and was receiving due punishment. I just seem to be encountering a small series of unfortunate incidents which got me thinking how miserable January seems to be for most people. It’s cold, wet, dark, you’re forced back to work after enjoying a brief Christmas respite and most people seem to be complaining they need to lose x number of pounds after festive overindulgence. I don’t really get the overindulgence problem as I’d find it difficult to overindulge on anything. I can’t really cope with a great deal of rich food at once, my drinking over Christmas was pretty much zero as I had a lot of work to do and I developed a slight cold, which put me off food and drink anyway. I’ve only just made it through a cheese board I was given in mid-December (very nice, too) and Christmas present based confection is still floating around the house, which will probably last until the end of the month. I don’t appreciate the cold and dark though and Christmas seems to have left me with the inability to get to sleep before 4am every night, which is quite annoying. Despite the sleep deprivation, the cold, the dark, several deadline and the return to work I was getting on quite cheerfully. My car, on the other hand, gave in to January melancholia.

I’d thought a couple of weeks ago that it didn’t seem to be driving properly but I only use my car a couple of days a week and am a fairly terrified driver anyway, which sometimes makes me paranoid that the car is going to fall apart at any second. I put the perceived problem down to my over-active imagination and carried on – until a warning light appeared on the dash board and it started jerking about the place. I was fairly disheartened, as I’ve only had the car since Summer and I spent a lot getting it up to scratch when I got it (second hand) so a new problem to pay to fix is quite annoying, as it having to get the bus to work in the snow because you’re waiting to take the car to the garage. I deposited my car at the garage this morning, after liberating the windscreen wipers from several inches of iced over snow and causing my fingers a great deal of cold induced pain, before sliding my way home on the iced over pavements.

Over the weekend I had my second unfortunate incident. Prior to  this I was feeling quite jovial as I’d submitted a case study I’d spent a lot of time working on and was feeling the sense of heady freedom that comes with not having another deadline for 11 days. Then, I made the mistake of leaning over in the bathroom (never underestimate the perils of leaning over) and my precious and beloved phone fell out of my, frankly pathetic excuse for a hoodie pocket and straight down the toilet. I had it out and wrapped in a towel within seconds, actually I don’t think I’ve ever reacted to anything so quickly. Even when the office microwave set on fire I just casually mentioned the fact to somebody else and carried on trying to pin my calendar to the wall, expecting they would go deal with the fire. They did, after they realised I wasn’t joking, and all was well.

At first the phone seemed fine and I congratulated myself for keeping it in such a durable case and having a screen cover. Then the camera flash light came on and wouldn’t go off. I managed to fix it after an over an hour of drying out but various problems have come and gone since, including Siri awakening and talking to me from my pocket at random, which is fairly perturbing. I’ve tried to avoid having to replace the phone, hoping it would make a full recovery, as I’ve become very attached to it. Unfortunately, the problems are still persisting and I’m going to have to ring the insurance to claim for another (paying some ridiculous excess no doubt) and say a sad farewell to my current, trusty phone.

After I’ve pleaded with the insurance company I have some DIY tasks to undertake, as this morning more problems have emerged around me, and then I await the call from the garage to tell me what the damage is.

So, how’s your week going?

Today’s culprit is this article in The Independent, entitled Why I wish I’d dropped out of university by Tim Clist. I was intrigued by the headline and expected an interesting read, what I got was a very annoying read.

Tim basically starts of by describing his three years at Warwick University as “the worst three years of my life”. ‘Oh no’, I thought sympathetically, ‘something awful must have happened which made university a real struggle for him – serious depression, a family tragedy, a personal tragedy’ etc etc. No. The main reason why this was the “worst three years” of a young man’s life was basically because he got a bit bored. In his words:

I studied English, after switching from history. I had seminars of 12 people in lecturers’ offices no bigger than an average garden shed, a seven-hour a week timetable for 17 weeks a year, unfriendly and rarely available lecturers and tedious, rambling lectures.

University was like experiencing the shock of retirement, suddenly having hours and hours of free time to fill. The boredom and apathy that a seven-hour week induces should not be underestimated.

The sheer horror.

Now, as somebody who has completed an undergraduate degree and is currently undertaking a postgraduate degree, I’d say it was quite normal to only have around 7 hours of actual teaching per week, at least in the humanities/cultural studies/social sciences areas, I don’t know about other disciplines. This is because you are expected to do a large amount of reading and research on your own, plus your assignments and dissertation. You could easily fill up your time by completing core reading, optional reading and really making the effort to do individual research, which you are expected to do if you study at university level because  you are supposed to have a real interest in your chosen subject. A lecturer isn’t there to spoon feed you every aspect of your course.

I find it extremely hard to feel any sympathy for Tim because I, like many others, worked 20 – 30 hours a week whilst doing my undergraduate degree and am now working several days a week whilst completing my MA. I dearly wish I could have had more free time as an undergraduate, and now, because I could dedicate that time to extra studying or joining one of my university’s clubs or societies. If I’d had the luxury of not working as an undergraduate I would have loved to have got more involved in university life and perhaps found some interesting work experience. I’d love to have more free time now just to study more because I really enjoy research, but heigh ho, that’s life. Nobody was stopping Tim getting a job, finding work experience, doing volunteer work or joining a club. Unless I am wrong and somebody locked him in a room for the remaining 161 hours per week.

Tim goes on to blame his not getting a First on the fact his boredom resulted in demotivation and apathy. One would suggest that Tim could have eased his boredom by taking up one or more of the activities I have suggested above. He spends more time attacking the quality of teaching staff:

The dearth of lectures and seminars meant they really would have had to be of a high standard to make the whole experience worthwhile, but this was not the case.

One elderly tutor would ramble, eyes shut, for an hour in a way only loosely connected with the subject; one told us that seminars were all about what we could teach each other (which raised the question of what exactly she was being paid for) and left us to it; and one likeably eccentric man would hold forth on where the best tailors could be found in Modena, and other sundry irrelevant subjects.

Why Tim never raised a complaint with his course representative or department, if the lecturers were really so dire, is a question without an answer. Also, just as a 7 hour a week teaching schedule is normal so is working in seminar groups. This is to encourage students to do the requisite reading and learn how to formulate ideas and opinions. I have always found that a lot can be learned from seminars with your peers and debates can be extremely interesting and stimulating. They are not so the lecturer can slack off, as Tim seems to think.

In my three years, only two of my courses had well-run, productive, interesting seminars where there was genuine debate and interest.

Umm, surely the standard of debate depends on those contributing?

Tim then attacks Warwick’s place in the University league tables, basically accusing them of using suspect means to achieve such good placing. Now, I actually know alumnus of Warwick and current students and have never heard them make the same criticisms as Tim. They all seem satisfied that it is a good university. I presume if it were so easy to achieve a high league table ranking all the universities would be doing it. His arguments are extremely thin in this section, which rather suggest he should have spent more of his abundant free time at university learning how to formulate a valid, evidence-based argument.

He ends with:

So what lesson can be drawn? My three years at Warwick University were a waste of time. Had I known at the start what I know now I would have dropped out. If you start university and don’t like the lecturers, people and culture, drop out. Go and do something that you enjoy and are enthused by. You will be doing yourself a favour.

I would really question if this individual should be in a position to be offering such advice. I would really hate to think a teenager would read this article and be put off attending university because of the wafer thin arguments of one attention seeking male. It also makes me wonder, why didn’t he drop out? If it was really so unbearable and the lecturers were so awful and nobody cared about student welfare why didn’t he leave? Or, a better question, why did he never raise a single complaint during his time at Warwick? Their response indicates he never once complained whilst on his course:

“It’s a great pity if Tim Clist felt this strongly for three years without once raising his concerns with a tutor, student representative or an independent counsellor. Warwick has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure that complaints are heard fairly and, if something isn’t working, that it can be put right. It also has an effective pastoral support system to assist students in personal difficulties. Time and time again, these have been commended by the Quality Assurance Agency.

Tim Clist graduated with a 2.1 – a good degree. Both the English and history departments at Warwick are rated as “excellent” and regular student feedback demonstrates that Tim Clist’s experience of Warwick is far from typical

It’s pretty dubious to keep your bored silence for three years and then have an aggressive article published in the Independent, without so much as a preliminary complaint to the university. I have to ask how and why this article even ended up in the Independent? Why is this individual allowed column space to air their, frankly ridiculous, complaints and advise other people not to go to university?

For the record I really enjoyed my undergraduate degree, so much I saved up to do a MA degree, which I also enjoy very much and would encourage others to go to university if they feel this is right for them. Not to be put off by the advice of one gent because he couldn’t fill his own time adequately and has somehow, suspiciously, managed to get his whinging published in the Independent.

Now, I feel better for that outpouring. I shall return to my work whilst sighing and wishing wistfully that I had the time to be bored every now and then.

Note: The Independent article is not new but it appeared in my Facebook feed yesterday, so my annoyance is new.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 5,400 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 9 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

And click here for the text

Cheers

They’re also on twitter at @sciencecampaign – follow.

Thrilled they spelt my name right.

Well, today I got the opportunity to address the main hall at Labour Party Conference during the Rebuilding our Economy debate. Luckily, the hall was nice and full too as people were congregating ahead of Ed Balls speaking. Video is now up on iPlayer and I appear around 2:16.05

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n65gq/Labour_Party_Conference_2012_01_10_2012 

Thank you very much to everyone who sent Twitter comments/stopped me afterwards, really appreciate the feedback and glad that it went down wel. Hopefully science funding is something we can keep on the political agenda.

I’ll grab the video properly when I am back home, just wanted to quick post this for now.

I talk really fast… I hadn’t realised.

Edit: What’s with Kinnock and Hain hogging my limelight too?

Whilst I’m here I’ll also highlight this awesome HTS story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

See you at conference!

Update: Also I’ll be rearranging and updating this site a bit in the coming weeks so if things have vanished, like the side links, that’s why.

Just recently we have gone from celebrities avoiding tax, to potential O-level re-introduction, children abandoned in pubs, EU referendum talk, Libor scandal, police cuts, people setting themselves on fire outside the Job Centre, the Queen meeting Martin McGuinness, Lords reform, Chloe Smith getting offered up as a human sacrifice, ongoing Leveson enquiry et al

In simple terms, ‘it’s all kicking off’. I can’t help that remember when Brown was PM the lead story for days was that he called a woman a ‘bit bigoted’, actually Gillian Duffy seems to have cropped up in the news too recently, add immigration to the list of recent stories. Whilst we’re on that subject can we just get over that remark? I noted that as Gillian Duffy’s name began trending on Twitter recently several people furiously took to their keyboards to express how the incident was a perfect reminder of how much contempt Brown had for ordinary people and his supporters. Umm.. musing that you think somebody seemed a tad bigoted isn’t that bad, nor is it contemptuous, it’s not like he got in the car and ranted that she was a ‘fucking bitch’ or anything really offensive. He apologised, job done.

What was probably the most entertaining moment, in a depressing batch of news stories and example after example of government incompetence, was when David Cameron went to town on Jimmy Carr over his tax avoidance, practically falling over himself to have a go at the comedian and denounce his actions as ‘morally wrong’. Then promptly shutting up when it emerged that Tory-supporting chums like Gary (Fat Boy) Barlow, Tory-donor Lord Ashcroft and the PM’s own father-in-law Lord Astor had used tax havens. Presumable tax-avoidance is only immoral if you’re not a fully devoted member, supporter or donor of the Conservative Party. Glad we cleared that up. The exceptional mismanagement of the situation only served to make Carr, who apologised and came out to take the flak, look sympathetic and Cameron to look incredibly stupid. He must be paying his PR chaps a fortune…

Right now I’m looking at the political headlines and we’re still on the Libor scandal and Bob Diamond’s resignation, as if we needed reassuring that the bankers were a bad lot, they’ve not exactly done themselves a lot of favours in the last few years. Maybe they’re using the same PR people as Cameron? Good old Tony Robinson has come to the conclusion that bankers are not human, which might explain something, worth a watch here, the best rant I’ve seen in recent times.

Back to the headlines and Ken Clarke seems to be banging on about how we’re ‘losing the war on drugs’. I wasn’t aware that we had declared a war, nor am I really convinced that Ken Clarke has any idea what he is saying on this issue.

Other headlines seem to concern what has become the standard of late: cuts, ‘reforms’, cuts, EU, cuts, banks. All rather depressing really and by the time I hit publish no doubt a new demoralising scandal will have emerged.

If you have been sheltering under a rock and missed Samantha’s article in the Daily Mail (lucky you) about how women hate her because she is just so damn hot then you can catch up on it here. You can also read the  follow-up article here.

Samantha Brick - 2010

It’s all quite clever really, the perfect formula for a ‘hit’ article. By ‘hit’ I don’t mean good, because it actually makes me despair for the quality of journalism, even by the Mail’s poor standards. What I mean by ‘hit’ is hugely popular, provoking numerous comments and discussion. In the article, Samantha describes how other women hate her because she is too attractive and they are jealous, she details the abundance of freebies her looks have gotten her over the years (champagne, flowers, free cab fares etc) and the harsh treatment she has received from all those nasty, not as good-looking and not as slim women because of this. Nice, yah-yah sisterhood!

The article is so ridiculous and contentious that it was obviously engineered to provoke a storm. Comments flooded in, from both men and women, mainly criticising Samantha for her arrogant attitude. Of course, in the follow-up article Samantha uses the storm she created to prove that her original article was right: women hate her because she is beautiful and that’s why they have left negative comments. Simple. This ignores the fact that many comments were left by men and is just generally a poor, illogical argument. Of course, I am now also opening myself to the same accusation, I am criticising Samantha and the article so I must also be suffering from a fit of jealousy, inspired by her wonderous beauty. I’m not. Whether you believe that or not is up to you (although please consider that I am in my mid-20′s and Samantha is in her 40′s) but the reason the article makes me dislike this woman is nothing to do with the accompanying pictures. I dislike her because she comes across as shallow, arrogant, condescending and makes it sound as though all women are shallow, jealous harpies who make friends based solely on looks and bully women they deem to be more attractive than themselves. She is basically insulting an entire gender.

Samantha, striking a more flattering pose in recent times

I am sure that there might be women out there who dislike other women heartily simply because they are better looking than themselves but this is not something I have  come across within my circles of friends and collegues. I know many women who I would describe as much better looking than Samantha (who don’t feel the need to bang on about it either) and they are lovely people, nor, mysteriously, do they get free flowers and champagne flung at them day-to-day.

What I find most interesting in all of this are the previous articles Samantha has written, which seem very at odds with the latest article. Her article history is as follows:

The adult acne epidemic – Forget teenagers – modern age lifestyles mean middle-aged women increasingly suffer the misery of bad skin - An article where Samantha laments her recurrent, adult acne outbreaks.

I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work.. and so does ANY woman with any sense - This article opens with the words,

The truth is, I’d much rather work for a man than a woman. I’ve always dressed with the express intention to please and gratify my male bosses in the workplace.

If I had a choice of how to spend my ideal lunch hour, it’s a no-brainer. Each and every time I’d choose to flirt over lunch with a male superior rather than engage in mindless gossip with the girls over a Pret sandwich.

Which rather contradicts her words in the recent article,

I’m not smug and I’m no flirt

Don’t eat anything that won’t fit on a fork: It’s the daftest diet idea ever, but it actually works - One of Samantha’s many articles obsessing on weight and diets where she describes her,

double chin, chunky thighs and spreading middle

I’m sure she looked fine but this statement is somewhat at odds with her descriptions of how people hate her because she is so slim and beautiful and how she has regularly been lavished with gifts “throughout my adult life” because of her beauty.

Would YOU let your husband dress you? Samantha does and says she never looked better.  Here Samantha describes how crap her dress sense was before her husband picked her outfits for her – again, isn’t this at odds with the whole “throughout my adult life” statement.

In her husband's chosen attire.

Skipping past the articles about IVF and pre-nups you move on to:

I’ll always be that fat girl: Samantha Brick has always obsessed about her weight… all because she was a chubby child. In this article Samantha claims she has been a Size 12 all her adult life (see next headline).

Samantha Brick: Why a magazine for large women is just a big, fat con (and I should know, I used to be a Size 16) - Liar, liar, pants of undetermined size on fire?

My husband says he’ll divorce me if I get fat. - Almost a creepy as the my husband dresses me headline…

How TV is run by sexist pigs who only want one thing (and it’s not ratings): The shocking inside account from a former TV executive.  - I’d like to refer once again to this quote,

The truth is, I’d much rather work for a man than a woman. I’ve always dressed with the express intention to please and gratify my male bosses in the workplace.

If I had a choice of how to spend my ideal lunch hour, it’s a no-brainer. Each and every time I’d choose to flirt over lunch with a male superior rather than engage in mindless gossip with the girls over a Pret sandwich.

How could a well-educated TV executive let her addiction to psychics cost her £25,000 and ruin her marriage? - This headline sort of speaks for itself…

I’ve missed out a few, including the one where Samantha is bitching happily about her husbands ex-wife but they can all be found here.

What you learn through looking through her article history is that Samantha regularly contradicts herself and basically just writes whatever she fancies to get a reaction, seemingly regardless of the truth. To be blunt, she writes utter bollocks but is clever enough to write something that will provoke a huge reaction and make her name famous, for about a week anyway. I could do the same by writing an article for a national paper about ‘how people hate me because I am super intelligent and they are dumb and if you disagree it’s cause you’re jealous cause you are dumb too’ or ‘why God hates you because you are gay’ or even ’how Hitler was a nice chap really’. Like Samantha, I’d be famous for a week or so, but afterwards, when all the hysteria died down, I’d just be that silly twat with no friends who wrote that untrue and offensive article that everyone talked about for a few days.

Honestly, I don’t personally think Samantha is stunning looking or mind-blowingly ’beautiful’. I think she is pleasantly attractive to look at but nothing extraordinary. I assume that she probably has (too) high levels of confidence which make her appear more attractive in person, as confidence does. What I find hugely unattractive is her personality, her belief that all the women who dislike her do so because they are simply uglier than her and her insistence that any negative comment towards her now just proves that she is right. I assume that this is actually why other women dislike her, if what she is saying about her bad experiences are actually true.

What is annoying is the reaction she has managed to provoke, she, and the Mail, have got the attention, the site hits, and comments they were looking for. What is more annoying is that I find myself compelled to join in on this argument (although part of the reason is I am hoping that due to the current popularity of anything Samantha Brick related this post will get me some good traffic. In effect I am unashamedly leaching of her undeserved popularity. Well, why not?).

The best thing (possibly only good thing) to come out of all this was probably this parody article where Nick Clegg bemoans why liberals hate him for seeming Tory. Worth a read.