Having gone to a comprehensive school in an area of considerable social depravation I can speak for talented teachers who were specially selected for their ability to maintain control and to enthuse their students with imaginative and inspired ideas.
In an ideal world, we would be able to alleviate the all humans from poverty. The sad truth is however, that we, as individuals and nation states, have limited resources. Oxford Union voted that we should indeed help the Burundians before the British. But such a conclusion is naïve and idealistic.
The role and political repercussions of human ego, emotions and sensibilities in state conduct and international relations are, less transient and more pervasive than it is often acknowledged. This paper analyses the concept of state emotionality and briefly discusses the theory of " Symbiotic Realism, " as a more comprehensive framework for interstate relations in our modern, connected and interdependent world that takes into account the role of emotionality in state behavior.
This is a good book by trustworthy Shakespeareans. Not especially reader-friendly in style but quite comprehensive, well-grounded, objective and informed. The individual myths, structured into moderate-length essays (thus you do not have to read them in order), can be excellent for discussions in the classroom or lecture-room.
I appreciate that getting into Oxbridge is extremely competitive and is a 'feat' in its own right, but it really doesn't matter whether Oxford is better than Cambridge and it shouldn't matter whether we go to one or the other or indeed any other university - at least not to the extent that it defines our identity and that is all people see.
It is a worrying fact that even though we live in an era that supposedly mocks the class wars that have previously categorised British history, there is still discrimination among one of our most important institutions; education.
Look at our student unions today, and you'll see them morphing into propaganda tools for careerists and figures like Sneade, riddled with internal manoeuvring and corruption, British far left colluding with Islamist far right to censor and suppress. If they want our trust, it should take more than vaudevillian speechmaking and e-voting codes.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities have an awful lot in common. And last week was no exception. By inviting polarising political figures from the left and the right - George Galloway and Marine Le Pen, respectively - both institutions reaffirmed what is at once perhaps the most sacred and the most imperilled of all our values: the freedom of speech.
It has not escaped my attention that, since discourteously walking out on an event I had spent much time and effort organising, you have been claiming repeatedly that I had "misled" and "deceived" you. I was not intending on replying until I saw you once again attempt to, in my opinion, slander me on Press TV.
Sorely under-used today, chickenhawk was a popular expression during Vietnam. It describes an individual, often a politician, who clamours for war while avoiding military service. George W. Bush is a prime example.
What is so abhorrent to George Galloway about conversing with an Israeli? Why is he so adamant that the Israeli should not be seen; that the Israeli should not be heard?
Gove inexcusably glosses over some of the worst horrors of British colonial history; yet his first stated aim is to show "how Britain influenced the world". Mau Mau and British-run forced labour camps in South Africa, for example, seem forgotten.
If you go on a quiz show - and especially if that show is University Challenge - you had better get some questions right. And you had better not get too many questions wrong. And if you do get some questions wrong, you should try not to get them too wrong.
Oxford is a politically diverse place. Those backing "the 99%" and radical changes to how society organises itself share common rooms and tutorials with libertarians deeply suspicious of any government involvement, as well as a handful of careerists unashamedly plotting to join the high-earning 1% if they possibly can.
The answer might be a master's degree. An extra year of specialist study to rack up your employability sounds to the uninitiated like a bomb proof idea. The problem is the cost. While students have spent the last three years protesting about undergraduate fees the issue of master's fees has gone unchallenged.
Can Britain's two most prominent educational establishments can be said to have failed the country?