Truly sad, and truly hope inspiring

Two stories in the Telegraph caught my eye this week in relation to unborn babies.

The first is truly shocking.  A woman, Penelope Trunk, was bombarded with complaints after she sent out a tweet saying she was having a miscarriage in the middle of a board meeting and she was pleased as she would otherwise have to wait so long for an abortion in her home state.

The second was inspiring.  The director of a Planned Parenthood outlet in Texas resigned after watching the abortion of a baby on an ultrasound.  She is now a pro-life campaigner.  I truly believe that if more people were aware of things like foetal development and what an abortion exactly entails, the numbers of pro-lifers would grow exponentially.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6494846/Twitter-user-Penelope-Trunk-who-tweeted-her-miscarriage-sparks-media-storm.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6489418/Planned-Parenthood-leader-resigns-after-watching-abortion-ultrasound.html

 

A little late: Evolution, Dawkins etc

This posting is actually a response to another blogger – The Friendly Humanist- who wrote a response  to a posting of mine of entitled ‘Creationism, Evolution…’ which was mainly a rant about why I dislike Richard Dawkins. 

Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not a creationist.  Much of the post I am responding to seemed to focus on my apparent denial of evolution.  I do not deny evolution can or has taken place. What I do deny is that I am a scientist and can do anymore than broadly agree or disagree with what scientists say.  I am told to read popular science books in order to understand the theory.  However, although the reading of popular science books is interesting, it doesn’t qualify me as a scientist, and my point stands.  In fact I would guard against listening to anyone who claims they are an expert on something just because they have a few ladybird guides on their shelf.

To add to this, it was suggested I had no interest in this subject.  That is not what I said.  I said I had no interest in buying any of Dawkins’ works.  This is something different.  I don’t want to contribute to his growing fortune: I don’t like him.  That doesn’t mean I have no interest in the topic – or indeed of buying any books by other scientists.  I would even read some of Dawkins books, I just would not buy them.

The Friendly Humanist also asserts that Richard Dawkins does not have an obsession with religion.  This claim is based upon the fact that of the ten popular books he has written, only one  is about religion.  I stand by my claim.   Richard Dawkins is probably Britain’s most famous athiest and much of his output in terms of media relations is related to this.  From (my apologies) his wikipedia entry:

Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement and has involved himself with the corresponding organizations. As early as a 1996 Oxford debate including Shmuley Boteach, he was introduced as “The World’s most famous atheist”.^[35] He is a prominent critic of religion, and has been described as a militant atheist.^[36][37][38] He is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society, a vice-president of the British Humanist Association (since 1996), a Distinguished Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland, a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism, and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.^{[39][40][41][42]} In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations, published by the American Humanist Association.^{[43]  … Dawkins has said that the publication of The God Delusion is “probably the culmination” of his campaign against religion.    (grr – font gone crazy, curse my lack of computer skills!)}

 He was also one of the prime supporters of the ‘athiest’ bus campaign (‘probably no God’ sounds more agnostic to me) and, as well as ‘The God Delusion’ book he was also responsible for the television series ‘The Root of All Evil’ about the malign influence of religion on society.  If you go to www.richarddawkins.net you will notice as much room is made for religious discussion as for discussions upon evolution on the forum.   

The next point deals with Dawkins comparison of creationists to Holocaust deniers.   The Friendly Humanist says this accurate, but says he would not use this analogy himself.  Why not?   Could it be that comparing creationists to Holocaust deniers is grossly offensive?

This really gets to the core of my problem with Dawkins, which was overlooked by the Friendly Humanist.  It is my worry about the whole creationism vs evolution debate.  Much of it is not undertaken in reasonable discourse, but through mudslinging and insults.  This comes from both sides, but I do strongly feel that much of the tone coming from certain segments of evolutionists lies comes in the form of irritantly smug assumptions which lurk not too far from the surface: ‘we are smart, they are not’ followed by ‘we are European and sophisticated, they are American and primitive’ or ‘we are Western and progressive, they are Middle Eastern or Oriental, and barbaric’.  The fact the most prominently athiest evolutionary scientist not only encourages this, but engages in it himself is outrageous. 

One of the things I find most annoying about dawkins is his claim that as an athiest he is an open minded person.  I doubt very much he is.  Indeed, when questioned if he would mind if his daughter became religious he suggested she wa s’too intelligent’ for that.  I doubt a conversion would be welcolmed by him.  I think I’d rather take my chances coming out as gay to Dick Cheney than coming out as a Christian to Dawkins.  

Dawkins comes across as the playground bully:  if you don’t agree with me you are stupid and  I will ridicule you and get all my friends to do the same.  For Dawkins, it isn’t just about whether evolution is true or not – it IS about the fact that he is anti-religious.  Evolution is a means by which he can criticise the religious, they are his ‘other’.

This was the point of the post I had written.  I do not intend to engage in a debate about whether or not evolution can be proven or whether or not creationism is ridiculous.  My point was that Richard dawkins, who claims to want to educate people about evolution, alienates vast swathes of people with his derogatory rhetoric.  I don’t think he is a great ambassador for science.  Just the opposite.   Generally, I have found that if I want to change someone’s opinion on something it is not productive to start calling that person ‘stupid’ or ‘ignorant’ or ‘insane’.  If I have no intention of changing their mind, but merely want a fight, then by all that is the way to go.  I don’t believe Dawkin’s tactics of ‘debate’ are likely to make any creationist think ‘well, I really must get into this evolution then!  I don’t want to look stupid!’

In my opinion he is an egomaniac.  Dawkins seems to view himself as somekind of messiah of knowledge and if you don’t follow him (and mean him specifically) you are an apostate. I think he loves it when creationists flock to denounce him: it helps him sell books and make money and boosts his profile.  And I maintain that is his point.

 

Aeroplanes and Babies

I have just returned from an excellent holiday – with baby in tow, and I thought I would write a little about Babies On Planes.

Firstly, congratulations to my baby who behaved brilliantly (if I don’t say so myself).  He slept most of the time and when he didn’t sleep he was happy to munch on biscuits and play with his toys.  Secondly, thank-you to Delta Airlines who provided us with a free seat nearby (the flight wasn’t quite full) to give us some extra room.  Thirdly, a big thank-you to all the genial and friendly people we met on the flight who showed absolutely no distress at sitting next to a baby!

The one fly in the ointment was our connection flight on a tiny propeller aeroplane (not sure what the correct name for this is).  As we began taxiing towards the runway our little one, with impeccable timing, decides to do a poo.  Fantastic.  Every time he shifted his weight, never mind moved, great clouds of stink emanated from his otherwise perfect little bottom.  Somewhat Judas-like, I hoped no-one thought I had made that smell. 

Soon after take-off, despite the little seat belt being still on, we could take it no longer (and judging by the number of t-shirts pulled over noses, neither could our fellow flyers) and rushed off to the sole loo.  I braced myself for a fairly unclean pull-out table.  I reached the tiny room – quite cupboard like, actually – and was surprised to find nothing.  Yep, no baby changing facilities.  Ah, we must have forgotten that babies do not, in fact, need to be changed on small planes.  Our mistake.  Must tell little one.

The steward informed that this scenario had occured before (really?!!  well, who would’ve thought it possible??) and suggested we change him on the loo seat.  Hmmm.  The toilet itself was basically a box shape with a lid on top.  So, when I put put my baby to change him – despite us using a mat as well, his head was at the hinges of the toilet and surrounding area.  The unclean surrounding area.  How revolting.  As I struggled to get him out of there asap, I wondered how on earth a seriously overweight or disabled person would have coped in that loo-cupboard?  Maybe they don’t go on small planes either…

TOILET EQUALITY NOW!!!!

For an amusing article about travelling on a plane with a baby see this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/your_say/article6583640.ece

 

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be…

… almost unheard of. 

It is often said that if men could get pregnant abortions would be available with your burger at McDonald’s.  I joke, but it is widely assumed or stated that male pregnancies would result in an abortion on-demand world – the implication being that what stops this is sexism.

Actually, I take a different view. I think if men could get pregnant then abortion would go the way of smoking.  Why?

Well, I think pregnancy and birth would be viewed as the apex of masculinity.  The man would stoically put up with the aches and pains, boast about the ordeal of giving birth and how little pain relief he needed (a test of his strength you see) he would proudly display his stretch marks as evidence of the whopping great baby he miraculously carried through nine months.  Pregnancy would be a sign of his virility, a sign of his strength and a rite of passage into the world of ‘real men’.   The pregnant male body and the post-partum male body would be seen as the height of attractiveness and envied by other men. 

The baby or foetus would not be described as ‘a bunch of cells’ or compared to cancer or a parasite invading your body and leeching from you.  It would be seen as miracle, and men would take great pride that their bodies were capable of doing such a thing. 

It wouldn’t be a case of babies or work.  The idea that you have to give up one for the other would be unheard of.  The workplace would be based upon telecommuting, job shares and workplace creches.  This would allow the proud father to see his child and work – if he so wished.  He would not suffer financially for this as the workplace and jobmarket would recognise the extra skills and life experience that parenthood brings.  

Furthermore, jobs previously staffed by women (and underpaid as a result) would become more attractive.  It would be common to see male primary school teachers, kindergarten teachers, nannies and nurses.  The caring professions would be far more equally balanced in terms of gender. In particular in teaching, this would have added benefits for male and female students.   

If you were unemployed the state and local charities would be of unfailing help.  And there’d be no shame in receiving this.

Even better, the outside world would take into account the needs of parents with very young children – and those expecting.  Baby changing facilties would be everywhere – and would be clean and well stocked with supplies.  They would feature baby-appropriate changing tables, not the ridiculous pull-out hard plastic ones we see nowadays.  We would also see extra toilet facilties for pregnant people.  Buses and trains would have better and more areas designed for people with strollers, babies and toddlers.

Breastfeeding areas would be commonplace.   As would heaters for warming formula.  Baby-appropriate foods would be provided in restaurants and cafes.  Goodness, babies would be welcolmed in restaurants and cafes and aeroplanes would provide the necessary baby equipment – hence the drop in the rates of ‘oh no, I’m not sitting next to the baby…’

Being pregnant at university would not be a problem as facilties and advice related to the man’s condition and added needs would be there.  High schools would make provisions for pupils who found themselves in this situation – and the men in question would not be looked down upon. 

In short, as men have ordered the world to suit them (in many ways) today, so the world would be re-ordered to take account of his new abilities.  Pregnancy, babies and children would be valued and esteemed.

 

Pro-lifer gunned down in Michigan and the media says … pretty much nothing

After the furore (rightly) surrounding the shooting of Tiller it would be nice to see someting for the murder of this man. But nope, Jim Pouillon’s death can’t even get onto mainstream media.  But it’s nothing to do with bias, I’m sure…

http://www.lifenews.com/state4409.html

The president’s response:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5459.html

You may wish to check out this site:

http://www.prochoiceviolence.com/

 

Creationism, evolution …

Below are a number of articles relating to recent stories in the Times.  One is a piece of research on the brain and religious belief.  The other two are concerned with Richard Dawkins – he has a new book coming out, The Greatest Show on Earth. 

I just thought I would ramble slightly about Richard Dawkins, who is possibly one of my least favourite public figures.  I will admit I have never read any of his books – not that I’m against reading them I would be perfectly happy to, but I’m not paying for one, so I’m waiting on charity.  I do, however, read with interest many articles related to or written by the man himself.  I find him very interesting.

Why do I find him interesting?  I  just wonder about his dogged obsession with religion and with those that practice it.  He is  a scientist and yet he seems to spend of his time trying to argue that following a religion is at best ridiculous and at worst positively harmful.  I just don’t understand why.  He is one of these people who appears to believe that science and religion are incompatible.  I’ll put my hand up and say I think that is a load of rubbish. 

Personally I think people like Dawkins, through their words and actions, try to make this the case.  They belittle people who hold religious beliefs.  They ridicule people who doubt and aren’t prepared to take what others say at face value and who sit on the fence.  Okay – Dawkins says evolution is a fact.  I am stupid not to believe him.  Well, guess what?  I, like I imagine the majority of people who follow him and love calling creationists stupid, am not a scientist.  If am to believe what he says it takes an element of faith.  I can’t verify much of what he says because I don’t have access to the research or fully understand the terms and the processes involved.  It’s been a long time since I did higher biology and chemistry!  I suspect that for most of his vociferous cheerleaders on websites and forums across the globe, this is also the case.  Perhaps they don’t wish to seem stupid for questioning? 

In this respect, I find his followers similar to those of religious faiths.  They are taking what he says at face value because they believe in him.  They may well be correct – I don’t know.  The argument seems reasonable, but who knows?

Somewhat problematic for the argument that religion and science are  incompatible is that fact that, as Dawkins himself points out, many of the ‘top-level’ Christian leaders do not dispute evolution.  For them there is no conflict of interests.  But for Dawkins this isn’t enough.  The pope is still dim (re: condoms and aids) and other preachers should make it clear in sermons that Adam and Eve etc are not real and the stories are metaphorical.   Perhaps, in that case, Dawkins should make it explicit in his interviews and anything he publishes etc that the truth or otherwise of evolution does not deny the existence of a deity, or even the truth of the Abrahamic religions?

Leaving them aside, his main worry seems to be creationists in the US, maybe followed distantly by Muslims in Britain.  A whopping 40%  of Americans are creationists and Dawkins compares them to holocaust deniers.  This is highly offensive.  A holocaust denier is someone who twists the facts of the historical record in order to bolster a racist agenda.  These people are motivated by their hatred of Jews.  The facts do not matter.  For a creationist, evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  There are questions about the theory that they believe have not been adequately answered.  They believe the story of  creation not in order to further a hate campaign, but as part of a belief system.  

I think Dawkins is either a liar or is pretty good at shooting himself in the foot.  Either he wants people to know about evolution and to ‘convert’ the creationists or he just wants a nice argument to bolster his book sales.  I think if it was the former then he would be wise to act in a more conciliatory manner, and watch his language (ie the use of the word ‘ignorant’, I would also like to point out at this point that some of the people I know who are most knowledgeable about evolution are in fact creationists) .  Worse, I believe his words convert more people to fundamentalist ideas than anything else as they engender a sense of victimhood and persecution amongst those who don’t agree with what he says.  

However, if his purpose is the latter, then he is doing very nicely for himself.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6804971.ece

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6818735.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6823229.ece

 

Potty Parity

I came across this artcile in the Daily Telegraph and thought I would comment on it as it is a topic dear to my, er, heart!

I jest, but I do genuinely believe that women are underserved in the public toilet stakes.  I fully support those women (and count myself as one) who nip into the men’s room (unless you are intoxicated this is usually a very messy and pungent experience) because they are just fed up of waiting.

I would also like to add that the group of people who suffer the most in terms of these facilities is not women, but babies and toddlers.  Since moving to the US I have been astounded at the lack of adequate toilet facilities for babies – nevermind breastfeeding mothers.  Not only are the baby facilities almost exclusively in the women’s toilet – and then in the disabled cubicle, when there is one – but it solely consists of one pull-down, very hard, changing table with a safety strap.  It is usually dirty. 

Given the gargantuan size of most American shopping malls is it really too difficult to provide a decent baby changing area which is clean, accessible for fathers, and contains a separate area for nursing mothers? 

On this point I would like to single out the John Lewis store at the end of Prince’s Street in Edinburgh – they have THE best baby changing facilties I have ever come across.  They had a whole room which contained:

– three changing stations (one a pull-out boo!).  Two consisted of padded areas with adjacent sinks.  There were rolls of paper to put down over the changing area ( for cleanliness) and sanitising equipment.

– large bins for waste disposal

–  electric heaters for bottled milk/formula

– about fifteen chairs to sit in whilst you fed your baby or other children waited

– a separate, secluded, area in case you wanted to breastfeed in private

– NO ADULT TOILETS!!!! Which vastly improves the cleanliness of these facilities

– an added bonus of a lovely view across Edinburgh!

– oh, and not to forget it was accessible to fathers as well as mothers.  Thank goodness.

And I didn’t have to pay a penny to use it.

I would like to add an honourable mention to Boots the chemist in Aberdeen which had a ‘mother’s room’ (poor show) which did include similar changing stations and had a nursing area, but which also supplied nappies/diapers in case you had run out!  No charge for this.   They didn’t quite impress me as much as the room was not as clean as I would like and the bins very definitely needed emptying.  But that said, I think I would break down and cry in delight if I found something similar in and around Washington DC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6117831/Women-need-loos-and-we-need-them-now.html

 

Botched abortions and the NHS 2008

This story appeared in the London Evening Standard back in 2008, but I only came across it today and thought I would add it here.

There are three things in particular I wanted to flag up:

– the doctors expressing their ‘sadness’ at babies being born alive.  Really?  Is that really the saddest thing here – that you get presented with the factual evidence of the humanity of the child in question?

– the parents who felt coerced into having an abortion as their child had down’s syndrome. 

– that having a cleft palate or a club foot (which as the article points out, can be rectified during childhood) is grounds for a child’s termination.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435549-details/66+babies+in+a+year+left+to+die+after+NHS+abortions+that+go+wrong/article.do

 

The Crazy American News Media

Gah!  I am normally a bit of a news hound – but here over the pond the tv networks are really trying my patience.   When I first visited mi amour in the US of A I was delighted with the news coverage in this part of the world.  Great, I thought, I can tune in to Fox and see unabashed right wing news, or tune into MSNBC for its left wing counterpart.  I can tune into CNN for something more moderate – but with the added attraction of ‘newscasters’ (really!) with improbable names like Wolf Blitzer (really!).  I loved the evening hosts like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews (although I have yet to actually watch the infamous Bill O’Reilly).  Wow, journalists/people with big gobs (and connections in order to get that tv slot) sounding off and – gasp – giving their opinions on the news, on major news networks!  Good heavens to betsy. 

Having now been living here since January -and added the likes of Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz to my list of big gobs – the novelty has long since worn off.  I believe it was Ronald Reagan who deregulated the news media and allowed this kind of news presentation to take place – that is, it became perfectly legal and acceptable for news media to show bias even in mainstream reporting, not just the personality shows.  This was probaly the worst decision he ever made. 

Since being here I have found America to be wildly more partisan than I ever could have believed.  Ok – everyone knows that there are people on the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ (I would add a caveat here that what passes in the US for definitions of these terms is not necessarily  the kind you would find elsewhere) and that they don’t always get along.  The problem here seems to be , despite everyone’s apparent love of ‘bipartisanship,’ is that they never see each other.  When I watch Fox or MSNBC I am often struck by vitriol poured upon the enemy, without that enemy being given a chance to put their view across.  The other side rarely appears on these channels (with one or two laudable exceptions, Pat Buchannan leaps to mind and I must say I am rather partial to MSNBC’s Morning Joe featuring the seemingly lucid minded Joe Scarborough who is a moderate Republican).  I think this trend is very dangerous.

Firstly, if I only watched one or other of Fox or MSNBC I would be under the impression that the country was secretly – or not so secretly depending on who you listen to – run by a bunch of left or right wing maniacs hell bent on destroying life as we know it.  The other side is populated solely by a cabal of self-interested ideologues who will stop at nothing to see their way of life imposed upon the rest of us, aided and abetted by ‘Washington’ this deadly entity which manifests itself as the demon love spawn of Dick Cheney, Creationism and Hitler or Nancy Pelosi, fundamentalist athiesm and Mao depending upon which channel you watch.  I must say I was very struck during the election campaign with both the Democrats and the Republicans claiming to be runnning against the evil power of ‘Washington’.  If neither of you represents ‘Washington’ interests, then who does?  And given that you are the only two viable parties out there and control the presidency, the supreme court, the house of representatives and the senate, how on earth did ‘Washington’ interests gain so much power… well, it’s unfathomable to me.

Where was I? Ah, yes.  So, we have two news networks who basically spout what they believe is or should be the party line of either the left – aka the Democrats – or the right – the Republicans.   The other side is,er, sidelined in various ways.  They are under-represented on these channels, and also their points of view are twisted and misrepresented.  Take for example the ‘Town Hall meetings’.  Here the local senator or congressman holds a meeting where his constituents turn up and tellhim/her/it  what a jolly good chap he/she/it is and how  they’ll vote them in again and so forth.  Well, actually, more recently people have been turning up and – wait now it gets complicated –  forming mass astroturf neo-Nazi mobs where they threaten the president with guns and chant white supremiscist slogans, or was it that that they peacefully question the politician who seems determined to misrepresent their views in Congress and is generally a nasty chap who favours pre-emptive euthanasia for loveable grannies?  Naturally, this all depends on which channel you watch.

One of my personal favourites right now is the obsession with the likes of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schutlz for banging on about how Republicans are blocking healthcare reform.  Er, what?  Now – maths was never my strongest subjecct, but don’t the Democrats have all the votes they need to pass healthcare reform, having filibuster proof majorities?  (Ok Ted Kennedy just dented that… but this has been a running theme for what feels like years) Ah – that’s right the president can veto healthcare refom unless the Democrats have a two thirds majority. What – the president is a Democrat, and for healthcare reform?  And they have the necessary two-thirds anyway?  Wow – these Republicans must be really something if despite it being mathematically impossible for them to block this they are able to anyway.  Wow.  Impressive.  Except it isn’t the Republicans (although yes they are against it, but like I said, given the numbers it isn’t an issue) who are stalling, it is the Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats.  But it’s not as fun to do real journalism as it is to appeal to the ‘base’ and demonise your opponents, so let’s just do that shall we?

Beyond this parodying of your fellow citizens, the language used by the journalists further serves to alien those who disagree with the channels’ view.  I often hear ‘the president wants to do X, but conservatives don’t like it’ ooh – those evil conservatives!  Or, on the other side ‘it seems like a reasonable question, but liberals are trying to stop you asking it’ or somesuch.   Watch out – other people have different opinions to you!  This is scary stuff and they are evil!!!!

What is truly frightening about this is the effect it seems to have on the actual political parties.  It isn’t enough to be a Democrat – you MUST hold certain views on certain issues.  The same goes for Republicans.  Their are oddities who straddle the party lines on major issues, but it seems difficult for these people to get much of a say – certainly on tv.  For example, if you are a Democrat you have to be pro-choice.  Except that isn’t true, as Democrats for Life will attest, the nothing intrinisically un-Democratic about being pro-life.  Likewise pro-choice Republicans must be few on the ground, but they exist.  Their reasons for being pro-choice are just not debated or are ignored.  The problem with this is it that these tv networks encourage a polarisiation of society.  In order to bolster the world view held by the network – and to add to their viewing figures – they only present one line as being acceptable.  If you question it or are a moderate you are enabling the enemy and you are villified or ignored.  If you are a Democrat whop questions the ins and outs of healthcare reform you are a traitor.  If you are a pro-choice Republican you are unpalatable, and not really a genuine Republican, are you?

The result is that discussions on major issues of the day descend into point scoring and tit – for -tat nonsense.  It is incredibly tiresome and counter-productive.    I’m off to watch Wife-swap or the X-factor for some intellectual stimulation. 

******************

 

What America really needs is some political programming along the lines of Question Time or This Week or even the Daily Politics.  I don’t care what CNN says, the world leader in news? Get real, the BBC knocks them for six, if you know what that means.   I may frequently refer to you as The British Bolshevik Company or the Blair/Brown Broadcasting Company – but all is forgiven, I prostrate myself before your undeniable slight left-wingness and I’ll bring endless cups of tea and a stash of McVitie’s (Rich Tea and Digestives – various kinds – I may even stretch to HobNobs, what am I saying? of course I will!) and we’ll spend the whole night together and I promise I won’t flick over to Sky even if you decide to shove the annoying Kate Silverton in my face – how about it?  Please?  Pretty please with a cherry on top?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5990426/Question-Time-Sitting-uncomfortably-Then-well-begin.html

 

“Dumbing down” and exam results

This year’s  A Level results have been released and the pass rate is over 97%.  A quarter of all passes are at grade A.  Is this a problem?  Yes, of course.   Does it suggest “dumbing down” has taken place over the years?  Almost certainly.

Firstly, why is it a problem that so many pass  and do so at such a high level?  As many have stated before, and I wholly concur, it make it very difficult for universities to differentiate between candidates competing for places.  True, A Levels (and Highers) are not the only information that Universities have to rely on – they have the candidates’ personal statements in their UCAS form – but this isn’t the same as grade based information.  Interviews are an important part of the process at some institutions – but on what basis do you decide who to interview? By looking at projected (or achieved) grades.  It will likely become necessary for more and more institutions to require candidates submit to a university’s  own in-house examinations in order to distinguish between top scoring candidates.

You could argue that it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing for a candidate wishing to study philosophy at a top university to sit an entrance exam that shows they have undertaken some reading of their own and have some prior knowledge of the subject that they wish to study.  But, it isn’t only universities and colleges that may judge people on exam results, but employers too. 

Beyond this is the argument that standards have fallen.  Universities complain they need students to take remedial English lessons.  We hear employers bemoan the numeracy and literacy standards of youngsters.  So how does this tally with ever increasing numbers of top level grades awarded in exams and the extremely high pass rate overall?  I can only give my personal experience, and it isn’t of A Levels, but Scottish Highers – which face similar accusations.   I have been both a pupil and a teacher and my time in these respective roles concludes that yes, things have become easier. 

When I was pupil I remember my maths teacher being asked if exams were harder in her day.  Yes, she replied, as some of the things she studied at O Level or O Grade, were no longer in the equivalent- Standard Grade, but could be found in the A Level equivalent – Higher.  I myself remember using an old O Level textbook for part of my Higher Grade physics course.  When I did CSYS physics the class was told that we might have problems with the first part as it wouldn’t have been covered yet in CSYS maths.  The maths pupils said they had been told that content had been dropped from CSYS maths as it was too hard. 

I was amongst the last year to sit Revised Highers before Higher Still was introduced.  In the history paper for the Revised Higher pupils were required to answer three essay questions; in HIgher Still only two essay answers were required.

Later, as a history teacher,  a hot topic of discussion amongst Scottish history teachers was that the history exam was not adequately serving pupils.  Traditionally only 15% of pupils sitting a history exam were awarded an A and anything above 23/25 for an essay question was virtually unheard of.  This was wrong, said the exam board.  We should award more full marks and the % of awards at A should be raised inline with geography and modern studies – at about 25%.    Many history teachers were against this as “dumbing down”, but were also afraid of losing out on students to modern studies and geography.  If it is harder to get an A in history and you need X number of As to gain entry to university(and the course you wish to study does not specify certain subjects) why wouldn’t students move towards an easier A? 

It is also worth bearing in mind that the more popular your subject (and easiness is often cited as a reason) then the greater the demand for teachers… 

All of this is not to denigrate the achievements of many pupils today or the hard work that is required of teachers.  I also believe ‘teaching to the test’ can account for some of the increase.  Certainly I, for one, wouldn’t like to be sitting my exams in an atmosphere that suggests (and in some cases necessitates) that anything less than straight As is some kind of a failure.   However, it is quite clear that this system needs an overhaul.  

********

On a slight sidenote, I would argue that an overhaul of the system may want to include a broadening of the subjects studied by individuals at A Level – and Higher.   Is it really appropriate to specialise on three subjects at age 16?  Especially when it is perfectly acceptable for those to be theatre studies, English and drama or maths, further maths and physics? 

In this regard, and many others, the IB makes a great alternative and it is no surprise that it is increasingly popular in British secondary schools.