That’s interesting.

I think undergraduate science teaching might be a bit less different, compared to other Universities, than that. Being knowledgable and taking a considered approach is probably more valued than quick-thinking and being able to debate well. And being proficient at the bench, although it won’t affect your degree classification, is the same everywhere. I vaguely recall that they did a bigger research project and had fewer lectures in their final year than we did, which might help if they went on to a DPhil or PhD.

I don’t think they come out that different to science graduates elsewhere - I think they maybe go in more similar too. I’m not sure that science appeals that much to many of the kids who go to the top public schools - it probably wouldn’t deliver the standard of living they’re used to, and that leads to there being no established old boy network to exploit. There’s a patronage issue in science, it’s just more limited and self-contained.

I spent a year in Oxford in the 90s as part of my undergraduate degree, working in a Pharma research lab. They also had summer students from Oxford, and one of the technicians told me that the previous year one of them had asked her to make them a cup of tea. Apparently the technicians at Oxford did that. So that was definitely different!

One of the lads I shared a flat with was from Warrington, and he was in his second year of a biosciences degree, iirc. He was doing okay, but his feelings about having chosen Oxford were distinctly mixed. He was obviously from somewhere like Warrington and that, for example, rather limited his opportunities to form romantic relationships with fellow students. Or ‘get off with lasses’, as we probably said back then. He’d have probably been happier in Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds. One of the summer students who I spent most time with was originally from Sheffield and a bit more middle class. He’d enjoyed it more than my flat mate and was glad to have seen something different but admitted it could be a weird place.

In undergraduate economics, the curriculum is fairly standardised across institutions because they all tend to use the same core textbooks which haven't changed much for years. There is some within-university and between-university differences in economics degrees. A lot of universities offer two types of degree (sometimes separated by the titles BA and BSc), one being a broad social science type degree which has only core economics modules and allows/encourages students to take subjects from other social sciences for their others, the other being a more restricted degree where they have more modules mandated, typically additional maths and stats/econometrics.

That first type of degree is like what Oxford offers with its PPE course. Cambridge basically just offers the second more mathematical type, which is similar to LSE, Warwick.

Within the economics field there is sometimes a slight snobbery against PPErs from Oxford, and towards the 'harder' more mathematical degrees. I think some of that is jealousy that PPE seems to be disproportionately represented at the higher tiers of government (for many decades now) and it can be seen as a bit of a 'blaggers degree' but on the other hand, John Maynard Keynes always argued that economists needed to study the other social sciences to be able to make economic decisions. Some of the more quantitative economists are a bit blinkered, they are can get overly sucked in to the elegance of their mathematical models and forget that these are underpinned by assumptions that may not be true. Modelling human behaviour is much more complex than modelling fluid dynamics or particle physics because of the vast difference in how every agent behaves. Andy Haldane (the Chief Economist at the Bank of England) has a great take on this - that traditional economics models are like hitting the back of a rocking horse. It rocks back and forth with successively diminishing 'shocks' until settling into an equilibrium. But really, economics is more like going in to a field of horses and smacking a live horse on the backside. It will bolt, and its bolting will trigger a response from the other horses, and if you want to model what will happen you need a deep understanding of the differences in personality of every horse, some are more jumpy than others, some will take their lead from what particular other horses do. Inevitably even the most complex mathematical models in economics involve some simplifying assumptions and the more you make the more you diverge from reality.

One strength the 'blaggers' have is they better respect the limitations of any economic models, and they see it more like foreign policy - understanding general principles and making best decisions under uncertainty, rather than the quants trying to model everything to the nth degree (a trap I fear Cummings will fall in to).

I do some careers work with school leavers sometimes and my standard line to them about which type of economics degree to follow is: if you just like economics and want to learn about how the world works and not pursue further study, go for the broader social sciencey type course. If you want to do an MSc or further research, you're better doing the more maths / econometrics heavy course at undergrad as that will cover some material you will be glad you aren't meeting for the first time on a Masters degree when the pace is uncomfortably fast.

My son is in the final year of a Business Economics degree at Leeds; he often refers to the vast difference in approach of his various lecturers - some of whom he finds frustratingly married to the mathematical models, which he has decided for himself, I guess as he's gained more insight, won't work in the 'real world.' He feels most affinity with a lecturer who came late to the role after many years of working outside of education, than he does with the variously decorated PhD's, who love their subject as a purely academic endeavour.

I'm still not sure what he's going to do with his degree - and he could well be wrong in all his assumptions - but your post resonated with my conversations with him; which are becomingly increasingly difficult to follow, due to all his fancy university book learning.

This is very typical of the graduates I get in my business - its marrying the theory with possible. What I find - I was guilty of it too - we invest huge amounts of money in capital projects based on a theory but seldom do we test whether the theory was robust and the investment delivered what it should. These days this is one of the first things I get graduates to do - post investment appraisal. The projects have several inputs that make them work e.g. increased productivity, employee numbers, utilization, opportunity cost etc. I get them all to appraise the same project that way I get an understanding of where they are, what interests them and their thought process. It helps in the words of Jim Collins - get the right people on the bus in the right seats.

I am currently reading a book by Ray Dalio - he is a very interesting guy - one of his important points is similar to mine - mine is "business is a game played by people" its the quality of the people you have in your organisation that makes the difference. His is about relationships - no amount of money can buy a good personal relationship

Yes journalism fits in to that category too. Far too many 20-somethings given a high-profile platform to write commentary when they have little more to go off than the average undergraduate student in their student newspaper.

I would much rather see regular commentary from Frances Coppola - a former banker and economist who is now a freelance writer who always seems to write sensible and clear, rather than sensationalist takes on the banking and finance system, than Grace Blakeley. She wrote a good critique of what Blakeley had got wrong in her 'Stolen' book. But the media is far less interested in what a middle aged professional has to say than a confident photogenic milennial, so you don't see her as much.

It's also interesting that you brought up the Sainsbury's-Asda merger. I have worked in competition and when that news story first broke people kept asking me what I thought of it. I didn't want to come to any judgement until the CMA had published its merger review so there was at least some hard evidence to base a view on. When I was in my early 20s, I would have had an instant view on it. It wouldn't have been based on any market analysis, it would have just been an instant view like 'big firms = bad, merger = probably worse'. Fortunately I didn't have any position of influence back then otherwise I'd have talked as much b0llocks as those journos do.

It's quite the phenomenon isn't it; on the other side of the political spectrum, but almost a photo-fit in terms of your description, is Kate Andrews - a brash, confident and articulate American, who represents a right wing, anti-tax organisation that lobbies to discredit the NHS but refuses to disclose any of its funding sources - but she gets a regular seat on QT, Newsnight and many other current affairs output, with no mention of who she represents other than the shadily ambiguous 'Tax Payers Alliance.'

I'm a big supporter of Labour and the now defunct Corbyn project, but I tend to agree that Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar and Grace Blakely, with their intellectual brand of idealistic student politics, probably did us no favours; I expect Workington Man found them as irritating as I now find my son.

While I can imagine that their fresh-faced, metropolitan liberalism may have been unappealing to large swathes of the population, i wonder how significant their influence on voting decisions was. I’m pretty sure i’m more interested in politics than most people, but, while I knew who Owen Jones is, I had to look up Sarkar and Blakely when I first saw them mentioned on threads like this. I recognised Sarkar’s face from an argument she had with Piers Morgan and felt like i’d maybe seen Blakely’s... somewhere. I shall look up Kate Andrews now.

Cummings is good at what he does, and acknowledges the importance of powerful slogans that appeal and resonate. Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done are both more active, and to the point. Stronger Together is a bit passive, For the Many Not the Few should have left the second part implied for brevity and positivity, and Time for Real Change had to include the ‘real’, because Johnson wasn’t running in the manner of an incumbent proud of his Party’s record in Government.

Corbyn looking more than his 70 years and Labour now being the party split over Europe, didn’t help, obviously.

For all the talk about learning lessons, I think we’ve turned a page and, in terms of policy and positioning, I think the circumstances to which those lessons could be applied have already changed. Antisemitism and failing to effectively fight it will continue to be a bad idea, mind you.

They have a huge and vocal presence on Twitter - and I'm sure all 3 featured a fair bit on Newsnight and other shows claiming to do political analysis; Ash Sarkar in particular has been a big presence - and I think she rubs a lot of people up the wrong way for various reasons; quite aside from being radical, and snarky, she attempts all the while to retain some youth appeal by speaking in memes and being quite sweary - and of course she's a she, and a brown she at that.



I agree; whilst it seemed that Labour was winning a lot of the social media stuff early on, the messaging was a bit limp.



I'm not sure looking old is necessarily an impediment - 'the kids' loved their Magic Grandpa; but the Europe thing was a massive problem - foisted on him, I believe, by several of the people who now think they should be leader, Keir Starmer first among them. Corbyn's instinct, I believe, was to respect the result of the referendum, and if he'd have stuck to his guns on that one, I think things would have been much closer.



Again - I agree; and with an emboldened Tory Party very definitely dictating the media messaging, I can't see any new leader with socialist leanings being allowed to function, outside of dealing with a constant stream of smears and slander from the media, helped by the now infamous 'senior Tory source.' Antisemitism is a good example - it was always a manufactured weapon to malign Corbyn, and has been proven to be significantly less prevalent in the Labour party than in society at large, or even in the Tory party - but since it worked so effectively, it will be the stick with which any Labour leader who does not conform to the acceptable, neo-liberal face of Labour leader that we are allowed to have, will be beaten with - to death - like a cat in a bag.

It strikes me that the PLP is now entirely at odds with the Membership - several hundred thousand of whom joined in support of Corbyn and his brand of socialism, and want Ian Lavery as the next leader, as a form of continuity Corbyn. If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours.

[i "... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes."[/i

Ahhh, I don’t have a twitter account and fell out the habit of watching newsnight a few years ago.

From a quick Google search, there are about 14 million twitter users in the UK. Jones has getting on for a million followers, Sarkar (s like a champion, apparently - I’m unsure how that is meant to be interpreted... literally, humorously/ironically, as boldly liberated?) has 223k and Blakely just under 100k. Quite impressive (a bit more than I assumed, tbh), although Jamie Peacock has more than Blakely. Andrews only has 55k. Does that count as better or worse in the context of this discussion? Are these young advocates negatively effecting perceptions of the positions they espouse, overall?

Even with retweets, I can’t imagine anybody but Jones is regularly reaching more than a couple of million voters. And Newsnight typically gets an audience of around 500k; more around elections, of course.

I wasn’t directly exposed to any antisemitism from Labour members, so it all came to me through traditional media. I suppose extent and degree have to be considered alongside prevalence, but it did strike me that it was considered more newsworthy because it was Labour, whereas racism among some members of the Conservative Party is widely taken for granted. And that’s before we get to bought and paid for journalistic hatchet jobs.

Nonetheless, it did feel like a very disappointing failure of leadership, similar in that regard to the convoluted Brexit policy compromise. I know that one or two of the contemporary examples relating to the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, could theoretically be interpreted in a way that maybe begs a bit of further clarification, but the sort of initial equivocation and (pretty inevitable) acceptance of them, didn’t provide me with much confidence in Corbyn or his circle’s ability to deal with problems.

"If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours." Nah, not when the following is already out there https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hdog-finds https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/lave ... questions/

"If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours." Nah, not when the following is already out there https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hdog-finds https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/lave ... questions/