Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If American movies and TV are to be believed, they get laid.
In that case I want a refund. All I got was drunk.
-
Education is appalling when it comes to supporting returning adult learners; same loans, just less time to pay then off in.
That's not really true. Once tertiary students are 25 they're no longer considered to be tied to their parents (and don't get me started on that), so their access to an allowance isn't means-tested against their parents. Most 25 and over students get a reasonable living allowance (if they don't it's because they're working or on scholarship), most 24 and under students, don't.
Same loan scheme, but about $6000/less a year of it as a result.
-
This is why I would have thought 'years of schooling/training completed' would have been better than a flat age.
That doesn't work either. Everyone starts school on their 5th birthday here in NZ (well almost everyone). You do approximately 13 years of high school. If your birthday is over the summer, you do exactly 13 years.
If your birthday is after school starts, you will typically do less. My birthday is in June, I did 12.5 years of school. I skipped room 7 in Primers. If my birthday had been much later, I probably wouldn't have skipped room 7, and would have done 13.5 years.
A friend of mine who was actually a month older than me got put into room 7, and for the rest of his life he was a year behind me at school. He did 13.6 years, and was long eighteen when he finished school.
It's a peculiarity of our system where we start on birthdays, as compared to many systems where you start the first school year after you turn 5 (or in some places 6). Primer classes are partially about sorting out where the kids with May - July birthdays go.
The only way for me (and many other kids) to complete 13 full years in school would be for all kids to be held back no matter what the teachers (who we hope are experts in this) think about the correct side of the line for them.
-
Labour's policy is an education leaving age, not a school leaving age. Personally, I think this is significantly better for many of the reasons stated here to do with the the diversity of kids etc. There are many pathways to suport this, possibly there needs to be more, however the goal must be around skill acquisition, not just churning people through endless programs.
Good point, that is better. I'm not sure about the age 18, but maybe there's international evidence indicating that this is a good age to keep people in education.
I also wonder - I finished high school at 17 and a half, with bursary and whatnot - 2nd youngest person in a 7th form of over 300 kids. I went straight into university. But if I'd wanted to take a year off and work somewhere and save money before doing that - would I run foul of this Labour policy?
-
if this is the case how do you see the public responding to the drop in sonics in their recorded music?
Without knowing what you mean by sonics...
The difference won't be in the quality of the music. So many people listen to music digitally now anyway. The difference may appear in the quality of the master. The mix might be more amateur, the guitar might be a little louder. But I think bands will get better at doing these things themselves, and I think the independent recording engineer's career is looking up.
I also think that not every musician worries about these things. Chris Knox does most of his recording in a bedroom with a dodgy 4 track. Only half the music world is potentially looking at a loss in quality.
And people pay craploads more money to go hear their band live than they do to buy an album. Sound quality is much worse there.
yes the moral guilt thing is true but over the last 10 years we've seen a moral shift that accepts piracy more. ie 10 years ago, no copying of local, today, not so fussed about it.
And that's where the real battle has been lost. Musicians that have loyal fans who make a 'good' moral decision are probably getting money back from a higher percentage of their music than the rest of the pack.
-
But I'm really not feeling over confident. The more I look at both speeches, the more flimsy they become.
It was interesting to get both parties pronouncing on the same policy area in close succession, and in January too, so there wasn't much else (apart from a youth crime wave, apparently) going on to muddy the waters. It's going to get messier, and not necessarily comparing apples with apples that often.
For me it was a points decision for Key. I don't think throwing young people at the military is going to work for many of them, but I liked at least an attempt to move the ambulance further up the cliff. If there's a variety of options for kids that are struggling to be put into, then I could see it having a positive effect. Not perfect, but maybe 6 or 7/10.
Clark on the other hand - all I saw was the ambulance still sitting at the bottom of the cliff, but the cliff getting bigger by two years. It seemed like more money going into it, but no creative thinking. 4/10 at best.
-
what's the longest thread on PA anyway? I'm guessing 19 pages is big but not the record?
Both terrorism threads got up towards 40 pages I think.
-
Ugh. He was an idiot when he went to university. Clearly, moving on in the world didn't help him.
-
The key point is, however, that the retention alone isn't the goal, the goal is achievement. In which case, I'd still argue for an education, not school, leaving age.
Yes, I'd be fully behind anything which made advancements on actual achievements. I'd just be worried that in 10 years we're going to be told that we've gotten much better at keeping kids in school longer, which presumably will cost a pile of money, and I wonder if we'd have made any difference.
-
I wonder what the evidence is behind increasing leaving ages. I would have thought that if a person is flopping around and failing at school at age 16, that another year or two is probably just going to be more flopping around and failing. If a system hasn't worked for you for 11 years, is two more going to make a difference?
I'd much rather see the investment go in 3, 5 years earlier when they start to go off the rails. The further we can move the ambulance up the cliff the better.