Posts Tagged ‘trips’
Oxford University open day
On Tuesday evening, following logistical setbacks involving a toothbrush, my grandfather and I headed down to Oxford for the open day yesterday. I’d booked into Balliol College for the morning where general information was to be given and to have lunch there, but the whole university including departments was open to be explored. A small group of people from Silverdale went down via coach too and I met up with one for a part of the day to look at the course I am interested in, that is Maths and Philosophy. My conclusion from the day was that I am now pretty much set with my Oxford research: I would like to do said course at said college, and thus I can now concentrate on finding a second choice, for of course only a quarter of applicants manage to get in to Oxbridge. At this point I am concerned about how dissapointed I will be if I fail to get in. I have been building this up for years, and have long had it as a goal and something that I am aiming for, the next step on the staircase. Rationally it is not the end of the world and does not make me a failure if I don’t get in, but I’m not sure the version of Sean after a rejection will be able to think quite so clearly. On the plus side, I have no idea about my chances of getting in besides the fact that it is definately worth applying. Hopefully I can console myself with this.
At the beginning of the day, I was put in touch with a third year student in Maths and Philosophy to discuss the course, and my list of questions (in my highly-coveted commonplace book of collected notes) was swiftly answered. I then ended up having lunch with the admissions secretary, the third year, a second year in the subject and another prospective applicant for it from Germany. It seems that the first year of the course is somewhat maths focussed, or it at least appears to be like that, because the philosophy side is composed of maths-like topics such as logic. However, after this year there is considerably more flexibility. There is no applied maths, plenty of pure and the flexibility to do other philosophical topics such as ethics or political philosophy, which is good: I was afraid of finding the course primarily taken up by mathematical philosophy and the like but this is not the case after the first year. This is thus a fantastic option: I love both subjects and really wouldn’t want to give either up, and they do of course complement each other very well. The other choice in applying is then college. For those who aren’t aware, Oxford is a collegiate university meaning that you live and have a tutor in one of thirty colleges, but go to lectures organised by institutes or faculties. I’ve looked through all the colleges in the prospectus and basically there are none that stood out aside from Baliol for being lefty-liberal, so there is no real reason not to go there. It’s also a very good place for my subject choice. In any case, 20% of successful applicants don’t go to their first choice college so it is important not to place too much stock in this. So my Oxford choices and research are pretty much wrapped up nicely.
At this point there are then a number of things that I need to be doing with regard to university application. I need to draft, redraft and get read my personal statement, which is a difficult document because it has to cover all five of the places one applies to and for different courses if this is done. I need to get some more philosophy background reading done over the summer but this is hardly a chore as some of these other things are. And more importantly I need another few places to apply to, one of which is a firm second choice with an open day visit if I haven’t missed it already. My school run lots of nonsense for those applying to Oxbridge so I should be able to get all this done pretty efficiently. Then, of course, comes the hardest part: the interview. Oxbridge interviews are unlike any other. They aim to find something new that the candidate hasn’t seen and attempt to see how they think. Scary stuff, but I’m trying to remain reasonably confident by not considering my chances either way, and just going in and trying my best. And hoping I don’t have a headache which are becoming increasingly frequent of late.
A few other nice things happened worth recording here. Firstly, we met a mother and son on the train who were also going to the open day, and got talking about philosophy. Then the wonders of how well the Internet has been got going and used in recent years came in: I merely handed him an arrogant business card and he has since got in touch on Facebook, and on Wednesday morning he texted me an involved conclusion to one of the thought experiments I posed. Secondly, I got my picture taken outside the Oxford Union, the intellectual debating powerhouse that really is an international centre for it all. I am very much letting that go to my head. Cambridge may be a significantly prettier city, but the Union would be a major bonus to going to Oxford, in addition to a lot of variety of ringing.
This post is very decisive and it seems to suggest a clear direction. This is great: I can apply myself to this and attempt to make it work, not thinking too hard about the outcome and not considering whether I am putting too much focus into one thing. But really this has been what I have been using to force myself through GCSEs and some aspects of A levels, and I remain concerned about what will happen if I fail. Despite the fact I am told by others that I have a very reasonable shot at it. I keep telling myself that this is not what my life is defined by and is all about, and repeat to myself what someone who went said to my grandfather: it’s very easy to forget you’re not in the centre of the thinking world.
British Parliamentary debating
Last Friday I was drafted in for another debating competition at the last minute, in fact the one that we tried to get involved in back when the formal debating community was about six of us, a few years ago – the Oxford Union Schools Debating Competition, open to any age in schooling. This competition is an old, very formal style that involves two teams of two on the proposition and then another two on the opposition duking it out – this makes it noticeably different from what we are used to. The other big difference is that there is no fortnight of research and preparation – you get fifteen minutes to get your case together before the debate begins. Personally, I think this results in a lower-quality debate and is thus not as involving for the audience as other formats as it can be vague. On the other hand, it can produce some good material and avoids a focus on reeling off statistics – but only the poorer teams do this anyway. The more formal air was seen when we were criticised by a judge for not addressing the chair and instead talking more to the other side; this would not be a problem in other competitions.
I was in general dissapointed with my performance as it was below my usual standard, but as usual at the moment it was because I seem to have lost my ability to be awake and mentally able as solidly as I used to. Mr Moore-Bridger remarked that I was ‘not quite in touch’ owtte with what was going on, and that pretty much summer it up – I was not on the ball in the way I usually am. This led to me not getting as much out of the session as I had hoped, but as always it is always worth practicing one’s skills. I am far more looking forward to the next round of the English Speaking Union’s Mace competition, which does include points for style which to me is pretty important. One thing that was very positive about this heat was that we got some real enthusiasm out of our budding year ten team. Debating has really taken off now that we are involving lots of different people; I am proud and glad that I started it off. Mixed teams are a most successful idea – as it has been noted, by the time they get up to the sixth form competitions they will be incredible. In the second debate we participated in we were drawn directly opposed to the other Silverdale team and this showed their skill.
One thing that was highlighted in the feedback from the judges is that structure and in some cases actual argument content was something that we all generally struggle with. However much we tell each other to signpost, it is in fact really hard to actually remember to do it in the middle of a debate. It is all too easy to forget your careful self-training and end up rambling on about some train of thought, only to then lose your audience. Keeping yourself on track when you are also having points of information hurled at you is difficult: we need to get better at it. The basic principle is to carefully lead your audience through an argument, avoiding leaps that make it in any way hard to follow and ensuring that they do not have to think to hard. Judges, apparently, look for three clear points and clear introductions and endings to each one: it must be obvious. So that was the most important thing for me about this competition; a solid target to aim for in improving the squad’s skills.
Debating was again the winner
On Tuesday morning I received, as part of another conversation, an e-mail from Mr M-B saying “think about why you think fairtrade is a bad thing”. Later on that day I was furnished with the reason for this: our entry into the Mace debating competition, a formal, rigorous competition in which the final prize is a mace, was falling apart. Out of three people involved two had pulled out, leaving a blank space in the team. I was asked to step in with forty-eight hours notice and so tonight the battle commenced. And again the real intellectual atmosphere was what I took away most, the whole idea of meeting to competitively discuss issues that are so important. Additionally, working with the ‘squad’ rather than the team the night before preparing at school and on the journey, the the teachers: I don’t get the intellectual atmosphere at home where debate is boring and unimportant. Our motion was ‘[t]his house believes we should all buy faritrade [sic] products where we can’ which was a facinating topic to oppose – I learnt an awful lot about fair trade and am now sitting on the fence very much if it is a good idea or not.
For this debate I was working with Conor, someone who I have not really worked with before but am glad I did – we seem to do well together. Conor won a public speaking competition recently and really can deliver the information. The big differnece that we had to cope with for this competition was interruptions during speeches in the form of points of information which is something we have not really had the chance to practice for, meaning that we probably didn’t handle these as well as we should have done. Really though this style of debate is so much better than the others we have encountered. The cut and thrust of real debate are there and this is not experienced in other settings. The debate is interactive and real. After watching the first debate on compulsory national service it was our turn, and we were stepping into a strange situation. We had little preparation due to being informed late of the details and we had been put off a little by the exceptional work of the home school in the first debate. But it was pointed out by our teachers that once we got into the style things were very fluid and debating did become theatre. Rebuttal is vitally important: I turned the proposition’s drop in a bucket argument on its head which I was quite pleased with.
We split our opposition into two areas: Conor took the economic issues around why fair trade is not a good thing, and I attacked the moral and human aspects, and then proposed a solution. We uncovered a lot of information and analysis. Firstly, Conor explained how fair trade does not address the reason that third world producers are paid so low for their produce and that is a saturated market – fair trade encourages more production and thus makes the situation a lot worse (worse not just not helping was a fundamental point of our side). He also explained how fair trade suffers from subsidy and import restrictions in first world countries and this led on to the proposition that cutting out the middleman of sending cocoa beans to the first world to be made into chocolate bars to be sold back to the third world would really help the situation in developing countries. I went on to talk about branding and how there is a real psychological element to the debate: fair trade is a fashionable brand at the moment and there is always the concern of complacency. We used the analogy of a sticking plaster for a much larger wound. The next point was the patronising of the African farmers that occurs. I used the illustration of a business meeting praising the African coffee and how this patronises those who have produced it: the pride in their produce is lost. So the solution came about from this argument. Take the extra fifty pence spend on fair trade and put this into developing the infrastructure in the developing countries to produce their own goods from the raw materials in order to allow them to compete. Remove this feudal situation between the first and third worlds where the subservant serfs are producing our raw materials, and if we must work within this capitalist system then we must allow the third world countries to compete rather than be below us if they are to lift themselves out of poverty.
After the debate the judges retired to consider the winning team to go through to the next round and a runner up in case illness or other misfortune should stop the winners attending. Firstly they did the most valuable part of the evening for the longer term: feedback on each individual debater and combined team. This information is absolutely invaluable in improving as the judges can compare teams and bring in their experience. According to the judges I have a voice that must be listened to without any shouting and I used my facial expressions well to emote my points. They particularly liked my point on why dependence on fair trade is particularly dangerous when I said that instant coffee could become instant poverty given an economic slump. We had a strong and coherent argument between us and Conor was praised for his solidity of economic research. Then the judgement came, and I was actually not too concerned for we had had a good time and had improved our skills. And then it came: we won – apparently the choice of winner for the judges was easy, and the runner up took more thought. On to the next round!
Trip to Cambridge, on go the exams & first tower grab
During the holiday I was taken to Cambridge by my grandfather to take a look at the city. He has a big thing about it and its university (which takes up most of it, it seems) in thinking that they are dramatically different from every other place and by comparison with Oxford which he believes is just like any other city. I would like to go to Oxbridge if they’ll have me (it’s worth a try) and right now Cambridge sounds like a better choice than the other. Plus they have a lot of ringing going on there. It’ll also be a chance to debate lots (although Oxford is a bigger place for that from what I can tell) and also cross verbal blades with the so-called upper classes, a term which I ignore the presence of as often as I can. In these ways, it would be nice to go.
On the trip we did a lot of wandering around although we couldn’t go in a lot of the colleges as they were shut off for exams. The most impressive bits were those that could be contrasted with Sheffield, and I realise how backwater it has become up here, namely the Botanical Gardens, the Fitzwilliam Museum and the general atmosphere on the streets. The excellent bookshop (although libraries are better, they wouldn’t let us in the library proper) Heffers stocked the Guardian at a significantly reduced price, making it even more worthwhile to go.
The darker side is of course the elitism and the like, which is a considerable argument I seem to face regularly. However, it’s a challenge: let them come and fall at my sword. I’m not saying I’d automatically win but I’m not bad at debate in general, despite the fact they may well have practice from private schools. The other issue is the money. It’s huge and is only going to get bigger when the cap on tuition fees comes off. However, I do not believe that it is unreasonable to take advantage of upbringing and parents in this way because the good one can do with a better education from one of these universities outweighs the capitalist nature of modern higher education. Please do get in touch if you disagree here.
On return I got straight back into revision, which as of this week has got a lot easier because the exams are a lot lighter in the second of the two main weeks. After Friday I only have two others with about six days to revise for them, which is great. So far they have been going generally quite well, the only real issue being History and perhaps English as I’m not sure I planned my time that well. However, it’s great to know that Biology and English are over forever! On the flipside, I’m very dissapointed with Maths. For the first I was expecting a challenge and (yes, I’m sad, but that’s okay) was really excited the night before. However, it was as I put it insultingly easy. Rosie made the astute observation that the difference between A* and A is how many silly mistakes you make rather than the true mathematical skill which can usually be shown on the last few questions. I was told by Maths teachers and others that when the first paper is easy then the second is usually much more of a challenge, but again I was dissapointed today with only the odd question where I had to think with any depth, and even then it wasn’t anything very exciting.
I keep being asked when I intend to do with the very long summer holiday that I have stretching ahead of me now, and one thing that I aim to do is push ringing hard. This is because my bell handling needs a lot of work and if I can solve this with simply lots of ringing very regularly I can make better use of limited weekly practices back during term time. My mother says I’ll get bored of it but other ringers say it’s definately a good idea as learning at the Cathedral has the disadvantage of not getting many turns, with the advantage being that you have an advanced band of strong ringers to help you. By going to other places I aim to make better use of being at the Cathedral.
So, tonight I went to the tower I have planned for Monday (I have options for every night of the week, Cathedral and possibly Walkley on a Sunday and possibly weddings at the Cathedral on Saturday) which is Walkley, recently hung for ringing and with a lot of Cathedral ringers up there; I was introduced as “a[nother] Cathedral ringer” to the others that I didn’t know. It’s a nice downhill walk from Crookes but a bit of a slog back. This was my first tower grab or ringing visit, something integral to the ringing culture it seems. It went quite well but the bells had some major differences from the Cathedral. They were much deeper set which means to pull off requires a lot more strength than at the Cathedral. Indeed, when trying the 5th (I rung 4th 5th 2nd and treble in that order to simple call changes) I could barely pull it off at all :S
The other thing I did that wasn’t so great (I got used to the bells after a while) was ring the treble badly and therefore mess up leading (which I only learnt last week but which I can do reasonably well). At one point in those call changes all the bells were sounding at once which I think was at least partially my fault. Ah well.
The place itself is a nice enough church, and as I say I knew most of the people there. It’s a lot smaller and while at the Cathedral because there are twelve bells altogether ringing on six requires a virtual straight line whereas at Walkley you can very easily see everyone. I’m told it should be easier to ring on six because the Cathedral is tweaked and lined up etc. for twelve primarily, whereas Walkley will only ring on six (or possibly five). In terms of sound, it’s no where near as nice as the Cathedral. So, I will push my ringing this summer by going to lots of different towers.