c4countdown

If you haven't seen it yet, it's available on BBC iPlayer until 11:34pm Friday 4th March 2011.

Genuinely horrendous to watch.

Charlie Reams wrote:Genuinely horrendous to watch.

Really? I just watched it now on iplayer and although I have no idea about politics I thought it was entertaining to watch and don't see what Carol did wrong.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I have no idea about politics

I think therein lies the problem, darling. It was liking watching my mom on Question Time.

She kept it mathematical anyway since she was all about the lowest common denominator.

David O'Donnell wrote:She kept it mathematical anyway since she was all about the lowest common denominator.

One of my favourites for the "Words Changing Meaning" thread. Unless of course you mean she managed to combine all the qualities of all the panellists, which I doubt.

David Williams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:She kept it mathematical anyway since she was all about the lowest common denominator.

One of my favourites for the "Words Changing Meaning" thread. Unless of course you mean she managed to combine all the qualities of all the panellists, which I doubt.

No. I did mean she was trying to appeal to the basest sentiment whenever she answered a question.

David O'Donnell wrote:She kept it mathematical anyway since she was all about the lowest common denominator.

Having watched QT since the days when Robin Day was in the chair, I think the programme only works well when the panel consists of politicians. They just about get away with it if there is a controversial columnist too, eg one of the Hitchins' brothers.

Entertainment figures promise much but are always an embarrassment, Carol Vorderman, Richard Madeley, Alex James, Jarvis Cocker, Will Young ... to name but a few.

Chris Corby wrote:Entertainment figures promise much but are always an embarrassment, Carol Vorderman, Richard Madeley, Alex James, Jarvis Cocker, Will Young ... to name but a few.

Oh god, the last time Madeley was on... Dude thought he was Jesus or something.

I didn't see it but one of my friends described her as a 'loathsome, feeble-minded shameless self-publicist'

Matthew Green wrote:I didn't see it but one of my friends described her as a 'loathsome, feeble-minded shameless self-publicist'

That's pretty much how I always saw Carol, to be honest. She always came across as egotistical and unpleasant, and I find Rachel much more watchable and engaging.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 052128.ece

At one time Question Time always had three politicians and one 'ordinary' person. The wife of a work colleague of mine, who was something big in something like the WI, was once on the panel, and I remember him telling me how hard it was for her. The three politicians all came with a brief supplied to them by their party on anything that was likely to come up. She had nothing. The choice is between saying very little, or speaking out with the likelihood that you'll look foolish. I think we'd all have hazarded a guess at which option Carol would go for.

PS Didn't see the programme, but I've just read some of the comments in the link. Not only does she get a lot of support, but there is a suggestion that she was actually working to a Conservative party brief.

David Williams wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 052128.ece

At one time Question Time always had three politicians and one 'ordinary' person. The wife of a work colleague of mine, who was something big in something like the WI, was once on the panel, and I remember him telling me how hard it was for her. The three politicians all came with a brief supplied to them by their party on anything that was likely to come up. She had nothing. The choice is between saying very little, or speaking out with the likelihood that you'll look foolish. I think we'd all have hazarded a guess at which option Carol would go for.

PS Didn't see the programme, but I've just read some of the comments in the link. Not only does she get a lot of support, but there is a suggestion that she was actually working to a Conservative party brief.

She was following a Conservative line though I'd say it was of a 'bread and butter' nature. Actually it was a little BNP to be honest.

I went for "other" in terms of this poll because I think she would have garnered a lot of support from grass-roots 'Middle Englander' types. The only people she would have pissed off would have been those who are anyway liberally minded. If this is what she wanted to achieve then it can hardly have been a PR nightmare.

Chris Corby wrote:Having watched QT since the days when Robin Day was in the chair, I think the programme only works well when the panel consists of politicians. They just about get away with it if there is a controversial columnist too, eg one of the Hitchins' brothers.

Entertainment figures promise much but are always an embarrassment, Carol Vorderman, Richard Madeley, Alex James, Jarvis Cocker, Will Young ... to name but a few.

Remember June Sarpong's appearance?

I think it's important to have a knowledgeable columnist/commentator on the panel who isn't concerned with any party line - someone like Will Self, A.A. Gill or Matthew Parris. Self was on fire on Thursday.

Phil Makepeace wrote:

Chris Corby wrote:Having watched QT since the days when Robin Day was in the chair, I think the programme only works well when the panel consists of politicians. They just about get away with it if there is a controversial columnist too, eg one of the Hitchins' brothers.

Entertainment figures promise much but are always an embarrassment, Carol Vorderman, Richard Madeley, Alex James, Jarvis Cocker, Will Young ... to name but a few.

Remember June Sarpong's appearance?

I think it's important to have a knowledgeable columnist/commentator on the panel who isn't concerned with any party line - someone like Will Self, A.A. Gill or Matthew Parris. Self was on fire on Thursday.

Parris is a former Tory politician.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Phil Makepeace wrote: I think it's important to have a knowledgeable columnist/commentator on the panel who isn't concerned with any party line - someone like Will Self, A.A. Gill or Matthew Parris. Self was on fire on Thursday.

Parris is a former Tory politician.

Hoping he threw that in as a joke

Yeah, that was just a silly afterthought. I'm not a fan.

David O'Donnell wrote: She was following a Conservative line though I'd say it was of a 'bread and butter' nature. Actually it was a little BNP to be honest.

I think that's going a bit too far, but I understand your point. She was definitely leaning to the more reactionary, right-wing, Jon Gauntish side of the Conservative Party. What offended me most, however, was her self-righteous, condescending manner.

Martin Bishop wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote: She was following a Conservative line though I'd say it was of a 'bread and butter' nature. Actually it was a little BNP to be honest.

I think that's going a bit too far, but I understand your point. She was definitely leaning to the more reactionary, right-wing, Jon Gauntish side of the Conservative Party. What offended me most, however, was her self-righteous, condescending manner.

Maybe calling her a racist is a bit much but didn't you think she was a 'hare's breadth' away from saying that "political correctness has gone crazy"?

I've just watched it and, while I agree she didn't do herself any favours in my book, I still think there's value in having her there. Her expressed views are similar to those touted by much of the tabloid media so overall I think it was worth it to have those thrown around for public debate. Similarly with other celebrities, whose only information about all sorts of issues is likely to have been learnt from the media rather than well-researched white papers, their presence makes a useful starting point to explore the breadth and validity of public feeling about certain issues.

"Carol Vorderman is already on hand to decide how children should learn maths."

No doubt her Third in Engineering will come in handy for that then.

I don't watch it that much but I agree with Phil Makepeace that it's better to have people who are not associated with the main parties as well as the politicians. Because as he says Will Self did a good job, even if Carol was poor. You don't want it to just be some programme where it's just politicians blandly toeing the part line and avoiding the issues.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't watch it that much but I agree with Phil Makepeace that it's better to have people who are not associated with the main parties as well as the politicians. Because as he says Will Self did a good job, even if Carol was poor. You don't want it to just be some programme where it's just blandly politicians toeing the part line and avoiding the issues.

As was obviously the case with Lord Adonis!!

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:As was obviously the case with Lord Adonis!!

If there's ever a man who doesn't look like his name sounds, it's Lord Adonis.

David O'Donnell wrote:Maybe calling her a racist is a bit much but didn't you think she was a 'hare's breadth' away from saying that "political correctness has gone crazy"?

I've been waiting several days for one of the many pedants other than me to pick up on this one. Where are you all? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing? I have to know.

David Williams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:Maybe calling her a racist is a bit much but didn't you think she was a 'hare's breadth' away from saying that "political correctness has gone crazy"?

I've been waiting several days for one of the many pedants other than me to pick up on this one. Where are you all? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing? I have to know.

The hare hadn't eaten for days.

David Williams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:Maybe calling her a racist is a bit much but didn't you think she was a 'hare's breadth' away from saying that "political correctness has gone crazy"?

I've been waiting several days for one of the many pedants other than me to pick up on this one. Where are you all? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing? I have to know.

subtlety is a noun, and not to be confused with subtlely, which is a deeply retarded mis-spelling of subtly, which is an adverb.

Charlie Reams wrote:"Carol Vorderman is already on hand to decide how children should learn maths."

Yes! At last...one thing that put me off teaching was the amount of creative lessons you have to produce, e.g. card sorts, interactive whiteboard, games etc. It's all a load of crap and gets kids interested but they actually learn far less than learning by traditional methods. Get rid of this new crap and go back to learning your tables and doing 100 questions of the same type so the kids become so confident in them. I never saw any class do 20-30 questions of the same type...they tended to be all interactive and they only did like 5 or 6 and then maybe 5 for homework and moved on. As a result the kids weren't that confident in that area of mathematics.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:"Carol Vorderman is already on hand to decide how children should learn maths."

Yes! At last...one thing that put me off teaching was the amount of creative lessons you have to produce, e.g. card sorts, interactive whiteboard, games etc. It's all a load of crap and gets kids interested but they actually learn far less than learning by traditional methods. Get rid of this new crap and go back to learning your tables and doing 100 questions of the same type so the kids become so confident in them. I never saw any class do 20-30 questions of the same type...they tended to be all interactive and they only did like 5 or 6 and then maybe 5 for homework and moved on. As a result the kids weren't that confident in that area of mathematics.

Very refreshing to hear an (ex?) teacher say that, the only teachers I have spoken to about it seem to have been brainwashed themselves unfortunately.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote: Very refreshing to hear an (ex?) teacher say that, the only teachers I have spoken to about it seem to have been brainwashed themselves unfortunately.

Discipline is a problem nowadays too. Supernanny doesn't help. I watched one episode the other day where she was getting all upset because the dad was shouting at the kids. Supernanny made them sit on a penalty spot for the number of minutes that is the same as their age. She wanted to roll dice in the living room but the kids said "we can't roll them here, they'll scratch the floor and daddy will shout at us". I was thinking "brilliant...the kids are learning what's right and wrong and won't do it because their dad will shout at them" and supernanny was appalled and said it'd be fine and just rolled the dice. If ever they were naughty they'd be told to sit on the penalty spot. The dad got so angry with her lol - I did too.

I swore in front of my mum and I had soap in my mouth. I didn't do it again. If I was sent to sit on a penalty spot then whoopee do...not much punishment. Bring back the cane I say.

Jesus...

Jon O'Neill wrote:Jesus...

What? Care to discuss?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Jesus...

What? Care to discuss?

Not really, I wouldn't know where to start.

I helped in a school when I was doing my maths degree and I found the type of teaching varied from teacher to teacher. One taught her top set almost entirely with puzzle games and fun whiteboard things. Another taught her third set mostly by textbook examples. None of them had a cane, though.

I'm going to sit on the fence and say you need a mixture of the two. Textbook work is dull. It works, but it's dull. If you can spend a lesson or two a week cutting and pasting numbers into some elaborate jigsaw, then it can hopefully ease the relentless boredom and hopefully kids won't hate maths.

The activies can also introduce proofs and encourage logical thinking. A lot of secondary school maths is just repeating a method over and over and doesn't necessarily train students to think.

Martin Bishop wrote:The activies can also introduce proofs and encourage logical thinking. A lot of secondary school maths is just repeating a method over and over and doesn't necessarily train students to think.

This. The ability to critically appraise an argument or some statistics is vastly more useful than knowing 13x7, which a calculator can do for you. Unfortunately the existing Critical Thinking GCSE/A-level (is it still called that?) is just a piss-take subject, when it should be one of the most important.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote:The activies can also introduce proofs and encourage logical thinking. A lot of secondary school maths is just repeating a method over and over and doesn't necessarily train students to think.

This. The ability to critically appraise an argument or some statistics is vastly more useful than knowing 13x7, which a calculator can do for you. Unfortunately the existing Critical Thinking GCSE/A-level (is it still called that?) is just a piss-take subject, when it should be one of the most important.

I've noticed isolated (I think) pilots of primary-level philosophy teaching in Fife, possibly elsewhere, to address this sort of problem. Way too much spoon-feeding of knowledge, not enough reasoning, criticism and general brain-use has been happening for a long time.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm

Ian Volante wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote:The activies can also introduce proofs and encourage logical thinking. A lot of secondary school maths is just repeating a method over and over and doesn't necessarily train students to think.

This. The ability to critically appraise an argument or some statistics is vastly more useful than knowing 13x7, which a calculator can do for you. Unfortunately the existing Critical Thinking GCSE/A-level (is it still called that?) is just a piss-take subject, when it should be one of the most important.

I've noticed isolated (I think) pilots of primary-level philosophy teaching in Fife, possibly elsewhere, to address this sort of problem. Way too much spoon-feeding of knowledge, not enough reasoning, criticism and general brain-use has been happening for a long time.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm

They do it in Cardiff too: they use philosophy students in an outreach programme to teach at various schools. Fortunately it's voluntary as I don't think I'd enjoy the prospect of explaining Kant's three critiques to kids.

Jon Corby wrote:subtlety is a noun, and not to be confused with subtlely, which is a deeply retarded mis-spelling of subtly, which is an adverb.

I actually wrote it initially as subtlity for your benefit, but re-wrote in deference to your sensitive nature.

Ian Volante wrote: I've noticed isolated (I think) pilots of primary-level philosophy teaching in Fife, possibly elsewhere, to address this sort of problem. Way too much spoon-feeding of knowledge, not enough reasoning, criticism and general brain-use has been happening for a long time.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm

That's cool, maybe it'll catch on.

that article wrote:Lessons should celebrate rather than denigrate Britain’s role through the ages, including the Empire. “Guilt about Britain’s past is misplaced.”

Well put.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Bring back the cane I say.

Proof by induction should be taught using the cane.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Bring back the cane I say.

Proof by induction should be taught using the cane.