Writers Block
Trying to write something tonight, not getting very far,
Nothing in the news really suggests comment, and I'm imposing a moratorium on rants against the government and banking system and recession talk, because that always leads to soap box preaching about how the current crisis is systematic of a broken system, and, there we go, off again.
I'm also really, really trying not to sound like this guy. Yahoo news is pretty diabolical as a new source so it's not unusual for there to be some thrashy content and lazy journalism. But this got right up my nose.
What got to me was the squawking on and on about how Media Studies as an academic discipline is as valid as English Literature, an arguement which may or may not have some weight, but the orignal point being made was that a subject like physics be weighted higher than a subject like Media Studies when calculating school league tables.
To take the exact wording of the proposal as quoted in the Telegraph was
Giving more points in school league tables for A-levels achieved in "hard" subjects, such as maths and physics, and fewer points for so-called "soft" subjects such as media studies. from the Daily Telegraph.
The telegraph article goes on to say
Current league tables have been heavily criticised because practical qualifications, such as cake decoration, pottery and flower arranging, are given equivalent value to A-levels. It emerged earlier this year that a course in "tanning treatments" was worth 45 points in school league table scores, the same as an A grade in one of the four units that make up an A-level.
Now, I'm no fan of the Conservative party, and although I enjoy the Crossword, Pub Quiz and James May's column of a Saturday, I don't exactly fit the profile of your usual Telegraph reader either. But I do think that it's shabby journalism on behalf of Yahoo's Mr Dunt to report this story as if it was a direct attack on Media Studies directly, and to counter by hoisting Media Studies up alongside English Literature, a subject which could only ever be classified as "soft" is clearly a pointless arguement.
If I were a politician or spin doctor I'd make a sensible point now about how "hard" and "scientific" subjects are the subjects which will make the backbone of a knowledge economy the much vaunted best hope for economic recovery, and if I was a cruel minded person I'd say that soft and squidgy qualifications in Media and/or Literature are important and valid, but they require a solid economy in which to operate, and if that means playing second fiddle to more emperical disciplines, then so be it. But that would mean spin doctoring for the Conservative Party and treading very close to violating my own moratorium.
Mr Dunt goes on to suggest that Media is the new Church, and therefore it is vital that someone studies it, of course, the three pillars of modern scientific thinking, and the subjects that can best be fitted into the "hard" catagory are Maths, Physics and Theology. Clearly this knee-jerk artist has misunderstood the difference between classifying subjects "hard" and "soft" and classifying them "hard" and "easy", or "important" and "trivial".
But it's when he starts in on the classics, and makes his play to put his own field in line with what he has decided is the epitome of academic excellence.
In terms of social importance, it [the media] puts William Shakespeare in the shade. Personally, I quite like Shakespeare. I don't exactly read it on my day off, but when I'm dragged to see a play of his, I usually end up thinking: 'Fair enough. You're a clever bugger.'
Dragged to see a play ? A clever bugger ? To be honest Mr Dunt, I somehow doubt your claim that you "quite like" Shakespeare, and your arguement that it's more academically valid to study TV and Ads than Shakespeare because they're more common and more likely to impact the lives of students is akin to saying that the tat on your granny's coffee table is more important the exhibits in the Louvre.
I'm also bristling at the implication that "The Wire" is as good as an Artur Miller play, but I've not seen the Wire and I love Arthur Miller so it'd be completely unfair for me to comment on this.
So to Mr Dunt, I would say, next time you sit down to write an article, do fifteen minutes research, read the statement to which you're providing counterpoint, and realise that English Literature and Theology are not the same as Maths and Physics.
Nothing in the news really suggests comment, and I'm imposing a moratorium on rants against the government and banking system and recession talk, because that always leads to soap box preaching about how the current crisis is systematic of a broken system, and, there we go, off again.
I'm also really, really trying not to sound like this guy. Yahoo news is pretty diabolical as a new source so it's not unusual for there to be some thrashy content and lazy journalism. But this got right up my nose.
What got to me was the squawking on and on about how Media Studies as an academic discipline is as valid as English Literature, an arguement which may or may not have some weight, but the orignal point being made was that a subject like physics be weighted higher than a subject like Media Studies when calculating school league tables.
To take the exact wording of the proposal as quoted in the Telegraph was
Giving more points in school league tables for A-levels achieved in "hard" subjects, such as maths and physics, and fewer points for so-called "soft" subjects such as media studies. from the Daily Telegraph.
The telegraph article goes on to say
Current league tables have been heavily criticised because practical qualifications, such as cake decoration, pottery and flower arranging, are given equivalent value to A-levels. It emerged earlier this year that a course in "tanning treatments" was worth 45 points in school league table scores, the same as an A grade in one of the four units that make up an A-level.
Now, I'm no fan of the Conservative party, and although I enjoy the Crossword, Pub Quiz and James May's column of a Saturday, I don't exactly fit the profile of your usual Telegraph reader either. But I do think that it's shabby journalism on behalf of Yahoo's Mr Dunt to report this story as if it was a direct attack on Media Studies directly, and to counter by hoisting Media Studies up alongside English Literature, a subject which could only ever be classified as "soft" is clearly a pointless arguement.
If I were a politician or spin doctor I'd make a sensible point now about how "hard" and "scientific" subjects are the subjects which will make the backbone of a knowledge economy the much vaunted best hope for economic recovery, and if I was a cruel minded person I'd say that soft and squidgy qualifications in Media and/or Literature are important and valid, but they require a solid economy in which to operate, and if that means playing second fiddle to more emperical disciplines, then so be it. But that would mean spin doctoring for the Conservative Party and treading very close to violating my own moratorium.
Mr Dunt goes on to suggest that Media is the new Church, and therefore it is vital that someone studies it, of course, the three pillars of modern scientific thinking, and the subjects that can best be fitted into the "hard" catagory are Maths, Physics and Theology. Clearly this knee-jerk artist has misunderstood the difference between classifying subjects "hard" and "soft" and classifying them "hard" and "easy", or "important" and "trivial".
But it's when he starts in on the classics, and makes his play to put his own field in line with what he has decided is the epitome of academic excellence.
In terms of social importance, it [the media] puts William Shakespeare in the shade. Personally, I quite like Shakespeare. I don't exactly read it on my day off, but when I'm dragged to see a play of his, I usually end up thinking: 'Fair enough. You're a clever bugger.'
Dragged to see a play ? A clever bugger ? To be honest Mr Dunt, I somehow doubt your claim that you "quite like" Shakespeare, and your arguement that it's more academically valid to study TV and Ads than Shakespeare because they're more common and more likely to impact the lives of students is akin to saying that the tat on your granny's coffee table is more important the exhibits in the Louvre.
I'm also bristling at the implication that "The Wire" is as good as an Artur Miller play, but I've not seen the Wire and I love Arthur Miller so it'd be completely unfair for me to comment on this.
So to Mr Dunt, I would say, next time you sit down to write an article, do fifteen minutes research, read the statement to which you're providing counterpoint, and realise that English Literature and Theology are not the same as Maths and Physics.