Speed Cameras: How to beat them...

A million more speeding tickets are being issued now than ten years ago, according to the Conservatives. David Ruffley, the shadow police reform minister and part-time speed demon, declared that the speed cameras were a 'cash cow'.

'It's just another example of this Labour government kicking the motorist when he's down' said the shadow minister. 'It's a bloody disgrace. It's penalises honest, law-abiding citizens when the only thing they've done wrong is break the law – I mean, speed limit.'

It is not all bad news for motorists, however, according to the Institute of Traffic Studies. Dr. Geoffrey Bower, founder of the ITS, claims to have come up with an ingenious way to beat the speed camera every time.

'It involves nothing illegal, and simply a slight modification in driving technique', the boffin explained to The Tart. 'When one sees a sign with speed limit on it - say, 30mph – simply lift your right foot off the accelerator slightly, and then – with the same foot – apply pressure softly to the brakes.'

'Continue to do so until your “speedometer” reads 30mph, or less. This way you'll never be charged with speeding. It works with all speed limits. It's a wonder the government haven't yet closed this loop hole.'

(This story originally appeared on thetartpaper.com.)

University Grading Changes

Universities across Britain are trying out new grade-cards in the hope that they can replace the 200-year old 'class' system with something fairer for students and more useful to employees. The system will focus more on extra-curricular activities, giving students credit for running and taking part in societies.

It's good that the universities involved, including - among others - Manchester and Newcastle Universities, are attempting to recognise the achievements of their students outside of the classroom. But basing a student's university degree on their extra curricular activities is utterly misguided and misses the main problem.

Employers have always looked for activities outside of the classroom. It is no use having a 2.1 in Business Management if you've never actually managed anything, or handled a business. These are skills that can't be picked up in the classroom, but can be picked up running a student society.

Whether it's a Neighbours Society, or the Theatre Society, if you are involved in them you will exhibit skills employers want. There is more skill in organising a successful bar crawl than there is in getting a 2.1 in an essay.

But rewarding un-academic activities with an academic grade will not solve anything – all it would do is corrupt the value of a degree.

You are at university to learn stuff. Generally stuff that you will never need to know again, but that's not the point. Students go to university to stretch their brains, to think and to develop academically.

If you're thinking of going to university for the 'life experience', don't. Go and have a life instead. Go travelling. Read something you actually want to, rather than something you're told to. Get a job. Get some useful skills. Do something, rather than pontificate and procrastinate.

The problem of university grading lurks instead in the cramped grade boundaries. Any dumb-ass can get a third. With not much effort at all you can get a 2.2. Put in a bit more and you get a 2.1.

But here's the kicker. Take me, for example. I'll probably end up with a 2.1. If I work fantastically hard, I'll get a first. Probably something in the low 70s (almost certainly no higher as I'm an arts student, and a first at around 72.5% is regarded as 'stratospheric'). But the difference in effort between my getting a 68% and a 72% is massively more than 4%.

Likewise, the effort of me getting a 68% compared to a 62% is way more than 6%. Both are 2.1s, but they sure as heck ain't the same level. University grades just don't reflect the effort put in or the true ability of students.

There is more to university than academia, but it should always be the focus. Giving academic credit for social activities defies the point of university. Instead universities should introduce a broader boundary for each class, rewarding those who have put in more effort, but not quite reached the levels of the higher class.

This is fairer on students and fairer on employers. It would put pride back into getting a 'good' 2.1, rather than the feeling of stunning averageness, and allow employers to see who is brightest. But they'll probably end up going for the guy who has actually done something. That'll be the president of Neighbours Soc, then.

Dyb, dyb, dyb! Knob, knob, knob!

Scouts aged 14 - 16 are to be given sex education and may even be issued with condoms, according to new guidelines from the Scout Association.

This policy comes after recent surveys suggested that British teenagers were 'at it like rabbits'. Chief Scout, Peter Duncan, remarked that: “We must be realistic and accept that around a third of young people are sexually active before 16.”

“I found one poor lad at camp who had fashioned himself a makeshift vagina out of a ball of string and some leaves. This has got to stop.”

The move has come under criticism from some quarters, including from noted sex-expert Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP. "This is not what parents expect of the Scout Association. They are sending their children off to a leisure activity, and to be stared at by grown men, not for intentional sex education.”

Supporters of the new guidelines responded: “Taking advice from Ann Widdecombe on sex is like asking for David Beckham's thoughts on quantum physics.”

The guidelines, however, do not note the important fact that if you are still in scouts and older than 13, then you will probably never get laid anyway.

(This story can also be viewed at thetartpaper.com here.)

The professor, his testicles and how to pay for them

You might not know it, but professors are beggars. Every academic at every university is constantly embroiled in a not very pretty scrap for a limited amount of funding. Applications for grants are an incessant, but horribly necessary, hurdle for academics to overcome.

So how do they decide who gets the dosh? It's not a case of names in a hat, but rather a very complicated system of 'peer-review'. A professor's proposal must be vetted by his or her colleagues as to its merit.

The problem is that this process has become a bit of a back-slapping fest and standards aren't as watertight as before. This means that, with everyone having such sparkling reviews, getting funding – a bit like getting into good universities – has become as much down to luck as anything else.

But Sheffield's Prof. Tim Birkhead has a solution. Writing in the THES, Prof. Birkhead suggested that rather than relying on the peer review and the individual merits of the proposal, funding should be based on previous performance.

Prof. Birkhead's logic seems sound. If a researcher has struck academic gold before, he's likely to do so again. However, the problem with this thinking is fundamental: it stifles the new and original.

Under such a system, academics such as Prof. Birkhead, who has had a long, distinguished career (including the quite fantastic 'Testes size in birds: quality vs quantity'), would waltz off with vast amounts of swag from research councils – but the twenty-something post-doc with a big idea would be left skint.

Just because a researcher has been successful, this doesn't necessarily make his or her research worthy of cash. Research councils must continue to give funding on the merit of the proposal, less they become 'old-boys' networks and blinkered to new ideas.

But, think about it, Professor. If you had not received a break when you were younger the world would know far less about birds' testes – and we would all be poorer for it.

Yanks and students

Ask any student on campus what they like about the USA and they'll generally give you a blank look before saying "The Simpsons". Ask them what they hate and you'll probably get covered in a mixture of rhetoric and spittle as they launch into a raging list of all that is wrong with the USA: Bush, McDonalds, Iraq, fat people, pollution, Guantanamo Bay and Bush (again).

Hating America is definitely in vogue right now - whether it's a beardy terrorist flying a jet plane into a tower, or a beardy leftie holding forth on all that is wrong with our neighbour across the pond, people are queuing up to bash Uncle Sam.

Some may think that this criticism is fair - that it is the consequence of imperialist American behaviour - others may not. It's not a clear issue. What is clear, however, is that criticism of the USA can easily, and often does, deteriorate into xenophobia and borderline racism. Even here at Sheffield, American students are picked on simply because of their nationality.

Sheffield Steel asked Aditya Balachander, vice-president of the American Society, about this problem. "I know British people who say 'I just can't make friends with Americans. I mean they're just so ignorant, small minded and boorish'. I know American kids who stay in their rooms all the time, afraid to leave. They call back home 'Mum, these people hate me, I want to go home.'"

"There is a sort of snobbery: a view that all Americans are uneducated hicks; that somehow they must be civilised. It used to be the white man's burden; now it's the European man's burden to civilise those stupid rednecks in America."

An example of this attitude is provided by a 2004 campaign by The Guardian, whereby the newspaper implored its readers to write to residents of Clark County, Ohio – a crucial swing state in the 2004 US election – urging them not to vote for Bush. The recipients of the letters did not take kindly to this. (Sample response: "KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?")

"You guys don't really understand our country," continued Aditya. "English people think Republican is bad, Democrat is good. But there are far worse leaders [than Bush] around the world, right now, who are making things far worse for the majorities of their populations."

And it's true. People are quick to criticise Bush, calling him a mass-murdering, war-monger, while Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is seen as a harmless joke, despite causing massive famine in his country. Robert Mugabe has managed to starve what was once one of Africa's most prosperous nations to its knees, and yet receives less ire from the student body than Bush. Is this fair? More importantly, is this right?

Along with this double standard, often there is a shocking level of ambivalence amongst students when talking about American tragedies. Aditya pointed out the massacre at Virginia Tech as an example: "One of my friends made a joke that 'Hanging out with Americans would make anyone crazy and want to shoot everyone.'" Some may think the joke in poor taste, but not really offensive. Replace the word "Americans" with "Pakistanis", however, and the joke would rightly be condemned as racist. It seems that we Brits can have a bit of a racial blind spot when it comes to our Atlantic neighbours.

Practically no-one reading this would say that they are racist against Americans, even if many would admit to disliking the USA's politics. To criticise another countries government is not to be racist or xenophobic. Many, however, would admit to thinking that the average American is some Bush-loving-gun-toting-McDonalds-scoffing-redneck. It's time that we realised the extent of this latent racism and tried to remove it from our society.

Trouble at the tower

The Arts Tower is a problem. Student opinion of the building seems split. Some love it, others find it an eyesore. Those who use it everyday find that the tower's saving grace – the novelty of the paternoster – soon wears off. A process accelerated by the regular fifteen minute queues to get on it at busy times.

The building, completed in 1965, requires a £20 million face lift to hide the cracks of middle age. It also requires major alterations to increase its energy effectiveness and to reduce chronic congestion.

The vast sum required for these improvements has led many to question whether it is worth repairing. Were it not for it being a Grade II listed building, much of the student population would be happy to see it go, and the money spent else where. How did it come to this?

When the tower was built in 1965 it was a beacon of modernity. The slender, 22-storey building was a bold and innovative design, built during the whirlwind of university expansion in the 1960s. A time when, as if over night, university buildings popped up all over the country like funghi.

Sheffield, however, wanted to go further than other universities. There was no desire for the building to be merely functional – it was to be a statement of the University's ambition. The University thus chose the architects Gollins Melvin & Ward's adventurous plans for the tower and adjacent library, one of 99 entries in a nation-wide search for a design.

The Arts Tower should stand today as a symbol of the University's visions and aspirations as well as its desire for innovation. Instead the tower stands bleak and unloved. How did it come to this?

Its critics are right, the design has dated. The adage that 'nothing dates so quickly as visions of the future' certainly rings true. Indeed, the Modern Movement as a whole has become increasingly unpopular in recent times. Just look at the popular backlash at attempts to list the particularly bleak Robin Hood Gardens in London.

But this is common for all architectural styles, as Prof. Blundell Jones of the University's School of Architecture points out: 'There is a kind of trough of despair that architecture falls into around 30 years old when its style is vilified, before it is properly investigated and understood'.

But this is by no means a modern phenomena, nor one associated only with Modern architecture, the professor continues: 'Remember the gross prejudice against Victorian and Edwardian Architecture that was rife in the 1960s when the Arts Tower was built?'

'We knocked down dozens of good Victorian buildings. We'd be keeping them now, had they survived'. The Arts Tower was listed to protect against this folly.

What the Arts Tower needs, then, is care and attention. There is no point in leaving the building to rot in its current state. As it stands the Arts Tower is shameful. The lifts break down regularly, it's filthy and there are cracks in the plaster of practically every classroom. What impression does this give to an A- level student on an open day?

Like it or not, the Arts Tower is a symbol for the university. It cannot fail to be, it's the tallest building on campus and dominates Sheffield's skyline. If the tower continues to stand as it does today – grimly – then it reflects extremely poorly on the university as a whole, no matter how shiny and new the IC or the Humanities building are.

The choice was a simple one. The University could have either left its most recognised building to rot, its functionality spoilt by problems of overcrowding and general deterioration, or it could have done something to improve the situation for generations of students to come. The fact it chose the latter shows the university is prepared to look to the future, without abandoning its past.

1968 and all that...

“The spirit of ’68 is still alive, man! Dude, man the barricades – we’re having a sit-in!”

200 students at Manchester University recently held a retro protest, barricading themselves in a university building, 1968 style.

They wanted a few things, of course: to end tuition fees, stop the university laying off staff, increase contact time with teachers and increase university accountability, etc. etc. Their aims were simple, their name revolutionary: “Reclaim the Uni!”

After a few hours of sitting about, the police broke up the protest, a fire alarm went off, and everyone went home. Radical! The university released a statement blaming the government for cutbacks, and all was well in the North West.

Daniel Lee, one of the organisers of the protest, however, was still not a happy chappy: “This is just the first step in a long line of steps… We’ve done this, and we can do it again, and do other things, until our demands are met.” Students of the world, unite!

Lee’s proclamation would have brought a bout of misty-eyed nostalgia to many of a certain generation. ‘Ah, those were the good old days,’ the 1968er would mutter, wiping a tear from his eye. ‘Things mattered then. 1968 changed the world’.

But it didn’t. And no matter how many sit-ins are staged today, they won’t make a difference either.

In Paris ’68, students staged sit-ins throughout the Sorbonne’s campus and triggered similar protests in universities across Europe. But things were a little different back then.

It was not a case of a couple of hundred students, sitting down until the police told them to get lost. Rather, it was a few thousand rushing into the street, hurling paving slabs at the police and setting fire to cars.

Not only this, but vast swathes of the French workforce also went on strike to show solidarity with the student body (but mainly because they were French, the weather was nice, and they fancied a day or so off).

It was bedlam. Society was in a state of flux. Revolution really was in the air. And what changed? Nothing. Zip. Nada. The right-wing Charles De Gaulle (certainly not one of history’s progressives) was re-elected the same year with a considerable majority.

France went back to work (until the next strike) and the ‘revolutionary’ students went on to become a mixture of doctors, lawyers and, in the case of their leader, a Green MEP.

The protests did achieve very minor gains for students. University administrations make some concessions, but these were basic at best. Prior to the protests, for example, male and female students were just about banned from visiting each other’s dormitories. This rule was subsequently abolished

Basically, after 1968 universities in France became a bit less authoritarian and stuffy.

So, what was the result of weeks of strikes, riots and sit-ins? The students had earned the right to stay the night at their partners’, and gowns were no longer worn at graduations. What, then, could 200 students in Manchester achieve in three hours? Considerably less, I’d wager.

The NUS recently endorsed the idea of university occupations in the event of an invasion of Iran. I doubt very much, however, that 500 students occupying the humanities building would force Gordon Brown into calling off any air strikes.

Even if every student in the country handcuffed themselves to radiators in the university buildings nothing would change. Why? Because we’re students.

We’re meant to disagree with whatever policy the current government employs. We’re meant to want everything for free and be a bit lefty. We’re meant to be idealistic, oppose wars and hope for peace.

And we’ll do this for three years before becoming an accountant, complaining about taxes and moaning about the next generation of ‘bloody students’.

In other words, we’re entirely predictable. And until we stop being so unoriginal no one will listen – no matter how we protest.

Fees? Yes, please!

I love paying top-up fees. It’s the only way I can justify studying my completely useless degree. I’m doing History, you see. I spend my days reading about stuff that happened years ago and people who are very, very dead. Why am I doing this?

Simple. I enjoy it, and it will help me get a better job when I’m older. That’s it. I have no desire to help others in society. My motives to study this degree are completely selfish. Why, then, should others in society be forced to subsidise it?

Granted, many degrees do benefit everyone. Without the clever people who study them society would fall apart in a quite spectacular fashion. People like doctors, architects, engineers and chemists all play an important role.

History graduates do not. Nor do graduates of English, Philosophy, Politics, Sociology, Linguistics or Journalism. Sorry.

Politicians missed this point when arguing for top-up fees. Back in 2002, Margaret Hodge asked: "Should the dustman continue to subsidise the doctor or should the doctor contribute towards the cost of their own education?"

This logic fails to note that one day the said dustman may require said doctor’s skills, which he or she picked up at university. The chances of the dustman requiring anything I have learnt on my degree (outside of a pub quiz) are pretty slim. Why should the dustman have to cough up anything so a bunch of middle-class kids can spend three years discussing Nietzsche?

The £3,070 I pay in fees each year seems to be a fair amount. I pay a fraction of what students in North American universities pay. For the £3,070 I get brand-spanking new facilities, taught by world renowned faculty and get a superb student union thrown into the bargain.

Admittedly, students on the continent pay a lot less, but they get less. English fees are the highest in Europe. Germany, after massive arguments, introduced fees of up to £400 a semester last year. England has seventeen universities in the THES Top 100; Germany has the grand total of three. The French, meanwhile, pay up £550 a year and have just two universities in the Top 100.

But, then, I’m one of the lucky ones. I come from a middle-class background. Both my parents went to university, as did my brother and sister. To be frank, I can afford to pay top-up fees – but not everyone else can.

According to the Sutton Trust, top-up fees put off poorer students from attending university. The thought of nearly £10,000 tuition fees, on top of normal student debt, is simply too much for some. This is unacceptable and needs to change.

Top-up fees do need to be modified, but they should not be removed. The choice is simple: campaign to abolish all fees and drag down university standards, or apply fees sensibly and maintain the standards of the UK universities.

An introduction of a sliding scale for fees would be a start. Those with a household income less than £30,000 per year could go free. Less than £40,000 and you pay £1,000. Less than £50,000, pay £2,000 and so on. A knock down rate for poorer families would remove the disincentive that top-up fees can pose. Likewise, subjects crying out for students – such as chemistry and maths – could provide the incentive of lower fees than more popular courses.

Tinkering with the system in this way would cost far less than abolishing student fees outright. And this is the crux of the issue. No political party will ever be elected on a policy of giving university students even more money – especially at the public’s expense. Whether you like it or not, tuition fees are here to stay.

Bashing the Bishop

As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently found out talking about Sharia law in Britain isn't so much a potential banana skin as a fully-fledged booby trap. You can imagine his PR people the next day smacking their heads on the desk as the right wing press went for the jugular.

Beneath the hysteria, however, Dr. Rowan Williams' point was a fair one: why shouldn't aspects of Sharia law be allowed in a civil capacity? He wasn't talking about introducing an Islamic penal code to Britain, nor was he suggesting that there should be a complete plurality – British law would still take precedent.

The fact is that there are already exemptions, on religious grounds, from certain aspects of the law. Sikhs can ride motorcycles without helmets. Halal meat is legal despite objections of potential cruelty. Why not, then, allow aspects of Sharia law in marriage and divorce proceedings – such as with the Jewish civil divorce courts based upon Beth Din?

But there is a line – a line which has been crossed by students at the University of Sheffield. It is not my business whether someone elects to not wear a helmet, or whether they choose to eat meat slaughtered in a particular way. These issues are internal for each community and – quite simply – don't affect me. When, however, the religious convictions of one person begins to impinge upon those outside of that community then it becomes a problem. The refusal of some Muslim medical students at Sheffield to roll-up their sleeves is a perfect example of this.

New hygiene regulations introduced at the start of this year state that when in contact with patients, staff must be bare beneath the elbows, to help stop the spread of hospital bugs. This demand, however, has met with opposition as some students have refused to do so on religious grounds. To do so, they point out, is forbidden in the Qu'ran. Hygiene, however, is not a matter of religious conscience and preference. Religion cannot be allowed to interfere with what is in the patient's best interests. Whether or not it is religiously permissible does not affect the spread of hospital bugs, such as MRSA.

I do not – let me be clear – want to live in a society where there is no sensitivity towards people's faiths, but nor do I want to live in a society which jeopardises people's health in the name of religion. It is a balancing act and there will always be an element of trading off when rules and religion clash.

The reaction to the Archbishop's comments show just how sensitive this issue is. Living by one's own faith is, of course, a fundamental human right. But an individual's health should not be risked due to another's personal conviction.