sacked

[Graham Breeze]

I actually have some relevant experience on this.

My brother went to St. Andrews to do Chemistry, and went straight into their second year (I think he had to do some of their First Year exams before they admitted him to the second year). He got on fine.

I was thinking of doing the same when I went to St. Andrews to do Maths and Physics, until I looked at their first-year syllabus, which especially in Maths included many areas of Maths that the A-Level syllabus didn't even touch on. So I went into the first year, and I suppose I did find it fairly easy; or what I really remember is that I found the second year a great deal harder!

Glad to hear it. If you had suggested that maths wasn't hard I would have to revise a lifetime's opinion on my hierarchy of awe for degree subjects.

[Witton Park]

I usually lurk rather than post I thought it was worth defending the Scottish Education System at this point though.

The Scottish system is just set up differently from that in England/Wales/NI which is probably where the confusion comes from. In a nutshell the Scottish system is setup so that a pupil can spend one year less at secondary school but one year more at University.

*As I understand, there is no direct equivalent to the 'A-level' in the Scottish system. After doing the GCSE equivalent Scottish pupils spend one year doing "Highers". "Highers" are not quite as advanced as A-levels, I believe that a top grade in a Higher is about equivalent to a C in an A-level. "Highers" are what Scottish Universities generally ask for to gain entrance, so one year after finishing GCSE (equivalent) the Scottish pupil can enter University, but the Batchelor degree is four years (rather than three in England). Alternatively in the second year after completing GCSE (equivalent) the Scottish pupil can stay on in school and do "Advanced Highers" these are a touch more rigourous than A-levels, a grade A at "Advanced higher" is equivalent to an A* at A-level. With "Advanced Highers" the Scottish pupil can enter Year 2 of a Scottish University course or year 1 of an English University course. In practice many Scottish pupils spend the second year improving their "Higher" grade or studying more "Highers" before entering university.

England
GCSE+1 A-level year 1
GCSE+2 A-level year 2
GCSE+3 University year 1

Scotland (pupil 1)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 University year 1
GCSE+3 University year 2

Scotland (pupil 2)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 More Highers
GCSE+3 University year 1

Scotland (pupil 3)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 Advanced highers
GCSE+3 University year 2

Scotland (pupil 4)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 Advanced highers
GCSE+3 English University year 1

Confusing no? It is swings and roundabouts. One advantage with the Scottish system is that it allows pupils to do a wider range of courses to a more advanced level, rather than specialising down after GCSE's. A pupil could do 5 or 6 Highers then specialise to 2 or 3 Advanced Highers before University.

I went Scottish pupil 4 route and did more than fine at an English University.

*Caveat - I went through the system 20 years ago, qualification names may have changed etc etc.

Good info. You should lurk less often

[Llani Boy]

I wonder if Emily Maitlis will be sacked for breaking the BBC's impartiality rules.

[Witton Park]

I wonder if Emily Maitlis will be sacked for breaking the BBC's impartiality rules.

She should certainly be made to hold a press conference in her garden, where she will be made to give a full account of her actions leading up to her "offence" and then a procession of Brexiteers and anti BBC campaigners can take turns to ask her questions about her actions and thought processes.

[Muddy Retriever]

Maitlis has form for this. Last September, the Brexit supporting journalist Rod Liddle appeared on Newsnight to talk about his new book. Instead Maitlis launched a frenzied, personal attack on him - I watched it. A complaint was upheld against her. Even the BBC concluded she was “sneering and bullying”, “too persistent and personal” and “failed to be even-handed”.

The BBC guidelines state ‘Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists.’ Can anybody guess Emily's?

[Graham Breeze]

Maitlis has form for this. Last September, the Brexit supporting journalist Rod Liddle appeared on Newsnight to talk about his new book. Instead Maitlis launched a frenzied, personal attack on him - I watched it. A complaint was upheld against her. Even the BBC concluded she was “sneering and bullying”, “too persistent and personal” and “failed to be even-handed”.

The BBC guidelines state ‘Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists.’ Can anybody guess Emily's?

I have never rated Maitlis. The problem now is that because of the Andrew interview she believes her own propaganda and because the BBC got so much publicity from his "revelations" she is given free rein.

The better BBC interviewers are on radio because they concentrate on the interview and not how good they look in front of the camera.

[Llani Boy]

A friend of mine went to school with her in Sheffield. He says she was a right cow then.

[Graham Breeze]

OK. I think that is her three strikes. She should be out.

[Mike T]

The BBC guidelines state ‘Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists.’ Can anybody guess Emily's?

This has no meaning - should they be neutral in a debate between a flat earther and a sphere earther?

[Oracle]

This has no meaning - should they be neutral in a debate between a flat earther and a sphere earther?

That is a red herring. Political issues are rarely so clear cut. BBC news is unlikely to get involved in such a debate.

On a more typical issue:” Brexit” it became apparent that many journalists ( indeed the BBC) were not giving a level playing field to both camps of the argument.