At the start of the year at O-week I was roped into writing a goal for the year on a blackboard for an Officeworks promotion. Scared to death of the prospect of 18 lectures of Biochemistry, I wrote "to survive Biochemisty" as my goal.
The start of semester was accompanied with a genuine sense of fear that Biochemisty would ruin my chances of doing well in our core subject, MCB. For the uninitiated, MCB is a mash up of 5 different subject areas and is Dante's 10th ring of hell.
As it happens, after the first three weeks of semester, I found that I really loved Biochem. Sure, metabolism was just about the worst thing in the world—you try rattling off names of enzymes for a week—but the rest of it was genuinely interesting. Our lecturer was quite obsessed with protein structure, and this was fine. It's a genuinely interesting field that I really enjoyed.
Sadly, I had the opposite experience with microbiology. Before last semester, I genuinely loved microbiology. The idea that there's a whole world of biological complexity unavailable to the naked eye is one that fascinates me. Unfortunately, this didn't translate to a particularly good experience or interest in microbiology. The lecturer was entertaining but disorganised, and the content was laborious and boring.
Both experiences made me reassess my year and my future. I had been so sure that I'd enjoy microbiology that I had signed up for the second semester subject already and bought the textbook months before it started. I unenrolled from that subject and have now found myself doing Biochem—go figure.
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Monday, 7 April 2014
Public vs Private
Recently I posted a link to this article on ATARNotes. It started off a debate about the public versus the private system. Here were some of the points that I made:
Let's get a few things straight first of all:
Students in the private system get more money from the government (+50%) and then have fees added on top of this, which in many cases will double the amount of funding from the government. The net effect of that of course is that the private school system is much better resourced than the public school system. The result of that? A much better education. This is of course reflected in NAPLAN and VCE results.
With the emotional arguments aside, it's not hard to imagine why this is a bad thing for the education system at large. Essentially, it encourages a gulf between the two systems and means that students who aren't able to afford private education are condemned to an increasingly second rate education. The flow on effects from this are enormous, having a huge impact on those people's lives. Students from the public school system are less likely to go to university and are less likely to have high paying jobs. With the current system, this is exacerbated (remembering that this kind of funding is only a relatively recent phenomenon). Clearly, the issue with this is that talent is wasted. Rather than having the best students receiving the best education, it is those who can best afford it who receive the best education. This way, a huge amount of ability is wasted as truly brilliant students are held back by an under resourced system that desperately struggles to create an academic environment.
Considering the emotional arguments, this is completely unfair. Even the most ardent conservatives could hardly suggest that a student should be condemned to poverty because their parents were poor before them. With these arrangements, that's what we're effectively doing. Obviously, this is not the case for every person. BUT, this kind of gap between public and private has a huge effect on social mobility. It's a completely untenable idea that the quality of a child's education should be determined by whether or not their parents were successful, not whether they were. In fact, to me this seems like a very Liberal argument. That you get what you put in from life. It seems only fair that we foster an environment where you're able to do that. The system at the moment merely helps to entrench the divide between the elite and the poor, and make sure that the same people stay on each side of the divide.
That's my considered sensible approach. In reality, this really pisses me off (as you may have noticed from the original post). Whilst I was at school, I saw classmates put up with the most incredibly awful circumstances and then having to put up with an awful school was just adding insult to injury. These were kids who had to live through being physically abused by their parents, coming to school with their uniform in tatters because they couldn't afford a new one and not being able to do their homework because their mum and her new boyfriend had decided it was high time they have a root on the couch (I really do wish that were a joke, sadly not). These kids should be able to find solace at school and should be able to work hard to change their lives, as they intend to. Instead, they are met with an unworkable school environment that condemns them to experiencing the same poverty they so desperately want to leave behind for the rest of their lives. It beggars belief then that for some reason, the government finds a greater need in taking money away from already desperate public schools and feeding it into a non-government sector that can hardly decide what to do with their new cash. It's pathetic.
Let's get a few things straight first of all:
- This report concludes that private schools receive a much greater portion (about 50% more) of government funding, that is before fees are taken into account at all.
- It is folly to suggest that private schools are inherently good for the school system because students achieve better results in the private system
Students in the private system get more money from the government (+50%) and then have fees added on top of this, which in many cases will double the amount of funding from the government. The net effect of that of course is that the private school system is much better resourced than the public school system. The result of that? A much better education. This is of course reflected in NAPLAN and VCE results.
With the emotional arguments aside, it's not hard to imagine why this is a bad thing for the education system at large. Essentially, it encourages a gulf between the two systems and means that students who aren't able to afford private education are condemned to an increasingly second rate education. The flow on effects from this are enormous, having a huge impact on those people's lives. Students from the public school system are less likely to go to university and are less likely to have high paying jobs. With the current system, this is exacerbated (remembering that this kind of funding is only a relatively recent phenomenon). Clearly, the issue with this is that talent is wasted. Rather than having the best students receiving the best education, it is those who can best afford it who receive the best education. This way, a huge amount of ability is wasted as truly brilliant students are held back by an under resourced system that desperately struggles to create an academic environment.
Considering the emotional arguments, this is completely unfair. Even the most ardent conservatives could hardly suggest that a student should be condemned to poverty because their parents were poor before them. With these arrangements, that's what we're effectively doing. Obviously, this is not the case for every person. BUT, this kind of gap between public and private has a huge effect on social mobility. It's a completely untenable idea that the quality of a child's education should be determined by whether or not their parents were successful, not whether they were. In fact, to me this seems like a very Liberal argument. That you get what you put in from life. It seems only fair that we foster an environment where you're able to do that. The system at the moment merely helps to entrench the divide between the elite and the poor, and make sure that the same people stay on each side of the divide.
That's my considered sensible approach. In reality, this really pisses me off (as you may have noticed from the original post). Whilst I was at school, I saw classmates put up with the most incredibly awful circumstances and then having to put up with an awful school was just adding insult to injury. These were kids who had to live through being physically abused by their parents, coming to school with their uniform in tatters because they couldn't afford a new one and not being able to do their homework because their mum and her new boyfriend had decided it was high time they have a root on the couch (I really do wish that were a joke, sadly not). These kids should be able to find solace at school and should be able to work hard to change their lives, as they intend to. Instead, they are met with an unworkable school environment that condemns them to experiencing the same poverty they so desperately want to leave behind for the rest of their lives. It beggars belief then that for some reason, the government finds a greater need in taking money away from already desperate public schools and feeding it into a non-government sector that can hardly decide what to do with their new cash. It's pathetic.
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Privatisation or Elitism?
An article in The Age yesterday confirmed yet again that the government school sector is receiving a smaller portion of government funding than its non-government counterpart. It absolutely beggars belief that this is still the case in contemporary Australia.
It is important to note first of all that the funding that private schools receive from the government is on top of the ludicrous fees that families have to pay to send their students to them. Even without parent contributions, the gap is already staggeringly big between the government and non-government sectors in terms of funding. In real terms, private schools receive almost 50% more per student from the government alone. Combined with private funding, which often matches the level of government funding, it is not wonder that our state school students are left behind.
Without doubt, this is a senseless way to fund our schools. Blind Freddy could quite easily tell you that this is contributing to inequality and helping to limit social mobility in Australia. In giving private schools a clear advantage, successive Australian governments had set a bad precedent for young Australians: that your talents are secondary to your finances.
This is an extremely concerning notion. Rather than supporting talent and encouraging students to flourish, the government has instead directed its funding towards the élite. This way, it is not students with a real capacity to learn, with creativity, determination and an aspirational attitude, that receive the best education; rather, it is those students whose parents have many 0s on their back balances that receive it. Not only does this completely fly in the face of the Australian way of the fair go, but perhaps more worryingly, this condemns Australia to a second rate future, where the most highly educated aren't necessarily the most intelligent.
Education ought to be a chance to aspire and a chance to depart from inter-generational poverty. With the current funding arrangements, the opportunity to do so is severely limited. A child's opportunity to succeed should not be based on their parents' hip-pocket, rather their determination, their creativity and their talents.
It is important to note first of all that the funding that private schools receive from the government is on top of the ludicrous fees that families have to pay to send their students to them. Even without parent contributions, the gap is already staggeringly big between the government and non-government sectors in terms of funding. In real terms, private schools receive almost 50% more per student from the government alone. Combined with private funding, which often matches the level of government funding, it is not wonder that our state school students are left behind.
Without doubt, this is a senseless way to fund our schools. Blind Freddy could quite easily tell you that this is contributing to inequality and helping to limit social mobility in Australia. In giving private schools a clear advantage, successive Australian governments had set a bad precedent for young Australians: that your talents are secondary to your finances.
This is an extremely concerning notion. Rather than supporting talent and encouraging students to flourish, the government has instead directed its funding towards the élite. This way, it is not students with a real capacity to learn, with creativity, determination and an aspirational attitude, that receive the best education; rather, it is those students whose parents have many 0s on their back balances that receive it. Not only does this completely fly in the face of the Australian way of the fair go, but perhaps more worryingly, this condemns Australia to a second rate future, where the most highly educated aren't necessarily the most intelligent.
Education ought to be a chance to aspire and a chance to depart from inter-generational poverty. With the current funding arrangements, the opportunity to do so is severely limited. A child's opportunity to succeed should not be based on their parents' hip-pocket, rather their determination, their creativity and their talents.
Saturday, 5 April 2014
So I've Become a Bookworm...
I've never really been a big reader. Sure, I've done the dash with Harry Potter and plenty of other series of the like. I've had the odd times when I've really given a book a good flogging, reading it in a single day. This has never been, however, a long-standing pattern. Normally, I run out of steam and distract myself with easier things (=TV).
Lately, however, I've been reading a lot. Despite an insanely busy timetable at Uni, this is probably the most I've read in my life. Since the start of semester (five weeks ago), I've read a number of books. Those I can remember:
Lately, however, I've been reading a lot. Despite an insanely busy timetable at Uni, this is probably the most I've read in my life. Since the start of semester (five weeks ago), I've read a number of books. Those I can remember:
- 100 Years of Solitude (Gabriel García Márquez)
- The Latham Diaries (Mark Latham)
- Billionaires and Battlers (Andrew Leigh)
- 1984 (George Orwell)
- Take Your Best Shot (Jacqueline Kent)
- Mother Tongue (Bill Bryson)
- Fabric of the Cosmos (Brian Greene)
- Not Dead Yet (Mark Latham et al.)
Saturday, 29 March 2014
I Got Published!
I was a bit surprised that this happened, but here's the link if you want to have a read!
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Total: T
Lot's of odd things happen when you're 16. You're given your L-plates and the opportunity to explore the open road, albeit with a parent. The pressure from school starts to mount as you find yourself on the precipice of VCE. All those unspeakable things you've pondered in your head for the previous few years become reality, as you find the opposite sex suddenly willing.
16, for many, brings with it alcohol. For some, this date shifts around a bit; at my school alcohol started to pop up at 14, for others it's only when it becomes legal that it becomes worthy of discussion. Nonetheless, 16 seems to be the "right" age for getting on the grog.
Alcohol and the pressures of being a 16 year old provide a dangerous combination, that often fosters an unhealthy attitude towards drinking. Instinctively, we all knew who the first would be. Soon others would follow; taking every imaginable opportunity to write off their senses and condemn themselves to a hangover the next morning. For the majority, this is a welcome opportunity to try something knew and to expand one's social circle. It also represents the first steps into adulthood (at least so they think).
For me, this was a difficult period. As alcohol transitioned from being the plaything of the fringe dwellers—those who, it could be said, weren't "going far"—to the plaything of everyone who was normal, it became more and more difficult to resist the tide of peer influence and get stuck into the booze. Indeed, I very quickly transformed into a social pariah, when only a few months back I was a completely sensibile 15 year old.
Today, I remain the social pariah. Where it was once acceptable among underagers to be the odd one out and not drink, it is almost social suicide among University students newly liberated from the authoritarian private and catholic school systems. It then begs the question, why?
It is not as though I have never consumed alcohol. In fact, I have from quite a young age. My parents, particularly my father, always encouraged an indifference towards alcohol, and as such, I was trying various beers and wines from quite a young age. Without the thrill of prohibition, I waited until legally aged to indulge in a cider every couple of weeks. This never meant drinking in pursuit of the effects of alcohol; it was drinking for taste.
Nowadays, I don't drink. I can't for health reasons. Even if health didn't prevent it, I would never drink to the point of drunkenness, even to the point of .05. And it should be for this very reason that society at large refuses to drink to these ends.
So often said that is now a cliché, alcohol is a poison is just about the most obvious indicator that alcohol is probably best consumed in small quantities. It is a staple of the six o'clock news to report of the so-called "alcohol fuelled violence) that transpired at the weekend. Though, it must be said that there is somewhat of a contradiction in our media: whilst we are bombarded with reports about the effects of irresponsible drinking and violence under the influence, media personalities then openly espouse alcohol abuse by making constant references to their own binge drinking. Hardly setting a precedent for change.
We already know the acute effects of alcohol well. At the very least, it will give what one often describes as a buzz; an invitation to be more social and generally more likeable. For the truly unbearable or painfully stupid, the buzz isn't sufficient to make their company palatable, and as such, they pursue complete and total wipeout. At this stage, one's system is so chock-a-block with ethanol that any semblance of their original personality is wiped free. This is the aim of binge drinking. To completely wipe away one's senses, to compromise one's memory and to smother any impulse control.
Apparently, this is a desirable outcome. To lose control of one's mind is something that people strive for all too often. It as this stage, with the mind shutdown, that the bad occurs. We've already touched on the violence, levels of which are rising at an alarming rate. In addition to this, other effects of alcohol can include vomiting, syncope, coma and death (ok, so I may have missed a few—google it!). These are all very real and serious side-effects of drinking.
In the long term, alcohol nearly always has a devastating effect. Regular binge drinking—in simple terms—fucks every system of your body. Perhaps most devastating is Korsakoff's syndrome, which is very common those who have developed a chronic dependence on alcohol and results from a lack of Vitamin B. Insufficient vitamin B causes damage to the hypothalamus, causing alcohol induced dementia. There is something cruelly ironic about this disease. It inflicts itself on those who've pursued a few too many good times, those who've sought to wipe their minds for a night, have their minds wiped forever.
After a bit of rambling, and structure indicative of its 2am writing time, this piece has probably left you a bit confused. Indeed, it's left me a little bit confused about just how harsh my opinions. At some parts, you could be forgiven for thinking that I'd ask for an outright prohibition, at others I seem nonplussed about the subject. So let me clear that up for you.
Alcohol has long been a key component of human culture. Ever since humans got lazy with their fruit, and found out that it gave them the aforementioned buzz, they've tried desperately to find pleasing ways to repeat those effects. In fact, it's quite incredible just how diverse our methods of producing alcohol were in ancient history; as is the ubiquity of the consumption of alcohol in all cultures. Alcohol is in many ways a national symbol. It has always been related to identity. The champagne of France, the vodka of Russia, the rakija of former Yugoslavia and so on. These all figure strongly in the identity of these nations.
Just because alcohol has cultural significance, does not mean that abuse of it should be treated with complacency nor the with the reverence it appears to receive in this country. In spite of the cultural links to alcohol, most nations, by and large, treat it with respect. It is a beverage to be enjoyed in the company of friends or in blissful solitude, it is not a means to get drunk. This is, generally, the culturally accepted approach to alcohol in Europe and Asia, with some exceptions of course.
Regrettably, this does not seem to be the case in Australia. Here, a measure of one's strength—male or female—is directly related to the volume of alcohol they are able to consume. This is a worrying culture, and goes far to explain the issues with alcohol that Australia has. That I am weird for opting out of alcohol, that I am weird for refusing to binge drink, that I am weird for not having being drunk is what is truly weird.
Personally, I await the day that somebody in power, somebody of importance, helps Australia make a step towards breaking this culture. What we need is divisive action to teach Australian youth, and indeed all Australians, to respect alcohol. How this can be done in a practical sense is a matter of debate, but a public health approach is needed. I like a model that ensures anybody who's been arrested, or indeed found, drunk receive treatment, though this is my opinion and isn't particularly pragmatic.
To this day, I am proud to be sanctimonious, I'm proud to be the social pariah, I'm proud to be one of the few who quivers at talk of binge drinking—even if it does bear on my social life. Drink responsibly.
16, for many, brings with it alcohol. For some, this date shifts around a bit; at my school alcohol started to pop up at 14, for others it's only when it becomes legal that it becomes worthy of discussion. Nonetheless, 16 seems to be the "right" age for getting on the grog.
Alcohol and the pressures of being a 16 year old provide a dangerous combination, that often fosters an unhealthy attitude towards drinking. Instinctively, we all knew who the first would be. Soon others would follow; taking every imaginable opportunity to write off their senses and condemn themselves to a hangover the next morning. For the majority, this is a welcome opportunity to try something knew and to expand one's social circle. It also represents the first steps into adulthood (at least so they think).
For me, this was a difficult period. As alcohol transitioned from being the plaything of the fringe dwellers—those who, it could be said, weren't "going far"—to the plaything of everyone who was normal, it became more and more difficult to resist the tide of peer influence and get stuck into the booze. Indeed, I very quickly transformed into a social pariah, when only a few months back I was a completely sensibile 15 year old.
Today, I remain the social pariah. Where it was once acceptable among underagers to be the odd one out and not drink, it is almost social suicide among University students newly liberated from the authoritarian private and catholic school systems. It then begs the question, why?
It is not as though I have never consumed alcohol. In fact, I have from quite a young age. My parents, particularly my father, always encouraged an indifference towards alcohol, and as such, I was trying various beers and wines from quite a young age. Without the thrill of prohibition, I waited until legally aged to indulge in a cider every couple of weeks. This never meant drinking in pursuit of the effects of alcohol; it was drinking for taste.
Nowadays, I don't drink. I can't for health reasons. Even if health didn't prevent it, I would never drink to the point of drunkenness, even to the point of .05. And it should be for this very reason that society at large refuses to drink to these ends.
So often said that is now a cliché, alcohol is a poison is just about the most obvious indicator that alcohol is probably best consumed in small quantities. It is a staple of the six o'clock news to report of the so-called "alcohol fuelled violence) that transpired at the weekend. Though, it must be said that there is somewhat of a contradiction in our media: whilst we are bombarded with reports about the effects of irresponsible drinking and violence under the influence, media personalities then openly espouse alcohol abuse by making constant references to their own binge drinking. Hardly setting a precedent for change.
We already know the acute effects of alcohol well. At the very least, it will give what one often describes as a buzz; an invitation to be more social and generally more likeable. For the truly unbearable or painfully stupid, the buzz isn't sufficient to make their company palatable, and as such, they pursue complete and total wipeout. At this stage, one's system is so chock-a-block with ethanol that any semblance of their original personality is wiped free. This is the aim of binge drinking. To completely wipe away one's senses, to compromise one's memory and to smother any impulse control.
Apparently, this is a desirable outcome. To lose control of one's mind is something that people strive for all too often. It as this stage, with the mind shutdown, that the bad occurs. We've already touched on the violence, levels of which are rising at an alarming rate. In addition to this, other effects of alcohol can include vomiting, syncope, coma and death (ok, so I may have missed a few—google it!). These are all very real and serious side-effects of drinking.
In the long term, alcohol nearly always has a devastating effect. Regular binge drinking—in simple terms—fucks every system of your body. Perhaps most devastating is Korsakoff's syndrome, which is very common those who have developed a chronic dependence on alcohol and results from a lack of Vitamin B. Insufficient vitamin B causes damage to the hypothalamus, causing alcohol induced dementia. There is something cruelly ironic about this disease. It inflicts itself on those who've pursued a few too many good times, those who've sought to wipe their minds for a night, have their minds wiped forever.
After a bit of rambling, and structure indicative of its 2am writing time, this piece has probably left you a bit confused. Indeed, it's left me a little bit confused about just how harsh my opinions. At some parts, you could be forgiven for thinking that I'd ask for an outright prohibition, at others I seem nonplussed about the subject. So let me clear that up for you.
Alcohol has long been a key component of human culture. Ever since humans got lazy with their fruit, and found out that it gave them the aforementioned buzz, they've tried desperately to find pleasing ways to repeat those effects. In fact, it's quite incredible just how diverse our methods of producing alcohol were in ancient history; as is the ubiquity of the consumption of alcohol in all cultures. Alcohol is in many ways a national symbol. It has always been related to identity. The champagne of France, the vodka of Russia, the rakija of former Yugoslavia and so on. These all figure strongly in the identity of these nations.
Just because alcohol has cultural significance, does not mean that abuse of it should be treated with complacency nor the with the reverence it appears to receive in this country. In spite of the cultural links to alcohol, most nations, by and large, treat it with respect. It is a beverage to be enjoyed in the company of friends or in blissful solitude, it is not a means to get drunk. This is, generally, the culturally accepted approach to alcohol in Europe and Asia, with some exceptions of course.
Regrettably, this does not seem to be the case in Australia. Here, a measure of one's strength—male or female—is directly related to the volume of alcohol they are able to consume. This is a worrying culture, and goes far to explain the issues with alcohol that Australia has. That I am weird for opting out of alcohol, that I am weird for refusing to binge drink, that I am weird for not having being drunk is what is truly weird.
Personally, I await the day that somebody in power, somebody of importance, helps Australia make a step towards breaking this culture. What we need is divisive action to teach Australian youth, and indeed all Australians, to respect alcohol. How this can be done in a practical sense is a matter of debate, but a public health approach is needed. I like a model that ensures anybody who's been arrested, or indeed found, drunk receive treatment, though this is my opinion and isn't particularly pragmatic.
To this day, I am proud to be sanctimonious, I'm proud to be the social pariah, I'm proud to be one of the few who quivers at talk of binge drinking—even if it does bear on my social life. Drink responsibly.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Private Hell
Recently, I've become more engaged—at least in discussion amongst my friend—about the debate of government vs non-government. Indeed, I've spoken about it a little bit here. I've also managed to form a pretty consistent argument in support of an abolition of the non-government system of schooling, as farfetched a policy that would be. It was with great satisfaction that I stumbled across this article in The Age.
It must be said that I don't agree with all of its contents, though the great majority I do. For instance, I'm not sure that I share the author's enthusiasm for selective schools. In Victoria at least, more so than some private schools, the selective schools create the division that the author discusses. In fact, the selective schools in Victoria are often mistaken for and spoken of in the same breath as the élite private schools.
The author does, however, make an extremely convincing point. It is very rare that those who are opposed to the non-government system manage to make a creative or mildly sensible point that isn't about fairness and equality; she has succeeded completely. And that is exactly why I would encourage all of you to have a read of this article. My arguments, my points, if I may say so myself, are pretty good. I know, instinctively, that my medium is speech and to write it down when this article presents itself would be to waste my time (for the moment, expect my thoughts later on this matter). So off you hop now, give it a read!
It must be said that I don't agree with all of its contents, though the great majority I do. For instance, I'm not sure that I share the author's enthusiasm for selective schools. In Victoria at least, more so than some private schools, the selective schools create the division that the author discusses. In fact, the selective schools in Victoria are often mistaken for and spoken of in the same breath as the élite private schools.
The author does, however, make an extremely convincing point. It is very rare that those who are opposed to the non-government system manage to make a creative or mildly sensible point that isn't about fairness and equality; she has succeeded completely. And that is exactly why I would encourage all of you to have a read of this article. My arguments, my points, if I may say so myself, are pretty good. I know, instinctively, that my medium is speech and to write it down when this article presents itself would be to waste my time (for the moment, expect my thoughts later on this matter). So off you hop now, give it a read!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)