Disadvantage

What should governments do to help the disadvantaged in society? Yet even this presupposes the more fundamental question of who are the disadvantaged?

Part of the project is to come to understanding of disadvantage, and the ways in which life can go badly. The ‘capability view’ advocates that there are roughly ten major categories of functioning, and that the good life is one which involves representation from all of these categories. These include life, bodily health (often interpreted as access to healthcare) bodily integrity- not being subject to attack on leaving the house- sense, imagination, thought, (linked to education), autonomy, control over environment (including political power), and perhaps, somewhat controversially, leisure time.

As an extension, risk and vulnerability are relevant. It matters not simply what an individual is capable of in the short term but what can be sustained over the future. Take
two people- both on the same income- where one has a permanent job, and the other although earning similar wages, has no job security, and cannot safely assume he will have work in the near future. The fact that employment is insecure with the latter means one is clearly disadvantaged relative to the other. The consequence could be insecurity, opting to undertake significant risks, or not engaging fully- i.e. not being willing to start a family, or take out a mortgage- for fear of breaking the bank in the absence of a reliable income. So the thesis depends on fact that you are disadvantaged when you are forced to take risks.

It has been estimated that the best way to evaluate the problem is to use a sporting analogy; that of decathlon scoring, where the average disadvantage is measured over ten events. Definitively, the loser will be the one who is worst-off. Visible traits may include being unemployed, bad health, poor homes, extreme poverty, all of which will lead to being near the bottom however the weighting takes place.

Government has a duty to create atmosphere in which disadvantage can be improved. The aim is to neutralise, or where possible remove disadvantaged clusters to create an environment brimming with equality of opportunity. Success is achieved when there is no correlation between the decathlon events- and where different people come out top in different disciplines, making them all roughly equal. And where disadvantage no longer clusters this is the ultimate mark of success.

In addition to the disadvantaged clusters, privileged clusters are prevalent with similar ramifications. Accordingly those who have good jobs will also have good health, good homes, and good holidays.

The way to improve the situation is to eliminate the so-called corrosive disadvantages. This is when a single detriment leads to another, for example when a lack of affiliation to a community lends itself to poor health, because there may not be anyone to look after the ageing individual. Not quite the opposite but, fertile functions are when possession leads to good effects, such as literacy helps finding a well-paid job which in turn pays for other necessities such as education or healthcare.

There is cause for optimism because recently, the conservative perspective has been more amenable to interfering to address the problem. Now, there is a consensual starting point for social intervention.

Consequentialism

'The end justifies the means' is a common phrase. It suggests that consequences should determine the value of the actions, and more often than not, is cashed out in terms of the balance of happiness that will result from undertaking, or refraining from an action- e.g. will a given lie on balance maximise happiness? This is repeatedly contrasted with the theory of duties and obligations- e.g. that we should avoid lying at all costs, regardless of the circumstances, because of some moral responsibility.

Consequentialism is an umbrella term for a family of moral theories, all of which evaluate acts, rules, and social institutions according to their consequences. The most familiar by far, is Act Utilitarianism which addresses consequences of acts (as particular decisions) in an effort to maximise ‘utility.’ According to this theory, the ‘right’ acts are those which produce most happiness and welfare. Therefore, in maximising happiness, it might be advisable to implement a system of capital punishment in order to create a deterrent to would-be criminals. So harm inflicted on a small number would prevent latent criminals from causing a greater happiness deficit to society in general.

But suppose there is a situation where I owe you money. Most happiness might be derived by giving it away to a stranger in redistributive fashion. But common sense hints that this would not be appropriate because there was a contractual agreement stipulating that I should pay you.

The way around these murky waters is to adopt so-called Rule Utilitarianism, which says that utility should be used to assess rules, and rules ought to be used to consider acts. The theory examines society, and finds that breaking rules incurs more long-term harm than sticking to them and thus the corollary is that happiness is maximised where people observe rules, and keep their promises. Therefore, people must abide by the rule even if it does not necessarily maximise happiness directly. This can appear to be a complete separation from concentrating on the utility of an act, if the primary consideration is governed by convention. However, there exists a distinction between mere rule-worshipping, and Rule Utilitarianism. Essentially it does not matter what label you give the theory, but more its plausibility meaning that despite the fact that it may not be strictly-speaking Utilitarian, it remains a viable guide to morality. Suffice to say that a rule might be something like ‘break any other rule in order to prevent disasters.’

Utilitarianism is often found abutting deontological and virtue ethics. The former holds that people have fundamental rights- which should be safeguarded even if this means disregarding happiness and welfare, and the latter focuses more on character, rather than actions. These leading theories are left to fight over our common sense moral intuitions. These intuitions exist principally on three levels, from certain restrictions- not to torture or steal- obligations- such as family, friends, and promises- and about doing good in general. The theories are effectively competing over the universal ground- that which relates to intuitions on all levels- and can act as an ethical guide irrespective of the given situation.

Many argue that ultimately, Consequentialism is the most plausible because it makes the best stab regarding common sense morality. Undoubtedly, there are problems such as the degree to which Act Utilitarianism- maximising happiness-comes at expense of self-interest. Imagine for instance that a man is approached by an Oxfam charity collector. Willingly he gives £5, but the woman asks about other £5 pounds in his pocket, which he accordingly hands over. The follow up is ‘but what about car keys?’ As a result, it is very difficult to see how he can stop short of impoverishing himself. The net benefit associated with the act of generosity would imply that he had to keep giving- because the act would be benefiting others more than it would cost. However, it is noticeable that very soon, he would have degraded his living standards significantly. The implication here is that morality requires extreme sacrificing. Rule utilitarianism again holds the solution; on the other hand it says that Joe Bloggs can give 10% of salary to charity and stop there- and still satisfy all his moral intuitions. According to Rule Consquentialism, people should stand by the rules and established social norms unless there are apparent better alternatives.

Crucially, happiness should not be the only important ‘consequence.’ Some claim that relevant factors should include those of non-sentient beings, as well as fareness. Whatever is included in the definition, it is clearly an idea which allows us to confront moral decisions with a dependable framework.

Multiculturalism

The Phenomenon of mass migration has made the tension between liberalism and multiculturalism one of the most hotly debated topics in contemporary political theory. Multiculturalists believe that members of minority groups should have the right to live their lives as they see fit. But what happens when certain minority values clash with those of the majority?

Multiculturalism expresses the notion that popular identity matters, and so attempts at ignoring or disparaging cultural identity are akin to harm. The repercussions of this ideal infer that it is inappropriate to expect everyone to adopt the practises, traditions, and values of the dominant group. The public policy implications impress that it is likely that the laws and institutions will tend to reflect the values of the dominant group, and it is a bias which has to be justified and undone.

It derives from principle of toleration; that we demonstrate a disposition to put up with things (or people) of which we disapprove, in situations where we have the capacity to intervene but choose not to. It is based on the idea that individuals have the right to autonomy- and should be free to determine their own ideals, exempt from interference. Therefore, the theory suggests that society should respect other culture’s view of the ‘good life-’ relating to the classically liberal notion ‘of every man to his own.’

But apart from the liberalist justification, there is perhaps another avenue which comes to the aid of multiculturalism, because what is ‘right’ for one person might not necessarily be ‘right’ for another. I may believe that killing animals and eating them is ethically acceptable, whereas you might believe that this act is inhumane. This raises the question whether the realm of morality ‘different.’ Is there a definitive answer to morality? Can we defend the idea of a single moral truth? Is the diversity a sign that there is no single truth, just a matter of taste?

Subjectivism, suggests that every individual will have different moral stances according to their experiences from which they derive their opinions. The corollary of this is that we can both be correct in our assumptions regarding what is ‘right.’ This lends weight to the multliculturalist argument because many advocate that individual differences, often culturally given, mean that there is no cultural reality. Partly because there is no absolute value to our actions implying that culture is a matter of personal taste, meaning that we cannot seek to alter the outlook of others, and also because individuals have a fundamental right to maintain their beliefs, multiculturalism has so much to offer.

Hobbes on the State

If humans lived in a state of nature, put simply a condition in which there was no political organisation or power, there would be catastrophic war and anarchy.

At least according to Hobbes, who made his mark witting The Leviathan around the time of the civil war. It was a book discussing the relationship between citizen and the state, in which it was argued we should cede power to protect us to a mighty sovereign.

The Leviathan can be characterised as a theory of the state. In context, at the time Hobbes composed his work, the state was commonly associated with the notion of popular sovereignty- where it was the name of the ‘body of the people’ organised for political power. Crucially, he repudiated the fundamental assumption that the people exist as a single, unified body.

His premise was illustrated with what became a celebrated piece of iconography. Taking a human body, the state was shown as having sovereign as its head, but being made up of all individual members as the body. The point being that they all exist as individuals, and attain an artificial unity through the sovereign head. So it reverses idea that body politic creates a state, saying it is only through having a sovereign that you have a 'body of the people.'

The background to the Leviathan lies in the breakout of the civil war of 1642. It was a response to the lawless nature of society and a guide so that people should understand how to produce peace instead of war.

Ostensibly it sets out a thought experiment investigating the contract of government. But perhaps the thought experiment is more than reverse engineering, and is meant to serve as a warning that life a without law, inevitably equals war. It starts with the 'state of nature' in which everyone exists just as individuals. An egalitarian, Hobbes believed that we all desire the same things- scarce goods- and that we have the same powers to obtain things.

The result is a war of everyone against everyone in which everyone is constantly liable to sudden death, in which the natural life of man is solitary, brutish and short. Circumventing this problem requires therefore that we take steps to talk to each other to avoid war. In doing so, we come to share the view that sudden violent death is intolerable; this consensus is the keystone for state, relating back to the idea that 'Fear of death is beginning of wisdom.'

The covenant is each with each, whereby we all covenant that someone should be our sovereign, thereby creating an artificial person; a representative of ourselves. It recognises that someone’s will must count as the will of everyone. The demands are that whereas I used to act according to my will, I will now operate according to yours. In the state of nature, society fails to function because there is a conflict of interest between individuals and the state, due to the fact everyone retains all their freedoms, regardless of how they impact upon others, and impinge on the rights of those around you. The covenant means giving up practically all your rights to ensure peace, especially any right to exercise discretion in respect of law. Consequently, the sovereign’s will now counts as your will.

It would appear thus far to be an authoritarian state in that it details the abandonment of your will to another. But as Hobbes emphasises, there stark choice is between subjection and death. For that reason, the role of monarch is to create an artificial unity of the people, in which the will of sovereign counts for everybody, rather than to represent interests of each and every. This fictional entity created by sovereign is called the state.

This is not the idea where the body of the people appoints a sovereign representative as an executive arm of the people; that of popular sovereignty. Instead, the people ask the sovereign to represent them, and an analogy is drawn to the court of law, where it is the role of the legal system to acquit us. Similarly, the sovereign should keep the peace with sovereign power vested in it, in a form of representative government.

We have inherited his tradition, and every 5 years we appoint representatives, giving them sovereign power to determine our interest’s thereby imparting power to make decisions on our behalf.

Finally, we do not always have to obey will of sovereign, because we must not give up rights which are indispensable to maintaining our lives, or else, why would you enter the state? Essentially, we keep hold of the liberty to act against call of state if it would endanger your existence. As such, conscription is refutable because it is dangerous and could result in death.

So the state is something other than body of the people, otherwise we would have direct democracy. Instead we have representative democracy, where the state is name of fictional body which embodies our values in order to maintain peace.

Political Representation

Should our political leaders mirror the society they govern? Should they be made to reflect the demographics of gender, and race, to make them a more accurate representation of who we are?

Up to ten percent of our population are left-handed, so should 10 percent of our political representatives also be left handed. This seems ridiculous, but is there something significantly different about gender or race that justifies a quota when it would be absurd for left handers?Does the gender or race of a political leader matter, or is what matters their views and competence? After all, a progressive male may be more supportive of say, childcare than a reactionary female.

Nowadays, society is too large- in terms of civilian population- to sustain a participatory democracy whereby everyone congregates to make important decisions as a single unit. This system has been replaced by political representation, where others are selected to represent us on our behalf. Forgetting accountability, it is important that these decision-makers, are an accurate reflection of society at large. But in what sense are they truly representative. We tend to think that they are representative if they roughly correspond to voting patterns for political parties. But to what extent are they representative in terms of gender and race?

Essentially it is a question of ideas and presence. Currently, the determining factors are based around whether representatives share our policy priorities, or the key features on the political agenda. However, some would say that fair representation demands equality of presence as well. They claim that quotas are needed to ensure that the playing field for those entering the sphere of politics is level. This is based on the idea that women for example have different experiences to males, and have a unique insight into society. By this logic, it is imperative that they are involved in the political process, so that this segment of society is accurately represented.

Most would not beg to differ on this topic. But when it comes to quotas- an apparatus for guaranteeing that a certain group can attain a minimum proportion of positions- they become more sceptical. They see quotas as a warped target- something inherently anti-meritocratic- which has no objective value. Yet gender inequality still exists. It does so, because often the established circles are exclusive, and can be a men's club. Women accordingly find it difficult to find a foothold on the ladder of progress, and are instead stuck languishing in the realms of underachievement. In addition, a formal prompt (in the form of a quota) can be required to offer the extra persuasion that discrimination of this sort no longer exists. Quotas are only one example of affirmative action, but their use has been met with unmitigated success. Norway have implemented a quota mandating a minimum of 40 percent women on all boards of management. This has radically changed the appearance of these previously-chauvinistic territories, leading to increased female participation and application.

Quotas are not designed to discriminate against white-middle-class males, but rather to offer a helping hand to those who would otherwise not find themselves with equality of opportunity. There is nothing stipulating that they must be a permanent fixture. On the contrast, they can be temporary, and removed as soon as they have achieved their objective.

Admittedly, there are dangers. Namely the beneficiaries of the quota system become free-riders, knowing that their very presence meets a target. Alternatively, the recipients feel degraded at having been chosen simply on the basis of their skin colour or sex. although, studies have shown these concerns have not materialised.

Quotas conform to the principle of gender balance. It argues for a fair and equal distribution that gives access to power and influence. The argument that quotas act to distort reality lacks a sense of history. If equality really matters, then it is our duty to take action so that it is more than an ideological whim.

Terrorism denied publicity

Should terrorists be permitted to promulgate their views?

Terrorism is perceived as a pernicious influence because of what it stands for; namely violence, coercion and anti-democratic practises. It exploits the impressionable within society, and abuses the platform lent by freedom of expression in preaching hatred, and inciting violence. So would it be right to have a rule depriving terrorists of this platform, therefore thwarting the spread of their message?

When the media show hostage videos, or broadcast terrorist atrocities, it provides terrorists with the 'oxygen of publicity' which they would struggle to live without. These acts are designed to inspire fear in the civilian population, and by averting the publication of this message, it would not only minimise damage to society, but ensure that the demands of terrorists are not met. Terrorists would no longer be able to bring illegitimate pressure to bear on governments, and would lose a vital battle in the war for hearts and minds. It could perhaps be claimed, with some justification, that with the advent of the internet, it is no longer possible to control what enters the public domain. But while this may be true with fringe sites, it is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the majority receive their news from mainstream sites, which are manageable in terms of regulation. They would comply or risk losing their reputation as a reliable broadcaster. Secondly, and more profoundly, it would set a precedent rejecting the acts perpetrated by these organisations, and reinforce the message of non-negotiation.

And preventing terrorists from achieving their objectives would have another benefit. It would also succeed in preventing future attacks, by neutralising their strategy, rendering their powers of intimidation useless.

Terrorism attacks are designed to play on the public's mass psychology. In broadcasting their attacks, the threat is exaggerated and blown completely out of proportion. The consequence is a climate of fear in which people wildly overestimate the danger they pose. This creates a further problem in that it licences further infringements of civil liberties, and yet more incursions into our rights by the state. The anti-terrorist legislation is a prime example of how the state has taken advantage of the public mood to enforce what is ostensibly undemocratic legislation. The climate of fear leads to the marginalisation of certain ethnic groups within society, as fear the public backlash they will be subjected to. This is a move in the exact opposite direction to harmonious dynamics, and will only contribute to less cohesion, and integration.

And by stopping the broadcast, it removes a powerful recruiting tool from the armoury of terrorists. They could no longer claim to trigger public sympathy as a basis for drawing people into the folds of murder and homicide. and equally, the incentive of martyrdom is eliminated from the agenda. All these steps would galvanise public opinion against terrorism, and make society a safer place. Free speech is only 'free' up to a point-it is a contingent right- and one that comes with certain responsibilities. If terrorists refuse to adhere to these guidelines, then they should forfeit their right to these fundamental 'rights'

Is it Really So Straightforward?

Apple or Microsoft? Mac or Windows? Style or Use?

For many people, when faced with the daunting task of selecting their next computer, they see a stark contrast; between eye candy and work. But is it really that simple?

Apple computer's pride themselves on their aesthetic beauty. Equally they claim to be virus-free, and have a more intuitive operating system than the alternatives. To the casual onlooker, it would be a simple choice between the slight, but sexy Mac, and the bulky Microsoft machine. Appearances are important to say the least, but there are other factors which affect what we buy, and our rationale behind it.

However, there are those who will say that Apple computers are worth their weight in gold because of the technical quality on offer, which is far and beyond a PC. There is undoubtedly some truth in this, as shown by what appears to be a genetic predisposition to have virus antibodies. In addition to this, added features allow more advanced text editing and manipulation in numerous formats.

That said, the recent blip of a bug being reported in Apple's new Snow Leopard version of OS X, will come as a blow to those who advocate Apple's reliability, especially when the result is so serious. There have been cases where a user has suffered the loss of an entire account of data. The glitch seems to be caused by switching between guest, and regular accounts. But irrespective of where it comes from, it is still an indictment of their dependability.

This bug is certainly a deterrent to anyone considering buying into the new operating system. However, this does not necessarily mean that Microsoft is any better. On the contrary, part of the reason that this is such big news, is that Apple is renowned for its dependability, whereas viruses, bugs and technical hitches are an every day occurrence for the likes of Microsoft.

Regardless, what matters to professionals is data, and when this key element goes amiss, there will always be an inquest. Many will feel let down by a system they have come to trust, but perhaps this act of negligence on behalf of its creators is no more than a one off. Even so, it makes me wonder whether it is worth the extra money to buy this piece of equipment in the first place.

http://www.serverwatch.com/trends/article.php/3843511/Recent-Apple-Microsoft-Foibles-Expose-Dark-Side-of--Cloud-Computing.htm?comment=18699-0

Holocaust Denial

Should it be made a crime?

It is almost universally accepted that the Holocaust was the mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. It has become a symbol of evil in our time because of its uniqueness.

It is unparalleled because it was the systematic murder by a so-called civilized and cultured European country, where it became government policy to murder the Jews, and where the entire effort of the state was channelled into obliterating an ethnicity. Yet it is one that has come under scrutiny at the hands of holocaust deniers or "revisionists" as they prefer to be called. Holocaust deniers, for various reasons, allege that the genocide of Jews did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by the current literati.

The key claims of Holocaust deniers centre on the assertion that the Nazis had no official policy or intention towards exterminating Jews. Other allegations include that Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and that the figure of 5-7million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration.

On the question of whether Nazis targeted Jews, there is overwhelming evidence to confirm that there was a concerted attempt at annihilating Jews. Such evidence includes the Nuremburg Laws, designed to strip Jews of citizenship and basic rights, Pogroms, the worst of which was Kristallnacht (night of broken glass), ghettoisation, use of concentration and finally extermination camps.

Today, one would think that only a person in a state of appalling ignorance or advanced dementia can deny the facts of the Holocaust. Yet if the facts are true, then why is legislation needed to make the denial a crime?

Free speech is integral to this debate, and while it may be a mainstay of democracy, it stops at the point of crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Of course, all governments restrict some speech, but free expression is so fundamental to democracy that there is usually a strong bias against restricting speech unless it poses a compelling and even imminent danger to others. The most pervasive and durable restrictions meet that test, applying to things like child pornography, false statements that result in demonstrable harm (defamation), the exposure of national security information, and commercial fraud.

In other words, free speech is conditional because it only exists until a point. But should the right to speak out be taken from those who cling to a false or perverse ideology? Freedom of Speech has some undesirable consequences, because it gives everyone a platform, even if their views are offensive and wrong. However, I feel that the best way to combat the apocryphal tales that emerge from the holocaust denial camp is to engage in rational debate. The lineage of that theme traces back to the Old Pauline, John Milton, who wrote that if Truth and Falsehood were to grapple in a free and open encounter, Truth would always win.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's dad used to say, "Don't raise your voice, improve your argument." I say; don't silence Irving, let him speak so we can prove him wrong. By bringing the issue out into the public domain, we crush the myths that surround the Holocaust, and we stand up for what is right, rather than seeking the cowardly option of crushing resistance with forceful methods. Even on major historical events men and women rarely agree upon a single truth. Was Napoleon a hero or a tyrant? Each generation must interpret history anew and discover its own truths as well as accept competing versions can coexist. There will always be those who hold views diametrically opposed to that of the status quo, and instead of hiding we should choose to examine and analyze these views before reaching a decision. All informed decisions require the makers to scrutinize all the evidence rather than selecting bits which suit their argument. Galileo was considered by many to be a heretic, although what he postulated and then proved eventually became truth. The same should apply to holocaust deniers. We should give them access to a platform rather than locking them away. Liberty needs dissenters, and equally it needs us to stand up for the rights of others. It needs us to recognize these people are wrong in a humane way so as not to aggravate the situation.

Yet there are also valid arguments for punishing Holocaust denial. The Holocaust was a methodical effort to exterminate an entire people; it plunged far deeper into the maelstrom of human depravity than anything before it.

Strictly speaking, the state has no right to forbid speech unless it will incite imminent lawless action. While Holocaust deniers do attract followers, they are largely ignored by the general public and, at least to date, have not incited or produced imminent lawless action. However, indirectly in any case, denying the holocaust has a cumulative effect. The recent Holocaust-denial conference hosted by the Iranian president is a good example. The emotive message was both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. That was in fact its whole purpose. Holocaust denial can thus be seen as a way to incite hatred against Jews and the Jewish state. And inciting hatred, whether religious, ethnic or racial, is generally deemed to be unprotected speech.

What some people fail to realize is that locking people up, such as with David Irving for branding the holocaust a “fairytale”, creates martyrs and suggests that we, as jailors have something to fear. The very fact that we have something to be alarmed about suggests there may be an element of truth in the assertions. While finding Irving’s views repulsive, I believe that he should have the right to air them. But there is a more profound reason why silencing critics is a dangerous route to go down. I firmly believe that when governments begin to legislate what is true and what is false, they embark upon what has historically been a very slippery slope, as the state develops a taste for restricting our rights. Not only this, but by suppressing the issue you create a state of ignorance. And this is the thing which must be avoided at all costs; because when people forget the holocaust ever happened, Europe and indeed the world, reopens itself to another inexcusable calamity.

The issue is where to draw the line. Jailing David Irving would be counter-productive, but ignoring him is also problematic. He may have been speaking to a bunch of crackpots in a cellar in Austria, but his malignant lies have wider distribution. People who were not in that cellar still hear the lies; they become a part of the general hum of misinformation that circles the world.

All this leaves me wondering what the law would seek to do. Would it be to silence the quacks who deny the fact or to prevent false information from influencing others?

UCAS grabbing;

Shameful, or Worth it?

Have you ever wondered why school societies thrive the way they do? Has it ever crossed your mind that 17 and 18 year olds will do the most esoteric activities- things they apparently would never normally dream of- and will go to the most remote location just to complete a seemingly trivial matter?

Well perhaps this apparent display of impromptu affection can be attributed to more than just a love of the school. Because whilst it may be true that the school cultivates a sense of belonging, and many genuinely feel as though they want to give something back, it is dubious that it would naturally amount to this. There is a missing link in the chain between the inspiration and action. This missing link takes the form of a hidden driving force; one working behind the scenes at St. Paul’s to generate the reputation of which we are so proud.

This mysterious secret takes the form of the annual saga that is UCAS. It can be seen by some as a chore, and by others as the most laborious task ever dreamt up by our education system. Either way, UCAS is the process by which you submit a form listing your achievements, essentially selling yourself to the best of your abilities to your chosen university. Ostensibly, this may seem like a harmless, even ineffectual procedure. And yet, the reality could not be further from this.

Of course, no-one would want to submit an empty form, devoid of achievements and personal successes. So instead they go fishing around for things with ‘UCAS potential.’ For most, this tends to happen at the start of the Sixth form, on the realisation that something must be done sooner rather than later in order to bolster the university application. Of course, there are always those early bloomers who will have started years before the rest, and are streaks ahead by the time the majority start. Equally, there are some who will leave it until the last possible moment, whereupon urgent action is required to stave of UCAS disaster (a form with size 18 font to exaggerate what is there) and salvage something from the ruins of years of apathy. This is the season for the discovery of new-found interests taken up with a casual zeal fuelled by UCAS

In spite of that, is it such a bad thing that people see extra-curricular participation in such personal terms? Does it really matter that people do not actually care, so long as that they are providing a quality service with a decent future? Surely it is better to do something well with bad spirit, than to do something badly in good faith. Maybe the end justifies the means. And when the means have an overall constructive impact on the school, who are we to complain?

Evidently, this article takes a cynical view of attitudes. It is not trying to contribute to the general hum of misinformation surrounding UCAS submission, but rather to explain the motives of some of those who are going through the process, and simultaneously playing an integral role in scholarly life. It accepts that there are many exceptions to the ideas suggested, but that the UCAS grabbing culture is very much alive, and that we should treat it less as a necessary evil, and more as a realistic good.

Ambition or Achievement?

Obama- a superb orator with the right ideas. But should he have said no?

And perhaps his most recent award offers an insight into the way society values the contribution of the individual. The whole question stems from his recent accolade of the Nobel peace prize, despite having been submitted as a nomination just a matter of days after taking office.

Some would argue that Obama had achieved nothing when he was nominated, and has done little since. Others disagree, and claim that he received the award based on his global ambition. Either way, the award sets a precedent which sends out a powerful message that it is not what we accomplish, but our underlying motives which are important. It is plain from this that effort trumps attainment. But is it fair if we try hard, and yet fail to succeed? More importantly, does it benefit society, if real effort is exerted to no avail? Of course not.

There is an inherent irony in preaching the merits of aspirations, while dismissing achievement altogether. We are claiming on the one hand that bankers should receive performance related pay-packets (i.e. attainment), as well as stating that intention (ambition) should be the overriding factor when awarding one of the most significant prizes around. What does it matter if the bankers ‘meant well,’ and just casually ‘forgot’ to pay closer attention to the irregularities in the financial system. Equally, the physical exertion of a dust-bin cleaner which may require more strain than an office job say, is not worth the salary of a qualified professional, who is trained to produce results. Ultimately, these are the only things we can go by. They are the only tangible and quantifiable achievement available to us, and we should see them for what they are; an indication of success.

The prize says a lot for the way we award plaudits. And perhaps it is just that we recognise those who try hardest. Even so, to award a prize to an individual who has yet to contribute seems unfair on those who strive to make a difference by their actions.