Skip to main content

Day: 15 February 2011

Album: Skepta – Doin’ It Again

Skepta
Doin’ It Again
All Around The World
3 stars

Most grime novices will know the name Skepta as being that of the man partly to blame for an embarrassing dance craze, known as the ‘Rolex Sweep’ (a kind of, ghetto Macarena). But he may also have reached your radar lately in the form of the recent chart tracks ‘Bad Boy’ and ‘Rescue Me’, both taken from his third studio album Doin’ it Again.

With this release, Skepta is the next grime artist to take on the transition from underground acclaim to chart success, in search for international recognition. The question is whether he has managed to succeed in this task, without losing the purity of his grime roots.

He has certainly had a good crack, but there is still an element of disappointment caused by the content-light lyricism of tracks such as ‘Thrown in the Bin’, and by one too many gratuitous guest appearances from the likes of N Dubz; Eastenders actress, Preeya Kalidas and Chipmunk, which seem out of place next to the self-professed ‘king of grime’. The irony of the album’s title is that Skepta is not ‘Doin’ it Again’ in quite the same way he did with second studio album, Microphone Champion, but seems to have succumbed to the pressures of appealing to the wider pop audience at the expense of some authenticity.

However, two stand out tracks remain; the dubstep influenced ‘Rescue Me’, with it’s strong choppy bassline and heavy synth backdrop perfectly complimenting the rapper’s blunt lyrical delivery, and an exceptional remix of P Diddy’s ‘Hello Good Morning’, both of which deserve high praise. Despite not being likely to satisfy many pure grime fans out there, Doin’ it Again’s catchy beats and choruses, combined with Skepta’s distinctive voice and flashes of sharp wit, mean that the album is still likely to be a hit with a wider modern audience.

Sarah Pollen

Hot Head – Letters

To those who say the letters page isn’t important,

To be called a ‘man of letters’ was a badge of respect, a mark of erudition. Now since I’m writing this article, and not you, I’m going to anthropomorphize our paper and say that equally to be a ‘paper of letters’ is the mark of a truly worthwhile enterprise. It’s the interaction between reader and medium that distinguishes the newspaper in its popular form from the more esoteric journals, and a student paper that is by its very nature created to serve a specific population should be accountable to them in this manner. We elect our Editor for the paper, so it makes sense there should also be a simple point of contact for students to express their views? Not only that, but with participation in Union politics and an all-time ebb, an anonymous e-mail to the paper is probably a much more realistic way to get an opinion voiced easily by a member of the student population not already involved with Union politics, for everybody knows our Union is an essentially oligarchical system.

It’s not just for serious matters that we need our letters page; I’ve written (and had published) numerous nonsense letters during my time as a student here as well as more thought-out ones, and remember distinctly how much more approachable the Union Executive became after their beard-related exchange though those very pages at the beginning of the year.

One might say that articles should address these concerns, and I concede they often will, but from a reader’s point of view, the brevity and style of a letter renders it more easily digestible than an article.

We talk a lot of ‘participation’, and the letters page in a student paper is the simplest and best form of participation that the majority of students have real recourse to.

In Conversation

Y: What sort of stuff affects LGBT students?

E: Say there’s a policy about anonymous marking, people debate whether it’s valuable or not, but no one is talking about what a value it is to LGBT students, you can’t guarantee that voice in the room unless they are elected. If you have a homophobic lecturer, it’s really important to have anonymous marking.

S: We need representation, so that LGBT students always have a voice on counsel.

A: There are places on counsel for ethnic minorities to be represented. LGBT people are underrepresented and racism definitely takes precedence it terms of discrimination. I grew up and experienced racism, and tackling that is more important than homophobia. Neither is good, obviously.

G: Any group that is underrepresented in elected bodies- you need to take steps to make sure that doesn’t happen, and while that prejudice exists you may need to have specific positions.

AS: From schools that I was at, I know people who were black or Asian, and they didn’t have a problem at all, but until the age of 18 nobody came out. But two or three years after that, I know about ten, fifteen people who all came out. To an extent, in areas where there isn’t such racial division, race isn’t such a big issue, but homophobia; especially amongst children and teenagers is still quite a big problem.

E: What’s interesting with LGBT societies at a university level is, as [Andrew] just said, is that a lot of people start to come out then, so it’s really important to have representatives on council, but also to ensure that the university is a friendly welcoming place where people can come out.

Y: But why do we group LGBT all as one group?

G: LGBT people have very similar issues and challenges in society, but there is also a place to have separate groups and we do recognise that as a society.

E: I think one of the things is that legally, they’ve been oppressed under the same laws, so although two people’s individual experiences might not be the same, but they experience the same oppression.

S: It does seem a bit forced though sometimes. Sometimes trans people berate me for not knowing about their issues. However, I think it would be very difficult if we said: ‘Trans people go and deal with it yourselves’, because they’re the minority within the minority.

G: There’s also a lot of overlap between the groups.

ES: Isn’t it true that 50% of trans people experience a change in sexuality during transition as well?

E: Most people, there’s going to be a question mark about your sexuality at some point in the process. The same with all liberation campaigns, if you create divides then you’re never going to win a campaign, but if you can work out where you do have things in common then you have a chance of winning campaigns.

Y: So why do we have an LGBT week?

S: I meet a lot of people who are very ignorant of LGBT issues, people who are completely onboard with LGBT rights but who turn around and say things that are phenomenally ignorant to me. Someone I know who is completely socially liberal in every respect asked me if it was appropriate to refer to trans people as ‘it’. I told him – ‘You use the pronoun that they want to use.’  If he’d gone and said that to someone who was trans, if they’d been of any size, they would have decked him. Awareness week is about going, ‘Hi, we’re here, we exist.’

E: For me the most important thing is having the banner outside the union that says LGBT awareness week. It’s a symbol that the Union supports [LGBT students] and won’t tolerate any prejudice. You don’t know which students that banner’s hitting that haven’t come out yet.

D: That’s really important. My school was an all-girls school and one of my best mates was the only girl that came out, really young, she was thirteen. She suffered so much prejudice, even from the teachers. Having that sign up does say a lot.

G: It’s really nice to create a safe space, just to show that if maybe you’re not out or if you are out and have experienced homophobia; the union is a safe space for you to be LGBT in.

ES: I think it’s important for those that don’t belong to the group to have that week as well, because there are a lot of people who are quite ignorant, and having it in people’s consciousness is important so that people can think about how they respond to it.

D: It’s important to know that there’s somewhere for people to go to ask questions, if they don’t feel comfortable asking their friends.

A: Homophobia still exists. In some places you can see it more, in comparison to others, especially in ethnic minorities. I will be trying to break those barriers down.

S: The closet is full of fabulous clothes, come and hang out.

Love’s Happy Ending

I came across a wonderful statement during revision a few weeks ago. Slaughterhouse 5, by Kurt Vonnegut, contains a bed-ridden character who pines that ‘everything to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov, “but that isn’t enough anymore.”’ Dostoevsky’s novel of family feuds has a wide authority on life, on love, though, sadly, has very little to do with laughter.  It was also published in 1880, making it 70 years old by the time of the 1950s Slaughterhouse 5. Only 70 years had rendered the sentiments displayed by Dostoevsky seemingly inadequate.

Karamazov’s ending (to remain as spoiler free as possible) reaches a declaration of love, though one that cannot be fully requited, as the characters love others as well as each other. The audience has come to demand that outcome of acknowledged love, for when we are presented with two people who become involved with each other they must fall in love to render the ending satisfactory. Their relationship is where the main play of drama is built up, and, naturally, the consummation of their love lies at the end. The typical way of ending anything is marriage, as it is a safe assumption that the two lovers will stay together, produce hundreds of children and everything should go on, happily ever afterÔ.

However, art has succumbed to life in that a wedding no longer gives certainty to the happy life that one would hope for. Rather each one adds to cynicism – we can joke on the length that they will remain together, raise eyes to the ceiling at every overdramatic airport dash when we know that a phone call would suffice to stop the girl getting on the plane. Marriage has even become middle point in some dramas, where the hero or heroine realizes a mistake, and drama is begotten over an affair that is now more genuine than the marriage. Friends, lest we forget, began with a bride entering a coffee shop in full gown, fleeing her wedding day, thus promptly starting a ten series of drama and comedy. The institution of marriage is no longer the ultimate, binding expression of love.

So where does that leave drama? Well, audiences brought up on Disney films still uphold many of the ideals that directors and authors would want them to. Love as a concept is relatively untouched, it’s just Hollywood can no longer bank on marriage. Instead, movies and books have cashed in different devices that prove love on another level to marriage. Terminal illness has been used in many modern films to higher or lesser degrees of both effectiveness and dignity. Disease acts as the crux on which the relationship of two characters hinges. Love and Other Drugs, for instance, deals with the inevitability of Parkinson’s. Two characters get past the disease to love each other, as no other couple has. Another method of circumventing marriage is the Romeo and Juliet route, as the end of life would set up the two for eternity together in death. Both devices dance around the subject of marriage, its absence signifying a lifelong (or death long) commitment that transcends the exchange of rings; the strength of their bond is in the strength of feeling, and marriage is ultimately unnecessary in displaying that.

The decision as to whether true love in wedlock is anymore believable in entertainment is left to the viewers’ personal view. Essentially, does what is portrayed win one over, to the point where a marriage becomes a believable and important commitment. Yet for many marriage just ‘isn’t enough anymore’, and if its use as a conclusive device is rendered obsolete, then an end becomes an even more difficult proposition for a creator. After all, if there is an uncertainty that taints marriage, that does not allow it to function as the traditional end to a love story, then where, realistically, can a love story end?

If it doesn’t make a profit then let it rot.

It is so very telling that the South Korean government has decided to fund the opening of 180 new libraries at the same time as the coalition has decided to cut over 400. Short-termism used to be a simple criticism pointed at all British governments of every party. In the context of the coalition’s economic shock therapy however, we are seeing complex, long-term intergenerational difficulties ahead.

Even if we ignore libraries as beacons of civilisation, institutions existing on the most British of principles, we cannot afford to accept the threatened closure of over 400 of them. Why? It is because there is such a thing as learning for the sake of learning, improvement for the sake of improvement. If not for this then there are the benefits. If we look to South Korea we see a modern economy with the high-tech and modern, capitalist economy Cameron is always talking about. If Mr Cameron likes South Korea so much then why doesn’t he look to them for tips on education policy? Pretty soon they will also have the knowledge base to challenge us in our supposed academic excellence. We must keep up with countries like this; if not we will fall further and further behind as their pools of human capital increase while ours empty.

Up and down the country, in almost every city and town, we are seeing the categorical denouncing of learning for the sake of learning. It is quite an accusation I am aware, but I am also aware of the current mindset our governors have when they make the decisions that affect the rest of us. This is part of a complete change in attitude to governance, a break with principled governance. It is something a lot of backbench Tories have a problem with. Alongside rising unemployment and no growth, the government has constrained its fiscal policy to a ‘Friedman Shock’: cuts. And when Cameron, Osborne, Gove and pals all sit down to dine at each other’s Notting Hill homes, they finger their iPads and their Kindles not realising the complete and utter tasteless-irony circulating around them. Nothing is sacred to people like this. Masters of hypocrisy, they are disingenuous and they believe in themselves fiercely, completely. Listening to Michael Gove’s sarcastic attempt to hold back a fiery caller on radio five last month only confirmed my beliefs that this government are the true successors to Blair.

They have taken the dangerous pragmatism one step further. It is the same line, the same old false dichotomy being used by every government minister in every interview, the one they have all practiced. “The deficit must be cut and so sacrifices must be made.” It’s either cuts or leave the deficit alone and it seems to be working: for a government with the sole agenda of increasing GDP by shrinking the public sector, it seems that we, as the electorate, don’t seem to have that big a problem with it, Labour are only slightly ahead in the polls! It is nothing short of unbelievable. The marketisation of education policy is being mirrored in every government department. If it doesn’t produce a profit, let it rot. It is tempting to sum up Cameron’s current approach to government as a ‘Show me the money’ approach. With tuition fee increases, library closures, and capital projects for schools cuts, we are seeing the true values of our leaders, namely one thing, money, not later but now.

Geology students given answer sheets during exam

Students were handed out exam papers with answers attached to the back during a geology exam last month.

Geology students sitting a second-year Geophysical Techniques exam were free to use the answer sheets for around half of the test before invigilators were made aware of the mistake.

The exam will now be made void and senior staff members say they are looking for “a solution that is both academically robust and as fair as possible on the students.”

Some students left the examination hall in anger after realising the error.

Last week, The Mancunion also reported that a final-year business exam had received hundreds of complaints from students who claimed questions did not fairly reflect what had been taught in lectures and seminars.

A geology student, who did not wish to be named, told : “At first the invigilators told us not to turn to the back of the exam, but then of course everyone did. So they had to walk around the room ripping the back pages from everyone’s exam papers.

“Now we all have to do more work on a module that we’d already considered finished and out of the way.”

Head of school Prof Hugh Coe issued an apology to all students on the module shortly after the incident. It reads, “I am writing to you all to apologise for the error that arose in yesterday’s geophysical techniques examination and to reassure you all that we are treating this matter very seriously.

“Please be assured that we are currently working as hard as we can to arrive at a plan for how to take this forward that has as little impact on you all as is possible in your exams and recognise that events such as yesterday only increase the stress of the examination period.”

Prof Coe insisted that he did not yet know where responsibility for the error lay, but stressed that there was “obviously no malicious intent” involved.

“The other part of what we’re trying to do at the moment is to scrutinize our internal systems. Rather than lay the blame at a single individual.”

He continued, “There are a number of places where a process can fail. Clearly this process has failed. Whether that’s an individual error or a process error or a combination of both, we will examine what’s going on.”

The exam constitutes two per cent of students’ final degree grade.

The soft bigotry of lowered expectations

Seeing Michael Gove on Question Time on Thursday (13/01/10) was illuminating. Even one of my Labour friends was drawn to comment that it was “the best QT performance I’ve ever seen from a Conservative.” Amidst this sterling performance, the most interesting by far was the vigorous debate between Gove and some audience members over the new English Baccalaureate (henceforth EB). It was an exchange that highlighted not only Mr Gove’s inspirations and principles but also shone the spotlight on the ideological malaise that has so undermined the British education system in recent decades.

The theme taken up by a quintet of teachers in the Question Time audience – and endorsed by Labour-sympathisers on the panel – was that the EB represented a ‘narrowing’ of academic focus. Diane Abbot stated that the EB meant that its constituent subjects (which are English, Mathematics, Sciences, Foreign/Ancient Language and History/Geography) would be perceived as a ‘tier one’, and that this was a bad thing. I can think of nothing else that so clearly demonstrates how out of touch Labour has been on education. Does Diane really think that there is a majority in the country that doesn’t think that English, Maths and Science warrant special attention? Mr Gove, at one point, reeled off a list of figures from the international league tables showing how the standard of education in the UK relative to the rest of the world had slumped during the last ten years of Labour government. If Diane is any indicator, there would be no change from that course were they in office now.

However, even more worrying than Labour’s position was that taken by some of the teachers themselves. One particularly striking example serves as a suitable illustration. A female teacher in the audience suggested that young women from underprivileged backgrounds “might not be able to have the confidence to take on an academic subject”, and that these teenagers would subsequently feel “like they’ve been pushed to the bottom of the heap”. This attitude, if representative of a substantial proportion of the teaching profession, should be of great concern to Gove and anyone else responsible for educational reform. What it suggests, is that if a child doesn’t have the self-confidence to think they can succeed in an academic subject, then that should be accepted and the child directed to whatever courses their low self-esteem leads them to selecting. Instead of pushing children to work harder and achieve good grades in rigorous and valuable subjects, this approach risks further undermining the core academic subjects that lie at the heart of a well-rounded education.

This latest mutation of ‘trendy teaching’ is hugely detrimental to helping a child recognise and fulfil their true potential and thus to social mobility, which has stagnated over recent decades. The courses selected for the EB (aside from some quibbling about what constitutes a legitimate humanity) are broadly those that are widely recognised as being intellectually rigorous, socially useful and valued by employers. Children are ill-served if they are mothered through school without being properly informed of the value of these subjects, and the underlying assumption that children from poor or troubled backgrounds aren’t up to an academic education represents the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, at the very least.

I was an under-achieving student for most of my school career, crippled by a lack of belief in my own abilities. The probable course of my life was changed forever when I was lucky enough to get into one of Buckinghamshire’s Grammar Schools. There, the teachers were supportive but firm, and never ceased to both encourage me to achieve what they recognised as my potential and to upbraid me when I failed to achieve the standards they knew I could. I was also lucky enough to have parents of a similar cast of mind. Under their tutelage I managed to pull my grades around, achieved excellent A Levels and have since gone to a good university. I could never have done that had my teachers passively accepted my own pessimistic assessment of my capabilities.

Those claims made by Mr Gove’s opponents that this government is placing too much emphasis on a narrow band of academic achievement do not stand up to scrutiny, for the government is both re-opening and re-imagining the old technical colleges and via the Free Schools program, relinquishing the micro-managerial power that Labour sought to assume over schools and putting resources and emphasis into the long-neglected trades and professions. Of course it is not bringing back Grammar Schools (a policy that I, and others of all political stripes who were lucky enough to attend them lament) but a supportive and constructive yet firm teaching environment is not conjured or banished by the presence of an entrance exam. The Education Secretary must accompany his structural reshaping of our education system with a vigorous challenge to the entrenched attitudes within the teaching profession that do so much to sell children short. No student who is ‘spared’ an academic education and then fails to be all that they could have been has cause to thank their teachers.