In article , Jonn Elledge
wrote:

"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
...

It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised,
but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many
others, the consequences are not altogether desirable.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely.

Like public education and the military, public transport is an important
form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the
subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting
would for many become impossible. Cities would become overcrowded both with
traffic and people needing to live closer to their jobs, and wider economic
growth would probably be impaired. While it's possible to debate the amount
of public funding required for transport, I'm personally happy to pay a
little out of my taxes to ensure we can all get about.

Jonn

This is certainly one of the aspects I am interested in. Markets are
supposed to reach an "equilibrium" or "steady state" where the various
trade-offs balance. Why should city size not be allowed to reach equilibrium
as result of such market forces? If we cancel out the constraints on the size
of London by giving "London weighting", then London can grow to absorb the
whole population of the country, and indeed the world. Is this what we want?
Of course, a lot depends on where the money comes from. I see no harm, and a
lot of benefit, in a city deciding to spend money on itself, its roads, its
theatres, its police, its transport system, etc. It's when a city levies a
tax on the country as a whole to pay for its services that a distortion of
the market happens. Are the results good?

Michael Bell


--

Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:

You entirely misunderstand the "boarding school" nature of
education at Cambridge, which takes places 7 days a week. It's
simply not like most other Universities. It suits people very well,
and if it's not to your taste then no-one is forcing you to go
there.

This is rather an over-statement of the specialness of Cambridge
(especially given there's Oxford, Durham, and even UKC

Did I say it was unique to Cambridge? I just said "*most* other
Universities".

Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and
often third) years to live on site

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:02:18 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and
often third) years to live on site

Perhaps - though I've not heard in a long time of another university
(like I'm told is the case in Cambridge and possibly Oxford) that
requires you to be in residence over a specified number of weekends.

Many universities guarantee first years a place in halls, but I don't
think any (other than those two) now enforce it as a requirement.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In article , Stimpy
writes
Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and
often third) years to live on site

That may have been because there were fewer "new" universities then, but
even in those days there were few students at London University living
anywhere near their lecture facilities, even if they were in halls of
residence.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

In article , Neil Williams
writes
Perhaps - though I've not heard in a long time of another university
(like I'm told is the case in Cambridge and possibly Oxford) that
requires you to be in residence over a specified number of weekends.

Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the
number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the
numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday
morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now.

Comparing our calendars with friends at London University, their terms
were 2 weeks longer, but everyone routinely took time off most weekends
- so they actually worked less. My college library was full of people
studying on a Sunday afternoon, and with no TV or other distractions to
speak of (one set in a common room) people did tend to work most of the
time.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:55:38 +0000, Meldrew of Meldreth
wrote:

Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the
number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the
numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday
morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now.

OOI, how is it enforced? Do they come around knocking on doors in the
late evening to ensure you haven't sneaked off for a couple of days?

(In Manchester, we were supposed to notify the hall office if going
away overnight, presumably for fire list reasons, but in practice
nobody actually did that I could tell, and a register was never taken
when the fire alarm went off).

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In article , Neil Williams
writes
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:55:38 +0000, Meldrew of Meldreth
wrote:

Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the
number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the
numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday
morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now.

OOI, how is it enforced? Do they come around knocking on doors in the
late evening to ensure you haven't sneaked off for a couple of days?

(In Manchester, we were supposed to notify the hall office if going
away overnight, presumably for fire list reasons, but in practice
nobody actually did that I could tell, and a register was never taken
when the fire alarm went off).

In the old days the cleaners who came round at 8am would notice people
who were absent. And colleges are small places (mine had only 300
students) - it's pretty obvious when people aren't around. Today, I
expect there's more trust involved, as the colleges are more open (to
their members if not the public).
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

Meldrew of Meldreth writes:


... people did tend to work most of the time.

Boggle. We are talking about student life here are we? My recollection
is rather different.

In article , Paul Rudin
writes
... people did tend to work most of the time.

Boggle. We are talking about student life here are we? My recollection
is rather different.

Yep. Not much else to do really. No money for living the high life, and
consumer electronics hadn't been invented yet.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

1/ students are not gonna spend 3000-4000 commuting, so
we're talking (well i was talking) about staff (teaching officers and related

2/ students do not have to live in hall, so they cannot be policed
in fact.

3/ staff and students have to "keep nights"
which actually is described
(in the statutes and ordinances and is on the web somewhere or other) as
no more than a number of nights sleeping away in a certain period where
"away" (or whatever it says) is
a certain distance (has varied over the years and for category of people.
(is now in miles, was at least for a while in hours walk/horseride

4/ this ALL contributes to the high cost of housing in and near cambridge
and probably doesnt particular reduce traffic (as the distance is still
driving for staff, and there are enough of them to constitute congestion
with families and they are badly enough paid that they wont all live near
enough to cycle unless they were practically born here and inherited a house
(or worked here for 10 years) (imho)

London University has 3 taught terms of 12 weeks with a reading week, and
5 day terms - Cambridge taught term is 8 weeks of 5.5 days max - in practice
UCL and Imperial students attend more lectures in sciences (at least where I
know) though whether this constites working "harder" I couldn't possibly
comment....well actually as an examiner at 10+ UK universities over the last 24
years I could - I'd say that the residence and working practices and
"boarding school" or otherwise of the UK universities is remarkably uniform
in the end, though.

Bigger Pictu
If I compare it to other European countries I am familiar with (e.g. UCD/TCD in
Ireland, Lulea and Stockholm, Paris XI, Nice, Pisa, Athens, etc etc), I'd say we
are more residential - if I compare it to US similar places, I'd say actually
less (at least e.g. Dartmouth, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, UPenn,
Michegan - note some of those are private, some state).

Of course, the trains in the rest of Europe are probably better
and we know the ones in the US are probably worse, (if thats possible)
so there's probably a Masters thesis in looking at the effects of
fast and reliable rail travel on the residential nature of faculty
and student body culture and locales in various countries of the developed
world. :-)

[can discuss Universities in Brasil and New Zealand too if you like:-]

p.s. If the current cruiser train time is 45 mins,
and we were discussing a possible time of 35 mins,
and the distance is 55 miles, I am not quite
sure where speeds of 125mph come up - 100mph
tilting trains would work on most the route
provided track and points are made up to a higher
quality surely? If you've ever been on a eurostar
coming into the chunnel from the continental side, when
it stops sometimes, it is on a mighty lean - looks like
even decent bogie design is sufficient given track
conditions (yes, I know TGV track is ruinously
pricy coz of fancy welds etc)...

--
Jon Crowcroft