The idiot

On Broadcasting House this morning on BBC Radio 4, one of the guests to discuss the newspapers was Jeff Randall, the man who claims he left the BBC because it wasn't right-wing enough for him (despite still having a FiveLive slot). And he just proved why he is still as nutty as ever. The first guest to be asked for his pick, he chose the Sunday Times - since as business editor at large of the Telegraph group, he said he felt obliged not to discuss it, though he did in the end, anyway - and this morsel was how the Russell Group of universities - the elite in other words - were going to deselect 'light' subjects such as dance and leisure study from their academic considerations for candidates.
Now, Randall was wholeheartedly in favour of this because as he admitted - through his words, if not through his intention - he is a snob. First he mocked how a dance student could ever become an engineer. The chairman of the show moderated this by saying such subjects, in the opinion of the Russell Group 'lacked academic rigour', but Randall continued his scorn - and ignorance - for the 'light' subjects. As one person emailed in afterwards they were an A-level drama teacher and one of their students did further maths and economics, illustrating why Randall is a fool, a man who lacks academic rigour, since schools make their pupils have many syllabi. An A-level pupil doesn't just do dance or just do leisure study and should therefore be irrevocably excluded from university, even though many polytechnics are universities now. They have a multitude of subjects and just because dance is one of them, doesn't automatcially exclude from taking more scholarly lessons as well and they could well be an engineer.
But then we were moved on to another criticism. Randall ranted on about how the government pressures universities to have a greater intake of comprehensive pupils. He said, high-mindedly, that grammar and private schools don't do these 'light' subjects - and when was the last time he was at school; he certainly never went to a comprehensive himself obviously. Oh, how gracious he was in saying there was nothing wrong in taking vocational subjects - yes, all fine for the lower-classes was his implication - but the universities shouldn't be made to attempt "social engineering" as if they were being told to institute a communist paradise. And he keeped referring to univeristies as a whole rather than the Russell Group, either through lack of preparation or intellect, I can't decide which.
Furthermore, I don't know what universities were like in the stone age when he was at them, but, apart from the Oxbridge set, now irrespective of whatever you do in the first year, you can change it wholsesale for what you choose to follow as your degree proper, if you wanted. The first year is solely for aptitude, to test your academic rigour. Just because a subject seems incongruous with another doesn't actually prevent you from taking it. Therefore, deriding 'light' subjects as not being compatible for high-flown degree subjects rather than focusing on the state of their 'academic rigour' is irrelevant.
Randall managed to throw in another right-wing hot issue. He said that many foreigners were taking these light subjects. No evidence for this brought forward about an education area from a business editor and it wasn't brought up again. No, it was just a sneaky way to attack foreigners because he is a xenophobe, not surprising from a man in the Telegraph group. The Daily Telegraph and its Sunday sister are newspapers in broadsheet format with tabloid presentation.
And what about that greatest light subject of them all, media studies? That was often a bete noire for 'traditionalists'. But now, media studies is seen as an important subject and probably many interns at the Telegraph group have that qualification, so Randall steered clear of that one.
The topic then moved to the US primaries in the upcoming New Hampshire caucus polls. Randall with his tuppence-worth gloried not in the victory for Barrack Obama in Iowa but in the 'defeat' (coming 3rd) for Hillary Clinton. He warmly talked of how 'the wheels had come off' and her 'robotic persona' and 'phoniness'. But before Iowa people were saying how it was essential for Obama or John Edwards to win Iowa simply for them to have a chance in the rest of the race. Even if Clinton loses New Hampshire, she is senator for New York, which carries many times over the combined delegate number of Iowa and New Hampshire. Yes, winning the early ones gives you momentum, but by no means wins you the nomination. Bill Clinton lost Iowa. He did win New Hampshire, but he needed to because he was far less well-known than his wife is now. Randall did manage a good joke of Bill Clinton using up all teflon for the Clinton family though of course is based on partiality and how badly one assesses Bill Clinton did. So Randall is counting his chickens before they're hatched, perhaps apt for someone involved in the business world - isn't this how the credit crunch from the sub-prime fallout began - false and over-confident projections?
Finally, Randall broke his promise not to talk about articles in the Sunday Telegraph, but referred to the business section and seemed to talk sense for the first time. Who knows if it was sense? As Irwin Steltzer quipped, economic forecasters were created to make weather forecasters look good. But overall Randall did a good job of convincing me that the BBC would be well shot of him altogether - the Telegraph group can keep him, the best place to hole him up in.