020210us Th1ngs

[Replies From View]

Was it anything like when I was at school (bearing in mind I was born early summer, the ranges are slightly diff if you were born in the autumn):

age : year
5-6 : Primary 1 & 2
7-10 : Juniors 1 to 4
11-15 : Secondary 1 to 5
16-17 : 6th form 1 & 2

Yes, it was something like this.  And somehow it was reflected in the class names which I can't recall.  Nowadays (since 1991 or whatever) class names are the year number followed by the teacher initials (so 4ST, 6BM, 8TR etc).  But before that, can anyone remember what it was?

I was born 1979/80 which sneaks me into Generation X apparently.  I'm going to pretend that's relevant.

[Endicott]

From talking to friends and hearing about other schools at the time, I think the class names were specific to the school. Different schools came up with different naming conventions.

[Sebastian Cobb]

No. Now, they start at Year 1 (5-6) (or  Reception at 4-5 but that's optional) and it's a sequential count up to 13, which is Sixth Form. Years 12 and 13 are now compulsory unless the child is in work or training.

I think the only part that has changed from when I was at school is the fact you can no longer leave at 16. I think it's only England that enforce that though, and I think you're not allowed to leave to work full-time in a shop or something. Which might be another reason for bullshit apprenticeships by the likes of Subway (aside from a way to pay young people even less).

[MojoJojo]

Yes, it was something like this.  And somehow it was reflected in the class names which I can't recall.  Nowadays (since 1991 or whatever) class names are the year number followed by the teacher initials (so 4ST, 6BM, 8TR etc).  But before that, can anyone remember what it was?

The year/teachers initials thing wasn't/isn't universal - in fact I've never heard of a school doing that. I think the headteacher just gets to choose.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Surely you'd only bother to do that if you worked at a primary large enough to have multiple classes / year

[Cold Meat Platter]

Give Jonathan Pie a wee moustache and you've got Hitler.

[Dex Sawash]

North Carolina schools are mostly divided up
Elementary K, 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5
Middle 6, 7, 8
High 9, 10, 11, 12
Local districts have some flexibility in arranging them though.

Way back was either split in twos  K-8 and 9-12 or three k-6, 7-9, 10-12

[Replies From View]

Surely you'd only bother to do that if you worked at a primary large enough to have multiple classes / year

Quite rare to have more than one class in an entire primary school

[JesusAndYourBush]

For me, Middle School had 1st year up to 4th year.  Before that they didn't have numbers (or I don't remember them?) although the very first year was called Reception.  Then in High School the years were numbered 3rd to 5th (and 6th if you stayed on for that).

When I started Middle school there were 7 lessons in a day, but halfway through middle school they re-jigged it all, nicking 5 minutes off each lesson and 20 minutes off our dinner time which we were not happy about... and added an 8th lesson in the afternoon.  When we complained about our dinner time being shortened from something like 1h15 to 55 min they said that school ended 10 minutes earlier than it had before, which appeased us a little.

[touchingcloth]

No. Now, they start at Year 1 (5-6) (or  Reception at 4-5 but that's optional) and it's a sequential count up to 13, which is Sixth Form. Years 12 and 13 are now compulsory unless the child is in work or training.

Sixth form was year 12 for me. Starting secondary school in 97 was:
- Age 11: Year 7 /  First Year
- Age 12: Year 8 /  Second Year
- Age 13: Year 9 /  Third Year
- Age 14: Year 10 /  Fourth Year
- Age 15: Year 11 /  Fifth Year
- Age 16: Year 12 /  Sixth Year
- Age 17: Year 13 /  Seventh Year

The last two years in bold were collectively called "sixth form", which was split between lower sixth (year 12 / sixth year) and upper sixth (year 13 / seventh year). I did sixth form in a secondary school rather than a dedicated college, no idea whether colleges stick with the naming conventions for years 12 and 13 or if they restart again at first year.

[touchingcloth]

the consistent use of pentagrams is an interesting choice. although only the one at the top is inverted.

Googling, an inverted pentagram is one with two prongs at the top and one at the bottom, and it's this "version" which is the one witches like rather than just any five sided star. I wonder if any witches have bought pentagram hubcaps and been annoyed with how often their car revolves between darkness and light.

[touchingcloth]

The cricket World Cup doesn't involve tons of week long matches.

[dissolute ocelot]

Googling, an inverted pentagram is one with two prongs at the top and one at the bottom, and it's this "version" which is the one witches like rather than just any five sided star. I wonder if any witches have bought pentagram hubcaps and been annoyed with how often their car revolves between darkness and light.

The Golden Dawn used right-side-up pentagrams; upside down ones seem to be primarily an Aleister Crowley thing. So witches can choose either.

Totally unrelatedly, coming to an understanding of how Alice Krige (Borg Queen), Alice Braga (Elysium, New Mutants), and Sonia Braga (Kiss of the Spider Woman) are 3 different angular-faced actresses from the southern hemisphere, although the latter 2 are niece and aunt.

[MoreauVasz]

The cricket World Cup doesn't involve tons of week long matches.

Cricket is the most absurd of all sports. It is so absurd that its absurdity instantly rubs off on every other sport.

Like, at the Euros some people were making a fuss about England beating Germany and 1966 and all that only for people to point out that England beat Germany far more recently than that. Thus, that which is presented as historic and important is revealed to be just some shit that occasionally happens NBD.

Cross over into Cricket and it's like 'England here...  Teetering on the brink of a historic victory over an Australian side that appears to be made up primarily of the kinds of dads who cut about in open necked shirts" only it turns out that England plays Australia a couple of times a year for a week at a time and occasionally they happen to win.

[touchingcloth]

I quite like how opaque the terminology in cricket is. I'll often see a headline link that says something like "Root ton tips Pakistan into century", and be puzzled for a moment before realising that it's the cricket.

I think it's probably the only major sport in which the scoring makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't remember how many points you get for tries and conversions in rugby, for instance, but I know that the team with most points wins.

The first game showing on the BBC cricket pages at the moment has a score which reads like Numberwang

First Vitality T20, Trent Bridge
Pakistan 232-6 (20 overs): Babar 85 (49), Rizwan 63 (41)
England 201 (19.2 overs): Livingstone 103 (43), Shaheen 3-30

Even the things I think I know about the sport unravel when I try and parse that. I thought I knew that an over was six bowls - and a google seems to confirm that - so England's 19.2 overs would be 115.2 throws of the ball.

[buttgammon]

Walking past a cricket game in progress in Chester, an American tourist stopped me and asked me to explain the rules of this strange game. I like cricket and understand the rules, but I knew I'd be unable to give a coherent overview, so I just said "sorry, I don't understand it" and left him in his confusion.

[touchingcloth]

Cricket is a simple game; 22 men whack a ball for a week and at the end, the Germans don't play the sport. I imagine, I haven't checked.

[buttgammon]

Mitchell and Webb summed it up (and not in Numberwang either!)

[olliebean]

I quite like how opaque the terminology in cricket is. I'll often see a headline link that says something like "Root ton tips Pakistan into century", and be puzzled for a moment before realising that it's the cricket.

I think it's probably the only major sport in which the scoring makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't remember how many points you get for tries and conversions in rugby, for instance, but I know that the team with most points wins.

The first game showing on the BBC cricket pages at the moment has a score which reads like Numberwang

Even the things I think I know about the sport unravel when I try and parse that. I thought I knew that an over was six bowls - and a google seems to confirm that - so England's 19.2 overs would be 115.2 throws of the ball.

Why is an "over" more obscure than a "try" or a "conversion?" I don't really understand sport in general, but I vaguely know what an "over" is and have absolutely no clue about the rugby terms. And is it not the case in cricket that the team with most points wins?

[Replies From View]

The names Rick and Morty don't only play on Doc and Marty, but also sound a bit like rigor mortis.

[Endicott]

Even the things I think I know about the sport unravel when I try and parse that. I thought I knew that an over was six bowls - and a google seems to confirm that - so England's 19.2 overs would be 115.2 throws of the ball.

You've over decimalised. Spent too much time in the EU, ain't cha.

[Replies From View]

You've over decimalised. Spent too much time in the EU, ain't cha.

I bet he believes all the hype about how many iron filings are in spinach

[MojoJojo]

And is it not the case in cricket that the team with most points wins?

I think so, although there is some business about declaring. And if it gets rained off it's a draw even if one side was clearly ahead.

[touchingcloth]

You've over decimalised. Spent too much time in the EU, ain't cha.

I have? 19.2 x 6 gives 115.2. 6 balls can't be divided evenly into .2.

[touchingcloth]

Why is an "over" more obscure than a "try" or a "conversion?" I don't really understand sport in general, but I vaguely know what an "over" is and have absolutely no clue about the rugby terms. And is it not the case in cricket that the team with most points wins?

It's not that overs are more obscure than tries, it's just that I understand that with tries you get a certain number of points and the team with the most points wins. Cricket seems to have more things than just a single total for each team, so I don't know how to work out who is winning.

Like the England versus Pakistan score from above:

Pakistan 232-6 (20 overs): Babar 85 (49), Rizwan 63 (41)
England 201 (19.2 overs): Livingstone 103 (43), Shaheen 3-30

Is 232-6 (20) better than 201 (19.2)? Why isn't the 201 followed by a hyphen? Are the brackets after (I assume) player names their ages? Negative scores? Why does Shaheen have a dash in the score but no brackets? Who the hell won?

[Paul Calf]

I have? 19.2 x 6 gives 115.2. 6 balls can't be divided evenly into .2.

Its 116 balls.

I think so, although there is some business about declaring. And if it gets rained off it's a draw even if one side was clearly ahead.

Unless it's a one-dayer. Then you can use the Duckwsorth-Lewis tables. Sometimes.

[Paul Calf]

Like the England versus Pakistan score from above:

Pakistan 232-6 (20 overs): Babar 85 (49), Rizwan 63 (41)
England 201 (19.2 overs): Livingstone 103 (43), Shaheen 3-30

Is 232-6 (20) better than 201 (19.2)? Why isn't the 201 followed by a hyphen? Are the brackets after (I assume) player names their ages? Negative scores? Why does Shaheen have a dash in the score but no brackets? Who the hell won?

Is 232-6 (20) better than 201 (19.2)?
Yes. This is a limited-overs match, Pakistan scored 232 for the loss of 6 wickets and ran out of overs. England were all-out for 201 with four balls remaining.

Why isn't the 201 followed by a hyphen?
Because England were all-out so there was no reason to add a wicket tally.

Are the brackets after (I assume) player names their ages?
No. The number of overs they needed to get those runs.

Negative scores? Why does Shaheen have a dash in the score but no brackets?
Because they're bowling figures. Shaheen took three wickets at the cost of 30 runs.

Who the hell won?
Pakistan.

[Replies From View]

what is watching a sport for

[Andy147]

Are the brackets after (I assume) player names their ages?
No. The number of overs they needed to get those runs.

Balls rather than overs.

[Endicott]

I have? 19.2 x 6 gives 115.2. 6 balls can't be divided evenly into .2.

Sorry, I assumed you were doing a bit. 19.2 overs means 19 overs of 6 balls each, plus another 2 balls. 116 balls as Calf mentions. It's a notation, it looks like a decimal, but it's not.