Skip to main content

Manchester Grammar School 4 October

Yesterday I had a record journey time for a talk - 13 hours - but it was by train, so plenty of opportunity to use those hours. I speak at schools once or twice a month, but this was that most strange speaking engagements, going back to my old school.

The route provided by the railway company was a trifle eccentric, taking me via Bristol Parkway (a new and exciting station stop for me) and Birmingham on the way, and via Newport on the way back. I was struck as I waited for the first train of the day how much I hate those automated announcements for slow trains that end with the recorded announcer saying 'I'm sorry for the delay.' It wasn't my train that was late, but even so, who was sorry? The computer that was playing the announcement? The announcer when she recorded the message years ago? Did she have a concentrated bout of compassion, bursting into tears for all the late trains she would apologize for in the future?

Manchester's Piccadilly Station was very different to the way I remembered it - more like an airline terminal than the grubby station I expected - and Manchester itself has changed a lot since those many years ago.

The school itself is more subtly different. I could still find my way round many of the classrooms, and the corridors particularly are as I remember, but there are new buildings, renovations, a place that is simultaneously the same and transformed. I was hosted before the talk by a charming sixth former and had a good sized audience in a lecture theatre that was one of the few places where my memory let me down. I'd been in it many times for choir practices, lectures and the like, but it was noticably smaller than I remembered.

The reception was good for Faster than Light, and it was great to see a contingent from two local girls' schools.

Of all the talks I do in schools, this is the one I'm least happy with - each time I do it differently and one day I'll get it the way I want it. Afterwards some nice questions and a few books signed before a lift back to the station from a long-serving physics teacher. (Not quite long enough to have been there in my time, though my old maths guru Neil Sheldon still is, and very popular I would guess from the questions about him 'back then' from the audience.)

As always the journey back dragged a little, apart from the excitement of a five minute connection at Newport where we arrived 2 minutes after the other train was due to depart. Thankfully they held it. Nothing personal about Newport, but an unplanned night there wasn't a happy thought.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope