He lacks Theresa May's decisive- ness and will for action and has little self- belief in his most key policies. It is no
Agents of Change
Charting the legacy of those whose work outlives them
From the Editor This is the last issue of NewSouthendian in this academic year, and is also the last issue of the school magazine that I will be a part of. This has been my main extra-curricular pursuit for the last two years, and it has been worth every moment, for the experience and skills that I have gained, and also for the chance to work with such a great team - of volunteers, no less. There are things that I hope we have all gained from this year, like feeling part of a team, developing useful skills and creating a product that we are proud of. I am pleased to report that in our survey, there was an overwhelming consensus that we had achieved all of that and more. Interestingly, respondents spoke most highly of the contribution the magazine has made to the school, with 91% strongly agreeing that our work has a positive impact on the SHSB community. NewSouthendian will be an aspect of my time at this school that I will always hold in high regard, and it is perhaps the part of the school that I will miss the most. This editor’s note marks the end of my year as editor-inchief and of my two years as designer of the magazine; the baton will pass in September to a current Year 12 student, supported by many new faces and some old ones, too. As I depart, the magazine leaves its infancy. I wish you all every success in your futures. However, one question remains, of what the future holds for our magazine. As to the answer, only time will tell. Jack Duffield
Editor-in-Chief Jack Duffield Team Editors Annie Zykova Lara Adamczyk PR Co-ordinator Aimée Cole Books and Publishing Correspondent Amelia Cook Environment Correspondent
Camille Meehan Personalities Correspondent Hayden Camm World Correspondent Kristina Kotouckova History Correspondent Luke Mitchell Popular Culture Correspondent
Megan Long Film Correspondent Muhammad Din Cheema Politics Correspondents Matthew England Robbie Spiers Interviewer and PR Correspondent James Green
Inside… All of these titles are clickable! Lenin’s Legacy We compare how the world would be without the first Soviet Leader
The Most Wasteful City in the World The burden of preventing climate change falls unevenly; who is to blame?
Are the Books Always Better Than the Films? NewSouthendian takes a look at a few key cases
The Most Hated Man in America And it’s not who you think!
The Stoke-on-Trent and Copeland By-Elections Our competition winner explains the lessons Labour should have learnt
Lessons from Fake News Can the ‘Fake News’ crisis inform our political future in the UK?
How Important was Shakespeare? William Shakespeare’s influence extends far beyond his plays
Celebrity Endorsements in Politics What is the meaning behind this US trend? NewSouthendian investigates
Beyonce is Making Lemonade There are lessons to be learnt from Beyonce’s award-winning album
The Young Adult Literature Convention A new type of convention breaks onto the UK scene
How Does Britain’s Education Compare? We assess the UK’s performance in international education league tables
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Would the world have been the same without him?
Once the Tsars were overthrown in 1917, Lenin returned to Russia from exile in Switzerland. As the Bolsheviks had to operate underground, he had to enter Russia disguised as an industrial worker. He sneaked in unnoticed. In 1918, two attempts on Lenin’s life were made in the space of seven months, but incredibly, both failed. The first attempt on his life came in January 1918 in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg), outside the Finland train station. A Swiss communist called Fritz Platten took a bullet for him, and Lenin was unhurt. In the second attempt that August, he was shot by a Socialist Revolutionary (at the time, the rival anti -Tsarist peasants’ party to the Bolsheviks in Russia) called Fanny Kaplan, after giving a speech in Moscow. This time the bullets found their target,
Lenin being seriously injured both in his neck and his shoulder. One of his lungs was punctured. But he still survived. To think how the course of history could’ve been altered if he had not had this tremendous luck! Three run-ins with disaster, and he escaped them all. Lenin eventually died in 1924 – though his health had been deteriorating since 1922. Some say the lodged bullets partly caused his ill health. Nevertheless, Lenin’s personal charisma, passion and leadership qualities were immense. Without him, it seems unlikely that communism as a government form would’ve ever got off the ground at all. So what would’ve happened in his absence? Perhaps Trotsky could’ve solely led the Bolsheviks in the
October Revolution and the Civil War. But it seems unlikely – their loyalty to Lenin as an individual was, at times, the only thing that held the Party leaders together. If Lenin had been arrested before the October Revolution, then the Provisional Government, put in place after the Tsar abdicated, would have remained in power. This meant that, unlike Lenin, Russia would’ve probably stuck out the final stages of World War One, rather than withdraw at the start of 1918. And this means that, despite their horrendous performance throughout the war, Russia might just have been able to throttle Germany to defeat on the Eastern Front, simply by out-lasting them, and end the war sooner. Russia may have been able to retain its imperial possessions, and possibly gain territory from the Germans, improving Russia’s position on the world stage significantly over what Lenin managed with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which forced Russia to make huge concessions to Germany. The Provisional Government may have been able to avoid a civil war - without a strong communist party to rival it; it should have been able to crush the Social Revolutionary peasant party and begin economic recovery. But the big knock-on effect here would have been in Germany itself – without Lenin’s USSR, the fear of red revolution there would not have been anywhere near as great. Hitler won the 1933 general election in part because of fear of communism, and he was able to consolidate his power through the state of emergency he declared after the Reichstag Fire – which was started by a Dutch communist. Without a USSR, Hitler’s regime would not have been able to secure itself, and even if it did, he would not have likely invaded an economically stronger and more modern capitalist Russia, than as was historically the case. After all, the
Nazis liked to pretend their Soviet invasion was a crusade against communism, and Hitler genuinely believed that, with the communist society, “You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down!” The Chinese Communist Party would’ve also been massively disadvantaged – there is a good chance they would not have won their civil war, or rebuilt their country, without Soviet help either. A Communist China wouldn’t have lasted. The chances are, then, that there wouldn’t have been a World War Two. Germany would’ve regained its international standing, as it was gradually doing in the 1920s, with or without Hitler. It would have remained unified after 1945. With Russia on equal footing with the West, the great tensions of the Cold War would probably have also been avoided. That would have meant no divided Germany, no Berlin wall, no Eastern Bloc (as it would likely have been under direct Russian control, rather than USSR influence) – and no Cuban Missile Crisis. Through to today – what would the situation be? A lack of extreme ideology in Europe would have made it much more peaceful, but nationalist movements in Russia would have probably reclaimed their countries’ independence.
The wealth inequalities from east to west would not be so great as today, but equally, socialism may not have had as much progress as it did – without communism raising the issue of class conflict, maybe the socialist branch of UK politics, Labour, would not have implemented the welfare state. So, there you have it. We have Lenin to thank for a lot of things, ranging from the Holocaust to your local walk-in GP… Luke Mitchell
Saving the Planet What is the most wasteful city in the world? New York City, Las Vegas, Tokyo: the Countries like Iceland have shown us bright lights and booming streets of that it is possible to keep a country – let these colossal cities attract thousands alone a city – running on environmenof people from across the world. It’s tally friendly methods. easy to get caught up in the exciting bustle of city life, but it’s just as easy to So, what do these megacities actually forget how these astonishing places do to cause so much damage? Tokyo, can have such a drastic effect on our the capital city of Japan, generated environment. 11.9 million metric tons of solid waste Image in just 2011 alone, whilst Mexico City There are many contenders for the title generated 12.2 million metric tons in of ‘the most wasteful city in the world’. the same year, not to mention the Dubbed as megacities, highly populatdamages of other megacities such as ed places like Los Angeles, Cairo and Istanbul, Mumbai, Cairo and Los Mexico City are renowned for their Angeles. catastrophic contribution to our environment. New York City often tops the list of most wasteful cities in the world, in Have you ever walked through Times terms of its damaging contributions to Square, or seen the vibrant Vegas pollution, rubbish and electrical waste. strip? While all those dazzling lights are The city is the largest consumer of impressive, they are monumental energy and water in the world, whilst it contributors to our Earth’s issue of generated a staggering 33.2 million climate change. New York City’s lights metric tons of waste in the year 2011. It burn bright 24 hours a day – hence why generates nearly three times as much we call her ‘the city that never sleeps’ – waste as Mexico City. but the rest of the world pays a price. According to CBC, 76% of New York City’s residential garbage is sent to Other, not so sensational, cities and landfill sites, whilst only a mere 14% is towns in all corners of the world are recycled and the final 10% is converted having to dim their streetlights and cut into energy. back on their usage of electricity, in order to keep cities like New York so It seems that all the statistics point to bright. New York City as the most wasteful city in the world. Our Earth harbours too Arguably, these megacities do need to many of these destructive megacities. use up a lot of resources so that they can keep their vast population running New methods need to be devised and seamlessly on a day to day basis. Yet implicated into these cities so that their there must be a more environmentally damage to the rest of the world can be friendly way to ensure the smooth reduced. So, where would be a good running of city life. For example, in place to start this clean-up process? Iceland, an impressive 100% of their The most wasteful place in the world: electricity comes from renewable New York City. sources, like wind and hydro-power. Camille Meehan
ADVERTISMENT
The Curse of the Film Adaptation
It is a common understanding that films that are based upon books never replicate how good the book is and, therefore, fall short of the book's quality. So, in this article we will see whether that is actually the case or not. Harry Potter This is probably the most popular book to be turned into a successful film series and after reading all the books and watching all the films, I can conclude the books are far superior. The reasons for this are that the books are funnier than the films, some characters don’t appear in the film or have had their personality change, the books explain everything, while the films miss out a lot of detail and also because you understand the main character, Harry, much more, as the book shows a lot of his thoughts much more in depth. The Godfather The Godfather film is seen as one of the greatest films of all time and was produced in 1972 and based upon the book ‘The
Godfather’. It is considered better than its book counterpart as it is seen as a more streamlined story, with breath-taking cinematics. However, the book is also considered very good and fun. Jurassic Park Jurassic Park was a film directed by Steven Spielberg in 1993 and was based on Michael Crichton’s book. When it was first made, it was seen as a great technological achievement, which makes it hard for the novel to compete with life like dinosaurs and we also see that the human characters are also better and more sympathetic, making viewers more invested in their survival. What we can say from this article is that films are not necessarily worse than their books and may in some cases even be better and in fact some books make their name from the film, so it therefore depends on how well the film is made. Muhammad Din Cheema
Martin Shkreli The most hated man in America is an unexpected lesson in PR There are lots of parallels between Shkreli and the current president. They both rode a wave of public (and political) outrage for increased exposure, ignoring its consequences. They both appeal to the same part of the American public, the free market fanatics that are also fed up with the government. Public opinion of both figures is heavily polarised, but Image it's almost fashionable to be seen hating them both. In September of 2015, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Martin Shkreli, raised the price of the drug Daraprim by 4000%, from $18 to $750. The drug was used to treat AIDs and Malaria victims, and he was therefore dubbed 'the most hated man in America'-and this was probably true during the media storm after the event, with even presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump denouncing the price spike and his company. The smug face of a man resisting congress' attempts at humiliating him Recently, however, Shkreli has been growing in popularity. This a combination of the relaxation of the media and a shared dislike of the government. In February 2016, he called the US congress 'imbeciles' and pleaded the fifth amendment to even the simplest of questions, 'Do you think you've done anything wrong?' while smiling along to the Chairman's pleading. This audacious attitude appeals to a lot of the American public. "Being honest and authentic, even if its imperfect, is what Americans like... and its one of the reasons why Donald Trump is our president-elect" Shkreli said in a TV interview.
Trump has made a number of attempts to be seen as "Down to Earth" (' A small loan of a million dollars, for example) and Shkreli frequently advertises his private Wu-tang clan album and his experience in popular online game League of Legends. They make attempts to portray themselves as people just like us, and they aren't always successful, but people seem to like it anyway. The results of these similarities is lots of cash, and lots of influence. Perhaps being the CEO of big-time corporate companies imbues in them these skills or perhaps these qualities led to their position in the first place. A potential explanation for this being a valuable skill is that influence through popularity is not a simple scale - having a wide base of support is more important than a minority that love you. Even if the number of enemies outweigh the allies, they've grabbed enough attention. The rise in popularity of both of these people over the past year is not a co-incidence. The American public want change, and change is seen in anyone audacious and brazen enough to challenge the government. Hayden Camm
This article was the winning entry in our recent in-school competition
Hard Labour
Assessing the impact of the Stoke and Copeland by-elections If the Brexit vote wasn’t a wake-up call to the Labour party then the by-election loss in Copeland, a seat held by Labour since its creation in 1950, should definitely send a serious shock to a party which has lost complete touch with its voters. Internal issues like the clear separation lines between Trotskyite ‘Corbynistas’ and the liberals of the new labour era, continue to hold the party down. The career politicians, a legacy of the Blair government, also continue to fail to recognise the demands of their constitutes and voters with the majority of Labour MPs voting for remain during the EU referendum and continue to resist the triggering of Article 50 despite the fact that most working class and Labour voters voted to leave the European Union. The working classes want Brexit and they want it now, they voted for it for God’s sake, Labour MPs failure to serve gives these people no choice and they will inevitably turn to the party that will get it done, the Conservative party. Theresa May offers the voters what they voted for, no faffing about, get the trade deals done and get article 50 on the road. Labour’s loss of connection with its traditional working class voters who it is meant to represent, could lead to a Conservative dominated government for a generation. Perhaps Labour’s most troubling problem is its leadership in the form Jeremy Corbyn. Or lack of it, by a man who is ultimately losing control of a fractious party. He lacks Theresa May’s decisiveness and will for action and has little selfbelief in his most key policies. It is not very clear either whether Corbyn actually wants to be the new left wing leader of the Labour party which he demonstrated in his leadership campaign and it’s important he
makes his mind up, because Labour voters have lost faith in the traditional New Labour MPs of the last 20 years as the Copeland by-election has revealed clearly. This over-throwing of convention is not exclusive to the Labour Party either, across the world traditional parties are being beaten by radical alternative candidates, Trump in the US and Maréchal -Le Pen in France are shining examples of this global shift of the people. It is clear to me that Labour needs to adapt, whether the party has to be completely destroyed in a general election and totally reshaped then so be it. Labour needs to become radical again, retrace to its socialist roots of the union movement on the railways in the 1920s, and offer voters a party to believe in. Most importantly of all they must provide an opposition to the Conservatives and prevent the current one-horse-race from continuing. They need to be opposite in every sense, not just politically, slogans like ‘redistribute the wealth’ should become used in their election campaign. In essence, the Labour party should become what it hasn’t been for many years, the party of the left. Joe Denny
The ‘Fake News’ Epidemic We explore its implications for Britain The current President of the United States, Donald Trump, has a well pronounced habit of shutting down reporters, excluding certain newspapers, denouncing people as “fake news”, when he disagrees with the content of their questions or reporting, or even when the questions are too difficult for him to answer. While such an attitude may seem innocent, it represents a dangerous undertone lying hidden in the hearts of the Trump Administration. Trump’s will for power is well known; he is an attention seeker far beyond the level of average fourteen year old girls in the 21st century. Naturally, when this attention turns negative, he shuts it down. Like a fourteen year old girl, he calls them names, he deletes them from his accounts and dinner parties, and complains about those news networks to as many people as possible. These tantrums are at times humorous, but the undertone is a dangerous one. On a basic level, it means that criticism of government is avoided or shut down. If the government does something wrong, Donald Trump will not accept it, and will not remedy the mistake. It is the mark of a good leader to be accountable and to accept mistakes, and consequently apply appropriate remedies. But this is not seen in Donald Trump. His supporters, following a cult of personality, reject any criticism that comes from news networks labelled by Trump as ‘fake news’. Criticism is neither heard nor accepted, as CNN is prohibited from attending many White House events and press conferences, where questions from the opposing side is most necessary. When truthful and just criticisms are rejected, all that remains to be heard are lies and
falsehoods, bad policies remain, and good policies are scarcely implemented. Another reason why a President who doesn’t accept questions or news from certain networks is bad is a more serious reason; it ensures that difficult issues and questions that Mr Trump has neither the desire nor capability to answer are not answered or talked about. A good example was seen in a recent press conference in early March 2017, where a reporter asked Trump about anti Semitic crimes - Mr Trump responded by complaining that the question was too difficult, and by simply saying he wasn’t anti Semitic.
Mr Trump’s attitude to the press is one that reflects a wider problem; politicians are becoming increasingly skilled at avoiding questions, and giving vague or meaningless answers. But a President should be willing to answer all questions directly; “this is a problem, this is what we’re doing/are going to do about it”. But perhaps worst of all, Mr Trump’s refusal to talk about specific issues and questions inevitably means that he, and he alone, sets the political agenda - only what he wishes to remain talked about in the political sphere remains talked about. If a journalist criticises him, they are uninvited from future events, and not allowed to ask any more questions. If a news network criticises him, they are shouted down in the middle of press conferences. All issues, however controversial or critical, need to be talked about or debated. It is talking about issues, in a free and competitive market of ideas, that forms the best solutions to political problems. But instead, opposing ideas are shut down under the false label of “fake news”; in doing so, Trump aims to
establish a monopoly on ideas, a situation where issues he does not wish to hear are not raised. Calling someone ‘fake news’ plays into the same style of anti-free speech politics we see on the modern day political left. Many of the ‘regressive left’ shut down opinions they do not wish to hear by labelling opponents as racists, or as bigots, or as sexists, or as a whole arsenal of usually falsely applied labels. Such an attitude undeniably restricts the freedom of speech of individuals, in the same way Trump’s shutting down of certain news networks and news stories as “fake news” restricts the freedom of speech of the press. This freedom is fundamental - it keeps governments accountable to the public, it makes the public aware of when the government is acting wrongly, it is the first line of defence against authoritarianism. When only praise of government is accepted, while criticism is rejected, we see the first bricks in this wall against authoritarians being struck away. I fear that his political rejection of certain news networks and of any criticism of his administration will one day transform into an attempt at full on
legislative rejection as well. Think about what would happen if the United States did not have its Constitution and Bill of Rights protecting the free press and freedom of speech from governments; he could effectively walk all over those fundamental rights at his own discretion. In Britain, we are not so lucky, we have no such back up plan. If a Trump like authoritarian, with an extremely adversarial attitude to the press, were to be elected in Britain - there would be no legal barrier to stop them from totally banning critical newspapers; this illustrates perhaps the best argument on another issue, why Britain needs a codified and entrenched constitution. But to summarise the issue of Mr Trump; his attitude to the press is dangerous - it is a mark of a good President to accept criticism and act on it, it is the mark of a bad President to assume intellectual and political superiority in all areas - Donald Trump needs to change. Matthew England
William Shakespeare Assessing the playwright’s legacy William Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest English-speaking writers of all time, with few others being able to claim the same level of fame or a similar single contribution to the English language, perhaps explaining why he is the most cited English writer of all time. During his 52 year lifetime Shakespeare wrote 37 different plays and over 150 sonnets. He used 15,000 different words in his plays, some of which he even invented himself, compared to only 5,462 different words in the Old Testament, highlighting the sheer range of vocabulary that Shakespeare made use of. This is especially impressive considering that the average non-educated farm labourer at the time supposedly only had a vocabulary of 300 different words (compared to 7,500 for the average English speaker today). It is estimated that Shakespeare alone has contributed 1500-2000 words to the English language, many of which still survive in our language today and are still regularly used. Some of these include words such as ‘monumental’, ‘frugal’, ‘hobnob’ and ‘cold-blooded’. One of the reasons for Shakespeare creating so many of his own words is that during the Elizabethan era the English language was undergoing huge change, evolving slowly from Middle to Modern English. Given how difficult it is for many modern audiences to understand Shakespeare, it is perhaps surprising that his English is classed as Early Modern English, an early form of the English that we speak today, and not the Old English of the Anglo Saxons or the Middle English of writers such as Chaucer
Early Modern English had quite a limited vocabulary compared to today’s English, meaning that Shakespeare had to create new words, or borrow words from foreign languages, in order to get across his meaning. Elizabethan English also had no formalised or standardised written grammar rules, again meaning that Shakespeare was able to experiment much more with language than any modern writer could today. This is perhaps highlighted by the many different ways that people spelt Shakespeare’s name at the time, which included variants such as ‘Shake -speare’, Shak-speare’, ‘Shakespear’, ‘Shagsper’ and ‘Saxpere’. Shakespeare has not only influenced the English language a great deal, but has also inspired many other writers, dramatists and poets. Lines from Shakespeare’s works have been used for the titles of many famous books such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (The Tempest, 5.1) and The Winter of our Discontent by John Steinbeck (Richard III, 1.1). Shakespeare had a huge influence on other writers as well such as Charles Dickens (25 of his books have titles which are derived from the works of Shakespeare). It is easy to see how without Shakespeare the English language may have evolved quite differently. His contribution to our vocabulary, grammar and the way that he inspired other great English writers like Charles Dickens mean that Shakespeare’s influence on our language will be felt for many more years to come. Robbie Spiers
Celebrity Endorsements Political endorsements have a long and rich history in American politics. Endorsements by politicians and interest groups, such as labour unions, business organizations and special interest groups date back to the early 20th Century. Celebrity endorsements have a tradition nearly as long. Historians trace the role of celebrities in politics to the 1920 presidential campaign of Warren Harding, who was endorsed by numerous film stars, including Al Jolson, Lillian Russell, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, and now we see politicians such as Hilary Clinton being endorsed by the likes of Katy Perry and Demi Lovato. Despite many political contests where celebrity endorsements have occurred, there has been little effort to understand what effect these endorsements have on important political outcomes. Perhaps the most staggering example in recent years is Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008. According to recent studies, this endorsement is associated with an increased vote share for Obama of approximately 0.2 percentage points, and a 0.06 percentage point increase in turnout in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Overall, this Image equates to an estimate that the endorsement was responsible for 1,015,559 votes for Obama. It would be reasonable to speculate that this upturn in votes and voter turnout is the reason that we saw such an increase in the number of celebrities providing endorsement in the recent presidential election, particularly for Hillary Clinton. Clinton and her campaign managers observed the impact that Obama’s support from the likes of Oprah had in her previous defeat and clearly felt an imperative to replicate this technique. The likes of Beyonce, Chance the Rapper and Big Sean performed at concerts for Clinton, Katy Perry put in an appearance at the Democratic National Convention, and Madonna held a surprise rally. This all culminated in creating the perception that
the majority of Hollywood supported Clinton, and since many of the general public see them as a barometer for a fairly respectable opinion, it was assumed that this would aid Hillary greatly. However, as we know, it did not. Hillary ultimately lost the Presidential race, and although she won the public vote, it could be argued that her vote share was too highly concentrated in the more “celebrity -crazed” areas such as California. Indeed, it may be that celebrity endorsements do not provide as much of an impact as Clinton, her campaign leaders and the media had, at first, predicted. Donald Trump won due to voters in neglected America – people who felt their voices were not being heard – rather than voters who buy into mainstream media. Clinton’s issue was far higher than who endorsed who, but rather an issue with the political landscape of America that had been building up for some time. Therefore, the impact of these celebrity endorsements is minute when compared with the larger political issues occurring in a country, and so cannot be deemed unfair. Megan Long
Making Lemonade You may well be familiar with the title above. It is a proverbial phrase used to encourage optimism and a positive can-do attitude in the face of adversity or misfortune, and let’s be honest, we all need some of that in our daily lives.
hopeless and you come to the point of thinking, your life is terrible, you hate it, and you wish you had another life.
These feelings and emotions, are naturally occurring in everyone’s mind, as statically proven, we Image I am almost 99% positive that humans have anywhere from 12, 000 throughout your life, you stumbled to 60, 000 thoughts per day, while upon situations which were disdain80% of these thoughts are negative. ful, and hurtful, and while you were It is amazing to think, that if 80% of struggling at building up the effort our own thoughts are negative we and stamina to carry on, people naturally don’t look for only happiaround you were having a problem ness in our world, we always lack free life, making it that much harder that aspect of our lives because as for you. In that very moment, you feel humans we do not input effort into
municative and untruthful circumstances with her well- known husband JayZ, as soon reported had an affair with another actress. Life gave Beyoncé lemons, which could have destroyed her marriage and potentially her life, yet, Beyoncé proved her high threshold to pain and suffering, she used it to her own advantage, and using her highly favourable skills, she created one of her greatest albums called ‘Lemonade’. We can see straight from the title her aim; create a can- do attitude. Yet, she created one not only for her, but for people all over the world, so they could ease their suffering, by being able to relate, and gain inspiration.
thinking about how to live more happily, we think of what would make us happy, yet these ideas are surrealwe idealise things we do not have but we want. One astonishing real life situation was when the world-famous singer, actress and dancer; Beyoncé, found herself in a life changing situation. We may believe that famous people would not stumble into these type of situations, they have money, and everything we could possibly want, yet it is not like that in reality. Beyoncé, or as some know her ‘Queen B’ found herself in 2014 in an uncom-
In the most recent 2017 Grammy Awards, Beyoncé motivated the crowds watching, with an inspiration, while at the same time emotional speech; “We all experience pain and loss and often we become inaudible. My intention for the film and album was to create a body of work that will give a voice to our pain, our struggles, our darkness and our history, to confront issues that make us uncomfortable” Abraham Lincoln once said,” Most folks are about as happy as they want to be.” Was he implying that, when it comes to our happiness, we have a choice? Apparently, yes. Kristina Kotouckova
Summer at YALC NewSouthendian considers a different kind of festival Despite the looming exams of May and June, when many of us think about the summer months we’re obsessed with the variety of events that are available. Some people may enjoy the atmosphere of a music festival, but there are others who value the air-conditioned halls of a convention centre. The most popular of these events is London Film and Comic Con (LMCC) which is being held from 28th-30th July this year. Obviously, the main attraction is the famous actors and limited memorabilia but did you know there’s a whole floor dedicated to books? The Young Adult Literature Convention (or YALC, if you prefer) take up one floor of the Olympia London venue where LMCC is held. If you’ve ever been to LMCC or a similar event you’ll be used to the crowds of peo-
ple who swarm every booth and stage. However, when you step into the YALC area there’s an ambiance of quiet and calm as people discuss and buy books amongst themselves. There are plenty of people at YALC to talk to about the books you love and hate, but it’s not just an excuse for a good conversation – there’s plenty more for you to experience! Just as in LMCC there are queues to get signatures from actresses and actors, at YALC the queues wind around the exhibition hall for the men and women who write the books people are so passionate about. Often, authors are willing to answer questions about the plot, their characters and writing process when you get your books personalised by them, which allows you as the reader to become fully immersed in the world they’ve created. If you’re not really
interested in personalised book inscriptions, then perhaps the panels of authors will be more to your tastes! In 2015 some of the panels included discussions on being a young author, representation of mental health and how to write fantasy. Many of these discussions tend to focus on a theme that is present within different books as opposed to one single novel and those involved with the process. This means that you get to hear from a variety of authors speaking about their books. Most people will turn up to hear one author speak and come away with plenty of new recommendations. As you’re at the convention you may as well pick up those recommendations whilst you’re there. The entirety of YALC is sponsored by Waterstones and they even have their own little shop within the convention. They stock all of the books by the authors that are at the event as well as many more. Some of these books will have been signed by the authors as they pass-by or in bulk before the event starts so, if you don’t feel like waiting in line this provides a perfect opportunity to acquire a signed book for a reasonable price. Waterstones aren’t the only ones selling books at YALC, though, there’s also many publishing houses promoting their best and newest books for cheaper prices. Publishers such as Bloomsbury and Penguin will have deals available so that buying multiple books at once works out at a reasonable price. It’s highly recommended that you bring a large bag to put all of your purchases in! If you’re lucky you may be able to pick up advanced copies of books that have yet to be published. This means you’ll be one of the select few to receive a free edition of a book that is highly anticipated or just sounds like a good read. This type of book copy cannot be sold or
bought so you’ll always have a souvenir of your trip unless you pass it on to a friend to share the story further. Speaking of souvenirs, the amount of free postcards, badges and bookmarks you’ll pick up may need a whole bag of their own as publishers and authors alike will be passing out free promotional items. Whilst reading may be the occupation of many, some people who attend YALC don’t seek the stacks of books but the publisher corner. As well as selling books, publishers also hold workshops in a designated area throughout the three days of the convention. This means that any aspiring writers have the possibility to talk to people in the industry about how to get published. There’s helpful information about agents from how to hire one to how to become one. The book industry is full of a variety of different positions so even if you don’t think you’re interested, it’s always worthwhile taking a closer look at what’s on offer. This slightly calmer day trip may offer a small reprieve from the busy summer. Therefore, when exams are over, maybe you’ll consider heading to YALC this summer as well as the outside events that so many enjoy. After all, it’s England – we’re sure to have at least one rainy day for you to spend inside! Whilst YALC may not be for everyone, it does offer a small reprieve from the busy summer and suggest something new that you probably haven’t tried before. Once exams are over, perhaps you’ll consider heading there this year so you can experience it for yourself. After all, it’s held during the English summer, the chances are it’ll be raining outside anyway. You might as well stay dry at YALC. Amelia Cook
A British Education How do we stack up against the world? In recent years, the British education system has been proving itself to be in decline, with overall achievement of UK students dropping in the world rankings. Although there are many organisations who track the academic demographics of teenagers across the world, perhaps the most well-known method of testing young people on their academic performance is the Programme for International Student Assessment (otherwise known as PISA), run by OECD. The PISA tests are examinations which aim to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students from 72 countries. The aim is to compare the success of different education systems across the world
by testing teenagers in maths, reading and science. So how well are UK students doing compared to the rest of the world? In 2016, these were the results: Maths 27th (slipping down a place since the last PISA test conducted in 2013. This is the lowest score that the UK has achieved since it began participating in the PISA tests in 2000). Reading 22nd (up one place since 2013, but having fallen out of the top 20 in 2006) Science 15th (the UK’s most successful subject, up from 21st place since 2013. Although this is the highest rank the UK has obtained since 2006, the test score has still declined).
Therefore, it would be fair to say that there is room for improvement in our education system, so which countries should we be turning to for advice on how to educate the next generation for the challenges of the modern world? Among the best countries across the three subjects are China (especially Hong Kong), Taiwan, Estonia, Finland, South Korea and Japan. However, with the astonishing result of first place across all three subjects is Singapore. The logical question, therefore, would be: what is it about the Singaporean education system that made it the peak of modern educational success? Andreas Schleicher (OECD statistician) said that Asian countries such as Singapore managed to achieve excellence without wide differences between children from wealthy and disadvantaged families. Prof Sing Kong Lee, vice-president of Nanyang Technological University, which houses Singapore's National Institute of Education, said a key factor had been the standard of teaching, stating that "Singapore invested heavily in a quality teaching force - to raise up the prestige and status of teaching and to attract the best graduates,". The country places extremely high demands on teacher recruitment; its teachers come from the top 5% of graduates in a system that is highly centralised. This is because a much higher proportion of university graduates intend to go into the teaching profession, as it is one of the best-paid and stable jobs on the market, hence there is much greater competition to become a teacher, consequently raising the overall quality of teaching in Singapore. All teachers are trained at the National Institute of Education,
and Prof Lee said this single route ensured quality control and that all new teachers could "confidently go through to the classroom". However, Prof Lee stressed that the country’s educational success required many years of hard work through a consistent, long-term approach, sustained over decades. Some basic key features of the country’s education system are: A blend of Eastern and Western teaching approaches. The philosophy of “teaching is talking and learning is listening” Large sums of money(£109m between 2003-2017) invested in the education system Large emphasis on ideas such as: nation-building through meritocracy, ethnic pluralism, collective values and social cohesion. Of course, there are many other factors that are “not written on paper” that still play a vital role in a country’s success, most of these being cultural, such as the country’s history, mentality and traditions. Would it truly be possible for a Singaporean-style education system in the UK to produce the same outstanding results? Annie Zykova
