No Country for Old Men

Ok, first-off, sorry for that rather ambiguous title and, secondly, my explanation: what I really want to discuss is whether or not students should have part-time jobs.

As a student going into her second year of university next term, flying the parental coop in less than two months and obtaining her first proper job on Monday, I’ve began to think about the consequences of moving out of that comfortable home-life and balancing work with studying.

Firstly, I could argue that, even though I am a full-time student, I’m only committed to spending -on a busy week- twelve hours in either lectures or seminar groups; therefore, I shouldn't have any problem working in 20 hours of work per week to that oh-so-hectic schedule. I'm fully aware that, alongside going along to campus for my twelve hours of teaching time, I must do a lot of extra reading, revising, essay-writing, and researching on my own time, but would having a job really reduce this time? If so, would it have SUCH an effect on my studies? Further, is it then even worth getting a job to save me from that stereotypical-student-nightmare of supermarket own-brand beans?

I'd argue for the job on this one, I’m afraid, and that's not just because I’m slightly high-maintenance either. I don't think that fitting in 20 hours of work into my week would have any great effect; infact, I’d argue it would motivate me more - albeit that that may just be because of my personality (my "self" - that's another topic for another day...) However, I do believe that having something (i.e.: a job) in concurrence with 12 hours of teaching time per week and spending what feels like eternity shackled to a library desk (or, worse, frazzling away a student loan in Starbucks) can only be beneficial to a 19 year old in regards to a) helping organize time, b) giving some sense of purpose to life and c) to help with that slight niggling matter of money!

Or course, there will be (because there always is/are) a person or persons who believe that being a student is a full-time job in itself, and I probably should add that if it were the case that the university were paying me for my "full-time job" then I’d be one of the first to agree with these people on the hard-ships and gruelling hours us students endure [please note the heavy sarcasm]. So, you can probably tell that I don't think that being a student (esp. a second year arts student) is very much like hard work and it's not that I’m exceptionally intelligent or anything along those lines: it's just because that's the truth.

Whatever is the correct answer, if there can be one at all, then I just hope I’m making the right decision by working whilst studying. In all honestly, if I didn't chose to take part-time work then life wouldn't be all that rosy because I’d feel I was struggling to pay my rent and to buy food - unfortunately, I, and copious amounts of other students, am not lucky enough to have parents who could pay these things for me, which really leaves me with no alternative but to work. However, I chose not to dwell on these small matters in life, but to celebrate them and to see the advantages and benefits of being a working class girl stranded in a very middle class world.

... everyones favourite Tory MP decided that he wanted to re-create a photo from the Smiths album (The Queen is Dead). Yes, we could only be speaking of one man here; not content on bombarding the nation with his ethical views on the planet, annoying us all with his smug-ness by having a wind-turbine attached to the roof of his house and, then, challenging the British public to "hug a hoodie", David Cameron decided that he was going to clash heads with Labour's very own Hazel Blears over, of all things, a photograph.

To generally sum up the situation, he wanted (as stated above) to re-create a photo from the cover of a Smith's album (why? God knows why. I'm sure we all said exactly the same thing when he encouranged us all to hug some hoodies. Actually, i can't remember hearing of an explaination for that one...). So, anyhow, David announces that he's going to Salford - the Salford Lads' Club - so as to let the local MP know that he's coming, and then (shock-horror) when David arrives there is a protest in action because it turns out that Ms Blears (that local MP that we mentioned above) and the people of Salford don't really want David to have a picture because, in all honesty, he's a Tory.

However, David wasn't happy with his picture inside Salford Lads' Club because that's not what he came for; he wanted a picture outside the Club, just like the Smiths (and we all know that what David wants, David must get!) At this point, as most of us would, he should have just given up like the "responsible adult" that he is but oh no... not Mr Cameron. At this point I have to point out, much to my disdain, that Hazel Blears did do a bit of rubbing David's nose in it by taking her own picture and sending it to him, but only to keep the argument fair you have to understand. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that David, unable to get around not telling Hazel he was coming and not able to go without telling her, waited until she took a day off and then went and had his picture taken.

After reading that article in the Sunday Times (and pondering for a few moments at why it was in there) I had an overwhelming feeling to tell someone how much I dislike this man; however, and at the same time, I found it all rather funny.

I am, in all respects, arguing that he's a complete idiot and I have to pose the question to anyone who may read this: would you want this man, in all his cycling, hoodie-loving, wind-turbine glory, to run the country? Could we trust this man with our money, our health service, our whole little British world? I can tell you this, it makes me wonder; further, as a Scot who's not overtly keen on the Nationalisation of Scotland, i've recently started to question my ethics on that particular topic for, if anything, a way out of Cameron-land if he suceeds as PM next time around!

I was browsing through YouTube and stumbled across a rather, let's say, interesting video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSLWwI3tRxY

This really did provoke my lazy student mind to start thinking about the relevancy of medieval history, especially in a modernist society like our own with -let us be honest here- not a huge percentage of people who are genuinely interested in the past and, more specificately, interested in the Middle Ages. Yes, without doubt, we still involve ourselves in many of the same things that our medieval ancestors did, and yes also to the fact that, with regards to religion and money, we still carry with us some of the same interests and concerns about our world. However, ideologies have changed, infact, the world has changed (arguably one could say completely)and it is progressively changing all the time, thus we find ourselves moving further and further away from that (awesome) period in history. So, is it possible that one day in the not so distant future we will change so much and become so modernist that it will be fairly impossible to comprehend the Middle Ages and its people? Is it possible that as our world and its people change further (and possibly more so and more quickly than in the previous 70/80 years) that we will be able to sustain an interest in a time that seems so very distant? Will there always be people who find the Middle Ages relevant?