An Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Welshman, a Ghurkha, a Latvian, a Turk, an Aussie, two Kiwis, a German, an American, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Mexican, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Pole, a Lithuanian, a Swede, a Finn, an Israeli, a Dane, a Romanian, a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Singaporean, an Italian, a Norwegian, a Libyan, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist and an Ethiopian went to a night club.
The bouncer said, “Sorry, I can’t let you in without a Thai.”
Follow @telescoperUp early again this morning, I thought I’d do a quick post because I just remembered that there’s a bit of a loose end I’ve left dangling for a week or so owing to my recent indisposition.
I posted about 10 days ago about my week as “responsible person” for the School of Physics & Astronomy at Cardiff University owing to the absence of all the really responsible people on their respective vacations. By sheer coincidence my week in charge spanned the day that A-level results were announced and therefore the period during which we finalised this year’s UCAS admissions process. I had thought this might be quite a stressful time because rather late in the day we were given a significant increase in funded student numbers by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) which made it necessary for us to enter the clearing system to find the extra students.
As it turned out however the prospective students to whom we’d made offers paid back our confidence in them and a large fraction got the necessary grades. We did go into clearing, but only briefly, to pick up a relatively small number of unattached applicants who matched our criteria. I’m happy to report, therefore, that we’ve got a very healthy intake of 120 students this year, up by about 30 on last year. That’s exactly the increase we had planned for and we can cope with it without making drastic changes, such as increasing the size of tutorial groups, that would remove the personal touch that makes this such a pleasant School to work and, I hope, study in.
The hard work done all year round by admissions teams in University departments tends to be drastically undervalued, so I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Carole Tucker for doing such a great job for the School of Physics & Astronomy, ably supported by Nicola Hunt. Where we’d be without them I don’t know.
Modesty forbids me, of course, from pointing out who was acting Head of School while this all came to fruition, and who therefore really deserves the credit….
Follow @telescoperI heard today that Chief Scientific Advisor to the Welsh Government, John Harries, has called for Welsh universities to be more “predatory” in attracting “star researchers” to Wales. At first sight I thought that sounded like good news for astronomy, but reading the article more closely I realise that’s not what he meant!
The point is that, according to the BBC article, Welsh universities currently only attract about 3% of the UK’s research funding whereas the famous Barnett formula allocates Wales about 5% of the total in other areas of expenditure. Nobody involved in research would argue for funds to be allocated on any other basis than through quality, so there’s no clamour for having research funding allocated formulaically a là Barnett; the only way to improve the success rate is to improve the quality of applications. John Harries suggests that means poaching groups from elsewhere who’ve already got a big portfolio of research grants…
The problem with that strategy is that it’s not very easy to persuade such people to leave their current institutions, especially if they’ve already spend years acquiring the funding needed to equip their laboratories. It’s not just a question of moving people, which is relatively easy, but can involve trying to replace lots of expensive and delicate equipment. The financial inducements needed to fund the relocation of a major research group and fight off counter-offers from its present host are likely to be so expensive that the benefit gained from doing this takes years to accrue, even they are successful.
I agree with Prof. Harries that Welsh universities need to raise their game in research, but I don’t think this “transfer market” approach is likely to provide a solution on its own. I think Wales needs a radical restructuring of research, especially in science, across the whole sector, which I think is unacceptably complacent about the challenges ahead.
For a start, much more needs to be done to identify and nurture younger researchers, i.e. future research stars rather than present ones. Most football clubs nowadays have an “academy” dedicated to the development of promising youngsters, so why can’t we do a similar thing for research? Research groups in different Welsh universities also need to develop closer collaborations, and perhaps even full mergers, in order to compete with larger English institutions.
More controversially I’d say that the problem is not being helped by Welsh universities continuing to be burdened by the monstrous bureaucracy and bizarre practices of the Research Excellent Framework, which allocates “QR” research funds according to priorities set by HEFCE in a way that reflects the thinking of the Westminster parliament. The distribution of QR funding in Wales, which is meant to supplement competitive grant income from UK funding bodies, should be decided by HEFCW in line with Welsh strategic priorities. Wales would be far better off withdrawing from the REF and doing its own thing under the auspices of the Welsh Assembly Government.
What I’m saying is that I’ve got nothing against Welsh universities trying to entice prominent research leaders here; we’ve recently tried (unsuccessfully) to do it here in the School of Physics & Astronomy at Cardiff University, in fact. But in the current funding climate it’s not easy to persuade their current institutions to let them go. In any case, I don’t think parachuting in a few high-profile individuals will in itself solve the deep-rooted problems of the Welsh university system. A longer term strategy needs to be found.
Scotland already punches above its weight in terms of research income for its universities and there’s no reason why, in the long run, Wales can’t do likewise.
Follow @telescoperI don’t know why it’s taken me so long to get around the posting this piece, but I suppose it’s better late than never. It’s by the brilliant trio led by Paul Motian (drums) and featuring Joe Lovano on tenor sax with Bill Frisell on guitar. The album it’s taken from is called Trioism, which was recorded in 1993. I’ve picked this particular track to put up as a taster because it’s entitled Cosmology, which just happens to be my day job…
Follow @telescoperNews filtered through recently that the cost of the James Webb Space Telescope, which is already threatened with cancellation owing to cuts in NASA’s budget, is now estimated to be around $8.7 billion dollars, about $2.2 billion higher than previous figures. In fact about a decade ago, when I was a lad, and chair of the old PPARC Astronomy Advisory Panel, the price tag of the NGST (Next Generation Space Telescope), as it was then called, was put at significantly less than one billion dollars.
The implications of cancelling JWST are profound on both sides of the Atlantic. As Mark McCaughrean explains in detail over on the e-astronomer, the European Space Agency has already made a substantial investment in JWST and planned future contributions include the launch and substantial operating costs. The instrument development is nearly finished, but whether there will actually be a telescope to put instruments on remains to be seen. It’s clear that this, together with previous unilateral decisions by NASA, is putting some strain on the relationship with ESA.
There were many who reacted to the initial suggestion that JWST should be cancelled by arguing that it was mere political posturing by Republicans in the House of Representatives and that it could and would be reversed if appropriate campaigning took place. To this end there has been, e.g., a letter to the White House Science Advisor (here for non-US astronomers and there for US ones). There’s also been a letter of support from the President of the Royal Astronomical Society. NASA’s administrators have also apparently come up with a plan to divert funds from other projects to support it. These efforts notwithstanding I get the distinct feeling that cancellation of JWST is a very real prospect and it goes without saying that the chances of avoiding it are not helped by the increased estimated expense.
I’ve talked about this to a number of astronomers and cosmologists over the summer and found very mixed views not only about (a) whether JWST will be cancelled or not but also about (b) whether it should be cancelled or not. Even astronomers have expressed exasperation with the spiralling cost of JWST and pointed out that if we had known a decade ago that it would take so long and involve such an outlay then it would never have gone ahead in the first place.
So let me try a straw poll:
Follow @telescoperUgh. I seem to have come down with a nasty bug, which started as the sorest of sore throats but has since broadened its ambitions. Not very nice, particularly since I’ve got a lot on my plate this week.
I have a feeling this may be a consequence of sitting in the rain for several hours on Saturday. The trip I mentioned in yesterday’s post was, in fact, to London SE11 in order to catch the Third Day’s play in the Fourth (and final) Test between England and India at The Oval. It’s been a long time since I was last there – about twenty years, in fact – and I’d almost forgotten the contrast between Kennington and St John’s Wood. Cricket at Lord’s is an altogether posher affair than at The Oval, you see. It’s also rather harder to get to from Paddington.
Anyway, I left Cardiff early and managed to meet up with an old pal (who still lives in South London and who got the tickets) in good time to get into the ground for the 11am start. It was quite sunny when proceedings opened with England resuming their first innings on 457-3 and looking to push on quickly. Within half an hour they lost the nightwatchman, James Anderson, quickly followed by Eoin Morgan. Bell and Bopara then put together a fine partnership until Ian Bell’s magnificent innings of 235 came to a close with England on 548-6. Matt Prior chipped in with 18 to take the score to 591-6 at lunch.
I reckoned England would probably want to score around 650 before declaring, but unfortunately the weather intervened and made this calculation irrelevant. It starting raining during the interval and didn’t really clear until about half past four. Play eventually resumed at 16.50, with time added on to make up for the disruption. Meanwhile, England declared – a wise decision, taken to ensure England would have enought time to bowl India out twice – so it was the tourists who came out to bat when play resumed.
In the first over, Sehwag hit two fours off Anderson and was then out lbw, with India 8-1, which soon became 13-2 as Laxman departed, caught behind the wicket. Tendulkar then arrived to the customary standing ovation and together with Dravid kept England’s fast bowlers at bay for a time.
But then, with the shadows lengthening, there followed one of the most fascinating hours of Test cricket I’ve ever seen. Graham Swann was introduced into the attack and immediately generated exceptional bounce and turn. He troubled both batsman until, with the score on 68, Tendulkar played a rash sweep shot which caught the top edge and dollied up a simple catch to James Anderson. In came the hapless Raina who looked all at sea. In fact he faced 29 balls without scoring a single run; he fell stumped, both literally and metaphorically. At 93-4 and with about 15 minutes to play, India sent in Sharma to play the role of nightwatchman.
At this stage England were smelling blood and had fielders around the bat like vultures waiting for the kill. I haven’t seen such attacking fields for an offspinner since watching old films of Jim Laker bowling at the Australians. Every ball looked dangerous. Sharma didn’t survive long under the pressure. When he departed, for 1, that brought in the Indian captain Dhoni to partner the imperturbable Raul Dravid to the close at 103-5. India looked demoralised, England jubilant.
And with that I legged it back to Paddington and thence back home to Cardiff. A long day, good at both ends but with a damp patch in the middle.
POSTSCRIPT. India recovered well to score 300 all out in their first innings, but that wasn’t enough to avoid the follow-on. They got a better start in the 2nd innings, but once again Tendulkar failed to get his 100th international century – just, this time; he was out for 91. Thereafter India collapsed hideously to 283 all out. England won by an innings and 8 runs, and completed a clean sweep. I wouldn’t have dared predict a 4-0 victory at the start of the series, but as it turned out England completely overwhelmed India.
And that’s the last Test cricket of this fascinating summer….
Follow @telescoperI was out all day yesterday – of which more, perhaps, anon – but, as I usually do when I get an early train, I bought copy of the Saturday Guardian so that I could do the Prize Crossword during the journey.
When I settled into my seat and opened the paper I found quite a nice Araucaria puzzle which I completed in about 30 minutes. However, I noticed that the usual name and address bit for prize entries was missing and then it dawned on me that the number (25405) didn’t tally. Then the true enormity of the situation dawned on me – The Grauniad had erroneously printed Friday’s puzzle again in the Saturday newspaper. That’s the second time in as many weeks that the Guardian has messed up the crossword. After the last debacle you’d think they would have been a bit more careful.
Curiously the state of the Guardian’s crosswords preyed on my mind all day and developed into a full-blown mid-life crisis worthy of Reggie Perrin. I had a dawning realisation that so many of the things I do every day I do not because I enjoy them particularly but because they have become habits. The Guardian crossword is just one example. I started doing it over 20 years ago, and have won the prize seven or eight times over the years, but actually there have been very few in recent years that I enjoyed very much.
Part of the reason for this is that I started doing the excellent Azed puzzle in the Observer set by Jonathan Crowther. The Azed clues are not only extremely clever but also unfailingly sound in both grammar and syntax. The chance to submit your own clues to the monthly competition makes you realise how difficult it is to be both artful and rigorous. It’s a bit like how playing snooker on a full size table – which is impossibly difficult – leads you to appreciate even more the immense skill of the professional player. The other side of this is, of course, that it tends to raise your awareness of defects in other puzzles.
The Guardian’s puzzles have never been as strict as Azed, or others who follow in the steps of the great Ximenes, which is fair enough because they simply offer a different challenge. Araucaria, for example, remains popular because of his wonderful sense of humour – he’s one of the few setters who can make me laugh out loud – but the liberties he takes in some of his clues are enough to make me cringe. Unfortunately, the latest generation of setters include many who offer poorly constructed clues without the entertainment value to compensate. Frankly, I find most of them tedious. What I’m saying is that I’ve become a crossword snob.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, after realising the Guardian’s error yesterday I decided to experiment by (for the first time in my life) buying the Independent. Lo and behold, not just a very nice crossword indeed by Nestor but also a slightly trickier one in the supplement called Inquisitor.
So I’ve decided it’s time to stop buying the Saturday Guardian and switch to the Independent. The actual Guardian newspaper is a mess on Saturday’s anyway, lots of tedious supplements I never read, and there’s a big overlap in content with the Sunday Observer, not surprisingly given that they’re produced by the same people. The Independent is a neat tabloid format and I found the content refreshingly different from the Guardian. It’s quite a lot cheaper too. I may still have a go at the Guardian crossword occasionally – they’re all available free on the web – but I’m not going to buy the paper any more.
“Out with the old, in with the new” is the idea. There are a few other things I could apply that to, come to think of it…
Follow @telescoperPeople often accuse us cosmologists of making shit up, but at least we’re not as bad as cosmetologists (with whom we’re sometimes confused, at least in America)…
Follow @telescoperI’m up early and going to be out of here for the day, so here’s a bit of music to keep you going. It’s another of Charlie Parker‘s variations on the blues in F, this time called Now’s the Time. It’s definitely one of the bluesiest of Bird’s blues, and indeed it’s quite close to the usual 12-bar chord progression:
| F7| F7| F7 |F7 | B♭7| B♭7| F7| F 7| C7| B♭7| F7| F7|
In fact this goes – if I’ve heard it right –
| F7| F7 | F7| F7| B♭7| B♭7|F7| D7| Gmi| C7| F7| C7|
No doubt people will correct* me for having cloth ears if I’m wrong but in any case it’s an all-time classic, so enjoy!
*Indeed so, and a more accurate set of changes that has been suggested to me is
F7|Bb7|F7|Cmi7 F7| Bb7|Bb7|F7|D7#9| Gmi7|C7|F7 D7|Gmi7 F7|
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 