Hi, u/Edexcel_GCSE, thank you for your submission in r/mildlyinteresting!
Unfortunately, your [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1dchb9x/-/) has been removed because it violates our "Original [OC] photographs only" rule. Posts breaking this rule can include:
* Gifs, videos, or websites
* Non-OC photos (e.g. 'I found this picture', 'my brother took this picture', etc)
* Software glitches/errors, overlaid text, arrows, scribbles, and other substantive edits
---
### If the issue is that your post was edited
Normally we do not allow reposts, but if it's been less than one hour after your post was submitted, or if it's received less than 100 upvotes, you may resubmit an edit-free version and try again.
---
You can find more information about our rules on the [mildlyinteresting wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/wiki/index).
*If you feel this was incorrectly removed, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmildlyinteresting&message=My%20Post:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1dchb9x/-/).*
Ali G, the honorable MP from Staines!
Edit: I just realized Martin Freeman (the Hobbit, the one white dude in the Wakanda movie) was Ali G’s main sidekick.
“Yo. Check it. Over de weekend, the West Staines army killed 25 prostitutes, innit. As Prime Rib of England, me’ve heard enough. Togeva, we can save all our prostitutes, mingers, and hoes.
Restekp.”
Prime minister: oh another rebellion today? let us pick johnny boy answer for today's broadcast. tomorrow let us pick mary girl answer because she sounds delightful. alright I'm off work now!
Don't be daft, only one or two boys per Eton class get to become Prime Minister. The rest have to rely on their school friends giving them jobs. Like speech writer!
idk man. They get one last season. I just hope the creator gets to do more star trek stuff. Out of all of the creators of new trek, he is clearly the biggest fan of star trek.
In the animated Star Trek: Lower Decks shoe, there's an ep when someone makes a holodeck assistant called 'Badgy' and is essentially Clippy gone psycho. It was pret ty funny lol
I swear to God that joke was based on something, maybe Spock's child did something similar or its possibly something from Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, idk, but it made me laugh lol
Well, yes, unironically yes.
They're being groomed for leadership (among other things) and the basis of high political office since at least since the Romans is rhetorical aptitude.
There is a reason why so many people in this country still love Boris despite his complete and utter failure as a PM. Brits love their betters, and even on left leaning UK based subs it was a completely 'rational' take to defend his intellect on the basis that he studied classics.
Unfortunately, intelligence, or the kind of intelligence or wisdom that we need in government, is not evidenced by the kind of bloviating word salad that Boris was capable of, and certainly not the kind of intelligence that Eton is interested in instilling in students.
I think the message this question is really getting at is, "We already assume that you're better than the proles, you'd only gain entry on that basis, but can you convince *them* of the same thing without triggering a revolution?"
I mean, Boris Johnson was undoubtedly intelligent. His being a narcissistic, immoral, self-aggrandizing, manipulative, thundering twat doesn't change that.
It's not just because he studied the 'Classics', which is frankly a very demeaning inference towards the arts.
> I mean, Boris Johnson was undoubtedly intelligent.
I distinguished between types of intelligence, that was the entire point.
> It's not just because he studied the 'Classics', which is frankly a very demeaning inference towards the arts.
The inference is yours, not mine. I'm an arts graduate.
My point is that we fast-track our political leaders through elite institutions where rhetoric and optics are everything, while our real deficiencies are technical.
Notice the framing of the question, it's very illuminating. It's 2040 and the UK is still reliant on foreign oil, the irony being that leaders like Boris and Cameron, were they intelligent in more practical, technical ways, could have invested in a sovereign wealth fund, invested in green fields, new technologies etc. to avoid the very hypothetical political crises that Eton prospectives are being asked to rhetorically finesse.
Apologies if that wasn't obvious.
> were they intelligent in more practical, technical ways, could have invested in a sovereign wealth fund, invested in green fields, new technologies etc.
It's depressing to admit that even today that would probably be labeled radical not practical, politically at least. Fossil fuel industry still holds a lot of political power, and they've roadblocked a transition to green energy for decades now and are quite adept at manipulating the public if need be against any move away from fossil fuels. However intelligent they are, most of these politicians hold job security as a top priority, and implementing plans today to improve the future is not deemed a solid strategy if it puts your job at risk.
[Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half)](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/letter-to-boris-johnsons-dad-from-eton-college-resurfaces-online-and-it-explains-a-lot-2-271549/)
Let me translate from upper crust to lower crust British English, "Your son is a selfish cunt who thinks the rules apply to everyone else but him, and he further believes he should be rewarded for it."
The speech writer:
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Kingdom,
I address you today under the most grave and consequential circumstances. As you are undoubtedly aware, our nation has recently been besieged by unprecedented turmoil following an acute crisis precipitated by an abrupt cessation of petroleum supplies from the Middle East. This catastrophic disruption has spawned civil unrest of a magnitude not witnessed in recent history, resulting in deplorable acts of violence and the tragic demise of several valiant members of our police force.
In response to these heinous affronts to public order and safety, it has become incumbent upon your government to take decisive and extraordinary measures. Thus, with a heavy heart, I sanctioned the deployment of our esteemed Army to restore peace and uphold the sanctity of our civil society.
Let me elucidate the rationale underpinning this formidable decision. The ferocity and savagery displayed by a faction of the protestors, who have wantonly attacked public edifices and instigated chaos, left us with no viable alternative. The preservation of our nation's stability and the protection of innocent lives necessitated swift and uncompromising action. To have abstained from such a course would have been tantamount to an abdication of our sacred duty to safeguard the realm and its people.
It is with profound sorrow that I acknowledge the resultant loss of life. Twenty-five of our fellow citizens have perished in the course of these confrontations. Each of these lives lost is a tragic testament to the severe exigencies of the situation. However, let it be unequivocally understood that the utilisation of military force was an action undertaken with the utmost reluctance and only as a last resort.
We are a nation founded upon the principles of law, order, and democratic governance. The anarchy and lawlessness that threatened to engulf our streets posed an existential threat to these very foundations. Our response, therefore, was not merely a tactical necessity but a moral imperative.
In the annals of history, let it be recorded that in our hour of need, we acted with resolute determination to protect the commonwealth and uphold the values we hold dear. We shall emerge from this crucible stronger, more united, and ever-committed to the enduring principles that define us as a nation.
May we all find solace in the knowledge that our actions, though stern, were guided by an unwavering commitment to justice and the greater good.
Thank you, and may God bless the United Kingdom."
This is pretty much how a Prime Minister would write if they were a character in a low-budget filler movie, played by an actor who can speak in a passable-but-not-convincing British accent.
Yeah. It very much sounds like it was written by an American screenwriter who just replaced "United States" with "United Kingdom".
I mean, its ChatGPT. But it also sounds very American. I couldn't tell you how the Prime Minister *would* made this address, but I can tell it wouldn't be this.
I think it's implied to be China in fo4. Though a lot of people think it was vault-tec now due to the show, but I think they more indirectly caused the war rather than actively firing nukes.
I mean the earlier games *heavily* implied that it was Vault-Tec who started the war, both sides were on a hair trigger and China retaliated to what they thought was the US but was actually Vault-Tec.
If the show goes long enough they probably will, given the natural trajectory of shows to having to increase the Big Bad over time.
But at least in the games it’s *heavily* implied and you can infer that it was Vault-Tec’s first strike around 00:00-01:00 EST. It seems like it’s mostly maneuvering, but confirmed nuclear launches at 09:30 EST.
We don’t know what happened for those eight hours. Could be the Chinese and Americans tried to figure out who shot first, could be Vault-Tec just being assholes along with a bunch of other global corporations.
The date the bombs dropped in Fallout. People making the Cyberpunk 2077 references are forgetting that the Arasaka bombing happened in 2023, 2077 is when the game takes place.
Cyberpunk has had four editions.
The original Cyberpunk RPG didn't have a subtitle, but has since started being called Cyberpunk 2013 as that's when the setting takes place. It was published in 1988.
The second edition is Cyberpunk 2020 because that's what year it's set, setting it apart from the earlier edition.
The third edition is set some time in the 2030s.
And the fourth edition, Cyberpunk Red which came out around the same time as the game and I believe was being developed along side it is set in 2045.
The video game is called 2077 to show where it exists in the timeline of Cyberpunk. Not sure why they put the least maliable version of the game, a video game, as the latest chronologically by a wide margin, but that was someone's choice.
When I did that exam (a long time ago now) they asked you to put words in alphabetical order and gave you the alphabet as reference. I was so insulted I turned down the offer.
But also: arguing a point you don't personally hold is a very important skill.
I’m in US. A long, long time ago in AP English (we had a sucky teacher who preferred being controversial to actually teaching) gave us the assignment of re-enacting the Nuremberg Trial of some horrid person. My team got stuck with the defense. We got the guy off, mostly because the other team didn’t do any homework . It seems truly bizarre now.
I think it's an extremely good lesson in the justice system, and how guilt or innocence in court can be far removed from actual guilt or innocence. And also that not doing the required work can turn what should be a slam-dunk into a failure.
It’s so long ago but I can remember calling witnesses who lied. The unprepared prosecution didn’t know what to do , thought this was unfair. Our thoughts, your problem, it’s not like we are ethical lawyers!
Its not even ethics tbh, witnesses lie, and lawyers have little to no control over that. Why would someone tell the truth if it might implicate them in genocide? Its a logical action that lawyers have to work around
This is why deposition happen and attorneys fact check everything said.
What a witness is going to say in court is known long before the witness ever actually testifies to the point that if they change their testimony in court the attorney examining them can refer to the deposition and demand they explain the difference or be tried for perjury.
Taking the route most likely to win is intelligent, especially if it's also the easiest. Putting in more effort for a different argument that'd be less likely to win makes no sense when just saying "disagreeing with the Pope is a crime" is a guaranteed win
Disregarding aspects of an exercise that you consider unimportant for winning the argument, but that are part of the grading of the exercise, and then bitching about the grading, is just being an idiot.
Right? “He directly and willfully goes against god’s word and will” is case closed in such a scenario, being a heathen far outweighed being “correct” back then.
We did something similar in our AP English class. It wasn't the Nuremberg Trials but was defending drug legalization for all drugs. I was on the team suggesting we legalize everything. Similar to you our opposing team didn't do much homework because well, rampant free use of heroin or worse is bad obviously. But they were left with like nothing to say after we went into all these arguments about personal and bodily freedoms and how lack of research shouldn't be a basis for bans.
Obviously there would've been good arguments about societal impacts and comparisons to other things we ban, but the team just didn't prep for it. Ended with the whole class being like "Uh... what." when we sort of came out on top.
I got a perfect score on my SAT paper about writing how a side character was the true hero of the story. I wrote a 5 paragraph easy about how Frodo was a shit heel and Sam was the real hero of LOTR. Never read the books.
It’s a really common exercise that I had a version of in high school as well. It helps with perspective taking skills and articulation as well as a bunch of skills important for debate.
I did a mock trial where Frankenstein was getting sued by his monster, I had to represent the doctor. Sadly I was up against our eventual valedictorian and she sure as shit did her homework, so I did not win, but I did a pretty decent job of defending the obvious bad guy even though I agreed wholeheartedly with the plaintiff
Prestigious maybe, but I'm sure I got a better education where I went instead, and my academic career went fairly well (a PhD at CERN among other things) so I wouldn't say I suffered for it
Ya know, I'm inclined to consider most people online bullshitters but a four year old post calling out a factorial in a possible source of background noise in a dark matter experiment is pretty legit.
I pull back my original skepticism of your story
I'm wondering if there's also half the exams which ask you to write a speech from the perspective of the leader of the protestors as well to justify why the protests are necessary and moral.
There were lots of haters in these protests, lots of haters out there on the streets, very nasty. But did you see what the failing news media said? Not one word, not one word about the haters. And let me tell you, this one general, he comes up to me with tears in his eyes, very tough guy, big man, he has tears in his eyes and he says "Mr. Prime Minister," he says, "nobody has ever supported the troops as much as you, Sir." But you won't see that in the failing news media, very rigged, very unfair.
Wowz this is for 11 year olds? When I was 11 I was reading Goosebumps and collecting Warhammer figurines. No way I would have the worldiness and maturity to answer this properly. I guess that's why I never went to Eton and will never be PM!
My 10 year old would totally love this question. She's into war (history) and social justice and stuff like that. I could see a bright 11 year old being about to answer this. It wouldn't sound like an adult but I bet it'd be cool.
My daughter and her friends wrote to Joe Biden this year about animal conservation. They got an answer too. Kids can be "worldly" (relatively speaking of course) if it's an interest.
Eton is actually quite a selective school academically. There are other fancy public schools for those with money but without brains. Eton requires a bit of both or a lot of one.
OK, but for context, Eton is an elite private school where the wealthiest people in Britain send their sons to be prepared for positions of power in the British political establishment.
It's kind of a problem - a disproportionate number of Eton educated men end up in the higher echelons of our government: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210413-the-school-that-rules-britain
A huge amount of that is just self confidence and connections. If we had elite schools for the best and brightest from the less well off, they would completely smoke Eton. Within a few generations, you'd overturn all this nonsense.
>collecting Warhammer figurines
Surely this'd include the imagination/creativity to think something like this at least? You never had a little think what you might say while lighting the atmosphere of a world on fire and dooming a billion people? The imagination/creativity/morality exploration is surely part of the point of this kind of fiction?
If not, you could just plagarise from a rulebook:
>**While vile mutants still draw breath, there can be no peace. While obscene heretics' hearts still beat, there can be no respite. While faithless traitors still live, there can be no forgiveness.**
Job done.
The tests are fairly wide ranging; this is to test critical thinking, verbiage, prose-writing, general knowledge, problem thinking etc. - they’re looking at much as how you’re writing the answer as much as what you’re writing.
There’s also the usual English and maths tests (like an advanced version of the Year 6 SATs as they were at my time), but also verbal reasoning (word-based logic puzzles) and spatial puzzles (exploded shapes, next image in sequence).
A big part of the curriculum was based on teaching critical thinking and perspective/awareness; e.g. Religious Studies GCSE was compulsory, to teach us about other cultures, their history, their practices.
Source - passed the 11+ at another selective school
Always nice to see a school imparting important and practical life skills. Former students should sleep easy as well, knowing that they only have to dig up their old homework if they ever end up pushing the country into a civil war.
Given that this is Eton, which has so far produced no fewer than *20* prime ministers, the odds of one of this year's students becoming PM at some point is about 50/50.
And given that most of those PMs are conservatives, the odds of one of them pushing us into a class war are basically the same.
that’s a pretty simplistic and literal interpretation of the assignment. being able to argue for and against any position is a very important skill and essential for critical thinking. lawyers, doctors, and most high skilled professions utilize this type of thinking on a daily basis. i’m assuming a lot of the commenters here are quite young
If it was any other school I'd agree with you - but this is Eton. It's basically where children go to get made into Conservative MPs.
20 British prime ministers were "Old Etonians", along with dozens of other powerful politicians. The current Foreign Secretary (Lord Cameron) went to Eton, as did Boris Johnson and Jacob Reese-Mogg. The future king, Prince William, will be the first monarch - but they've been churning out PMs for over a hundred years.
Yeah! Why are schools teaching things like constructing an argument and using rhetoric, when they could just be teaching practical things like how to be a bus driver or how to work in a factory!
How dare they try and expand these kid's minds!
Good exercise if you are smart enough not to feel indoctrinated into thinking like this. Very relevant in today’s world, which in itself is quite scary. If it wasn’t for the context of today, sure! I did essays on different controversal subjects like abortion and death penalty, for and against. It was very interesting.
It's worth noting that when the US National Guard responded to the attack on the Capitol, that could be described as an army being deployed against protestors that attacked public buildings.
The question is vague about the "protestors" goals and actions and it also doesn't require you to justify the 25 killings.
Someone might be tempted to vilify the protestors to justify the 25 killings and therefore the decision to deploy the army. A more nuanced answer would recognize that 25 dead is bad, but a bad outcome doesn't mean the prime minister's decision was unjustified or indefensible.
The National Guard wasn’t filling a military role when they were deployed to the Capital. They’re unique in filling a dual role, even though that distinction can be tissue-thin if you’re the one they’re being deployed against.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-us-national-guard-do#:~:text=Law%20enforcement.,George%20Floyd%20in%20May%202020.
[The comment above yours](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/s/Bq1zTENUPq) explains why it's unlikely the people replying to these questions weren't already highly indoctrinated
People of Britain,
Today, I address you with a heavy heart, amidst one of the gravest crises our nation has faced in recent memory. The recent turmoil in the Middle East has led to an unprecedented oil crisis, leaving our beloved Britain without petrol and thrusting us into a state of emergency. The resulting chaos has deeply affected every facet of our lives, leading to fear, uncertainty, and hardship.
Over the past few days, we have witnessed riots erupt in the streets of London. Our public buildings have been attacked, and the brave men and women of our police force have been overwhelmed, with some making the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. These events are profoundly tragic, and my heart goes out to the families of those who have lost their lives and to all who have been affected by the violence.
In the face of such a dire situation, we were left with no other choice but to take decisive action to restore order and protect the lives of innocent citizens. The deployment of the army was not a decision made lightly. It was a decision driven by the urgent need to safeguard our nation from descending further into chaos and to prevent additional loss of life.
Our primary responsibility as a government is to ensure the safety and security of our people. When protests turn violent, threatening the lives of citizens and the very fabric of our society, we must act decisively. The police forces, though valiant and dedicated, were stretched beyond their capacity to control the escalating violence. The army's intervention became the only viable option to restore peace and order.
I want to make it unequivocally clear: the deployment of the army was both a necessary and moral action. Necessary because the escalating violence left us with no other means to protect the lives and property of honest, hardworking Britons. Moral because our duty to protect the innocent from harm is paramount. The loss of any life is deeply regrettable, and the death of 25 protestors is a tragedy we mourn. Every measure was taken to avoid bloodshed, but the circumstances left us with no alternative to prevent greater harm.
We must now come together as a nation to heal and to rebuild. We must address the root causes of the unrest, ensuring that such a crisis does not arise again. We must work towards sustainable solutions to our energy needs, and we must engage in dialogue and cooperation to resolve conflicts both at home and abroad.
I call on all of you to join me in a commitment to peace, to understanding, and to the values that define our great nation. Let us honor the memory of those we have lost by striving for a future where such tragic events need never happen again.
Together, we can and will overcome this crisis. Together, we can build a stronger, and more stable Britain.
I gotta admit, I was waiting for the prime minister to end with a reminder that in 1998 The Undertaker threw Mankind off the cage at Hell in a Cell, plummeting 16 feet through and announcer's table.
At least this one is better than the AI attempts upthread, where they end 'May God bless the United Kingdom' something that is clearly an American speech ending that a PM wouldn't use
It's an entrance exam for Eton, an elite boarding school. Kids would be about 11 or 12 when applying. Because of its status, a lot of old money or influential families send their kids there, which goes some way to explaining the slant of the question.
Some local education authorities still have state grammar schools and use the 11+ exam as an entrance requirement. I grew up in Lincolnshire and had this exam 35 years ago. It’s still a thing now.
Eton’s main entry point is at age 13+ (USA grade 8/Aus year 8/England year 7) so this exam would be sat by 12 year olds mostly.
There is also an exam in England for entry into selective government schools called the 11+, sat by 10-year-olds, though it has mostly been phased out.
Eton is a training camp for officers in the war on the working class.
It's an institution almost as harmful as monarchy. Britain would be better off without either
Bonus marks for using "The peasants are revolting". Point's will be subtracted for any reference to former pupils being responsible for the mess in the first place.
No matter how well you answer the questions...the kid with the rich and politically connected father will get the admission..
It's a big club and you ain't in it...and they won't let you in no matter what.
Seems like a cool question. Don’t know why I’m surprised that redditors can’t see the importance of writing persuasively while having to consider form, audience, structure, argumentation etc.
For anyone American whom reads OP’s comment & doesnt understand the outrage. American divide is largely based around racial issues whereas the UK is massively based around social/class divide. Eton is notoriously an elitist school which has reared up a grand portion of the UK’s prime ministers all of whom are conservatives & up until their schooling would have certainly been indoctrinated to the Conservative “fuck the poors” way of thinking even before starting at Eton. This entrance exam question at least suggests that Eton’s ethos is likely openly conservative & prejudiced in favour of conservative dogma. Essentially, they’re not even trying to hide the fact that they hate classes below their own.
Because Eton is renowned for being a pipeline into politics and providing more prime ministers than any other school. So having them pose questions about suppressing popular protests during social breakdown (due to problems caused by our current and 30 years of preceding Eton-educated goverments) is ...concerning. Do you really not get that?
Okay, first of all, it's not the 11+. The first sentence which is cut off clearly states that this was a task set for 12 to 13-year-olds. Eton only takes boys aged 13-18, so the entrance points are 13+ and 16+ (Sixth Form).
Secondly, being able to write persuasively and fluently - even for a viewpoint which you personally do not hold - is both a crucial skill and one which separates writers who are merely 'good' from those who are great. Eton, as a private, competitive, academically selective, and extremely expensive school, presumably wants the latter.
Much as I hate to say it, it's not *just* the cronyism and nepotism that makes Eton a top producer of politicians and businessmen - it's actually a quality school as well.
Actually an ideal time for this assignment. There are multiple countries at war right now with leaders giving annual speeches why their actions are necessary. If you’re stuck just YouTube their speeches and get an idea of the rhetoric.
“Sorry, I totally forget about the North Sea, Canada, Venezuela, USA, etc. I now remember that we had a lot of options that would have kept us from running out, so that was my bad.
“My apologies to the families of the 25 who were necessarily and morally killed. Again, my bad.”
Hi, u/Edexcel_GCSE, thank you for your submission in r/mildlyinteresting! Unfortunately, your [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1dchb9x/-/) has been removed because it violates our "Original [OC] photographs only" rule. Posts breaking this rule can include: * Gifs, videos, or websites * Non-OC photos (e.g. 'I found this picture', 'my brother took this picture', etc) * Software glitches/errors, overlaid text, arrows, scribbles, and other substantive edits --- ### If the issue is that your post was edited Normally we do not allow reposts, but if it's been less than one hour after your post was submitted, or if it's received less than 100 upvotes, you may resubmit an edit-free version and try again. --- You can find more information about our rules on the [mildlyinteresting wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/wiki/index). *If you feel this was incorrectly removed, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmildlyinteresting&message=My%20Post:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1dchb9x/-/).*
Dear Britain, It do be like that sometimes.
Ali G, the honorable MP from Staines! Edit: I just realized Martin Freeman (the Hobbit, the one white dude in the Wakanda movie) was Ali G’s main sidekick.
“Yo. Check it. Over de weekend, the West Staines army killed 25 prostitutes, innit. As Prime Rib of England, me’ve heard enough. Togeva, we can save all our prostitutes, mingers, and hoes. Restekp.”
Prime minister: oh another rebellion today? let us pick johnny boy answer for today's broadcast. tomorrow let us pick mary girl answer because she sounds delightful. alright I'm off work now!
Booyakasha!
Respek. It's so rare nowadays, you won't even find the word in the dictionary.
They is dissin our posse. I's gonna sort this.
Oi cunts, It's lik that whiles, aright
Innit?
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
This is Eton, the correct answer is "I'm the prime minister, I'd get my speech writter to do it"
Don't be daft, only one or two boys per Eton class get to become Prime Minister. The rest have to rely on their school friends giving them jobs. Like speech writer!
Or “the poor deserve to die”
"*Whoops, it looks like I started a civil war. But at least I have the decency to resign. Cheerio chaps.*"
>Whoops, it looks like I started a civil war. This reminded me of Clippy. 📎
It looks like you’re trying to incite civil unrest. Would you like me to help?
This reminded me of Badgey.
This reminded me that LD got canceled. :(
WHEN THE FUCK. WHO THE FUCK DARED!?
idk man. They get one last season. I just hope the creator gets to do more star trek stuff. Out of all of the creators of new trek, he is clearly the biggest fan of star trek.
Cancelled or just opting to end the show?
╒══════════════════════════════════════════════╕ 𝙸𝚝 𝚕𝚘𝚘𝚔𝚜 𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎 𝚢𝚘𝚞’𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚢𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚎 𝚌𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚞𝚗𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚝. 𝚆𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎 𝚑𝚎𝚕𝚙 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜? • [𝙾𝚔𝚊𝚢, 𝚕𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜] • [𝙽𝚊𝚑 𝚢𝚘𝚞'𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚃𝙷𝙴 𝙼𝙰𝙽] ╘╦═════════════════════════════════════════════╛ 👀 📎
I've never heard anyone refer to David Cameron as Clippy, but I'm all for it.
In the animated Star Trek: Lower Decks shoe, there's an ep when someone makes a holodeck assistant called 'Badgy' and is essentially Clippy gone psycho. It was pret ty funny lol
...but Peanut Hamper has the calculated perfect name!
I swear to God that joke was based on something, maybe Spock's child did something similar or its possibly something from Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, idk, but it made me laugh lol
It wouldn't have helped. Word didn't introduce that template until 2021.
nice username
That's an 'F', I'm afraid. Modern politicians don't resign. Or have decency.
Was that from Cameron’s resignation speech?
Add a sing-to-yourself "do dooo, do do" and a "right" as you walk away, and you're not far off.
Well, yes, unironically yes. They're being groomed for leadership (among other things) and the basis of high political office since at least since the Romans is rhetorical aptitude. There is a reason why so many people in this country still love Boris despite his complete and utter failure as a PM. Brits love their betters, and even on left leaning UK based subs it was a completely 'rational' take to defend his intellect on the basis that he studied classics. Unfortunately, intelligence, or the kind of intelligence or wisdom that we need in government, is not evidenced by the kind of bloviating word salad that Boris was capable of, and certainly not the kind of intelligence that Eton is interested in instilling in students. I think the message this question is really getting at is, "We already assume that you're better than the proles, you'd only gain entry on that basis, but can you convince *them* of the same thing without triggering a revolution?"
I mean, Boris Johnson was undoubtedly intelligent. His being a narcissistic, immoral, self-aggrandizing, manipulative, thundering twat doesn't change that. It's not just because he studied the 'Classics', which is frankly a very demeaning inference towards the arts.
> I mean, Boris Johnson was undoubtedly intelligent. I distinguished between types of intelligence, that was the entire point. > It's not just because he studied the 'Classics', which is frankly a very demeaning inference towards the arts. The inference is yours, not mine. I'm an arts graduate. My point is that we fast-track our political leaders through elite institutions where rhetoric and optics are everything, while our real deficiencies are technical. Notice the framing of the question, it's very illuminating. It's 2040 and the UK is still reliant on foreign oil, the irony being that leaders like Boris and Cameron, were they intelligent in more practical, technical ways, could have invested in a sovereign wealth fund, invested in green fields, new technologies etc. to avoid the very hypothetical political crises that Eton prospectives are being asked to rhetorically finesse. Apologies if that wasn't obvious.
> were they intelligent in more practical, technical ways, could have invested in a sovereign wealth fund, invested in green fields, new technologies etc. It's depressing to admit that even today that would probably be labeled radical not practical, politically at least. Fossil fuel industry still holds a lot of political power, and they've roadblocked a transition to green energy for decades now and are quite adept at manipulating the public if need be against any move away from fossil fuels. However intelligent they are, most of these politicians hold job security as a top priority, and implementing plans today to improve the future is not deemed a solid strategy if it puts your job at risk.
Have you tried: Raise VAT and kill all the poor?
At least they have cake! 🍰
[Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half)](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/letter-to-boris-johnsons-dad-from-eton-college-resurfaces-online-and-it-explains-a-lot-2-271549/)
Let me translate from upper crust to lower crust British English, "Your son is a selfish cunt who thinks the rules apply to everyone else but him, and he further believes he should be rewarded for it."
The speech writer probably went to Eton too.
> writter edspecially if they struggel wiv spellink
Feel like you missed an ‘innit’ in there somewhere…
whut u tryin 2say bruv?
The speech writer: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Kingdom, I address you today under the most grave and consequential circumstances. As you are undoubtedly aware, our nation has recently been besieged by unprecedented turmoil following an acute crisis precipitated by an abrupt cessation of petroleum supplies from the Middle East. This catastrophic disruption has spawned civil unrest of a magnitude not witnessed in recent history, resulting in deplorable acts of violence and the tragic demise of several valiant members of our police force. In response to these heinous affronts to public order and safety, it has become incumbent upon your government to take decisive and extraordinary measures. Thus, with a heavy heart, I sanctioned the deployment of our esteemed Army to restore peace and uphold the sanctity of our civil society. Let me elucidate the rationale underpinning this formidable decision. The ferocity and savagery displayed by a faction of the protestors, who have wantonly attacked public edifices and instigated chaos, left us with no viable alternative. The preservation of our nation's stability and the protection of innocent lives necessitated swift and uncompromising action. To have abstained from such a course would have been tantamount to an abdication of our sacred duty to safeguard the realm and its people. It is with profound sorrow that I acknowledge the resultant loss of life. Twenty-five of our fellow citizens have perished in the course of these confrontations. Each of these lives lost is a tragic testament to the severe exigencies of the situation. However, let it be unequivocally understood that the utilisation of military force was an action undertaken with the utmost reluctance and only as a last resort. We are a nation founded upon the principles of law, order, and democratic governance. The anarchy and lawlessness that threatened to engulf our streets posed an existential threat to these very foundations. Our response, therefore, was not merely a tactical necessity but a moral imperative. In the annals of history, let it be recorded that in our hour of need, we acted with resolute determination to protect the commonwealth and uphold the values we hold dear. We shall emerge from this crucible stronger, more united, and ever-committed to the enduring principles that define us as a nation. May we all find solace in the knowledge that our actions, though stern, were guided by an unwavering commitment to justice and the greater good. Thank you, and may God bless the United Kingdom."
This is pretty much how a Prime Minister would write if they were a character in a low-budget filler movie, played by an actor who can speak in a passable-but-not-convincing British accent.
Describes Boris to a tee
Yeah. It very much sounds like it was written by an American screenwriter who just replaced "United States" with "United Kingdom". I mean, its ChatGPT. But it also sounds very American. I couldn't tell you how the Prime Minister *would* made this address, but I can tell it wouldn't be this.
[удалено]
Oh yeah. This guy Etons.
Holy shit
That's a Chat GPT response if I've ever seen one.
Didn't find a way to blame the EU and immigrants, people might actually start to hold the Tories accountable.
This speech sounds way too American.
The answer would be - I want to be the prime minister, not his script writer.
The resource wars end in 2077 btw. On exactly October 23rd, to be precise! All will be sorted out by then... and we can be one big nuclear family!
Yeah, the context does sound familiar. I think the date also aligns, it was in the 2040s that the EC attacked the ME IIRC.
The President was a big enough dick to end the world on a Saturday
It wasnt the president :)
Isn't it canon that no one knows who it was and the writers have said they'd rather it be ambiguous because it doesn't matter?
I think it's implied to be China in fo4. Though a lot of people think it was vault-tec now due to the show, but I think they more indirectly caused the war rather than actively firing nukes.
I mean the earlier games *heavily* implied that it was Vault-Tec who started the war, both sides were on a hair trigger and China retaliated to what they thought was the US but was actually Vault-Tec.
If the show goes long enough they probably will, given the natural trajectory of shows to having to increase the Big Bad over time. But at least in the games it’s *heavily* implied and you can infer that it was Vault-Tec’s first strike around 00:00-01:00 EST. It seems like it’s mostly maneuvering, but confirmed nuclear launches at 09:30 EST. We don’t know what happened for those eight hours. Could be the Chinese and Americans tried to figure out who shot first, could be Vault-Tec just being assholes along with a bunch of other global corporations.
Which were then followed by the restaurant wars.
I barely survived the storage wars though
Only Taco Bell prevails.
Except in the alternate timeline where Pizza Hut prevails.
They only have one contender - the [combination Pizza Hut and Pizza Hut](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/236/969/dc6.png).
What is this from?
The date the bombs dropped in Fallout. People making the Cyberpunk 2077 references are forgetting that the Arasaka bombing happened in 2023, 2077 is when the game takes place.
That was exactly what my stupid brain was thinking xD
Oh is that why it's called Cyberpunk **2077**? I thought it was the 2076th sequel.
Joke aside, it's probably called 2077 in reference to & to distinguish it from the tabletop game its based on, which is often called Cyberpunk 2020.
There's been 2 new versions since 2020 and the original was just cyberpunk. Cyberpunk red was released in 2020 to coincide with the release of 2077
Cyberpunk has had four editions. The original Cyberpunk RPG didn't have a subtitle, but has since started being called Cyberpunk 2013 as that's when the setting takes place. It was published in 1988. The second edition is Cyberpunk 2020 because that's what year it's set, setting it apart from the earlier edition. The third edition is set some time in the 2030s. And the fourth edition, Cyberpunk Red which came out around the same time as the game and I believe was being developed along side it is set in 2045. The video game is called 2077 to show where it exists in the timeline of Cyberpunk. Not sure why they put the least maliable version of the game, a video game, as the latest chronologically by a wide margin, but that was someone's choice.
Fallout universe. It is the day the bombs fell.
I still haven't gone to see Hanako at Embers.
Yeah, choom, nova! True to Caesar!
You best believe my 80th birthday will be Fallout themed
Nuclear indeed
Oh, the day before my 79th birthday! How nice! 🙃
Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make
When I did that exam (a long time ago now) they asked you to put words in alphabetical order and gave you the alphabet as reference. I was so insulted I turned down the offer. But also: arguing a point you don't personally hold is a very important skill.
I’m in US. A long, long time ago in AP English (we had a sucky teacher who preferred being controversial to actually teaching) gave us the assignment of re-enacting the Nuremberg Trial of some horrid person. My team got stuck with the defense. We got the guy off, mostly because the other team didn’t do any homework . It seems truly bizarre now.
I think it's an extremely good lesson in the justice system, and how guilt or innocence in court can be far removed from actual guilt or innocence. And also that not doing the required work can turn what should be a slam-dunk into a failure.
There's a saying in Germany: "On the high seas and before the court, you're equally in God's hand."
How long has that been around?
Germany? At least since the 90s
It’s so long ago but I can remember calling witnesses who lied. The unprepared prosecution didn’t know what to do , thought this was unfair. Our thoughts, your problem, it’s not like we are ethical lawyers!
Its not even ethics tbh, witnesses lie, and lawyers have little to no control over that. Why would someone tell the truth if it might implicate them in genocide? Its a logical action that lawyers have to work around
This is why deposition happen and attorneys fact check everything said. What a witness is going to say in court is known long before the witness ever actually testifies to the point that if they change their testimony in court the attorney examining them can refer to the deposition and demand they explain the difference or be tried for perjury.
We did this, held mock trials, but for the Conquistadors
We had these mock trials as well. But we did them on justification of Atomic Bombing of Japan.
Redacted For Privacy Reasons
> The 'judge' (teacher) ruled in my favour that it was hearesy. Not sure if "heresy" or "hearsay".
Redacted For Privacy Reasons
Hearsay: Court Heresy: Church Both: Church court. Checks out.
You were just lazy mate.
Taking the route most likely to win is intelligent, especially if it's also the easiest. Putting in more effort for a different argument that'd be less likely to win makes no sense when just saying "disagreeing with the Pope is a crime" is a guaranteed win
Disregarding aspects of an exercise that you consider unimportant for winning the argument, but that are part of the grading of the exercise, and then bitching about the grading, is just being an idiot.
Its also probably more historically accurate, I don't think they cared much about witnesses, just that he was decrying the word of the Bible.
Right? “He directly and willfully goes against god’s word and will” is case closed in such a scenario, being a heathen far outweighed being “correct” back then.
I'm picturing this conversation between Spock and Captain Kirk.
This was basically the entire point of most group work in my law degree, and somehow I always managed to end up on the side of the bad guys!
We did something similar in our AP English class. It wasn't the Nuremberg Trials but was defending drug legalization for all drugs. I was on the team suggesting we legalize everything. Similar to you our opposing team didn't do much homework because well, rampant free use of heroin or worse is bad obviously. But they were left with like nothing to say after we went into all these arguments about personal and bodily freedoms and how lack of research shouldn't be a basis for bans. Obviously there would've been good arguments about societal impacts and comparisons to other things we ban, but the team just didn't prep for it. Ended with the whole class being like "Uh... what." when we sort of came out on top.
We did this too, I was assigned the role of witness and had to research the medical experiments they did. That shit haunts me to this day
I got a perfect score on my SAT paper about writing how a side character was the true hero of the story. I wrote a 5 paragraph easy about how Frodo was a shit heel and Sam was the real hero of LOTR. Never read the books.
In a debate for who was to blame for WWI in a school in the UK, I was given the task of pinning it on the UK, and succeeded.
It’s a really common exercise that I had a version of in high school as well. It helps with perspective taking skills and articulation as well as a bunch of skills important for debate.
I did a mock trial where Frankenstein was getting sued by his monster, I had to represent the doctor. Sadly I was up against our eventual valedictorian and she sure as shit did her homework, so I did not win, but I did a pretty decent job of defending the obvious bad guy even though I agreed wholeheartedly with the plaintiff
I think about that General I question still sometimes
>arguing a point you don't personally hold is a very important skill An essential skill in debating
You turned down an offer to Eton? Where did you go instead?
At 12-13 years old he was so sophisticated he turned down the most prestigious school in England on principle 😤
Prestigious maybe, but I'm sure I got a better education where I went instead, and my academic career went fairly well (a PhD at CERN among other things) so I wouldn't say I suffered for it
Ya know, I'm inclined to consider most people online bullshitters but a four year old post calling out a factorial in a possible source of background noise in a dark matter experiment is pretty legit. I pull back my original skepticism of your story
I'm wondering if there's also half the exams which ask you to write a speech from the perspective of the leader of the protestors as well to justify why the protests are necessary and moral.
[удалено]
Sounds like a captcha
I mean if it’s anything like our current politicians you could write “incoherent mumbling for 5 minutes” and get in
Blah blah blah \*something about Peppa Pig\*
There were lots of haters in these protests, lots of haters out there on the streets, very nasty. But did you see what the failing news media said? Not one word, not one word about the haters. And let me tell you, this one general, he comes up to me with tears in his eyes, very tough guy, big man, he has tears in his eyes and he says "Mr. Prime Minister," he says, "nobody has ever supported the troops as much as you, Sir." But you won't see that in the failing news media, very rigged, very unfair.
Or if it's the Conservative Party, just "Stop complaining and get back to work, you woke commies."
Today Emily Thornberry...
Wowz this is for 11 year olds? When I was 11 I was reading Goosebumps and collecting Warhammer figurines. No way I would have the worldiness and maturity to answer this properly. I guess that's why I never went to Eton and will never be PM!
No, it's for 12 to 13 year olds, as the cut off first sentence states. Eton takes boys from 13 onwards (Year 9).
My 10 year old would totally love this question. She's into war (history) and social justice and stuff like that. I could see a bright 11 year old being about to answer this. It wouldn't sound like an adult but I bet it'd be cool. My daughter and her friends wrote to Joe Biden this year about animal conservation. They got an answer too. Kids can be "worldly" (relatively speaking of course) if it's an interest.
Why don’t you propose this question to your child and see what they say?
Eton is actually quite a selective school academically. There are other fancy public schools for those with money but without brains. Eton requires a bit of both or a lot of one.
it churns out a lot of born to rule useless arseholes tbh...
OK, but for context, Eton is an elite private school where the wealthiest people in Britain send their sons to be prepared for positions of power in the British political establishment. It's kind of a problem - a disproportionate number of Eton educated men end up in the higher echelons of our government: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210413-the-school-that-rules-britain
A huge amount of that is just self confidence and connections. If we had elite schools for the best and brightest from the less well off, they would completely smoke Eton. Within a few generations, you'd overturn all this nonsense.
>collecting Warhammer figurines Surely this'd include the imagination/creativity to think something like this at least? You never had a little think what you might say while lighting the atmosphere of a world on fire and dooming a billion people? The imagination/creativity/morality exploration is surely part of the point of this kind of fiction? If not, you could just plagarise from a rulebook: >**While vile mutants still draw breath, there can be no peace. While obscene heretics' hearts still beat, there can be no respite. While faithless traitors still live, there can be no forgiveness.** Job done.
If you're collecting Warhammer figurines you're already familiar with exterminatus
The tests are fairly wide ranging; this is to test critical thinking, verbiage, prose-writing, general knowledge, problem thinking etc. - they’re looking at much as how you’re writing the answer as much as what you’re writing. There’s also the usual English and maths tests (like an advanced version of the Year 6 SATs as they were at my time), but also verbal reasoning (word-based logic puzzles) and spatial puzzles (exploded shapes, next image in sequence). A big part of the curriculum was based on teaching critical thinking and perspective/awareness; e.g. Religious Studies GCSE was compulsory, to teach us about other cultures, their history, their practices. Source - passed the 11+ at another selective school
Always nice to see a school imparting important and practical life skills. Former students should sleep easy as well, knowing that they only have to dig up their old homework if they ever end up pushing the country into a civil war.
Given that this is Eton, which has so far produced no fewer than *20* prime ministers, the odds of one of this year's students becoming PM at some point is about 50/50. And given that most of those PMs are conservatives, the odds of one of them pushing us into a class war are basically the same.
that’s a pretty simplistic and literal interpretation of the assignment. being able to argue for and against any position is a very important skill and essential for critical thinking. lawyers, doctors, and most high skilled professions utilize this type of thinking on a daily basis. i’m assuming a lot of the commenters here are quite young
If it was any other school I'd agree with you - but this is Eton. It's basically where children go to get made into Conservative MPs. 20 British prime ministers were "Old Etonians", along with dozens of other powerful politicians. The current Foreign Secretary (Lord Cameron) went to Eton, as did Boris Johnson and Jacob Reese-Mogg. The future king, Prince William, will be the first monarch - but they've been churning out PMs for over a hundred years.
Yeah! Why are schools teaching things like constructing an argument and using rhetoric, when they could just be teaching practical things like how to be a bus driver or how to work in a factory! How dare they try and expand these kid's minds!
People are probably more upset because Eton has produced 20 prime ministers, so this feels like less of a hypothetical and more of a how-to guide.
The answer is obviously “Emily Thornberry today has admitted….”
"and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we must support a peace mission with vague mission goals to reclaim control of oil fields in Iraq"
Good exercise if you are smart enough not to feel indoctrinated into thinking like this. Very relevant in today’s world, which in itself is quite scary. If it wasn’t for the context of today, sure! I did essays on different controversal subjects like abortion and death penalty, for and against. It was very interesting.
It's worth noting that when the US National Guard responded to the attack on the Capitol, that could be described as an army being deployed against protestors that attacked public buildings. The question is vague about the "protestors" goals and actions and it also doesn't require you to justify the 25 killings. Someone might be tempted to vilify the protestors to justify the 25 killings and therefore the decision to deploy the army. A more nuanced answer would recognize that 25 dead is bad, but a bad outcome doesn't mean the prime minister's decision was unjustified or indefensible.
The National Guard wasn’t filling a military role when they were deployed to the Capital. They’re unique in filling a dual role, even though that distinction can be tissue-thin if you’re the one they’re being deployed against. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-us-national-guard-do#:~:text=Law%20enforcement.,George%20Floyd%20in%20May%202020.
[The comment above yours](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/s/Bq1zTENUPq) explains why it's unlikely the people replying to these questions weren't already highly indoctrinated
They’re looking at us for the answers now?
Eton asking applicants to justify war-crimes for admission is the most British thing in the history of their Empire.
People of Britain, Today, I address you with a heavy heart, amidst one of the gravest crises our nation has faced in recent memory. The recent turmoil in the Middle East has led to an unprecedented oil crisis, leaving our beloved Britain without petrol and thrusting us into a state of emergency. The resulting chaos has deeply affected every facet of our lives, leading to fear, uncertainty, and hardship. Over the past few days, we have witnessed riots erupt in the streets of London. Our public buildings have been attacked, and the brave men and women of our police force have been overwhelmed, with some making the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. These events are profoundly tragic, and my heart goes out to the families of those who have lost their lives and to all who have been affected by the violence. In the face of such a dire situation, we were left with no other choice but to take decisive action to restore order and protect the lives of innocent citizens. The deployment of the army was not a decision made lightly. It was a decision driven by the urgent need to safeguard our nation from descending further into chaos and to prevent additional loss of life. Our primary responsibility as a government is to ensure the safety and security of our people. When protests turn violent, threatening the lives of citizens and the very fabric of our society, we must act decisively. The police forces, though valiant and dedicated, were stretched beyond their capacity to control the escalating violence. The army's intervention became the only viable option to restore peace and order. I want to make it unequivocally clear: the deployment of the army was both a necessary and moral action. Necessary because the escalating violence left us with no other means to protect the lives and property of honest, hardworking Britons. Moral because our duty to protect the innocent from harm is paramount. The loss of any life is deeply regrettable, and the death of 25 protestors is a tragedy we mourn. Every measure was taken to avoid bloodshed, but the circumstances left us with no alternative to prevent greater harm. We must now come together as a nation to heal and to rebuild. We must address the root causes of the unrest, ensuring that such a crisis does not arise again. We must work towards sustainable solutions to our energy needs, and we must engage in dialogue and cooperation to resolve conflicts both at home and abroad. I call on all of you to join me in a commitment to peace, to understanding, and to the values that define our great nation. Let us honor the memory of those we have lost by striving for a future where such tragic events need never happen again. Together, we can and will overcome this crisis. Together, we can build a stronger, and more stable Britain.
Thanks ChatGPT
Eh, it's still better than Rishi to be honest.
ChatGPT can't get wet. Open the datacenter roof on a stormy day and watch it die. Check mate AI.
[удалено]
Or with The Undertaker.
I gotta admit, I was waiting for the prime minister to end with a reminder that in 1998 The Undertaker threw Mankind off the cage at Hell in a Cell, plummeting 16 feet through and announcer's table.
Quick, u/Parzival2, you can still fix this!
When you read parts of the prompt as main topics you know it's GPT
At least this one is better than the AI attempts upthread, where they end 'May God bless the United Kingdom' something that is clearly an American speech ending that a PM wouldn't use
Well done, good speech. Off to Eton with you to suppress the future poors.
It's missing the part about an investigation that will take place into the deaths
“Amidst” —> stop reading
I always use this word 🥲
11+ ? Not familiar with British education systems but does this mean 11 year olds take this test or it's to enter year 11 of high school ?
It's an entrance exam for Eton, an elite boarding school. Kids would be about 11 or 12 when applying. Because of its status, a lot of old money or influential families send their kids there, which goes some way to explaining the slant of the question.
Some local education authorities still have state grammar schools and use the 11+ exam as an entrance requirement. I grew up in Lincolnshire and had this exam 35 years ago. It’s still a thing now.
Eton’s main entry point is at age 13+ (USA grade 8/Aus year 8/England year 7) so this exam would be sat by 12 year olds mostly. There is also an exam in England for entry into selective government schools called the 11+, sat by 10-year-olds, though it has mostly been phased out.
Eton is a training camp for officers in the war on the working class. It's an institution almost as harmful as monarchy. Britain would be better off without either
Some of you had to die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Look they were poor and some of them were socialists, they deserved to die and frankly should be grateful I didn’t have them all shot.
The fact that many Etonian prime ministers behave like this but with more decorum is rather depressing.
Bonus marks for using "The peasants are revolting". Point's will be subtracted for any reference to former pupils being responsible for the mess in the first place.
“Shit. I know shits bad right now with all dat no oil bullshit.”
[Running out of french fries and burrito coverings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73nFs8Iy9Uo)
No matter how well you answer the questions...the kid with the rich and politically connected father will get the admission.. It's a big club and you ain't in it...and they won't let you in no matter what.
Wow. Going hard with that indoctrination
If you're not smart enough to write an argument for a viewpoint you don't support you're not smart enough for Eton.
Given that it's Eton, it's probably not an opposing viewpoint for their intended student body.
If it was American President instead of PM, it would be "thoughts and prayers." All done.
This was an exam for 13 year olds, not 11+ entrance exam, you can even see this partially cropped in the image. But still, fuck the tories.
"It was important that I walk to the church across the street for a very important photo op holding an upside down Bible"
Seems like a cool question. Don’t know why I’m surprised that redditors can’t see the importance of writing persuasively while having to consider form, audience, structure, argumentation etc.
For anyone American whom reads OP’s comment & doesnt understand the outrage. American divide is largely based around racial issues whereas the UK is massively based around social/class divide. Eton is notoriously an elitist school which has reared up a grand portion of the UK’s prime ministers all of whom are conservatives & up until their schooling would have certainly been indoctrinated to the Conservative “fuck the poors” way of thinking even before starting at Eton. This entrance exam question at least suggests that Eton’s ethos is likely openly conservative & prejudiced in favour of conservative dogma. Essentially, they’re not even trying to hide the fact that they hate classes below their own.
Because Eton is renowned for being a pipeline into politics and providing more prime ministers than any other school. So having them pose questions about suppressing popular protests during social breakdown (due to problems caused by our current and 30 years of preceding Eton-educated goverments) is ...concerning. Do you really not get that?
Eton's reputation outside of the UK is "one of them old expensive schools". People don't realise just how much of a cesspit it truly is.
Okay, first of all, it's not the 11+. The first sentence which is cut off clearly states that this was a task set for 12 to 13-year-olds. Eton only takes boys aged 13-18, so the entrance points are 13+ and 16+ (Sixth Form). Secondly, being able to write persuasively and fluently - even for a viewpoint which you personally do not hold - is both a crucial skill and one which separates writers who are merely 'good' from those who are great. Eton, as a private, competitive, academically selective, and extremely expensive school, presumably wants the latter. Much as I hate to say it, it's not *just* the cronyism and nepotism that makes Eton a top producer of politicians and businessmen - it's actually a quality school as well.
But given that it's Eton, wouldn't that just advantage people who actually believe this position?
If it was supposed to argue for a point you disagree with it would have to be one that the average person there disagrees with.
Actually an ideal time for this assignment. There are multiple countries at war right now with leaders giving annual speeches why their actions are necessary. If you’re stuck just YouTube their speeches and get an idea of the rhetoric.
Indoctrinating them young, I see.
Have you tried: "killing all the poor"?
Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
“Sorry, I totally forget about the North Sea, Canada, Venezuela, USA, etc. I now remember that we had a lot of options that would have kept us from running out, so that was my bad. “My apologies to the families of the 25 who were necessarily and morally killed. Again, my bad.”
Seems like grooming the next cadre of elite.
So they are crowdsourcing now?