65 Percent Perfect

So, according to that greatest bastion of journalist integrity, the Daily Mail, there is a list of 20 attributes that women find ideal in a guy. All told, I think I come out OK. Here's the list:

1. At least 5'10". Yup, 6'0" to be exact.
2. Good-looking. A matter of opinion of course, but don't think I can give myself the nod for this one. I'm not bad-looking, but neither am I fending off the "world's most beautiful people" award requests. Average-looking is a more suitable descriptor, I'd say.
3. 12.5 stone. That's about 175lbs or 80kg for those of you living in countries that don't use such outdated units of measurement. Also well below my current weight; I'm about 14.5stone/200lbs/92kg at the moment.
   
4. Earns more than £30,000. Um, no, sadly the life of a student doesn't entail 30grand salaries. Soon enough, though, I should easily be in this range.
5. Blue eyes. Yup
6. Short, dark-brown hair. Indeed; very short at the moment, actually.
7. Medium build. I might be a little on the large side of medium, but I think I can still qualify.
8. BA degree. I'm going to give myself the points for this, even though I have a B.Sc., because the article elucidates it somewhat by saying that it's a university education that's valued, rather than specifically the B.A. and I'm the process of going for my Ph.D., so I have no dearth of university education. Plus, chicks dig engineers right? Right? Anybody?
9. Never been married. Another point for me.
10. No children. Nope, no children here.
11. Three previous serious relationships. Well, only one really. A second that could've been had the situation been different, but I'd really have to push the definition of "serious" to be able to count three.
12. Clean-shaven. After much persuasion, I bid adieu about a year and a half ago to the goatee I sported in undergrad, so yes, I am back to being smooth and baby-faced.
13. Drives silver Mercedes. If by "silver Mercedes" you mean "black bicycle", then yes. But realistically, probably not.
14. Enjoys cinema. Even though I haven't been out as much as I'd like of late, going to the cinema is one of my favourite pastimes.
15. Likes eating out. Ignoring the obvious double entendre here, I don't like cooking, and do enjoy a wide variety of well-prepared food. Though I don't eat out often, that's a financial decision (see #4), not a prefernce. I love dining out.
16. Has had few than six sexual partners. Well, this one's a little personal, so let's just skip to the next question.
17. Owns a £300,000 home. Can we just assume I'm going to lose points on any of the characteristics related to actually having money?
18. Doesn't smoke. I hate cigarette smoke, and-at 27 years old-have never even smoked a single cigarette.
19. Dislikes football. True for either American football or actual football (a.k.a. soccer). Sports are just not my cup of tea. The only potential exceptions are quite rare-an odd game of hockey perhaps, a little baseball from time to time and Olympic women's beach volleyball.
20. Likes pets. I was always a cat person when I was a kid, but am increasingly a dog person. I'd love to have either, but sadly my current living situation (a tiny two-bedroom apartment whose residents aren't home between 9AM and 7PM every day and have no money for vet bills etc) is hardly conducive to a happy puppy. But I get the points for this, because I do love pets.

The article specifies a few other things where I might score some bonus points as well. Specifically, the "wacky" sense of humour. I think I can lay claim to that (sometimes bordering on juvenile and/or offensive, but wacky nonetheless). Also, being a cuddly lover. And finally, apparently some women are looking for men who are starting to bald (although the example given is Bruce Willis, which is a pretty high bar to clear. After all, I've never managed to drive a big-ass truck across a collapsing highway while fleeing an F35 Joint Strike Fighter and shouting epithets and witty one-liners).

So, there you go. From the 20-point list, I score a solid 65%, with a few that are liable to get checked off within the first few years of me finishing my degree and actually locating a salary. Not bad eh? Ladies, you know how to reach me. After posting this, I can only imagine the come-ons will start pouring in!

Dating CV

"Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again."

- Franklin P. Jones

Why do we write a CV (curriculum vitae)? To chronicle our experience, in the hopes of conveying our skills, ability and knowledge to potential future employers. A CV (a.k.a. résumé in North America) is a short description of how we want the working world to view us. We list what we can do, and the experience it took to gain such skills, and provide references on request. This cannot give a perfect picture of us as an employee, but certainly creates an image for the people who need to evaluate our suitability.

I think we need to extend this concept to the realm of dating. After all, dating is one of the areas of our lives that has the greatest bearing on our personal happiness, and yet it's basically a crapshoot. We go on dates to learn about the other person, but from the get-go we know next to nothing about them; we essentially choose randomly for something that is intrinsic to our personal contentment. Maybe it's time to start culling the herd before we leap into the fray of dating.

Just as in the job market, there is no "perfect" CV. Different skills are required for different jobs, and different attributes apply to different people. But we cannot gauge the attributes of a potential suitor until it's too late and we're dating them. What if we could pre-filter "applicants" by looking for those with skills we desire? You want someone who knows how to cook? That had better be on their CV. Prefer to date only short (or tall, thin, fat, whatever) partners? Why not have that listed right up front? It wouldn't guarantee a match, but might boost your odds.

Of course, this removes some of the spontaneity, the joy inherent in discovering the attributes that make up your partner; truly this is one of the best things about the early stages of dating, you feel like an intrepid explorer charting new territory. But this joy is tempered with a major risk of failure-you might find out something that's an absolute deal-breaker in your view, something that with adequate warning could have been noted before any risk of heartbreak. This is already done to a degree by those engaging in online dating sites: when you get a list of a potential date's likes, dislikes and more, you are already filtering people based on your criteria. So why not formalise the concept?

Of course, getting references might be tricky. How can you expect an honest reference from an ex if the relationship ended badly? Though you might have many wonderful qualities, the enmity they feel since your breakup could forever colour their feelings. And of course, like any other CV, people will stretch the truth. "I can make a frozen pizza" suddenly becomes "I have an affinity for and exemplary skill in Italian cuisine".

Who knows? Maybe one day we'll enact this, and we'll soon enough see couples on the dance floors of popular clubs, exchanging two-page CVs detailing the highlights of their dating abilities. Past partners will be called for references, and we will weigh up all those who seek our affection. After a thorough, yet expedient evaluative process, we will contact the successful applicant, and they can begin their training. And what's more romantic than bringing mindless corporate logic and efficiency to the world of dating?

So, please use the comments section below to post what you would put on your dating CV.

NOTE: If you have taken this post with even the slightest wisp of seriousness, please write the word "sarcasm" on a cricket bat and apply it forcibly and repeatedly to your forehead. Consider this holiday goofiness at it's best. I ultimately just want a way to brag about my back massaging skills.

"Love is the answer, but while you're waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty interesting questions."

- Woody Allen

Bizarre bike stuff theft

"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who hasn't sufficient capital to form a company."

- Howard Scott

It's almost a rite of passage in Manchester to get your bike stolen, a rite in which I fortunately have yet to participate. My friend and flatmate Dan, combined with his prior flatmate Jono, have had six bikes and one rear wheel stolen in the past two years. My friend Mike has had a shocking eight bikes stolen in the last 15 months. And my friend Liz has had at least two stolen, possibly more. Needless to say, they have contributed well to the scuzzy section of Manchester's society. I have so far been spared, due in no small way to how little I ride my bike around town, and the fact that I have always stored it within my flat.

However, I have had my first brush with bike theft since coming to Manchester, but in a bizarre and baffling way. You see, while my bike was locked up outside of the Stopford building last Tuesday (while I was in for debating and then the post-debate pub), some punk stole some of the stuff from my bike. Specifically, he stole the rear mudguard and light, and my two water bottles. In and of itself, not that strange, but only odd once you consider what was required to do so.

You see, I recently bought a security cable. This 8-foot-long woven steel cable allows me to lock up my front wheel and wrap it around my seat, thus avoiding me needing to remove those two things. In addition, I can now lock my helmet to my bike. The end result is that I spend and extra minute or two locking up my bike, but I no longer have to haul my seat and helmet with me. I used to carry the water bottles as well, but gave up figuring they were too worthless to bother stealing. Silly me.

Anyway, this still doesn't make it weird. What makes it weird is that I can't loop the security cable through my seat, so I wrap it around the post a few times, over and under the mudguard, hopefully making it enough of a pain to get off to not make it worthwhile. The light and the mudguard both attached to the seat post. What this means is that the thieves wiggled the cable loose enough to get the seat out, pulled the seat out of the bike, thus freeing the cable. They then took the mudguard and light (original retail value combined £25 or so) and replaced the seat. The seat isn't worth a lot, but probably more than the rest combined. The light had a half-broken clip, and the mudguard was filthy. The water bottles were old and scratched. So their net benefit from this was maybe £5, if they were lucky. But the seat probably could have sold for £10 or more. So why not take it?

As I see it, there are usually two reasons for theft like this:

1. Make money. Well, obviously, it's not that. Like I say, the seat was the most expensive thing they removed, and they put it back. They also overlooked the tire pump, though it's black and was obscured somewhat by the security cable, so maybe they just didn't notice that). Even if the seat weren't worth more, it's worth something, so why not take it?
2. Vandalism. This pisses me off more than theft, but some people will steal or destroy things just because they like to cause harm to others. But again, in this case, why not take the seat? It'll certainly piss me off more to have to ride home without a seat and to have to replace this more-expensive item. Even if you (as the thief) don't keep it, just toss it in the bin; I'll still be equally annoyed.

So, what is the explanation? The only thing I can possibly come up with, is some guy passing by on his bike said to himself "boy, it sure is dark and wet, and I'm really thirsty! I wish I had a light to make me more visible, a mudguard to keep my butt dry and some water bottles to slake my thirst. Hmmmmmmm.... I have an idea!" If not this, I have no idea why someone would pass on the seat. It could be that they just wanted to cram what they could fit into a backpack for easy transport, but the mudguard is far longer than the seat. So who knows? Anyone have any ideas?

I'm baffled. Also a little pissed that I now need to buy a second mudguard in as many weeks. I guess I'll have to find a way to more-securely lock up my seat.

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live.

-Mark Twain

When's "Buy more Day"?

"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."

- Winston Churchill

Today is Buy Nothing Day. To celebrate, I'm going to buy some stuff. Because, you see, buy nothing day irritates me. It irritates me for practical reasons, it irritates me for philosophical reasons. To a degree, my concerns are quite rational, but I will admit to some illogic as well, insofar as it is largely the proponents of BND who bother me more than the concept itself. So let me address my concerns under those two headings: practical and principled.

Practical: Guess what guys? If you stick fastidiously to buying nothing over the course of today, it makes no difference. None. Because not only are you in an incredibly slim minority of people who actually adhere to the concept, but ultimately your shopping patterns don't change. You're still going to buy just as much stuff, you'll just buy more tomorrow. You can't go without food, and you won't go without the consumer goods that you want. BND is like those one-day gas boycotts that get suggested every now and again, where people hope to "send a message to the big gas companies" by not filling up their car one day: if a handful of people boycott gas stations for a day, then fill up the next day, the companies won't feel it. Ditto for BND.

Principled: I wholeheartedly agree with some of the points that AdBusters (the progenitors of BND) make. I think we have become an overly-consumeristic, wasteful society. It is sad and shocking that 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources. We are causing massive environmental damage in our insatiable quest for more stuff, and that stuff often gets in the way of family, friends and actually experiencing life. But BND, and its proponents, go further. The undercurrent is that any consumerism is bad. You shouldn't care at all about things, you shouldn't want objects, just peace, happiness and friends. Bullshit. I enjoy the time I spend on the internet, and its ability to keep me connected to those friends, be they across the street or on the other side of the planet. So should I feel guilty about wanting a computer? I enjoy movies and some television shows-should I feel guilty about wanting a TV, a DVD player and a nice sound system? What about my iPod-am I a bad person because I like to listen to music on the go? That's ultimately what is insinuated by BND and its most fervent followers: capitalism=bad, consumerism=bad.

Furthermore, many go further. I've actually heard people, in the pursuit of BND, say that this is a model for how we should always operate. These people (and admittedly my undergrad was full of uber-hippies) actually espoused a return to the barter system. The barter system! You know, that thing we got rid of, because it's seriously flawed? The system that only ever works when there's a mutual and symbiotic needs arrangement between two parties? Yeah, that barter system. Forget international trade, forget a common unit of currency, we'll just trade for everything. The best part is that these selfsame people were the ones most actively pushing for the government to reduce tuition. Now I think education should be free, and I think the government should fully fund it for those qualified to attend. But unlike the BND fanatics, I understand how that can happen. The way you get a government to fund something is to have a good social policy in place, and a robust economy to support its investments. The government gets its money from taxes: income tax, sales tax and business tax. If nobody's buying anything, nobody is getting paid, so say goodbye to income tax. Plus, since there are no money-based sales, au revoir to sales tax. And of course, those businesses are no longer earning money, so farewell my good friend business tax. So, no money for the government; I guess they'll just trade the professors some apples in exchange for their teaching. Idealism is great, but when it's not balanced with a sense of reality, you end up looking like a raving loony.

Capitalism has some serious flaws, and unfettered consumerism is bad. We live in a nation consumed and oft-crippled by credit card debt and we're polluting the planet to fulfill our unquenchable thirst for more. But one of the realities of a free market is that it shows very clearly what people want. Wanting things is part of human nature; we measure standard of living not just by our health and education, but by our creature comforts and amenities. These can never replace human interaction in our lives, but they can augment it, and I'm sick and tired of being made to feel guilty because I want a fast computer and a big-screen TV one day. As soon as Visa ups my credit limit...

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want."

-Milton Friedman

Not everyone should go to university

Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything one learned in school.

-Albert Einstein

(This is another opinion piece I've written for Student Direct)

I pay a lot for my tuition. I paid a lot for my undergrad tuition in Canada. University is an expensive proposition in many parts of the world, and it shouldn’t be. University should be free to everyone who is good enough to partake, and can benefit from the experience. The problem is, at some point we assumed that those conditions applied to everyone. And they never have.

The UK government has a stated goal of 50% university enrollment. On the surface this seems like a great suggestion; after all, an educated society is a thriving one. Education really is the silver bullet that can cure a myriad of social ills. The problem is that such a goal is untenable in a world where the cost of university, be it borne by the government or the individual, is as high as it is in this world. Simply put, professors and equipment are expensive, and the more of them you need to hire and buy, respectively, the more that university bill will grow.

Let’s put it simply: imagine you have enough money in the national budget to pay the entirety of 100,000 student’s tuition. You admit 100,000 students and none of them pays a penny for the education itself; maybe you even subsidise housing, though I suppose free beer legislation shall forever remain a fantasy. Now, increase that number-admit 200,000 students. All of a sudden, the budget strains; say goodbye to subsidised housing, and say hello to tuition fees.

The first danger of this is obvious: when there is a financial cost involved with university, some people simply won’t be able to afford it. Even though the commensurate increase in potential earnings will compensate for the costs in the long-run (in most cases), the up-front cost can be crippling. Bursaries, scholarships and student loans can help, but when money is involved, there will inevitably be some people who simply cannot afford to go. Every qualified, capable student who cannot attend university is a lost opportunity and a loss to society.

The knock-on effects of such a policy, however, prove even more deleterious to wider society. 30 years ago, a high school diploma would be sufficient many jobs in the world. Today, even bus drivers and grocery store cashiers will often have university degrees. Which means that lacking such a degree cripples one’s career prospects. There are many jobs for which a university degree is unnecessary and, ultimately, a waste of time and money. Plumbers, mechanics, administrative staff can all do without spending three to four years discussing the ramifications of Sartre. But when presented with two job candidates, only one of whom lacks a degree, the situation is dire for that individual. Congratulations, you’ve made going to university mandatory for anyone with any career aspirations.

Of course, there’s more to university than simply preparing for the working world. There’s the joy of learning, the social atmosphere, and the chance to open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, and to challenge yourself at every turn. And all of these are great, and should be encouraged. But it’s an experience that just isn’t for everyone. And when you exclude capable students who could benefit from all this to make room for those who feel they must attend university, you’ve lost out again.

So what’s the solution? Stringent entrance requirements and a limit on the size of the student body. Those who attend university should do so because of the learning it can bring, and should be driven in that manner. They should be academically and intellectually gifted and open-minded. When push comes to shove, they should have a reason for wanting to be here, rather than simply feeling a coercive force to be.

If you can get into university, and have the drive to do so, you should. No tuition fees should stand in your way (and “top-up fees” are nothing but a poorly-disguised set of tuition fees). But you should want to be here. You should be driven to be here. And you should have a reason to be here. Because if you don’t, if what you want out of life is to be a plumber, then the government’s investment in your tuition is wasted. We need more plumbers. They just don’t necessarily need to hold degrees in art history.

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.

-Oscar Wilde