Today's "other rant" is about the music industry (again, probably) - I know naff-all about business economics, but I do know what hypocrisy smells like when I see it...

TAFKAP is giving away his new album free to readers of a certain newspaper. Mr. Quirk of the Entertainment Retailers Association says, "It is an insult to all those record stores who have supported Prince throughout his career."

How about the insultingly high prices of CD albums in high street stores, Mr. Quirk? Good work TAFKAP; I'm sure you're making your millions off this "give-away" anyway, but losing the big stores from the high street (Fopp: gone, HMV: going?) might not be the end of the world for the music industry, or for DJs looking for the latest vinyl, either; shops like Plastic Fantastic will still be around as the nightclub and DJ industries keep vinyl alive long past its sell-by date (a good thing, I think?), and legally downloaded tunes become more and more widespread as technology makes it easier and easier to get good-quality, reasonably-priced music online.

It'll be interesting to see how this one pans out. 

The BBC has run a 'Let's state the obvious' story today, as the National Consumer Council says the hidden costs of "free banking" should be investigated.

• Banks 'crippling' the vulbnerable - BBC News

Obviously, though, it can only be a good thing that these issues are being highlighted - students are among the most vulnerable group of people who can be hit with repeated charges, and their limited income, usually in Student Loan chunks, means banks can expect to be able to hit students with numerous charges as students' loan money runs out, safe in the knowledge that further loan payments will be coming soon to cover these amounts.

In my second year at Uni, my account ran almost £300 into the red just because of bank charges - of course, that was taken out of my next loan payment (of around £900), and breaking out of that cycle is never as simple as the banks' advice to "stay in credit".

One suggestion is to allow customers to have a £100 buffer zone. Unlike current buffer zones, only standing orders and direct debits would be authorised, for example; cash machine withdrawals and debit card payments wouldn't be authorised, but the point is that the customer would have to go more than £100 over their overdraft before charges were levied.

Of course, banks could simply stop levying charges - a system which, as the BBC article highlights, lands people in a poverty trap it can be hard or impossible to get out of - and simply charge a fixed monthly fee for banking. Personally, I'd rather pay £10 a month for the rest of my life for the privilege of letting someone look after my money if the alternative is to constantly worry that I'm going to be paying hundred of pounds a month to cover bank charges.

... Ok, rant over. Hopefully next year we as a Union will get the chance to put together some really useful advice for students on managing their ever-increasingly stretched money. If you have any tips on surviving on a shoe-string budget, send them to me!

Thanks to Christina for writing me an "idiot's guide to figuring out your degree classification" - I know everyone else already knows this and it's just me that's stupid, but I'm going to stick this up here anyway so I can refer back to it:

right well
1 - get the average of 2nd year and multiply it by 0.4, add that to the average of 3rd year multiplied by 0.6
2 - Simply find the average of 3rd year and thats your mark!
3 - this ones weird,,,, look at your marks from 1st and 2nd year... collect together the 12 best marks (having at least 60 credits from 3rd yr) and if they're all 60's then you get a 2.1... if they're all 50's then you get a 2.2 etc

Cheers hon! 

So I have a vague idea what my course marks are now; although I have resits to do, I know that, if I pass, those marks will be capped at 40% (i.e. a basic pass). As a result, I'm in a position to work out my degree mark.

The only problem is, no-one seems to know exactly *how* to work the bloody thing out.

You see, (and I don't know if this is true for all Universities), there are three methods of calculating a degree mark. The wording on these methods is as cryptic as it is for us mortal chaps to decipher the myriad variations in body language a member of the opposite sex expresses shortly before smacking you in the mouth for upsetting them (although that could just be me...).  Here's an example;

• Method 1: "the classification calculated from the weighted mean of relevant credits at level 2 and level 3 in the ratio of 40:60 respectively;"

• Method 2: "the classification calculated from the weighted mean of the relevant 120 credits at level 3;"
  
• Method 3: "the minimum classification in which the best 50% of the combined relevant credits at level 2 and level 3 were attained provided  at least 60 credits were at level 3."

... of course. It all seems so simple now...

Bollocks is it.

Ok, first things first: in this case (assuming there's a smartypants out there who knows of "another" definition), what's a "weighted mean"?

Secondly, what the hell does method 3 actually mean? "The minimum classification in which the best 50% of the combined relevant credits at level 2 and level 3 were attained provided  at least 60 credits were at level 3." I'd appreciate some working examples, preferably with pretty full-colour diagrams.

I'm reliably informed by my head of year that I've scraped a 2:2. Which is a bit of a kick in the pants since my interpretation of method 3, and the interpretation of the Ed & Rep Sabb (I think), gave me an overall mark of somewhere between 60 and 62%; a (low) 2:1.

If anyone can help, please get in touch. In the meantime, I'm going to use my own method of working out my degree classification, which goes something like this...

• Think of a number between 10 and 50;
• Divide it by 2;
• Add the number of times you've had a hangover in the last 6 months;
• Divide by the number of times you've eaten at Subway (take away doesn't count - not posh enough);
• Add the number of cats you've seen today;
• Subtract the number of cats you've stroked, picked up or been scratched by in the last week;
• Go outside. Stand on one foot. Close your eyes. Hold your breath. Subtract the number of teeth you break when you fall over;
• Divide everything by the number of chavs you've seen this afternoon;
• Put the remainder into a blender with some ice, frozen yoghurt, and a pack of salt & vinegar crisps (still in the packet);
• Whatever's left over is your degree mark. Go outside and play with it (but be careful of traffic)...

Well, that makes much more sense to me, at least...

I'm working on the NUS registration system for 2008; this week I'm adding security logging across UPSU.net to support the NUS card issue system. It's so boring I can't honestly think of anything to write about it that won't send you to sleep, so here's something completely different...

I'm not *that* stupid that I'm going to wade head-first into a raging debate about religious rights, but BBC News are covering a High Court challenge by a 16 year-old Christian today.

Her assertion is that her school's refusal to allow her to wear a ring symbolising her sexual purity - the "Silver Ring Thing" movement - is a breach of her human rights.

The story is here, but - since I'm a bit of a sheep when it comes to matters like this - I quickly found myself reading the "Have Your Say" discussion about this story.

Currently, the "most recommended" HYS entry reads, "As a practising Jedi, I am concerned that my daughter will not be able to wear her robes and carry a lightsabre when she starts school. My neighbour, a zealot Rastafarian has learnt that his son will not be able to smoke hashish at school. Political correctness gone mad."

<grin>