Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part III - the alternatives)

While the problem of exams becoming ever easier and easy routes being sought have drawn continuous criticism, that of the exam hierarchy itself was boiling over only during my days as a sixth former.

At that time, people were casting doubts over the GCSE and GCE systems. The GCE had just been split into AS and A level exams, causing confusion and mark controversies. The questions of whether 'ABB' grades was a better combination than 'AAC' and that candidates were seeking soft subjects in place of languages and sciences were making people think twice about the current system.

Quite rightly so, given that all the changes in the system were moving away from the competitive and meanginful arena. All the concerns were making even the highest attainments of 'AAAA' or above look unsound in terms of recognition of abilities and excellence among peers.

The most popular alternative discussed was that of the European Bacalaureate, in which candidates must study maths, science and languages, as well as writing a thesis-style essay. The candidate would be given a combined mark topping 45. This would be very different different from the current system, given the smaller degree of freedom in choice of subjects, and that potentially students knows less of the relevant knowledge as they enter university (e.g. for science degrees). Also as the subjects cannot be graded individually, much explaining may be needed for a gifted scientist with deficiencies in languages.

The idea was eventually dropped for various reasons, and the current system prevailed. Personally, I am in favour of the current system of individual grading and freedom in choice of subjects, but maybe there should be proficiency test in languages, sciences and maths for not choosing a subject portfolio comprising all 3 elements. A bit like the IELTS exams, as long as they achieve the proficiency during their sixth form career. Only a 'pass' would be required, nothing more.

Education reforms are always tricky, but they are a necessary evil. An idle education system is only doing harm to a society. At present, the UK education system is starting to look old and fragile in the wind of change. It cannot hold on for much longer.

Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part II - the diagnosis)

The current ever-recurring symptoms of the UK secondary education exam system are set out in the previous article. Now it's turn for some commentary on the reasons.

It's easy to blame the government, and rightly so. Less to blame on their wish to make their education goals look 'accomplished', more on how the ministers view the purpose of exams.

Back in Hong Kong, it would be lucky for someone to get an 'A' grade in public exams (HKCE, HKAL) - they are as low as 1.6% and only as high as 4% among all candidates by subject. The purpose of exam is clear - putting each candidate into relative strength against fellow candidates, so that the cream of the cream could be spotted and bestow upon them best education and training opportunities. It's a competitive exam structure, and in the process candidates learn the essential knowledge and skills.

In the UK, my suspicion is that given the increasing abundance of further education opportunities (sixth form and university/college education), they are less anxious to grade students competitively to put only the best into the next step of the ladder. Instead the focus of the exam is a 'certificate of attainment', kind of non-competitive, 'see how much you have picked up in the curriculum' attitude. A bit like 'certificate of attendance', but with a simple exam at the end to see how much you have learned.

Without the urge to distinguish among candidates, there was no desire to set ultra-hard questions for the sake of discovering the best from the better.First step in decline of exam standards. Then as exams were viewed as 'attainment test', then testing the concepts individually/superficially would suffice. Hence easier questions to crack as variations and combination of concepts in a question became rare.

The third step is the establishment of the 'soft subjects' - so that candidates need not be trapped in the hard 'traditional subjects', but instead choose to seek attainment in subjects they may wish to pursue. Good in principle, but doing no good to candidates in terms of a rigorous education.

With these three steps in the set-up of exams, it would be hard to really tell who is good and who is really good. This serves the purpose of 'certificate of attainment', but does colleges and universities no favour in deciding who is suitable for what course. And with the easier exams and soft subjects, there is less motivation for students to study seriously, so the attainment becomes ever more superficial and irrelevant (think about an A level in law - how useful can it be in terms of knowledge attained or promoting rigorous study?)

Even worse, the brighter students suffer. An easy exam paper is like testing top chefs through the task of cooking up plain pasta as opposed to a complete circuit of cooking up plain pasta, preparing the meat, cooking up the sauce, and finally putting them nicely on a plate and selecting the right wine to go with. The slightest statistical error (e.g. having read a number wrongly) which has nothing to do with knowledge or skills would have deducted marks from a bright student, with no way of making up (as one of the few who could answer the last question). The ideas of using marks from these simple exams to put students into 'A*', 'A' etc. is absurd.

Furthermore, the emergence of those soft subjects is doing serious students no good. if someone is serious about a career in law, should he/she take A level in law? it would certainly help him to learn about law earlier, but given a lot of easy-learners choosing that subject for the sake of having an easy time, the good exam results would mean nothing, and probably put him in a not so good university. The purpose of those alterntive subjects is not fulfilled.

If the UK education needs fixing, they should fix their view on the exams' purpose - make it a competitive exam across the board, no more soft options, no more easy grading. Then confidence will flow back. Perhaps a 10% of candidates attaining 'A' wouldn't be too outrageous then.

Secondary education in the UK - the exams (Part I - the symptoms)

There were (and are) a lot of students seeking secondary education in the UK fom Hong Kong. I was one of them, at the sixth-form level.

Throughout my years in the UK, the exam reform had been in the news and on political agendas, especiallt during my years as sixth-formers.

Lurking at the background, the humming noise has always been the issues of 'grade inflation', 'ever easier exams' and 'easy way out'.

Every year after the GCSE and GCE results are released, newspapers would show charts deomonstrating the effect of grade inflation - in the 1990s only around 5% of candidates were awarded 'A', now around 20% awarded 'A*' or 'A'. 'A*' was the creation out of anger of 'grade inflation', but is by now as useless an indicator as a pound coin is to wealth.

Ever easier exams comes in two forms. Firstly the A Level exams were modulised - different parts of syllabus goes to different exam papers, and each split into two levels (AS and A level papers). Candidates take the easier AS papers after their first year, and the A papers after their second year. This means candidates who didn't do well in their first year could re-sit the concerned papers in the second - unfair to first-timers. Secondly the questions have become ever easier and common-sense/current affairs based, meaning that they are not much more difficult than a newspaper article. Not exactly demanding to learn. These easier questions are in turn making high grades easier to attain and top talents more difficult to spot.

Easy way out is simply adding salt to wounds. Not just that the subjects are getting easier to study and to get top grades, students are choosing the less intellectually challenging subjects - textile, drama, law, psychology. For candidates serious about their career paths in the respective fields, taking up a subject in those directions is perfectly fine. But as those subjects would have been taught for the first time in their education life, they are usually more introductory and easier with fewer complex concepts to grapple. Which means easier to get good grades with less efforts.

BBC - not free after all

Well, it was slightly mis-leeading in the previous article that I called the BBC 'provider of free channels'.

While they do not do adverts, they do get money through a more direct channel - by charging the viewers directly.

It works like the mobile phones. You don't get junk texts or calls solicited by the provider, but in return you have to pay a fee to use the service. In the case of BBC, they charge households a fixed fee per household per annum (around £160). Discounts for the elderly and black-and-white TVs.

Does it work? Well, most British have self-discipline, so it seems that most of my friends do cough up the required amount. And they always boast about their ability to check out on TV airwave receptions through their mobile devices hidden in small vans. But I am not so sure - say if I live in an apartment amongst others, it would be rather difficult to pinpoint. And if I use cabled receptors, they wouldn't be able to check out at all.

£160 is not exactly cheap, and for most working people we don't watch TV that often to make the price worth it. And given alternative ways of watching TV (online, TV cards on computers) it would be easier to evade detection. More incentives and means to watch without paying.

Most worryingly, I have a feeling that the self-discipline prided by most British is gradually crumbling (sneeky queue jumping at fastfood outlets; no more 'letting passengers alight first' in London underground. And don't just blame the foreigners, most culprits are British). The reliance on people doing as required without suitable safeguards/ check-ups will be less and less effective.

The fee-paying structure needs change. Make it fairer, and make it less reliant on self-discipline.

Religions...no longer free?

Please do not be mistaken. I am not suggesting that Britain has lost its tolerence towards religious freedom. Just that it has decided not to make places of worship free to enter.

Remembering 10 years ago when I first arrived in the UK, I admired very much its wealth of historical architecture, especially the cathedrals. They are rather like living fossils, full of history yet still functioning to this day, carrying out the traditional rituals which would not have been too different a few centuries ago.

At that time the cathedrals were free for all. Wander in when you fancy or pass by, stroll down the nave, take a close-up look at the paintings and stained glass. There would be donation boxes scattered around, and polite signs inviting donations and explaining the maintenance they would be funding. The cathedrals were inviting, as live museums as much as a place where people can seek a moment of quietness and reflection. Specific purposes were not pre-requisite to paying a visit.

Then, one by one, the cathedrals fell to the hands of fee-paying mechanisms. Booths and barriers were erected at the entrances, ushers guarded and demanded payment of entry. And the entrance fees were not cheap (although not expensive comparatively, either). But somehow the atmosphere was changed as soon as these measures were implemented.

They seemed less friendly, no longer a place to drop by. If I ever paid to enter a cathedral, I would walk up and down in the hope of viewing enought treasures to make the fee worth its value. Moments of quietness was disturbed by the thought that one had to pay for tranquility. The grandfather feeling has been lost. It's just another tourist attraction.

Cathedrals were not built to become attractions. By turning them into attractions, the cathedrals are cathedrals no more.

Names and geopolitics - England, Wales and Scotland

Having set out the relationship between UK, Britain and British Isles, the finer point now rests within Great Britain and its three constituent sections. And a demonstration of British arrogance and self-importance.

Again, history plays a great part. Great Britain being just a big island, it was separated into 3 kingdoms and cultures in ancient times - England to the south, Scotland to the North and Wales to the West. They were gradually put together into a soverign and formed Great Britain.

The idea of three cultures/distinct geographies lived on. So people will identify themselves as English/Scots/Welsh, and put a heavy emphasis on this identity when communicating with inhabitants from other part of Britain.

Given that Great Britain is small, that seems peculiar. By now, the three geographies are no longer distinctive, arguably less so than Hong Kong vs. Beijing or Texas vs. New York, yet inhabitants of these mentioned nations are more likely to describe themselves as 'Chinese' and 'Americans' than the British are ready to identify themselves as 'British'.

And then comes the idea of how the describe these three geographies. They call them 'nations'. Yes, as though they were three separate soverigns somehow governed by one common overarching government. That is shear arrogance and self-importance. If they are nations, then what should Great Britain be? In the US, it's states and the nation, very clearly set-out with no ambiguity in which one is the overarching force and which is a more local entity. If the British are using the word 'nation' liberally to assert a similar status as 'state' in the US, then they shouldn't - it is confusing and doing the English language no good. If they are not using the word 'nation' in this sense, then they are muddling up the concepts of local and national governance.

So when there is the 'Six Nation Rugby', it means England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy and Ireland. Can't see why France is in the same league as Scotland in political and soverign sense.

It is very saddening to see a nation making self-important statements of oneself. A manifestation that it hasn't learned its real position in world geopolitics.

Geopolitics - UK vs. Great Britain vs. British Isles

Never a country has acquired so many names. In day-to-day life we use them casually and interchangably, but when we go deep down then the differences could be dug out.

How to call the country I now live in? I used the 'UK' in the blog title, but when describing I sometimes use 'British'. Then the idea of the 'British Isles' appears in national media at times.

An awful lot to do with history, which I am not an expert in. But let's share what I have gathered up till now.

As everyone knows this country is made up of big islands. The main Island, which comprises 3 regions - England, Scotland, Wales, together with some small outposts (Isle of Wight, Shetland etc) which are very close to the main Island and which have long been occupied, is known collectively as 'Great Britain'. Why 'great', I have never worked out. But don't assume all British muttering 'Great Britain' to be arrogant and self-important.

To the West of Great Britain is Ireland, which used to be wholly ruled by the British but now only rules the Northern part. The 'United Kingdom' was used to describe the combination and Great Britain and Ireland, and now Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So under the 'UK' there are the Irish and the British.

Then there are a few 'client states' half-ruled by the British. They are not colonies in the sense that the UK government does not rule over, but these states are of the size of a county in the UK and therefore too small to be a country on their own. They adhere to the standards of the UK (so they look like part of UK in daily life) and has protection of the UK government (passports, military etc). They are the likes of Isle of Man and the Jersey Islands. Together they form the 'British Isles'.

Quite complicated, isn't it? But nowadays, given that the UK is no longer the world's leading power, who cares about its nomanclature? Just use them freely, albeit with slight caution at times.

Apples

Every culture has some some food items which are representative of oneself, and develops very detailed classifications and refined tastes for these items. Tea for the Chinese and Japanese, durian for the Malaysian, wine for the French, and apple for the British.

Back in Hong Kong, apple is apple, the main distinguishing features would be red vs. green, and the Delicious (the US deep red variety - the distinctive position achieved through years of marketing).Once past this stage not many people would care about the actual variety (similarly for grapes).

In the UK, an utterly different case. People know about the varieties and would develop specific likings. After spending time in the UK I became aware of the subtle differences in the tastes, colour and texture of different varieties. Most of these varieties are of cause UK-cultivated, hence the rich variation present and the ease of trying successive types and then discover their differences. A few of the varieties I know of (the description is by memory, I don't consume so many apples nowadays):

- Gala - red apples with vertical stripes. Red not so intense and quite rounded in shape.. All-rounded taste and tends to be sweet. Crisp or soft

- Bareburn - Red apples with shades of green lurking beneath. The red has a hint of ruby intensity. Tends to be crisp, taste is sharp and refreshing

- Cox. Red apple ususally smaller in size. Tends to be soft. not very outstanding taste (more subtle)

- Delicious. Red apple without stripes. Very intense dark red. Can be crisp or soft. Sweet infused with a sense of sharpness but and leaves aftertaste or 2 sides of the tongue

- Golden delicious - green apple but towards golden in the shadow. Usually soft. Sour with with an aftertaste of sweetness. Rounded in shape

- Granny Smith - Intense green apple almost glowing green. Usually crisp and sharp in taste

- Pink lady - Intense bright pink apple. Can be soft or crisp, sweet and more complex in flavour

Not to mention very big, wide-bodied green cooking apple to make apple & pork stew or apple pies (to be verified). There comes a time in spring when all of them rush to the market, and supermarkets would have apple festivals. At those times one can purchase the above varieties and distinguish the difference.

Only when the great varieties are omnipresent then one will realise the subtle differences, and appreciate the complexity in the subject, hence understand the refined taste. This goes for everything under the sun.

BBC - the provider of advert free channels

BBC is an intriguing institution. Let's dissect it in parts.

The most superficial aspect of its intriguing properties lies in its TV channels - they have no adverts, and they do not intend to spoil any viewer's favourite programmes at all. When a programme starts, it will not be interrupted by adverts of any sort (commercial adverts, programme trailers etc) until it ends. Even for long Hollywood movies. If you are waiting for a toilet break or time to make tea, you better do it before the start.

Even in between programmes, they only broadcast programme trailers or news updates. Not commercial or public announcement (governemnt adverts).

No wonder it is the favourite broadcaster, and commercial freeview channels just can't compete. One also wonders given that BBC channels are the most viewed, how squeezed the TV commercial markets has become, compared to other nations where freeview and cable channels alike accept commercials. And the governemnt just can't easily get public messages (e.g. flu campaign) across the mass.

Advert-free channels seems to be doing the public a huge favour, but watch out for its negative impact on aspects of the society at large.

Australia

The British seems to be eternally attracted by Australia, in the same way as children keep thinking about sweets and chocolate.

In school, classmates talked about going to Australia for gap year, working, surfing, enjoying sunshine, and speaking English in a different accent.

At work, colleague felt like spending a week or two in Australia, enjoying sunshine, having barbecue by a beach, and going round deserts. The more keen souls even thought about moving to Australia for a year or two of work, presuming having the same pastimes as those going for holidays.

On TV, programmes sending people to Australia to 'taste a new life' or 'buy a beautiful holiday home' are intermittently popular. People like comparing various aspects of life and social aspects (sports, culture, way of life) with Australia - just like comparing one's progress with classmate/colleague/neighbour of a similar background.

Not to mention 'The Neighbours', the Australian soap opera which has glued British to the front of television, and caused much stir when it was treansferred away from the BBC.

While there are many reasons to make sense of this degree of obsession, it still appears slightly over the top to me as an onlooker. Apart from it being on the hemisphere and that the weather and rural areas are more exciting, the language, culture, people are not distinctively different from Britain (contrast with Asian cultures or European cultures). Why the buzz and the fuss?

After 10 years, I am still not close to being a British.

I was there...10 years ago

There is one thing very annoying about the British - they like to side with people when places or events were discussed, even when their 'similar experiences' are actually badly mis-matched in time, or bear no resemblance at all.

When I told people that I came from Hong Kong, a very common response would be 'I was there as well...x years ago, and I stayed there for y days', where 'x' would usually be 5 or more, and 'y' 3 or less. Then they would discuss at length about their experience in Hong Kong, and eager to seek my approval.

Once their account of schedules and encounters in Hong Kong had been delivered, they would swiftly move on to commenting on various aspects of life in Hong Kong and the surrounding geographies (China, Taiwan, Singapore etc), as though they had been keen observers of the region for years. Given the values of 'x' and 'y', their opinions could hardly be unbiased and all-rounded. Nonetheless they would take great pride in being able to pass judgements, and certainly did not expect to be corrected even in the slightest sense.

To be honest, I usually find this behaviour offensive, and a mainfestation of arrogance of the British. More so, it also suggested that the British were unwilling to discuss, but more interested in expressing - why exchange opinion when one is correct? I have learned not to argue or supplement their observations, lest they turn into heated debates which I have no hope of winning.

When I made the above comments, I wrote as a first-hand observer in the UK. The experiences have been tried and tested repeatedly, and my 'x' and 'y' are counted in years. Moreover, I welcome comments. Please feel free to leave one so that we can all improve.

Calling names - my name

What seems obvious usually turns out not to be so. Otherwise the world would be a simple one and mis-understandings rare.

A lot of people in Hong Kong have English names - i.e. apart from the English translation of their Chinese names, they would also take up a single-word name from the list of 'common names' which exist amongst the Western communities (these names may or may not appear on their official documents such as passports). Mary,David, Pierre, Susan. You name it, they have all been taken.

I do not have an English name. I am happy for people to call me by my Chinese name, even if that means they cannot pronounce it in the most authentic and 'correct' manner. But problems arise when people can't even remember my name.

My Chinese name consists of 2 words in English (because it was a 2 character name in Chinese), and the British were simply not accustomed to the idea that someone should be called a name with 2 words (not including the surname) in day-to-day activities. So, despite my name being short and simple, no one in the classes or boarding house (in secondary school) could remember.

After a fortnight of confusion and brain re-tuning, most senior students and teachers have finally come round to addressing me correctly, which I suspected was accomplished by fudging the 2 words in my name forcefully into one, then learned very hard to remember that newly created word. However the junior students were still addressing me in ways which I would in no way realise that I was being addressed.

In the end, special measures had to be sought. I raised a challenge and offered a small prize in return. Whoever could call my name correctly first would receive a packet of chocolate. That somehow ignited their incentives, and whenever I appeared various attempts would be made.

The prize was finally awarded just before the end of the term, when a Ukranian student got there first. Once someone among the peers got it, the correct version soon spread and I was never called in funny ways anymore. The result was rather pleasing for a fantastic cost of £0.83.

When I entered university, the same problem arose. This time, I gave up. There were simply too many students, friends, lecturers to deal with. I took out the second word in my name and asked everyone to call me by the first word in my name. That worked very well given that it comprises only 2 letters and is analogus to the most common preposition in English language. Should have done this earlier, although this effective change in name had enabled me to distinguish my secondary school friends from the others from the start of an e-mail or telephone conversation.

If you face a difficult name but masters it, the owner will appreciate your effort. Don't always opt to customise or simplify on behalf of the owner.

Barbecue - Part II

Method of cooking is not the only difference in barbecue. So is the food served.

What would you prepare for a barbecue? The answer is seemingly obvious, but not quite. In Hong Kong, it is 'obviously' meat balls (Chinese style, not to be mistaken with those loosely pressed mince meat parcels that crumble readily in the West), Frankfruter sausages, chicken wings, thinly sliced pork chops and beef steaks (of course seasoned with black pepper), corn on cob and last but not least marshmallows!

In the UK, pork chop or beef steaks would have been a rarity, typically offered at more luxury parties. Most would opt for British sausages or burger steaks (beef or lamb), occasionally chicken thighs (only lightly seasoned, extra taste added by squirting various sauces upon completion) and fish (usually salmon fillet).

How do you eat? In the UK version with sausages and burgers, one simply add on 2 pieces of bread or buns, turn the grilled meat into the centrepiece of a burger or hotdog, then consume. In the cases of chicken thighs or fish, pasta or couscous might be prepared in advance to go with the meat on a nice dish - best taken with knives and forks. This means a burger/sausage or two, or a hearty dish of chicken/fish, and one calls it a day.

In Hong Kong, with these mini pieces of meatballs, wings etc served, barbecue is designed to be a food party, not a special way of having a normal meal. Lasting a hour or two, one would casually chat with each other while grilling rounds of food, harvesting them when ready. Few items besides the grill would be consumed. Rather unthinkable to turn a grilled frankfruter into a hotdog, or grilled steak into steak & salad.

In Guilliver's Travels the 2 countries waged war against each otehr because they couldn't agree on which end of a boiled egg to consume first during breakfast. Sounds like a small dispute, but it is not so small after all - as we see it in this case of barbecue.

Barbecue - Part I

Difference in culture appears in every aspect of life, even in as homely a practice as barbecue.

Back in Hong Kong, barbecue is more of a winter activity. Everyone huddles round a barbecue grill, having the freshly flame-grilled meat & veg while taking warmth off the burning charcoal.

In the UK, the opposite is true. it seems that no one has even the least interest in barbecue in winter. Barbecue must be a summer festivity, where the fire is set in the midst of intense sunshine and heat. I was bewildered by this awkward and seemingly contradictory behaviour at first, but then got the point of it very soon - all the heat from the sun and barbecue grill is to be washed down with gallon after gallon of beer. Without either the sun or the barbecue, the enjoyment obtained from the beer will be greatly diminished.

Then comes the method of cooking. In Hong Kong, we were all used to each having a barbecue fork. A device rather resembling the sabres of musketeers, with a sharpened U-shaped double pin at the far end and a wooden handle at the back, the fork would allow the user 2 skewers of meat or veg pierced through and grilled above the fire. Should the user wish to cook food of bigger sizes (e.g. steak or pork chop), then the slab of meat would be skilfully pierced through both skewers so that it would spread out for even cooking. This device would require the user to hold on to it, and turn occasionally to enable uniform cooking.

Not so in the UK. Here the barbecue fork is a rare sight. Instead a grill net would be set up above the grill, and the food to be cooked simply placed on top and turned with a tong occasionally. This is a clever method of barbecue (lest a lazy one), in which just one person would be able to operate and feed dozens. Simple, easy, makes having a barbecue more enjoyable but takes the fun out of the process of cooking - where people can comment on each other's food and barbecue skills, or have a light-hearted chat round the grill. Unless the one operating the grill enjoys serving, the UK way appears to condemn whoever flips the meat to the post of a cook, while the rest of the participants assume the roles of guests enjoying themselves without having to share any burden of party management.

What is the purpose of barbecue? Once you have decided, you may then proceed to selecting the appropriate form of barbecue.

The weather - part II

The British weather has changed rather substantially over the past 10 years. I just wonder how much it will change over the next 10.

When my father studied in the UK in 1981, he used to observe cloudy, slightly rainy weather with little sunshine. He used to remark that when the sun finally came out in May, the lecture halls and libraries were empty, and students and professors alike headed towards Hyde Park to secure a deck chair. Sunshine was a rare commodity.

The first few years in the UK, I found much the same phenomenon. Not a lot of sunshine, and even less warmth. During the study leave period in the midst of A Level exams, fellow housemates in the boarding school would revise under sunshine with a bathing towel. Sometimes what they defined as sunshine was nothing more than a glimpse of the sun amid thick clouds, and the temperature was not hospitable. I opted to stay by the radiator.

During university, the weather started to change. By 2006, when I worked as an intern in London, sunshine was blazing and grass dried up to the colour of hay. People thought it was going to be a vintage year of sunshine, once every decade or so, and so everyone enjoyed as much as they can - reading on the lawn, weekend barbecue, beer in the beer garden.

Since then, sunshine was remembered as a norm for summers. It has by now become an expectation than a wish. Short sleeves and sandals become natural in summer, and people are accustomed to sweating. Nonetheless, people still enjoy sunshine and beg for more of it.

I used to joke that the British were so obsessed with sunshine that they would be more than happy to emigrate to the deserts. This still holds true and never fails to amuse people.

The weather - part I

It seems that weather is an integral part of any conversation with a British, be it report on weather outlook, comments on weather over the past days, or indicating weather one hopes to encounter at a specific time period of a year.

10 years ago, I found this a peculiar topic of conversation. After all, weather was nothing more than a passing comment or reported fact. 10 years on, I would say that I am rather good at the game, having acquired an array of adjective and descriptive phrases to ensure an entertaining dialogue with any British.

Of course, there are a few rules which one has to follow. Firstly, sunshine and heat is always desired, and rain disgusted. Whenever the weather forecast suggests sunshine, it must be mentioned and emphasised in a conversation, the more positive and hopeful towards the forecast being realised the better. Second, snow must be wished for Christmas. For the 10 years I stayed in the UK, only 2010 had the wish come true. Nonetheless one must keep one's hope up. Thirdly, try to be cheerful with the weather even if it is raining cats and dogs - never spoil the conversation.

Weather is important to most British. If you feel that you are ready to discuss weather at length, then you are starting to adapt to the British way of life

10 years in the UK - introduction

My life before UK was HK - where I was born, spent my early formation years, studied in school, made good friends. Then 10 years ago I decided to further my studies in the UK. 10 years on, I am still here. One can describe me as 'being stuck', but I just see myself as staying on, not stating a preference or regret over my current state.

A lot has changed in the UK since 10 years ago, and a lot of personal memories have been weaved. It is my intention to use this space to record my thoughts, and share my memories, formed over these years.