- Notice
gossip_guy
VIP Member
Jade's Reality: Every bookshop in the country in the country had hundreds of copies of her book and instantly sold out due to high demand. Every member of staff read and loved it. The shops that were lucky enough to still have stock have made entire displays celebrating the release.
Actual Reality: Most bookshops never had copies as they never stocked it to begin with. Jade harassed numerous bookshop employees to enquire about stock. They had never heard of the book, or Jade. Jade found a couple of bookshops with one copy each, then drove to them and rearranged the entire shelf display to feature her book prominently and grabbed notable books from other sections of the shop to put next to it in order to claim that she was being stocked next to Michelle Obama.
She's a completely narcissist.
beaki167
Active member
i can‘t wait for her video on her DNA test to hear about her views with her white supremacy mindset and fetishizing other cultures and ethnicities
i bet she will no longer introduce herself as "British university student“ but will mention her newly discovered ethnicity as well
i bet she will no longer introduce herself as "British university student“ but will mention her newly discovered ethnicity as well
Deeznutslol
VIP Member
lemonlime
VIP Member
"Land of rejection" gosh, Jade needs to get over this and get over herself. I can't imagine anyone being truly happy with their position in life constantly feeling the need to point out that they aren't upset about that past incident at all. Oxford couldn't give two shits about how Jade is doing, and I'm happy to say that they saw through her bullshit before I have lol. She's embarrassing herself.
No but you don't understand, she went to South Korea and had to do TWO WEEKS of isolation before she could party and mix with everyone on the planet!!! Won't someone please think of Jade and her hardships!!!!!Girl don't act like you didn't spend the past year and a half travelling and meeting up with people when us peasants were isolating
"Though there have been many shifts in the academic system from that time, such as the introduction of a wide range of subjects, we still employ a lot of the same methods of learning."
Jesus Fucking Christ, Jade. Where do I even start. Obviously, I'm not a top expert on this and I don't claim to be (If I was, Minevera would've hired me by now, obviously), but I would like to say something about this based on my own experiences. For some context: I've been studying to be a teacher for around five years now, so I've nearly finished my Master of Education. I'm from Germany so I'm not sure if all of this applies to the UK too, just as a little disclaimer.
Jade's assumption here is "reciting fact knowledge is how most of school works". I genuinely don't know how she comes up with that statement. Was your education literally just memorising things? In that case, it must've been the worst school of the UK and I sort of doubt that.
I'm studying two subjects, English and History, and part of my degree was to understand how teaching these two subjects has changed in time.
In history, factual knowledge isn't the focal point anymore. It is still important of course, but general compentences that enable you to interact with any historical sources are at the centre of our teaching. When interacting with sources from the past, in whatever form, (texts, pictures, objects) we encourage the students to ask questions like this: Who is the author of this source? What type of source is it? To what extent can we even learn from it? How is the source written, what sort of language does it use? What visual techniques are employed? And then, in a next step: What can we learn about the past from this? How would you judge this- from a contemporary and from a modern viewpoint? Teaching students these skills, instead of memorising facts, is at the core of modern history didactics, because it encourages critical thinking.
In foreign language teaching in general, different approaches have been taken. (In the 70s for example, there was an auditory approach, because it was thought this would be the most effective way of learning. This is also portrayed in the fourth season of the Crown, when Prince Charles is learning Welsh.) What we have now is the communicative approach - the end goal is to teach students skills that will enable them to foster receptive skills (reading, listening) and productive skills (writing, speaking). The thought behind this is that the end goal is to communicate with people in that language - so we should prepare students for that. That is why we ask them to talk to each other in a foreign language, test their listening skills, ask them to write texts. Most of these situations are artificial of course, but we try to make them as close to reality as possible. During an internship, I taught kids some thirteen year old kids about London sights - why? Because they might travel there and THAT is what they will need English for.
I agree with Jade partially here. To a certain extent, factual knowledge has to be taught. There's no way around learning vocabulary or time forms. Of course it's boring, of course it's annoying, but how else will you learn the language? This is, however, not the only part of foreign language teaching anymore.
In addition, lectures on psychology were mandatory to make sure we understand how learning works in the brain - part of what they found was that passively reciting isn't an effective way of learning - producing something of your own results in a much higher engagement with the material. An example for this: Let's assume we're trying to teach German kids the simple past. Passively reciting would be to ask everyone to say the sentence "Tony swam last week". It's boring, ineffective. What do we do instead? Show them a picture that shows a boy swimming. Underneath are the words: "Tony - last week". The kids have to find the word "swim" for the picture, remember the simple past and then put it into a sentence. It requires more work on their part, and is much more effective.
Of course the education system is still full of flaws and less than ideal, but these changes have been made to make learning more successful and efficient. (Edit: Also, this is just the theory of how ideal learning works. Not every teacher will construct their lesson like this of course. In my school time, some teachers followed this principle closely and others didn't give a shit.)
Also I decided not to link to any of the sources here (It's a gossip forum afterall, not an academic essay). But if anyone's interested I'll look it up of course. After all, it would be madness to claim something and then not to back it up with sources, right Jade?
To sum up: The claim that "we still employ a lot of the same methods of learning" is doubful. Of course we still need factual knowledge, but didactics has moved way beyond that. If she had done minimal research into this, she had realised that. I think it is wild in general that Jade decided to write a book on studying and academia without any experience in the field except her own as a student, and then not add any sources or references. But you know, she also quoted wikipedia in your uni essay.
Sincerely, a German German aspiring teacher.
TLDR: I'm studying to be a teacher. We don't just make students memorise things, we make them interact with the material. It's more effective this way.
Jesus Fucking Christ, Jade. Where do I even start. Obviously, I'm not a top expert on this and I don't claim to be (If I was, Minevera would've hired me by now, obviously), but I would like to say something about this based on my own experiences. For some context: I've been studying to be a teacher for around five years now, so I've nearly finished my Master of Education. I'm from Germany so I'm not sure if all of this applies to the UK too, just as a little disclaimer.
Jade's assumption here is "reciting fact knowledge is how most of school works". I genuinely don't know how she comes up with that statement. Was your education literally just memorising things? In that case, it must've been the worst school of the UK and I sort of doubt that.
I'm studying two subjects, English and History, and part of my degree was to understand how teaching these two subjects has changed in time.
In history, factual knowledge isn't the focal point anymore. It is still important of course, but general compentences that enable you to interact with any historical sources are at the centre of our teaching. When interacting with sources from the past, in whatever form, (texts, pictures, objects) we encourage the students to ask questions like this: Who is the author of this source? What type of source is it? To what extent can we even learn from it? How is the source written, what sort of language does it use? What visual techniques are employed? And then, in a next step: What can we learn about the past from this? How would you judge this- from a contemporary and from a modern viewpoint? Teaching students these skills, instead of memorising facts, is at the core of modern history didactics, because it encourages critical thinking.
In foreign language teaching in general, different approaches have been taken. (In the 70s for example, there was an auditory approach, because it was thought this would be the most effective way of learning. This is also portrayed in the fourth season of the Crown, when Prince Charles is learning Welsh.) What we have now is the communicative approach - the end goal is to teach students skills that will enable them to foster receptive skills (reading, listening) and productive skills (writing, speaking). The thought behind this is that the end goal is to communicate with people in that language - so we should prepare students for that. That is why we ask them to talk to each other in a foreign language, test their listening skills, ask them to write texts. Most of these situations are artificial of course, but we try to make them as close to reality as possible. During an internship, I taught kids some thirteen year old kids about London sights - why? Because they might travel there and THAT is what they will need English for.
I agree with Jade partially here. To a certain extent, factual knowledge has to be taught. There's no way around learning vocabulary or time forms. Of course it's boring, of course it's annoying, but how else will you learn the language? This is, however, not the only part of foreign language teaching anymore.
In addition, lectures on psychology were mandatory to make sure we understand how learning works in the brain - part of what they found was that passively reciting isn't an effective way of learning - producing something of your own results in a much higher engagement with the material. An example for this: Let's assume we're trying to teach German kids the simple past. Passively reciting would be to ask everyone to say the sentence "Tony swam last week". It's boring, ineffective. What do we do instead? Show them a picture that shows a boy swimming. Underneath are the words: "Tony - last week". The kids have to find the word "swim" for the picture, remember the simple past and then put it into a sentence. It requires more work on their part, and is much more effective.
Of course the education system is still full of flaws and less than ideal, but these changes have been made to make learning more successful and efficient. (Edit: Also, this is just the theory of how ideal learning works. Not every teacher will construct their lesson like this of course. In my school time, some teachers followed this principle closely and others didn't give a shit.)
Also I decided not to link to any of the sources here (It's a gossip forum afterall, not an academic essay). But if anyone's interested I'll look it up of course. After all, it would be madness to claim something and then not to back it up with sources, right Jade?
To sum up: The claim that "we still employ a lot of the same methods of learning" is doubful. Of course we still need factual knowledge, but didactics has moved way beyond that. If she had done minimal research into this, she had realised that. I think it is wild in general that Jade decided to write a book on studying and academia without any experience in the field except her own as a student, and then not add any sources or references. But you know, she also quoted wikipedia in your uni essay.
Sincerely, a German German aspiring teacher.
TLDR: I'm studying to be a teacher. We don't just make students memorise things, we make them interact with the material. It's more effective this way.
Last edited:
gossip_guy
VIP Member
Scholars will measure academia by two distinct eras now: Pre-Jade and Post-Jade.
Post-Jade, we're clearly enlightened and enriched by her insightful wisdom.
Pre-Jade, we'd look at English essays and be like: "Instructions unclear, accidentally performed 90 minute drum solo instead of writing essay."
missmina
VIP Member
, obviously not selling too wellBlueglacier
Active member
No one buy the book. Don't even hate read it. Why give her money she doesn't deserve?
I feel like you genuinely can't compare or talk about how much work someone is doing just by the contact hours. The amount of work you have to do outside of class can differ so much and there's no way for us to know how much work Jade is actually doing. That being said, the assignments we've seen (the essay and that donut shop thing for example) didn't look she spent a lot of time on it
pletkininke
Member
People do not have "meaningful" conversations all the time because we have our boudaries and because it would get very tiring.
I am sure most people we are surrounded with have something interesting to say. It doesn't mean you should push them to do so.
Sometimes we break those boundaries and get to know a stranger, but honestly it would be so annoying if people tried to talk about something "deep" all the time. I love these conversations with friends, but they are friends for a reason.
tbh she seems quite superficial to me, trying to get something "meaningful" out of everyone, but she calls so many people her "best friends" I doubt she actually knows anyone really well.
I am sure most people we are surrounded with have something interesting to say. It doesn't mean you should push them to do so.
Sometimes we break those boundaries and get to know a stranger, but honestly it would be so annoying if people tried to talk about something "deep" all the time. I love these conversations with friends, but they are friends for a reason.
tbh she seems quite superficial to me, trying to get something "meaningful" out of everyone, but she calls so many people her "best friends" I doubt she actually knows anyone really well.
lemonlime
VIP Member
Ugh that smirk, I'm heaving. Calm the fuck down Jade, you're not invited to speak at the parliament. I want someone to look at me the way this bitch looks at herself. I can just imagine her re-taking this selfie like 20 times, trying to decide on the correct level of smugness mixed with what she thinks is inspirational #girlboss attitude. The rabbit killer grin takes it a step further, her eyes are forever vacant.
Also... "my journey of getting better at driving" jesus christ, why is everything some sparkly insta hippie bullshit with this girl, I can't.
Last edited:
Blue Rose
VIP Member
I cannot get over this comment. How does she know these people were giving up before they started? She doesn’t know what their home life was like or what internal struggles they had. Not everyone has all the opportunities Jade did. Both he parents have good jobs and are encouraging. I bet when she was doing her exams she never had to lift a finger. Meanwhile other kids have to get part time jobs, or help out a lot at home because their family is struggling to make ends meet. Her trying to use other people’s disadvantages to make make herself seem less privileged than she is disgusts me.
Because everyone knows meat eaters actively seek out animals to become roadkill of course