This year two boxers made the trip down to Shefield Institute of Sport to represent Strathclyde in the mens novice section. Both boxers had enjoyed a sucessful season so far winning the Scottish University Championships at their respective weight categories. The Quarter-finals were held on the 25^th of February, Craig Hunter was up first for Strathclyde competing at 67kg aginst Colin va der Plaskin. In the first round Craig found it difficult to adjust against the southpaw fighter from Manchester but a good defence saw him through. Craig looked more settled in rounds 2 and 3 and was able to pick up a convincing 17 – 9 points win.

Craig Hunter (Red) vs Colin van der Plaskin (blue)

Representing Strathclyde at 75kg Ross Jackson was drawn against Jack Haslett of Durham Universtiy. Ross boxed well throught his bout picking up points behind a decent jab. It was a good performane from Ross and he went on to claim a narrow points victory 11-9 against a strong opponent.

Ross Jackson in the Red Corner

The semi-finals were held on February 26^th , Craig was drawn against Murad Khan from the Universtiy of Essex. Against a shorter opponent Craig used his longer reach to his advantage. Boxing at range Craig was able land cleanly with straight shots. The contest was eventually stopped by the referee early in the third round, after a strong left upper cut was landed by Craig allowing him to progress to the final.

Craig Hunter winning after the referee stopped the contest

In the other semi final Ross Jackson faced Dale Martin of Northumbria University. Martin proved to be a difficult opponent and Ross found himself behind on points after the first two rounds. In the third round Ross should great resilience and superior fitness, but unfortunatly this was not enough with Ross losing the fight 18 – 10.

Ross Jackson (red) vs Dale Martin in the Semi-final

The Final took place on Saturday the 26^th of March where Craig was up against Calum Spours of Swansea University. The bout started at a fast pace with Spours taking the share of the points in the first round. The second round was closely matched with both boxers landing some clean shots to both head and body. In final round Craig was unable to overcome the points deficit and had to settle for the silver medal after a 19- 13 defeat.

WINNER:

1st Place – ‘Last Fall on Nevis’ by Petra Romstorfer

Judges’ Comment: Dramatic action shot. The perfect timing captures the moment.

If you’re along supporting one of our clubs at a sporting event or just a keen photographer, then send your sports picture to ussa.media@strath.ac.uk and win the chance to have it published in the Telegraph.

Over 700 students from Strathclyde, Glasgow and Caledonian University took part in a range of sports including football, rugby, hockey, netba

ll and basketball to see who would take home the silver trophy.

The competition went to the wire with the destination of the silver cup set to be decided in the men’s basketball game between Glasgow University and Strathclyde.

However, players from the University of Strathclyde and the University of Glasgow women’s volleyball teams had to play one final set at the end of the day after their match was cut short at 1-1.

It was a case of history repeating itself as overall Glasgow won the cup by one point – the same as last year.

Strathclyde sports president, Karen MacKellar said: “Coming second just shows that the competition is at such a high level and how tough it is.

“Everyone has absolutely done their very best and it’s just came down to one point.”

2012 Glasgow Taxis Cup full results:

• Athletics – Glasgow University • Cricket – Strathclyde University • Badminton – Strathclyde University • Men’s basketball – Glasgow University • Women’s Basketball – Glasgow University • Men’s Football – Strathclyde University • Women’s Football – Strathclyde University • Golf (exhibition sport) – Caledonian University • Men’s Hockey – Strathclyde University • Women’s Hockey – Strathclyde University • Netball – Caledonian University • Rugby – Strathclyde University • Squash (exhibition sport) – Strathclyde University • Swimming – Glasgow University • Tennis – Glasgow University • Trampolining – Glasgow University • Men’s volleyball – Strathclyde University • Women’s volleyball – Glasgow University

A number of students go through a similar transition as years of university life and learning shape and change our opinions on what we want from the world. Although I’m sure you are all sick of hearing how the economy, and the world in general, has gone tits since a few bankers got a bit carried away, sadly it’s kind of true. Even those of us who will leave university with a degree which should lead into a profession i.e. medicine, teaching, law, find ourselves with little options.

So here I am, hoping to put a positive spin on the scary world of life after graduation.

I’m not going to repeat what some have said before which is that university students leave with no skills to handle a “normal job” in the “real world”. That’s nonsense. We aren’t stupid; in fact a number of us will have been working before and throughout our time at university. I think it’s quite patronising to say we are unequipped for the job market in fact. So there.

A number of degrees leave students with many options out with their field of study. While this freedom of choice is a good thing, it is this freedom which can leave some quite undecided when they finish university. What do you do then? A majority of us will look for a job. This may be a job that involves something totally different to what you have studied or could be something that allows you to utilize what you have learned at university.

For either route graduate schemes are popular especially with the promise of full time, paid work, for a contracted period of time, with strong chances of a job at the end. For me the prospect was tempting, however graduate schemes tend to focus on areas such as finance, business and recruitment. If this does interest you then the Strathclyde Careers website has vacancies for graduate schemes, as does the Prospects website at prospects.ac.uk

What are the other options then? Well I’m sure for many of you the thought of spending even more time at university is enough to make your stomach turn; but further study isn’t a bad option. A postgraduate degree may be what you need to expand on what you learned during your undergraduate or be the perfect way for you to gain access to a new field of interest.  Though one thing I would bear in mind is that while it may be tempting to put off the job hunt for another year or so and carry on with the student life, ask yourself: how will this help me? If you or someone else can’t find a reason why a postgraduate degree is a better option than finding a job, then maybe it’s not for you.

Another option is to look for work experience. While this may just involve finding a job and seeing if it is for you then taking the move further, some employers offer special work experience programmes. The terms vary from full to part time and paid to voluntary. Voluntary organisations and charities take on volunteers for as long as the volunteer has the time to devote to the organisation. This can be a good option as you can pair volunteer work with a job to help you earn money while allowing you to gain experience. Something I am hoping to do over the next year.

Then we have the good old gap year. It may be the case for many graduates that their main priority on leaving university will be finding work. However, for some students who may still be undecided, taking the opportunity to travel and see the world might be a valuable option. To do this you can try applying for a working holiday visa. Although if you watch as much “Border Force” as I do you’ll know that you have to stick to the terms of the visa or you’ll be on the next plane home. Also, it may be the case of having a gap ‘few months’ rather than a year, and spending the rest of the year working away and saving the pennies in sunny Scotland.

So I hope that I have managed to spread a little calming influence amidst the “oh my god, what am I going to for the rest of my life?!” panic. There is a lot of pressure on graduates to be sure of what they are doing after they leave university; but why? We are only young and most of us in our twenties, which is meant to be a time when we are “finding ourselves” after all. Basically guys ‘keep calm and don’t panic’.

By Zoe Calderwood

‘Hi there,’ I said. They looked up from their menus. ‘Are you ready to order?’

It seemed like some sort of family event. One by one, they called out their orders – cheese toasties, minestrone soup, ginger beer – The old man at the end didn’t say a word. He had taken out a tiny black notebook and was now scribbling something in it.

I always feel an affinity with fellow notebook-keepers, and couldn’t help wishing I was closer so I could see what he was writing.

‘And a bowl of chips to share,’ said the lady in blue, ‘and I think that’s it.’

I collected together their menus but just before turning to leave, I noticed the old man had stopped scribbling. He was adjusting his glasses, and then he ripped the page from his notebook and slipped it under the sugar bowl.

My curiosity began to hum.

About two hours later, the family paid their bill and bustled out the door. As usual the table was strewn with napkins and dirty dishes but – yes! – there it was! That mysterious piece of paper! It was a little drawing: a long-nosed man peeking over a wall. Underneath were the words: Brian was here.

Customers often leave things behind: seashells, reading glasses, broaches, keys. Someone left a walking stick once; we kept it for weeks, but I don’t think anyone ever came back to claim it. All these forgotten objects – they whisper at stories.

What is the story behind this drawing? I imagine that it starts with something quite banal, like the old man was just trying to pass the time. I don’t remember seeing him talking much. Maybe his hearing aid was playing up – it was picking up too much background noise and his ears were full of rattling cutlery, and the rumble of hundreds of voices speaking at once, and tinkling piano music, and teaspoons clinking against china. Or maybe he had just switched it off and sat quiet.

Perhaps this doodling has become something of a regular occurrence for Brian, if that is his name; maybe it’s a way of coping with this new age of silence. He’s aware that he has become something of a nuisance at family gatherings. No one knows what to do with him. He can’t hear what they’re saying so they avoid sitting beside him because ‘it’s awkward’ – yes, he heard his granddaughter say that at Christmas. He pretended not to, but he heard it. Maybe this doodling is an attempt to reconnect with them again, to try and make them laugh.

Because he slipped it under the sugar bowl, and because he left it there, I almost think he put it there for us, the waitresses. I think he wanted us to find it.

Sometimes, on rainy, wistful days, I’ve wondered what it would be like for a customer to look back and see me clearing their table. They might glance through the window and catch me crumpling their empty sugar packets, catch me stacking their teacups, sweeping away their scone crumbs, wiping away their spilt coffee and sticky fingerprints, catch me wiping and wiping until every last trace of them is gone. I wonder if they would feel a slight tug of – not quite sadness, not as concrete as that – but a creeping impression that they had just witnessed themselves being rubbed out.

I wonder if Brian has felt like this. Maybe that is why he left the picture. He was leaving behind a piece of himself, a remnant. Of course there was the risk that it might get thrown away with the rest of the rubbish. But then, there was also the possibility, the hope, that someone might find it. Someone might find it, and then someone would know, he wanted someone to know: Brian was here.

By Melissa Reid

1. The language. Because if you don’t use it you don’t get what you want.

2. Not getting what you want because sometimes you don’t know the language to ask for it.

Not only has my French improved this year, I’m less spoilt. Win, win.

Immersion is the recommended way of learning a second language. You are surrounded by it every day. Even if you go for a wander round the park and speak to no one you can still hear the language being used around you.

My new favourite language learning hobby is eavesdropping on public transport. It’s interesting and educational. (As a side note, another fun thing to do in a foreign country is to eavesdrop on other English speakers. They assume you’re French and therefore speak freely! Brilliant!)

Learning a second language isn’t easy unless you’re one of those lucky bastards raised bilingual. This is mainly because being older affects both how people teach you and how adaptable your brain is.

When you learn your first language you do so in an immersion setting with no other way of expressing yourself than getting up to speed with everyone else. From your first few words to saying more and more complex phrases you are showered with praise. At first, the praise is attention from your parents, later the praise is that your needs and wants can be expressed, understood and therefore catered for.

If I had been showered with praise every time I learned a new French word I may have picked it up faster too. Instead, as adult learners we repeat verb conjugations, noun genders and the rules and exceptions of countless grammatical structures until they stick.

Another element, which makes learning language easier when you’re younger is that when we’re young our brains can mimic whatever sounds we are exposed to in language. As we grow older this pliable aspect of our brain disappears and in the process our brains learn to dismiss subtle differences in noises that it deems inessential. This explains why primary school children are constantly saying, ‘non, Claire, c’est pas ça, c’est heure’ in a way that I can only describe as ‘the exact same way as I just said it’.

As older learners we also have the capacity to ask more questions, since we were toddlers we have been obsessed with the word ‘why?’ Unfortunately an important aspect of learning a language is learning structures, which are merely habits of communication. To ask ‘why?’ would probably make the process longer and more arduous because quite often the answer is just ‘because it would sound ‘funny’ to native speakers otherwise’. Therefore it’s best to learn a language before you have the sense to start questioning how it is made and how it can be mastered.

I’ve been in France for four months now and it’s hard to tell how much my French has improved. Some of my sentences are clunky and disjointed with lingering English syntax. Some have questionable grammar structures that I have invented in order to avoid things I don’t know how to use yet. A lot of the time I have all the words I need to make the sentence that I want to say but rather than making it I just throw the words from my body and hope they magically form meaning.

But is it even possible to be fluent in a second language if you’re not exposed to it at a young age? I learned the French numbers to ten in primary school. I did 4 years of high school French, had a 6 year break and tried again in Uni and I don’t think I’m particularly adept at language learning. Should I still expect fluency?

There’s no point in asking. I know by now that learning a language isn’t about asking questions and getting insightful responses. It’s about repetition, practise and looking like a right tit when you try and fail on a daily basis until you start getting it right.

By Claire Alexander

You can’t beat a near A-sexual lead character; The Doctor, Sherlock, Olivia Dunham (I’m on the second series and she hasn’t batted an eyelid at Pacey’s charms), Ahsoka Tano, Sheldon, Yoda. It just works. They’re reliable, they’re interesting and they’re smart. Smart is, after all, the new sexy.

Characters like this encourage young viewers to do well at school, get an interesting job, interesting hobbies and live their own life. They don’t let the question of whether or not they will die alone dictate their actions.

Romantic comedies, on the other hand, encourage bunny boiler behaviour by allowing their fans to indulge in romantic fantasies which are never likely to happen. Guys don’t watch porn and automatically assume his missus is going to invite her mate to bed with them. My point is if you think your life should read like a romantic comedy you’re flirting with disappointment.

With the speed that technology is advancing sci-fi and fantasy films are probably closer to reality than rom coms. Over the top romantic gestures just don’t really exist. Holding a boom box outside a bedroom window and rushing in to stop a wedding at the last minute aren’t real life experiences. Boom boxes are heavy; your arms would get sore. Weddings are expensive; you’d be hooked by the father before you get to the bride.

The biggest problem with rom coms is the implication that if your other half is really the perfect guy/girl for you, they will instinctively know how to make you happy. Bullshit. If you want something in life there are two ways to get it;

We tend to think of political furore in the UK as little more than white men in their mid-forties to late-sixties getting all in a tizzy because one of them’s stolen more money than is typically considered reasonable for an elected official. In other words, it is depressing and dull. Or depressingly dull. Or dully depressing. As we near the halfway point of the mad science friendship experiment that is the Coalition Government, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain interest as roughly the same arguments are articulated by roughly the same people over and over again, because it’s dull and depressing. And depressing and dull.

Lucky then, that America’s colloquial and relentlessly crazy version of political bickering is starting to get interesting, if not frightening. The Republican Party is gearing up to unseat the current President and morally ambiguous Democrat, Barack Obama. The rhetoric has been turned up to eleven,  the corporate hacks and phonies are being exposed, and about three-hundred-and-eleven-million people with about two-hundred-million guns are left bewildered and divided by a mass-media squabble between millionaires. (That was the frightening part, yes.)

All that can seem a bit much to take in: it’s hard enough to remember who Nick Clegg is, let alone ten-or-so people who might be doing something-or-other in another country entirely. Who is this talking newt-man, and why should I care about the size of his head? Why does everyone snigger at the mere mention of Rick Santorum’s name? How come ROMNEY-BOT-USA-AOK looks so much like an actual human? Just what on earth is all this stuff actually about, anyway? How does it all work?

In the United States of America, elections function much like a Mortal Kombat tournament. Confident hopefuls – generally Senators, Governors, Congressmen, or prominent CEOs and media personalities – gather from across the country to compete in primary elections and caucuses in each state. Whoever wins the primaries gets the chance to fight Shang Tsung one-on-one, with the safety of all who dwell in Earthrealm at stake for the next four years.

It’s generally considered gauche to take a shot at a sitting President from within their own party, so Obama does not have much in the way of serious competition from the Democrats. The Republican candidates, in ascending order of relevance, are:

Ron Paul: A Congressional representative for Texas. Paul considers himself a libertarian. He is in the unique position of being too Democrat for the Republicans and too Republican for the Democrats: he opposes federal over-spending, but is pro-gun ownership; he opposes American military presence in the Middle East, but is also pro-life. Though Paul is generally well-spoken and earnest, he is vilified by the news media for daring to have independent thought and, as such, is not considered a serious candidate.

Newt Gingrich: A former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich is driven by unwavering self-belief in spite of some fairly outrageous ideas, such as guaranteeing a habitable lunar base by the end of his second term as President (really). Following an impressive victory in the South Carolina primary, Gingrich’s campaign seems to have lost much of its momentum in the wake of stunning revelations about his private life. Apparently, Gingrich left his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer and left his second wife after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Whether these allegations are true or not, Gingrich’s campaign motors are on a hardcore Christian agenda, particularly with regard to love and marriage. As such, he is finding himself under increased pressure to explain his actions.

Rick Santorum: A former Senator for Pennsylvania. Santorum – hey, quit giggling – started out as something of a filler candidate: all that was expected of him was to get his name out there – cut it out – and try not to make too much of a mess – I’m serious – of Mitt Romney’s run. However, something happened. Something that not even Santorum expected: he started winning. First, a recount showed he actually won the Iowa caucus. Then, with the triple-threat of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, he showed a kind-of gay abandon for – oh, enough snickering! The thing about Santorum is that he is very, very much into Jesus. As such, he is more than a little outspoken about his views on homosexuality, likening it to bestiality and pedophilia. Now, I’m not sure I can remain entirely objective by saying that I think Rick Santorum is categorically wrong and dangerously stupid, but that’s my problem. Rick Santorum’s problem is that the gay community is not to be trifled with lightly. Prominent gay columnist Dan Savage hit upon the idea of attaching Santorum’s name to an unpleasant aspect of gay sex. Google “Santorum,” laugh uproariously, and know why the man may have some trouble staying credible for long.

Mitt Romney: A former Governor of Massachusetts. Romney seems to be a sure thing: he’s got business savvy, squillions of dollars and seems to be the most “on-message” of the Republican candidates. However, there are misgivings from within Romney’s own party that he’s not completely resolute whenever he makes a decision.  Political discourse in the USA is absurdly absolutist at any given time, and during election season the insanity is ratcheted to unsustainable heights. You are either pro-life or not; pro-gun or not; pro-God or not, with no place for nuanced discussion or measured debate. Change your mind, and you’re a flip-flopper, untrustworthy, difficult to categorise. Liberal? Tea-partier? Patriot? You’d better pick one, stick with it, and go hard or go home. Romney’s cardinal sin was to flip-flop, as it were, from a moderate, pro-choice stance on abortion to a more hard-edged, pro-life stance. To reiterate, it’s not that he changed his mind from being somewhat progressive to being utterly insane, it’s that he changed his mind at all that’s got his base worried. Adding to that, voters in rural states and inner cities are alienated by Romney’s apparent lack of concern for the poor and indifference towards joblessness. As such, Romney has found himself in a rather odd position: everyone seems to accept that, yes, he will be the Republican nominee for President, but nobody really seems to want him to be.

None of these people are especially gifted public speakers. They are all haunted by shady business practices and allegations of personal misconduct, harbour wacky beliefs that have almost nothing to do with God’s teachings and make bizarre, irrational promises (except for Ron Paul, but he doesn’t count, obviously). So why are they being elevated to the level of Presidential nominee? Well, as far as the Republican Party is concerned, Barack Obama represents the purest personification of a liberal agenda running wild: he wants to demolish privatised health care! He wants to tell you where to work! He wants to share wealth! I saw a movie about this exact thing, and it was called Red Dawn! Call the Wolverines!

Except he’s not, really. Sure, he’d like to get rid of privatised health care, but he doesn’t want to spend a lot of time or money doing it. Nor do I think he is in a great hurry to share any wealth: his last campaign fundraiser had a $35,000 dinner fee, and I don’t think that the people of Michigan will see a cent of that money. For God’s sake, his defining moment as President, so far, has been shooting Osama Bin Laden in the face! Is there a more right-wing sentiment than covertly violating the borders of a Middle Eastern country, blowing away a terrorist leader and then having a national party, all in the name of civic duty?

The Republicans have nominated people who they believe are the antidote to Obama’s communist virus: thoroughly nationalistic, God-fearing and incredibly wealthy. However, a closer, more considered look at the situation  would probably have lead them to nominate  a moderate  who upholds their values whilst keeping an open mind with regard to foreign policy, fiscal discipline and systemic reform.

Everyone tends to forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He’s generally considered one of the United States’ All-Time Greatest Presidents, because he brought a nation that was seemingly divided beyond repair together as equals. I think that’s the key that the Republicans are missing: appealing to everyone, not just the right-most leaning sector of the Republican base and jaded Cold War hold-outs, to cut out the inane bickering and reactionary taking of sides. To contest Obama as an intellectual equal, not just a funhouse mirror image, and thoughtfully debate the best manner in which to fix a broken country: wouldn’t that be a sight to see? It certainly wouldn’t be depressing. Or dull. Or dullpressing. Or deprulling. Or…

By Joseph Cardle