The Kremlin's Scholar. A Memoir of Soviet Politics under Stalin and Khrushchev

The memoirs are dominated by two grand figures of Soviet history, Stalin and Khrushchev. The account of Stalin is riddled with ambiguities. There is an undoubted personal admiration for Stalin, his intellectual and political capacity (Stalin allegedly read 300 pages per day), his simplicity in daily life seen in "an old tunic, patched-up socks, almost constant isolation" (p. 190). At the same time, Shepilov acknowledged the paranoid aspects of Stalin's personality, especially towards the end of his life. Stalin's mechanisms of power are illustrated by Shepilov's account of work on a new book on political economy. Stalin personally chose key people for important tasks and controlled them at key junctures to ensure the desired outcome. In this light, Shepilov's claims that the Great Purges of the late 1930s could have been outside of Stalin's immediate control seem implausible, to say the least (p. 41).

All Stalin's deficiencies, however, pale in comparison with those of Khrushchev, the bête noire of Shepilov's memoirs. There is plenty of criticism of Khrushchev's policies, particularly in agriculture and foreign affairs. What comes across most pungently is, however, Shepilov's disdain of Khrushchev's personality and leadership style. In this respect, the book is unashamedly biased and remarkable for its omissions as much as for its revelations.

The Effect of Seat Location in Lecture Theatres on Academic Performance

The purpose of this research study was to investigate and identify possible patterns relating to academic performance on the effects of university students self-selecting where to sit in a lecture theatre.
The key research questions are:
1. Does seating position affect student performance?
2. Do the most academically able and engaged students regularly sit at the front of lecture theatres?
Academic achievement
Preliminary results suggest significant assessment score differences between those that sit at the front and those that sit further the back. Of those that received a grade of 75%+ (Grade A) 6.67% regularly sat at the back. With the same group 46.67% regularly sat at the front. Of the group that scored less than 50% (Grade D) 0% of students regularly sat at the front. 12.50% regularly sat in the middle zones with 37.50% sitting at the back. It was also observed that the remaining numbers did not consistently sit in the same zone.

Temporal movement
There is little evidence of movement between seating zones of the Grade A group throughout the 24 week period. However there was considerable movement with the Grade D group. Although still under analysis there appears be a pattern of students in this group graduating towards the back seating positions over the course of the programme.

Engagement
The frequency of completed entries on PinPoint was also used as an indicator of engagement. With the Grade A group 75% of them regularly completed an entry whereas in the Grade D group this drops to less than 50%.
Further analysis on the attitudinal factors in relational to seating position and performance are ongoing, but preliminary results suggest that those students that scored highly in attitude tended to sit at the front and middle sections.
It would indeed appear that the more highly engaged and academically capable students voluntarily sit at the front for most lectures. Interestingly as the course progresses those who had lesser engagement and below average midterm results tend to began to sit progressively toward the back. If this is a repeatable pattern then a linear regression analysis of the seating positions and midterm results could help predict students in danger of failing.

Bouyid v Belgium: The “minimum level of severity” and Human Dignity's Role in Article 3 ECHR

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered an important judgment on Article 3 ECHR in the case of Bouyid v Belgium. In Bouyid, the Grand Chamber was called upon to consider whether slaps inflicted on a minor and an adult in police custody were in breach of Article 3 ECHR, which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Overruling the Chamber judgment in the case, the Grand Chamber ruled by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 in that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by members of the Belgian police; it found that there had been a breach of the investigative duty under Article 3 also. In this comment, I focus on the fundamental basis of disagreement between the majority of the Grand Chamber and those who found themselves in dissent, on the question of whether there had been a substantive breach of Article 3. The crux of the disagreement lay in the understanding and application of the test of ‘minimum level of severity’, which the ECtHR has established as decisive of whether a particular form of ill-treatment crosses the Article 3 threshold, seen also in light of Article 3’s absolute character, which makes it non-displaceable – that is, immune to trade-offs of the type applicable in relation to qualified rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. I consider the way the majority of the Grand Chamber unpacked and applied the concept of dignity – or ‘human dignity’ – towards finding a substantive breach of Article 3, and briefly distil some of the principles underpinning the understanding of human dignity emerging in the Court’s analysis.