News3 mins ago
Why Does Oxford Give A Rats April What M A A B O F Non Entity Lammy Thinks?
58 Answers
http://
If you are good enough you'll get in, simples!
If you are good enough you'll get in, simples!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
*rolls eyes*
It's not really about that, is it?
Let's accept that, as a matter of principle, both Oxford and Cambridge have application and interview processes that select *only* on talent. That's wonderful if true, although it's noteworthy that for 700 of Cambridge's 800 years it was only true for precisely half the population at most, and it wasn't until after WWII(!) that women could become full university members. (For that matter, I was born exactly one year after the last all-male college at Cambridge, Magdalene, opened its doors to women too.)
With that history, it shouldn't be exactly surprising that even now, then, Oxbridge has struggled to shake off its elitist image, which brings me back to my point at last.
Given that the interview process solely selects on talent, which is anyway dubious*, why do you think that leads so markedly to this division? What was it the article said, only one successful black applicant in three years at one college? Similarly low entry rates at others?! You simply cannot be comfortable with that as a statistic, regardless of the reasons for it. If it's because actually there's a closet racism at the interview process that is screening black applicants then it's wrong. If it is due instead to fewer black applicants in the first place, then it's in everyone's interests to encourage this to change, so that the pool of applicants is as wide as possible -- and then you'll ensure that, after all, only the best *do* get in. And if you think it's because black people simply aren't good enough inherently to get into Oxbridge then -- well, enjoy defending that position, eh?
There's a secondary issue here, of course, which is that Oxbridge applicants are also massively disproportionately from public schools, or other schools that are equally disproportionately attended by white people. It follows that students of schools with the best education records will end up with the best prospects, and the best chances to go to elite universities, and no-one should begrudge those students for making the most of their opportunities. But it certainly is a sad indictment on society if such opportunities are only available to a restricted few.
I agree, at least, that it's somewhat unfair to blame Oxbridge right now for this mess. Universities are the end of the education journey, and the path is determined rather closer to the beginning. But it's in their interests, all the same, to work as hard as possible to encourage as many people as possible to apply, and in particular to encourage applicants with backgrounds that normally wouldn't step near the place. That way, you truly do end up with the best.
*I remember having a serious and ultimately, probably correctly, losing argument with my parents about whether or not to wear a suit to the interview -- first impressions count for rather a lot. Who knows how much of a difference that made? Better safe than sorry, eh?
** Or as Russian spies if they went to Cambridge (sigh...)
It's not really about that, is it?
Let's accept that, as a matter of principle, both Oxford and Cambridge have application and interview processes that select *only* on talent. That's wonderful if true, although it's noteworthy that for 700 of Cambridge's 800 years it was only true for precisely half the population at most, and it wasn't until after WWII(!) that women could become full university members. (For that matter, I was born exactly one year after the last all-male college at Cambridge, Magdalene, opened its doors to women too.)
With that history, it shouldn't be exactly surprising that even now, then, Oxbridge has struggled to shake off its elitist image, which brings me back to my point at last.
Given that the interview process solely selects on talent, which is anyway dubious*, why do you think that leads so markedly to this division? What was it the article said, only one successful black applicant in three years at one college? Similarly low entry rates at others?! You simply cannot be comfortable with that as a statistic, regardless of the reasons for it. If it's because actually there's a closet racism at the interview process that is screening black applicants then it's wrong. If it is due instead to fewer black applicants in the first place, then it's in everyone's interests to encourage this to change, so that the pool of applicants is as wide as possible -- and then you'll ensure that, after all, only the best *do* get in. And if you think it's because black people simply aren't good enough inherently to get into Oxbridge then -- well, enjoy defending that position, eh?
There's a secondary issue here, of course, which is that Oxbridge applicants are also massively disproportionately from public schools, or other schools that are equally disproportionately attended by white people. It follows that students of schools with the best education records will end up with the best prospects, and the best chances to go to elite universities, and no-one should begrudge those students for making the most of their opportunities. But it certainly is a sad indictment on society if such opportunities are only available to a restricted few.
I agree, at least, that it's somewhat unfair to blame Oxbridge right now for this mess. Universities are the end of the education journey, and the path is determined rather closer to the beginning. But it's in their interests, all the same, to work as hard as possible to encourage as many people as possible to apply, and in particular to encourage applicants with backgrounds that normally wouldn't step near the place. That way, you truly do end up with the best.
*I remember having a serious and ultimately, probably correctly, losing argument with my parents about whether or not to wear a suit to the interview -- first impressions count for rather a lot. Who knows how much of a difference that made? Better safe than sorry, eh?
** Or as Russian spies if they went to Cambridge (sigh...)
Actually, there's another point I'd like to make, which is far from unrelated: this attitude that everything is fine with Oxbridge admissions policies, even though they end up selecting invariably the same type of person, is also indirectly responsible for the present dissatisfaction with most of our politicians. Thus far, 41 PMs we've ever had have come from Oxbridge, and most of those also came from Eton, Harrow or Westminster. Obviously that picture is rather skewed due to the 18th and 19th century lot, but not by much: excepting Callaghan, Major, Brown, and Churchill, every other PM since the war went to Oxford.
By all means, sit back, and watch Oxbridge churn out yet another generation of predominantly white middle-class public schoolboys, many of whom (particularly from Oxford) end up in government, and never worry about why the talent pool from which these universities draw ends up being so narrow. But if you're happy with that, don't act too surprised when the same people go on to become the elite you criticise as being "out of touch" with the rest of us.
By all means, sit back, and watch Oxbridge churn out yet another generation of predominantly white middle-class public schoolboys, many of whom (particularly from Oxford) end up in government, and never worry about why the talent pool from which these universities draw ends up being so narrow. But if you're happy with that, don't act too surprised when the same people go on to become the elite you criticise as being "out of touch" with the rest of us.
Jim....a different point to which i only partially agree.
To go into politics one needed a PPE.(Politics Philosophy and Economics) and Oxford and to a less extent Cambridge offered that degree, so naturally our political big hitters came for Oxford and to a lesser extent Cambridge. It wasn't until 1980 circa...that the University of York chipped in with a PPE course and since then other established universities have also offered this degree course.
So there is a bit of "catching up" to do which hopefully will ensue.
To go into politics one needed a PPE.(Politics Philosophy and Economics) and Oxford and to a less extent Cambridge offered that degree, so naturally our political big hitters came for Oxford and to a lesser extent Cambridge. It wasn't until 1980 circa...that the University of York chipped in with a PPE course and since then other established universities have also offered this degree course.
So there is a bit of "catching up" to do which hopefully will ensue.
"Tose [sic] that are academically gifted enough and passed the interview are there."
It also helps to have the right support. I was perhaps on the threshold of getting that support, but was rather lucky. My school gave me two mock interviews; one, by the headteacher, ended up being worse than useless as preparation, because he was apparently stuck with the illusion that the interview was going to ask me questions like "why do you want to come here?" or "what else do you do?". Thankfully, my science teacher also gave a mock interview, asking, if I remember correctly, two questions, about oscilloscopes and streetlights. Even with that help, I still crashed and burned in the first interview. At any rate, anybody without at least a modicum of understanding as to what to expect is likely to be doomed to failure, regardless of how good they are. If you walk in expecting one interview and end up having another one entirely, then it's difficult to get your head together (perhaps this is why they often offer two interviews, to give everyone a second chance*).
This matters because, again, the resources on offer to those from public schools (mostly white people, remember) are vastly greater than for the schools that many black children end up attending. Eton, Harrow, Westminster, etc, have, as I mentioned, centuries of experience with the Oxbridge process to draw on to help guide their students through exams, interview techniques, and the like. By contrast, an under-resourced school with no historic links might have little if anything to draw on to support students that would otherwise have the talent needed, if only they were given the opportunity to let it shine through.
All of this boils down to one point: there can be no argument whatsoever that, at the end of it all, Oxbridge can, and must, select only on talent. But you are deluding yourself if you think that the outcome of this is fair, or has only to do with the ability of the student. Their background, their school, the support they receive, all matter, and right now these are unfortunately, and unacceptably, skewed against black people.
*There's a fun story about this, too, but at some point I think people will get bored of my anecdotes.
It also helps to have the right support. I was perhaps on the threshold of getting that support, but was rather lucky. My school gave me two mock interviews; one, by the headteacher, ended up being worse than useless as preparation, because he was apparently stuck with the illusion that the interview was going to ask me questions like "why do you want to come here?" or "what else do you do?". Thankfully, my science teacher also gave a mock interview, asking, if I remember correctly, two questions, about oscilloscopes and streetlights. Even with that help, I still crashed and burned in the first interview. At any rate, anybody without at least a modicum of understanding as to what to expect is likely to be doomed to failure, regardless of how good they are. If you walk in expecting one interview and end up having another one entirely, then it's difficult to get your head together (perhaps this is why they often offer two interviews, to give everyone a second chance*).
This matters because, again, the resources on offer to those from public schools (mostly white people, remember) are vastly greater than for the schools that many black children end up attending. Eton, Harrow, Westminster, etc, have, as I mentioned, centuries of experience with the Oxbridge process to draw on to help guide their students through exams, interview techniques, and the like. By contrast, an under-resourced school with no historic links might have little if anything to draw on to support students that would otherwise have the talent needed, if only they were given the opportunity to let it shine through.
All of this boils down to one point: there can be no argument whatsoever that, at the end of it all, Oxbridge can, and must, select only on talent. But you are deluding yourself if you think that the outcome of this is fair, or has only to do with the ability of the student. Their background, their school, the support they receive, all matter, and right now these are unfortunately, and unacceptably, skewed against black people.
*There's a fun story about this, too, but at some point I think people will get bored of my anecdotes.
"so are you suggesting they use discriminatory measures to balance their intake jim? eg ethnic quotas etc?"
Not for a second. But I'm suggesting that you ought to be less close-minded to the idea that there are de facto barriers in place that restrict access to Oxbridge for BME children -- and that, once you appreciate this, you also would see that there's no need to be David Lammy to want to do something about that.
Not for a second. But I'm suggesting that you ought to be less close-minded to the idea that there are de facto barriers in place that restrict access to Oxbridge for BME children -- and that, once you appreciate this, you also would see that there's no need to be David Lammy to want to do something about that.
TTT it was a similar situation with the London Teaching hospitals of the 40s 50s.60's and to a less extent the 70's. One had to pass the exams BUT unless you played sport for your county/country or was an athlete of repute (ran the 4 minute mile) then you chances of getting a place were diminished. i gather that things have changed (he says with a smile).
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.