Quizzes & Puzzles3 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.
I'm not trying to apportion blame, Jim. I'm simply trying to find an explanation or two to account for Mr Lammy's apparent displeasure - apart from his usual mantra, that is.
The fact is not everybody can attend Oxford University and some people, for various reasons, will never make it. It's not their "fault" any more than it is my fault that I cannot make a century break at snooker or run a mile in four minutes.
The fact is not everybody can attend Oxford University and some people, for various reasons, will never make it. It's not their "fault" any more than it is my fault that I cannot make a century break at snooker or run a mile in four minutes.
That may be true, but there's a difference between not being able to get into Oxbridge for want of ability, and not being able to get in for want of the *opportunity*.
At the very least, it's obviously far easier to get in when you go to the right school, have the right teachers, have the right support at home, and the right encouragement. At the moment, such advantages have no correlation whatsoever to the general population. In practice, this means that black people are underrepresented at those universities. That is wrong on principle, because it exposes inequities in education.
At the very least, it's obviously far easier to get in when you go to the right school, have the right teachers, have the right support at home, and the right encouragement. At the moment, such advantages have no correlation whatsoever to the general population. In practice, this means that black people are underrepresented at those universities. That is wrong on principle, because it exposes inequities in education.
'
London and the South East made up 46.7% of UK applications between 2015 and 2017,…”
Hardly surprising since two-thirds of the people who live in the UK reside in London and the South East.'
I don't think so. Using the 2011 Census figures,
the S.E. England Region's population was 8,635,000 and London's was 8,778,500.
As the UK's population was 63,182,000, the two Regions account for only 27.56% or less than a third of the UK population.
That means they ARE over-represented.
London and the South East made up 46.7% of UK applications between 2015 and 2017,…”
Hardly surprising since two-thirds of the people who live in the UK reside in London and the South East.'
I don't think so. Using the 2011 Census figures,
the S.E. England Region's population was 8,635,000 and London's was 8,778,500.
As the UK's population was 63,182,000, the two Regions account for only 27.56% or less than a third of the UK population.
That means they ARE over-represented.
"In practice, this means that black people are underrepresented at those universities."
But I understood from the report that the proportion of British-born BME students at Oxford (about 17% IIRC) was greater than the proportion of BME people among the population as a whole (which I think is about 12%).
Of course the young people with the "advantages" you describe will have a greater chance of gaining admission. Their parents put themselves out to ensure their children had the best start they could. If some of the "disadvantaged" are admitted solely because they are disadvantaged or black or whatever it means that some of the children of parents who have done the best for their children will see their children denied.
I think at the end of the day "advantaged" youngsters will probably present themselves more suitably than the disadvantaged. Presentation plays a big part into getting into somewhere like Oxford. Tough, but life is sometimes.
But I understood from the report that the proportion of British-born BME students at Oxford (about 17% IIRC) was greater than the proportion of BME people among the population as a whole (which I think is about 12%).
Of course the young people with the "advantages" you describe will have a greater chance of gaining admission. Their parents put themselves out to ensure their children had the best start they could. If some of the "disadvantaged" are admitted solely because they are disadvantaged or black or whatever it means that some of the children of parents who have done the best for their children will see their children denied.
I think at the end of the day "advantaged" youngsters will probably present themselves more suitably than the disadvantaged. Presentation plays a big part into getting into somewhere like Oxford. Tough, but life is sometimes.
But that's exactly the problem we're trying to fix! It's not enough to sit back and say "ah well, you were never going to have a chance anyway." Why should anyone be satisfied with that?
Also, with respect to those statistics, it's a little confusing because there are different questions to answer. Yes, abut 17% of Oxford students are BME, but most of that is made up of Asian or mixed ethnicity students. The specifically "black" proportion is rather lower, and certainly outweighed. For example, one source for the 17% figure also highlights that there were more successful applicants from Westminster school than there were Black applicants nationally.
It's a complicated phenomenon, and I'm sure that there are no direct racial biases in the admissions process itself (ie, that these days no applicant will be disadvantaged because of their race). But it's still far from perfect.
A comment towards the top of the article below suggests another problem:
"BME students typically apply for the most oversubscribed courses; Privately-educated students apply for the most undersubscribed courses."
Later it defines oversubscribed courses to include Mathematics, Law and Medicine, and undersubscribed courses to include Classics and English. I'd argue that public school students are welcome to keep Classics to themselves, really, but maybe it's another illustration of the complicated issues at play here.
We're all in agreement, here at least, that the way to address this issue is *not* to introduce quotas. Instead, what I'm proposing is that this is the sort of thing that should resolve itself once education quality is improved across the board, and access is widened to higher standards. Then, the best applicants will still be able to shine, and the barriers that, one way or another, blocked them from applying in the first place, will be removed. Oxbridge still has some part to play in this, by increasingly widening its outreach programmes, but still, it should be addressed from the bottom up.
In the end, that way, everyone would benefit. Costs a ton of money to improve the education system as a whole, but it would be well worth it.
http://
Also, with respect to those statistics, it's a little confusing because there are different questions to answer. Yes, abut 17% of Oxford students are BME, but most of that is made up of Asian or mixed ethnicity students. The specifically "black" proportion is rather lower, and certainly outweighed. For example, one source for the 17% figure also highlights that there were more successful applicants from Westminster school than there were Black applicants nationally.
It's a complicated phenomenon, and I'm sure that there are no direct racial biases in the admissions process itself (ie, that these days no applicant will be disadvantaged because of their race). But it's still far from perfect.
A comment towards the top of the article below suggests another problem:
"BME students typically apply for the most oversubscribed courses; Privately-educated students apply for the most undersubscribed courses."
Later it defines oversubscribed courses to include Mathematics, Law and Medicine, and undersubscribed courses to include Classics and English. I'd argue that public school students are welcome to keep Classics to themselves, really, but maybe it's another illustration of the complicated issues at play here.
We're all in agreement, here at least, that the way to address this issue is *not* to introduce quotas. Instead, what I'm proposing is that this is the sort of thing that should resolve itself once education quality is improved across the board, and access is widened to higher standards. Then, the best applicants will still be able to shine, and the barriers that, one way or another, blocked them from applying in the first place, will be removed. Oxbridge still has some part to play in this, by increasingly widening its outreach programmes, but still, it should be addressed from the bottom up.
In the end, that way, everyone would benefit. Costs a ton of money to improve the education system as a whole, but it would be well worth it.
http://
“But that's exactly the problem we're trying to fix!”
What exactly is the problem? If you look at the GB athletics team the overwhelming majority of sprinters are black. I don’t hear anybody suggesting that more must be done to attract white people to join the sprinting teams. It’s certainly not mentioned as a problem.
Reading about this so-called problem I gather that the issue (such that it is) is one of lack of applications rather than lack of admissions. A few years ago there was a similarly ridiculous furore about people visiting the Lake District. It was said that far too few “disadvantaged” and BME people were visiting and the area was seen as white and middle class. So what? Nobody was stopping disadvantaged people from visiting. The plain fact is that the Lake District is not on their “to do” list so they don’t do it.
So it is with the top universities. There is a considerable lack of aspiration in many state schools (where 93% of children are educated). But that’s not the fault of the universities. They exist to educate young people beyond secondary education and to identify and nurture their strengths. It is hardly Oxford’s fault if John from the Gas Street Comprehensive decides that three years at Merton College is not his bag, even if he has the requisite ‘A’ Levels.
Like it or not there will always be discrepancies in the standard of education provided for young people. The reasons for this are so numerous as to be incalculable and there is no way it will ever be rectified. But in just the same way that some people choose not to go to the Lake District others choose not to apply to Oxford. There’s nothing wrong with it – everybody is different. Black people as a group tend to choose to do different things to white people; “disadvantaged” people tend to spend their time in different places doing different things to those with no disadvantages. There is no need for Oxford University to “reach out” to people who would not normally choose to go there and I am quite content to "sit back" and watch only the young people who really want to go to Oxford to apply to do so. One thing is for sure - "reaching out" to a wider audience will only result in lowering the very high standards that Oxford attains because to succeed you have to want to do so. Trawling for unsuitable applicants simply to make the numbers look good (or equal or whatever other term is used) will do nobody any good.
What exactly is the problem? If you look at the GB athletics team the overwhelming majority of sprinters are black. I don’t hear anybody suggesting that more must be done to attract white people to join the sprinting teams. It’s certainly not mentioned as a problem.
Reading about this so-called problem I gather that the issue (such that it is) is one of lack of applications rather than lack of admissions. A few years ago there was a similarly ridiculous furore about people visiting the Lake District. It was said that far too few “disadvantaged” and BME people were visiting and the area was seen as white and middle class. So what? Nobody was stopping disadvantaged people from visiting. The plain fact is that the Lake District is not on their “to do” list so they don’t do it.
So it is with the top universities. There is a considerable lack of aspiration in many state schools (where 93% of children are educated). But that’s not the fault of the universities. They exist to educate young people beyond secondary education and to identify and nurture their strengths. It is hardly Oxford’s fault if John from the Gas Street Comprehensive decides that three years at Merton College is not his bag, even if he has the requisite ‘A’ Levels.
Like it or not there will always be discrepancies in the standard of education provided for young people. The reasons for this are so numerous as to be incalculable and there is no way it will ever be rectified. But in just the same way that some people choose not to go to the Lake District others choose not to apply to Oxford. There’s nothing wrong with it – everybody is different. Black people as a group tend to choose to do different things to white people; “disadvantaged” people tend to spend their time in different places doing different things to those with no disadvantages. There is no need for Oxford University to “reach out” to people who would not normally choose to go there and I am quite content to "sit back" and watch only the young people who really want to go to Oxford to apply to do so. One thing is for sure - "reaching out" to a wider audience will only result in lowering the very high standards that Oxford attains because to succeed you have to want to do so. Trawling for unsuitable applicants simply to make the numbers look good (or equal or whatever other term is used) will do nobody any good.
I can thoroughly understand why people choose not to go to the Lake District. On the few occasions I was compelled to go there it rained every time. Once I became an adult I made the conscious decision never to go there again. It is a truly depressing place. If John Betjeman had been a northerner he would have written, 'Come friendly bombs and fall on Keswick...'
I actually rather think the exact opposite will apply. The more applicants you get, the easier it becomes to ensure that you genuinely are getting the best. As I started off by saying, for almost all of their histories, women were altogether excluded. That might be seen as a more meaningful barrier than the ones black people face in applying, but even so, it's clear that the universities benefited from not being so closed-minded about where to draw their students from.
In essence, the same ideas still apply. If students are barred, indirectly or otherwise, from entering university, then the overall quality of applicants will suffer, because the competition is less intense. And anyway it stands to reason that it's better to invest in education, and improve standards, as far as possible.
In essence, the same ideas still apply. If students are barred, indirectly or otherwise, from entering university, then the overall quality of applicants will suffer, because the competition is less intense. And anyway it stands to reason that it's better to invest in education, and improve standards, as far as possible.
But they are not being barred as women once were, Jim. They are simply choosing not to go. I don't agree with the notion that they are being "indirectly" barred. If they have the qualifications they can apply. Many don't for various reasons; some may not because they feel they will not "fit in". If they believe that they are probably correct and would do well to steer clear.
Just because something is long standing does not make it automatically no longer fit for purpose, Jim. I don't believe quality education should be jealously guarded and I do not believe that Oxford is attempting any such thing. But when sharing it they have a duty to ensure their high standards and levels of achievement are not jeopardised. There can be no room for passengers at Oxford (as there may be at some lesser establishments). This includes those who may not suit a course at Oxford (or for whom the course may not suit them). If people who do not apply believe either of these then no amount of "reaching out" or any other such schemes that might be introduced will convince them otherwise. For their benefit and that of the University and its undergraduates they would o better seeking their future elsewhere.
The Oxford acceptance process seems to have worked quite well for quite a while. The Equality industry often demonstrates a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water and that's exactly what Mr Lammy is in danger of getting them to do here. They should resist his overtures especially bearing in mind that, at least as far as the racial make up of their students goes, Oxford seems to demonstrate little or no bias.
The Oxford acceptance process seems to have worked quite well for quite a while. The Equality industry often demonstrates a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water and that's exactly what Mr Lammy is in danger of getting them to do here. They should resist his overtures especially bearing in mind that, at least as far as the racial make up of their students goes, Oxford seems to demonstrate little or no bias.
At my local Comp, for a long time the head of sixth-form was of the firm opinion that Oxbridge was elitist, biased against students from outside the Home Counties, and everyone there was a snob. Being a good, right-on anti-elitist, he discouraged anyone from applying. When asked about the school's rates of getting students into Oxbridge, he defended them by saying Oxbridge was elitist.... etc. As Lammy shows, there is still a lot of bias against Oxbridge, underpinned by ignorance, and this at least in part produces the results that Lammy is criticising. Oxbridge can only do so much - teachers of this attitude must themselves grow up and start doing what is best for their students. Then representation will get better. (And I must say I have found more snobbery, bias and "elitism" amongst provincial middle classes than I ever did during my time at Oxford, as a grammar school lad from rural Wales)
Allow me to suggest another fallacy of that reasoning: what makes you so sure that everyone coming through public school education, with all of the benefits and resources thrown at them, is automatically suited to Oxbridge either? I am sure that for more than a few attendees, the education they received was "wasted", to an extent. Not on many, perhaps, but it comes down really to the general point that there is no harm in encouraging as many people to apply as possible. There is no call to lower standards for entry. That's not the point.
I'm running out of cliches here, but if Oxbridge widens the reach of its nets then it will be yet more sure of catching the biggest fish. No-one loses out from widening its applicant pool.
I'm running out of cliches here, but if Oxbridge widens the reach of its nets then it will be yet more sure of catching the biggest fish. No-one loses out from widening its applicant pool.
"..what makes you so sure that everyone coming through public school education, with all of the benefits and resources thrown at them, is automatically suited to Oxbridge either?"
I'm not at all sure. In fact I never suggested such a thing and would be very surprised if it were true. Expensive education is undoubtedly wasted on some young people and those who waste it the most are probably those whose parents can most afford it. But I doubt any of them are told by their school that "Oxford's not for you my boy.". So they apply and it's up to Oxford to tell them whether they cut the mustard or not.
As above "...teachers of this attitude must themselves grow up and start doing what is best for their students." But that's not going to happen in the majority of State schools and it's not the fault of Oxford.
I attended a very good grammar school - one of the best in London. It was not considered an elitist establishment by any means. But it would be now because anybody securing the best is either considered a rich bar steward, a snob or a swot. And that's not Oxford's fault either.
I'm not at all sure. In fact I never suggested such a thing and would be very surprised if it were true. Expensive education is undoubtedly wasted on some young people and those who waste it the most are probably those whose parents can most afford it. But I doubt any of them are told by their school that "Oxford's not for you my boy.". So they apply and it's up to Oxford to tell them whether they cut the mustard or not.
As above "...teachers of this attitude must themselves grow up and start doing what is best for their students." But that's not going to happen in the majority of State schools and it's not the fault of Oxford.
I attended a very good grammar school - one of the best in London. It was not considered an elitist establishment by any means. But it would be now because anybody securing the best is either considered a rich bar steward, a snob or a swot. And that's not Oxford's fault either.
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.