The UK is "deeply elitist" do you agree?

[beorhthelm]

Don't you think that the judiciary, army, civil service etc would all benefit from having a diverse make up?

no, i dont. i think the top jobs benefit most from best educated people. how does it help someone's understanding of law, or military strategy if they've lived on an estate in Swindon? diversity has its place, and background shouldn't be a block to getting into the top Uni's or jobs, but we should expect our "elite" to come through the best education.

the debate is upside down, it seems to assume that these people only got their position solely because of background, that it is inevitable. they still have to pass their A levels, get their degree, do their bar exam or civil service exams etc. not all that go to top schools or top universities go on to join the "elite". sometimes they become journalists.

 

[User removed 4]

I don't think they get a "better" education but it is different and it is aimed at getting into Oxbridge and other universities as well as the military. The really interesting thing you haven't commented on is the research finding that state educated children do worse at A level but better at university. I cant give you up to date evidence of places linked to schools but I think you would be very surprised at what you would find if you went looking for it.

I really don't understand why the mass of people are willing to accept that a small minority of children get a much better opportunity than their own children. That seems to me to be a betrayal of their own kids. Not only that but they then subsidise that opportunity! Unbelievable!

So basically this is just a load of bullshit you've used to sensationalise your post ? If not how do you account for it ?

 

[Husty]

I liked the comment from Tristram Hunt, a privately educated Oxbridge graduate.

 

[El Presidente]

Oxbridge does the best it can to award places on merit. What you get at a public school is a greater emphasis on coaching for A levels, which has an impact on grades. Similarly there is more experience of completing the personal statement, although most Oxbridge colleges are aware of this.

The biggest problem with Oxbridge IMO is that the elite there are self perpetuating to a degree, and kids from less advantaged backgrounds may feel cowed by the confidence and money that drips from those from a wealthier background. As a consequence some superbly talented children from state school backgrounds don't apply.

Private education doesn't guarantee a good job. My son is 21, has 9 grade A/A* at GCSE having attended a private school, and has been unemployed for over three years.

 

[Seasidesage]

Best post on the subject. The problem with that report is that it lumps "educated at independent schools" with "Oxbridge". There are two issues here. Firstly, do we want Oxbridge educated people to be heavily influencing society? Yes, of course we do. These are the most intelligent of the educated sector of society.

But "independent schools" is another thing entirely, and it's very complex. There are all sorts of issues involved in that one.

Do we really want society to be influenced by these people? I want society to be influenced by the views and aspirations of the majority not the personal agenda of a tiny cross section of people chosen from an elite minority. Oxbridge have been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting people from state schools and by ensuring that the fees and stuffy elitist institutions make choosing to go there difficult at best for working people, they perpetuate the status quo of our government/institutions which is an embarrassment for any modern country.

And breathe...

 

[ATFC Seagull]

But Oxbridge is surely different. If you accept that these are elite academic institutions (and that they select the best students and give them the best tuition) then surely you would hope that many of the people making key decisions in this country would be Oxbridge graduates? Surely there's nothing wrong with a country being governed by an elite - as long as it's an intellectual elite rather than a financial or privileged elite.

i expect that many will suggest that too many Oxbridge places go to pupils from public schools, and I agree. But I know that most Oxford and Cambridge colleges would like more students from state schools to apply, and send people to visit state schools and encourage applications. They want the best students, not the most privileged.

I agree with the sentiment here, but in practice the issue is that those from private schools still have a massive advantage when it comes to getting into Oxbridge. The colleges themselves might want to increase the level of state school youngsters applying, but the admissions criteria (and I daresay a lot of the actual people within faculties making decisions about admission) are still massively weighted towards those from private schools. Aside from the obvious fact that there is still a snobbery entrenched within the systems there, the exams and interviews that students are expected to go through are very different from what is in their A-Levels. Private schools can afford the resources and time to separately coach kids for these things, state sixth forms simply cannot. Also, the extent of extra-curricular stuff that they want students to demonstrate is a real issue. Whilst private school kids have the money and the connections to do some fantastic relevant experience, it's very difficult for those in state schools. For one thing, most of them are spending their spare time working to earn money.

I've had some outstanding academic kids, really nice and hardworking, some from not great backgrounds, who've gone up to Oxbridge interviews and come back disappointed, where I am certain that on the same day places have been offered to less able and enthusiastic students, who've spent many years being groomed and prepped to say and write the corret things on that day.

 

[narly101]

Do we really want society to be influenced by these people? I want society to be influenced by the views and aspirations of the majority not the personal agenda of a tiny cross section of people chosen from an elite minority. Oxbridge have been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting people from state schools and by ensuring that the fees and stuffy elitist institutions make choosing to go there difficult at best for working people, they perpetuate the status quo of our government/institutions which is an embarrassment for any modern country.

And breathe...

Yeah lets allow the great unwashed to influence decisions on important matters in society. Most of them can't manage their own lives, let alone considering anyone else's.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

The majority of students attending Oxford University are from State Schools (63%). So, of the 12000 UK domiciled students, 7560 of them are from state schools, the rest (the minority) are from private schools. If you look at the statistics from all domiciles the split is 41% state, 28% Private and 31% other.

But there is still a massive skew, as 37% of the cohort going into university education are not privately educated.

 

[sahel]

So basically this is just a load of bullshit you've used to sensationalise your post ? If not how do you account for it ?

Many years ago I applied to Oxford. My school had one scholarship at Oxford that only someone from my school could get. There were a myriad of other such "closed " scholarships and awards not just to particular schools but to people with specific backgrounds - for example the third son of a reverend with a wooden leg from Suffolk!. I cant claim up to date information so was reluctant to quote this. But I doubt it has changed much

 

[Frampler]

Yes, this country - well, London really - is appallingly elitist. It is hard to get into Oxbridge, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all the top jobs should be reserved for people who went to one of two universities. UCL and Imperial are just as good academically, but don't dominate public life in the same way. Other universities, while not featuring as highly in international league tables, still turn out fantastically gifted graduates who find that doors are automatically shut to them because they haven't got Oxford or Cambridge on their CV's.

I've got a couple of (privately educated) Cambridge and Oxford law graduates working under me at the moment. Their work is consistently below the average in our department, they struggle with lateral thinking, and they shirk difficult tasks. If that's the elite, this country is doomed.

 

[Superphil]

Many years ago I applied to Oxford. My school had one scholarship at Oxford that only someone from my school could get. There were a myriad of other such "closed " scholarships and awards not just to particular schools but to people with specific backgrounds - for example the third son of a reverend with a wooden leg from Suffolk!. I cant claim up to date information so was reluctant to quote this. But I doubt it has changed much

But at least nowadays more students at Oxford are from state schools than independent schools

 

[sahel]

I agree with the sentiment here, but in practice the issue is that those from private schools still have a massive advantage when it comes to getting into Oxbridge. The colleges themselves might want to increase the level of state school youngsters applying, but the admissions criteria (and I daresay a lot of the actual people within faculties making decisions about admission) are still massively weighted towards those from private schools. Aside from the obvious fact that there is still a snobbery entrenched within the systems there, the exams and interviews that students are expected to go through are very different from what is in their A-Levels. Private schools can afford the resources and time to separately coach kids for these things, state sixth forms simply cannot. Also, the extent of extra-curricular stuff that they want students to demonstrate is a real issue. Whilst private school kids have the money and the connections to do some fantastic relevant experience, it's very difficult for those in state schools. For one thing, most of them are spending their spare time working to earn money.

I've had some outstanding academic kids, really nice and hardworking, some from not great backgrounds, who've gone up to Oxbridge interviews and come back disappointed, where I am certain that on the same day places have been offered to less able and enthusiastic students, who've spent many years being groomed and prepped to say and write the corret things on that day.

Well said - I'm sure you are right

 

[sahel]

Yes, this country - well, London really - is appallingly elitist. It is hard to get into Oxbridge, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all the top jobs should be reserved for people who went to one of two universities. UCL and Imperial are just as good academically, but don't dominate public life in the same way. Other universities, while not featuring as highly in international league tables, still turn out fantastically gifted graduates who find that doors are automatically shut to them because they haven't got Oxford or Cambridge on their CV's.

I've got a couple of (privately educated) Cambridge and Oxford law graduates working under me at the moment. Their work is consistently below the average in our department, they struggle with lateral thinking, and they shirk difficult tasks. If that's the elite, this country is doomed.

Agreed . This chimes with the research that shows state educated children do better than their privately educated peers once they get to university.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

The World is run by a select bunch of cheese loving Cypriots called the 'Hallouminati'.

Mark my words......


Seriously, Strathclyde University , UMIST , Nottingham University and a host of other Unis turn out far better engineers than Ox or Cam. Just that these places get you the top top jobs. So it is elitist.


TNBA

TTF

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

There are two sides to this.

First, the large percentage of people in top jobs (if you agree that they are top jobs) who went to public schools. You can argue that that represents unacceptable social engineering because it perpetuates an elite based on wealth (usually inherited) rather than merit. And the number of Old Etonians in, for example, the Cabinet, suggests that there's too much of the old school tie in government. I naively hoped that had all gone out when the Tories lost in 1964. The only good thing I can say about Thatcher is that, as a grammar school girl, she had little time for all that.

But Oxbridge is surely different. If you accept that these are elite academic institutions (and that they select the best students and give them the best tuition) then surely you would hope that many of the people making key decisions in this country would be Oxbridge graduates? Surely there's nothing wrong with a country being governed by an elite - as long as it's an intellectual elite rather than a financial or privileged elite.

i expect that many will suggest that too many Oxbridge places go to pupils from public schools, and I agree. But I know that most Oxford and Cambridge colleges would like more students from state schools to apply, and send people to visit state schools and encourage applications. They want the best students, not the most privileged.

I'd agree with this. Would be interested to hear what the stats are about people of influence going to public school but not going to Oxbridge.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

i expect that many will suggest that too many Oxbridge places go to pupils from public schools, and I agree. But I know that most Oxford and Cambridge colleges would like more students from state schools to apply, and send people to visit state schools and encourage applications. They want the best students, not the most privileged.

To a degree (pardon the pun). But it seems that the process is designed for students from the private sector. If they really want the best students - they could overhaul their admissions process.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The BEST public school film made

[YT]PmoHv8Mf_-o[/YT]

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I agree with the sentiment here, but in practice the issue is that those from private schools still have a massive advantage when it comes to getting into Oxbridge............................
I've had some outstanding academic kids, really nice and hardworking, some from not great backgrounds, who've gone up to Oxbridge interviews and come back disappointed, where I am certain that on the same day places have been offered to less able and enthusiastic students, who've spent many years being groomed and prepped to say and write the corret things on that day.

You made the point far better than me.

 

[Superphil]

I'd agree with this. Would be interested to hear what the stats are about people of influence going to public school but not going to Oxbridge.

This is the thing you see, if you read the statstics it seems nowhere near as bleak as a published article which almost certainly has some sort of an agenda. Likewise, people with deeply felt views and opinions will always err on the side they believe, and conveniently leave out facts and statistics, I'm probably guilty of that as much as anyone, though I think I try to be objective.

FWIW, I don't think the UK is as elitist as these reports suggest, and some of the facts have been conveniently overlooked or massaged, to make it into a headline grabbing piece. That said, the current cabinet is made up of utter ********s, and if 60% of them went to Oxbridge/Eaton/Harrow etc, then that might tell you something about them in particular. I also remember the previous governments cabinet being made up of utter ********s, not sure how many of them were independently educated, but it made no difference to me, I would not have pissed in any of their ears if their brains had been on fire either.

 

[drew]

no, i dont. i think the top jobs benefit most from best educated people. how does it help someone's understanding of law, or military strategy if they've lived on an estate in Swindon? diversity has its place, and background shouldn't be a block to getting into the top Uni's or jobs, but we should expect our "elite" to come through the best education.

the debate is upside down, it seems to assume that these people only got their position solely because of background, that it is inevitable. they still have to pass their A levels, get their degree, do their bar exam or civil service exams etc. not all that go to top schools or top universities go on to join the "elite". sometimes they become journalists.

Can you explain how someone from a privelaged background studying the same degree as the council kid from Swindon has a better understanding of military strategy?