[illusionz]

(Original post by Fires)
Well, this is odd, because I was kind of agreeing with your point about excess funding. Maybe you feel that because you are a Cambridge undergrad, only your views are valid and that anyone else's are "moronic" to quote you?

In fact, your tone is adequate explanation of why many people are utterly disgusted with the output of the Oxbridge system - arrogant, self-serving, cynical, pointlessly argumentative, unconcerned with genuine facts and over concerned with self-image, rhetoric and sophistry - all the classic virtues of an Oxbridge education are still evidently in place!

To many of us, that type of thing is reason enough in it's own right to seek the termination of the Oxbridge system, the closure of those Universities and the redistribution of their (lavish) overfunding. I was trying to take a more progressive view, that the way forwards for Britain's well being as a whole is to equalise things more, make them more competitive in the upper category and move towards a system capable of actually competing internationally instead of defending the bastions of class privilege and unearned elitism.

However, your tone reminds us yet again of what a serious problem this really is. After all, I came into this thread quoting the Oxford student newspaper Cherwell, which appears to agree and confirm the privilege and indifference to externalities that typify Oxford.

The problem runs deep.

I guess we're both in the fortunate position of feeling the others post proves our own point.

Let's leave it at that.

[pink pineapple]

(Original post by Fires)
Well given that it's still roughly 50/50 between state and private, and much higher percentage private school in some colleges, you are plainly wrong - there is still a huge bias towards unmerited access in the system, regardless of how it is achieved - at the school level or (as many still suspect) at the selection level. Also, as many articles have shown, the actual standard of many Oxbridge students isn't all its cracked up to be - I also know a number of people who went through Oxford and they report extensive evidence that people can make it there based on technique rather than real intellect.

Is there actually any real evidence to show they favour private school students or do you just like to believe stereotypes? WEll yes, of course there's going to be people there who make it due technique as the offers, which are based on the A-level grades they get which require exam technique. Of course, there will still be some who intellectual though.

[SHELDON123]

(Original post by pink pineapple)
Is there actually any real evidence to show they favour private school students or do you just like to believe stereotypes? WEll yes, of course there's going to be people there who make it due technique as the offers, which are based on the A-level grades they get which require exam technique. Of course, there will still be some who intellectual though.

Of course there isn't! In fact, there is real evidence to suggest that they favour state school students (shown somewhere earlier in the thread). They know it is more difficult to get good grades at a state school, and take that into account.

Now, to be honest, I think it's best if we all agree to just ignore Fires and leave this thread alone. He spouts a load of rediculous, uninformed and unresearched opinions and then, when people don't listen to him, blames it on Oxbridge people being arrogant. He's shown that he's not willing to listen to logic or hard facts and obviously has a massive chip on his shoulder, so I think it's best if we just ignore him.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by illusionz)
Whilst I agree with everything else you've said... Oxford and Cambidge both have college fees of the order of £5000 per year. This is how they can afford all the small group tuition etc

I'm no oxbridge basher (just finished 3rd year at cambridge) but I've always found it odd that oxford and cambridge do get more money per student from the government than any other university. It seems likely that other unis would be able to give the same standard of education if they were given the same amount of money!

My dad (who works at bristol) said that while it's really grossly unfair on other universities, it benefits the country as a whole to have the two institutions as good as they are, so it worth the government spending extra money on.

Your father is wrong as to the present funding of Oxford and Cambridge. What he describes is "the good old days".

One has to deal with the world pre-1998 and post 1998. 1998 was the year university tuition fees payable by home students were introduced. However before 1998 all universities had tuition fees, but students didn't know anything about them unless they failed to fill in their funding paperwork in which case they got a big bill.

Before 1998 universities were in theory free to charge whatever fees they liked but local councils, who then provided the funding, were only obliged to pay a certain amount, and that acted as a de facto cap that all universities applied. However, as well as university fees, collegiate universities could levy college fees on top (again subject to a similar de facto cap). I think, but am not sure, that this wasn't limited to Oxford and Cambridge but included the other collegiate universities (Durham, Lancaster etc but not London or Wales). Certainly Oxford and Cambridge colleges charged the maximum fee. Therefore each council wrote two cheques for each student, one to Cambridge and one to the college.

All that changed in 1998. From then on, fees were something charged by a university to a student and universities received a sum of money for each student from a government agency. The amount paid per student was the same whichever university the student attended. That government agency wouldn't pay money directly to Oxbridge colleges. Therefore the money paid to the two Oxbridge universities had to be divided up between the central university and the colleges. For the first time in history the colleges became dependent on the university for funding. How that division is done in Oxford can be seen here. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/pras/resource/cff/jram/

None of this had anything to do with internationals. For internationals, the world continued as if 1998 hadn't happened. An international student makes two payments, one to the university and one to the college. The distinction can be seen here. http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/f...2012ugcollege/

As I have said Oxbridge receives the same amount of government funding per student as every other university (and I think for arts students from 2012 onwards that equality is that both Oxbridge and others receive nil, nothing, zilch, not a bean!) but funding per student is only one of the funding streams that make up the funding allocation to universities and it is these other streams which contain elements which favour Oxbridge.

[illusionz]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Your father is wrong as to the present funding of Oxford and Cambridge. What he describes is "the good old days".

One has to deal with the world pre-1998 and post 1998. 1998 was the year university tuition fees payable by home students were introduced. However before 1998 all universities had tuition fees, but students didn't know anything about them unless they failed to fill in their funding paperwork in which case they got a big bill.

Before 1998 universities were in theory free to charge whatever fees they liked but local councils, who then provided the funding, were only obliged to pay a certain amount, and that acted as a de facto cap that all universities applied. However, as well as university fees, collegiate universities could levy college fees on top (again subject to a similar de facto cap). I think, but am not sure, that this wasn't limited to Oxford and Cambridge but included the other collegiate universities (Durham, Lancaster etc but not London or Wales). Certainly Oxford and Cambridge colleges charged the maximum fee. Therefore each council wrote two cheques for each student, one to Cambridge and one to the college.

All that changed in 1998. From then on, fees were something charged by a university to a student and universities received a sum of money for each student from a government agency. The amount paid per student was the same whichever university the student attended. That government agency wouldn't pay money directly to Oxbridge colleges. Therefore the money paid to the two Oxbridge universities had to be divided up between the central university and the colleges. For the first time in history the colleges became dependent on the university for funding. How that division is done in Oxford can be seen here. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/pras/resource/cff/jram/

None of this had anything to do with internationals. For internationals, the world continued as if 1998 hadn't happened. An international student makes two payments, one to the university and one to the college. The distinction can be seen here. http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/f...2012ugcollege/

As I have said Oxbridge receives the same amount of government funding per student as every other university (and I think for arts students from 2012 onwards that equality is that both Oxbridge and others receive nil, nothing, zilch, not a bean!) but funding per student is only one of the funding streams that make up the funding allocation to universities and it is these other streams which contain elements which favour Oxbridge.

I stand corrected.

[fluteflute]

(Original post by Fires)
it's still roughly 50/50 between state and private, and much higher percentage private school in some colleges, you are plainly wrong

Just for general information: 2011 acceptances were 58% state and 42% private.

The data is also published by college, and looking at a three-year average, there were only three colleges with more than 50% private acceptances (50.2%, 50.2% and 54.9%)

[Fallen]

(Original post by illusionz)
Whilst I agree with everything else you've said... Oxford and Cambidge both have college fees of the order of £5000 per year. This is how they can afford all the small group tuition etc

I'm no oxbridge basher (just finished 3rd year at cambridge) but I've always found it odd that oxford and cambridge do get more money per student from the government than any other university. It seems likely that other unis would be able to give the same standard of education if they were given the same amount of money!

My dad (who works at bristol) said that while it's really grossly unfair on other universities, it benefits the country as a whole to have the two institutions as good as they are, so it worth the government spending extra money on.

College fees aren't paid by EU students (*undergraduates), or the government, are they?

[fluteflute]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
x

That's really interesting

[illusionz]

(Original post by Fallen)
College fees aren't paid by EU students, or the government, are they?

Apparently not. I was under the impression that they were.

[Incarnadine91]

(Original post by SHELDON123)
Now, to be honest, I think it's best if we all agree to just ignore Fires and leave this thread alone. He spouts a load of rediculous, uninformed and unresearched opinions and then, when people don't listen to him, blames it on Oxbridge people being arrogant. He's shown that he's not willing to listen to logic or hard facts and obviously has a massive chip on his shoulder, so I think it's best if we just ignore him.

Seconded. He hasn't replied to any of the points I've made and keeps repeating himself - not the hallmark of a good debate. Let's just let this thread die.

P.S. Fires, you might want to ask yourself this: are the Oxbridge people you talk to being rude because they're arrogant, self-assured toffs etc etc? Or might it be that you started off by insulting them and they're defending themselves? Figure out the cause and effect yourself.

[Fallen]

(Original post by illusionz)
Apparently not. I was under the impression that they were.

Indeed. As far as I know, neither Oxford nor Cambridge receive any special funding.

They get large research budgets, but those are fought for by the researchers here, and we only get a lot because we are a good, research-lead institution (the same as any other top university).

And of course we get a lot of alumni donations (relative to the rest of the UK, but not internationally), and can charge higher fees for international students/graduate degrees.
However none of these are anything more than Oxford cashing in on its reputation (and continued excellence).

So I don't see how it is "unfair"?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Fallen)
Indeed. As far as I know, neither Oxford nor Cambridge receive any special funding.

They get large research budgets, but those are fought for by the researchers here, and we only get a lot because we are a good, research-lead institution (the same as any other top university).

And of course we get a lot of alumni donations (relative to the rest of the UK, but not internationally), and can charge higher fees for international students/graduate degrees.
However none of these are anything more than Oxford cashing in on its reputation (and continued excellence).

So I don't see how it is "unfair"?

There is an unfairness that you don't see because you accept the status quo.

If I set up a research institute, attract the top minds to do the top research, the government won't pay me a bean. With a few exceptions (mostly related to defence) research in the UK is only publicly funded if it is linked to an institution which teaches.

Why does the UK government overpay for the cost of research? It is universally accepted that research subsidises teaching. When MPs submitted expenses claims for £1000 for something that cost £500 we prosecuted them, made them pay the money back and in many cases they left politics. Why if a piece of research costs £1M to conduct, does the government pay the university £1.5M so it has got £500,000 spare to subsidise teaching?

Therefore the funding system has an inbuilt bias towards research universities. I can't get the money if I just do research, but if I do research and teach, I will be paid more money for research than I need and so can subsidise my teaching. If I don't do a lot of research, I get paid in buttons for teaching. The cross-subsidy is the bias.

[Fallen]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
There is an unfairness that you don't see because you accept the status quo.

If I set up a research institute, attract the top minds to do the top research, the government won't pay me a bean. With a few exceptions (mostly related to defence) research in the UK is only publicly funded if it is linked to an institution which teaches.

Why does the UK government overpay for the cost of research? It is universally accepted that research subsidises teaching. When MPs submitted expenses claims for £1000 for something that cost £500 we prosecuted them, made them pay the money back and in many cases they left politics. Why if a piece of research costs £1M to conduct, does the government pay the university £1.5M so it has got £500,000 spare to subsidise teaching?

Therefore the funding system has an inbuilt bias towards research universities. I can't get the money if I just do research, but if I do research and teach, I will be paid more money for research than I need and so can subsidise my teaching. If I don't do a lot of research, I get paid in buttons for teaching. The cross-subsidy is the bias.

Perhaps, but firstly this isn't directly to do with Oxford.

Secondly, who says the money is just intended to further research? If the government only put its money towards research then we may have lots of good research institutions, but wouldn't be able to populate them with home-educated students as we would not be teaching them properly.

To me it actually makes a lot of sense to tie government research money to teaching, because it ensures that we have people teaching at out universities who are also real researchers trying to solve real problems.

There are plenty of other places to get funding other than the UK government for research, and there are also plenty of research institutions which do no teaching at all - both public and private.

I think if all the money for research was separated from the money for teaching, then we would end up with all the good researchers doing their own thing with the research funding, and having nobody decent to pass on knowledge to next generation of researchers. Great, would work for a while, but eventually we would get stung.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Fallen)
Perhaps, but firstly this isn't directly to do with Oxford.

Secondly, who says the money is just intended to further research? If the government only put its money towards research then we may have lots of good research institutions, but wouldn't be able to populate them with home-educated students as we would not be teaching them properly.

To me it actually makes a lot of sense to tie government research money to teaching, because it ensures that we have people teaching at out universities who are also real researchers trying to solve real problems.

There are plenty of other places to get funding other than the UK government for research, and there are also plenty of research institutions which do no teaching at all - both public and private.

I think if all the money for research was separated from the money for teaching, then we would end up with all the good researchers doing their own thing with the research funding, and having nobody decent to pass on knowledge to next generation of researchers. Great, would work for a while, but eventually we would get stung.

The disparity in research funding does mean that this is heavily to do with Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford will get £131M for research next year. The University of Derby which is marginally smaller than Oxford gets £384,000. Somewhere much bigger than Oxford like Leeds gets £48M. Only Oxbridge and UCL top £100M.

The points you make are entirely valid ones, but they aren't the arguments advanced officially. Officially research money is for research and teaching money is (was) for teaching and there was supposedly a level playing field for both. The HEFCE could have said that it was favouring Oxbridge and a few other places as world leading institutions but it hasn't. It claims that it treats all institutions alike.

The criticism by the teaching universities is that they are supposed to be specialising in teaching, yet there is a hidden subsidy for teaching given to the research universities.

I don't think you will find many non-defence (including nuclear) non-university publicly funded research institutions. Note that the Roslin Institute has had to join Edinburgh to get public money. Virtually all the agricultural research stations have closed or been taken over by universities. Harwell and Culham are about it and there is a lot of defence/nuclear money going into both.

We have nothing like the National Labs in the USA or the Max Plank.

[Fallen]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
The disparity in research funding does mean that this is heavily to do with Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford will get £131M for research next year. The University of Derby which is marginally smaller than Oxford gets £384,000. Somewhere much bigger than Oxford like Leeds gets £48M. Only Oxbridge and UCL top £100M.

The points you make are entirely valid ones, but they aren't the arguments advanced officially. Officially research money is for research and teaching money is (was) for teaching and there was supposedly a level playing field for both. The HEFCE could have said that it was favouring Oxbridge and a few other places as world leading institutions but it hasn't. It claims that it treats all institutions alike.

The criticism by the teaching universities is that they are supposed to be specialising in teaching, yet there is a hidden subsidy for teaching given to the research universities.

I don't think you will find many non-defence (including nuclear) non-university publicly funded research institutions. Note that the Roslin Institute has had to join Edinburgh to get public money. Virtually all the agricultural research stations have closed or been taken over by universities. Harwell and Culham are about it and there is a lot of defence/nuclear money going into both.

We have nothing like the National Labs in the USA or the Max Plank.

Ok perhaps I shouldn't have said "to do", I mean "their fault".

I completely agree that we should be funding more pure research (and I also think we should be funding more higher-education).
The way it is now seems to work. My uncle actually moved from Max Planck to a UK university's Physics department.

If you want to think of me as self-centered or ignorant for saying this, I actually understand, but I find myself struggling to care enough to come up with a response.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Fallen)
Ok perhaps I shouldn't have said "to do", I mean "their fault".

I completely agree that we should be funding more pure research (and I also think we should be funding more higher-education).
The way it is now seems to work. My uncle actually moved from Max Planck to a UK university's Physics department.

If you want to think of me as self-centered or ignorant for saying this, I actually understand, but I find myself struggling to care enough to come up with a response.

At the end of the day, it is all about government not being straight about what it wants from, and is therefore prepared to pay for, from Oxford on the one hand and Derby on the other.