How the Oxford PPE degree created a robotic governing class

What's the point in you?

No, it's just that I disagree.



"Represent appropriately" is a political judgment, a value judgment, not some objective universal truth. You also have to recognise that the PPE grads who go onto positions in parliament and government are also part of a political machine that imposes certain restraints on their freedom of action.

I'd be interested to know if you can identify any particular policy decisions you believe are driven by the PPE course, and would have been different if the PPE course had a different syllabus.

PPE, like law, doesn't lay down a political (legal) ultimate truth, it teaches you how to think, how to analyse, how to apply a conceptual framework to a real-world problem. It comes across as quite superficial, almost puerile, to blame the syllabus of PPE for the failure of these students to live up to some arbitrary definition of usefulness.

It also suggests a certain degree of intellectual laziness, to look to the PPE syllabus rather than macro social, economic and technological factors that are likely far more influential in determining the policy positions and general approach of the current crop of politicians

I don't understand your point.

Ahh, sorry. I suppose I didn't explain it well enough (it wasn't really related to your post in general, but this whole subject)
I've always noticed people are quick to demonize the PPE course at Oxford, almost treating it as a sort of elitism (saying there's too many of them in parliament etc) but honestly, anyone - granted they're good enough to be accepted - can study PPE at Oxford, it doesn't matter who you are. And that also means it's just a degree. The politicians we have are stupid because they're, well, stupid. What degree you do doesn't shape your character. All PPE does is teach you about different political and economical topics (and also moral ones, hence the philosophy part.) That's like saying everyone who studies Geography at Cambridge has a certain character.

I think what we really need to worry about is that we don't have people from more walks of life in parliament.

I don't think I or the author implied that let alone explicitly stated that. The author of this article is an Oxford PPE grad so he is in a good position to make judgements and has no agenda for making any criticisms.

Indeed the variety of PPE students at Oxford is vast and this was not a vilification of them, as I mentioned in the OP.

There is definitely a need to avoid the stereotyping but not at the expense of discussion of an observed phenomenon.

There is a lot we really need to worry about but that doesn't negate discussing this issue.

Make a thread for that if you want to.

All I'm saying is that simply removing a course from a university won't change much - those who would've done PPE will just go on to do Politics, Philosophy or Economics, and then get into politics that way. Parliament will essentially stay the same, with the same proportion of Oxbridge graduates etc

Quite a lot of the big names in British politics did the PPE degree at Oxford- Cameron, Ed Miliband (and David Miliband), Jeremy Hunt etc.

A consequence of this phenomenon is detailed perfectly in an article written by an Oxford PPE graduate. I linked someone to it in the argument over David Cameron being a more suitable prime minister than Corbyn, purely because of the former's academic credentials.

This isn't meant to upset any Oxford PPE students/graduates! Feel free to chip in. This is the writer of the article's opinion, not necessarily mine.

Article Text in spoilerWhat are your thoughts?

I'm not sure, I find it a bit hard to believe that a degree course is responsible for the nonsense these politicians do. It almost sounds a bit like trying to draw responsibility away from the politicians and onto the degree they studied. I know absolutely nothing about PPE so I'm really not in a great position to talk but I just can't understand how a degree course could be so catastrophically flawed that it's single-handedly responsible for breeding corrupt, psychopathic politicians.

I don't think that's what the article is saying. At least, that wasn't my interpretation.

What is it saying then?

I, nor the author, suggested that removing the course is a good idea.

Just because there is a bigger issue in the background it doesn't mean that this cannot be discussed, which I said in my last comment.

I interpreted that it is pointing out some of the problems in the course delivery and how the sheer variety in the subject creates some politicians who have a tendency to BS and bang reform in without a moments thought.

I believe the author thinks that more detailed study of the branches or at the very least an in depth report would enable the career politicians to really consider the complexity and depth of issues that they implement into a system.

I believe he is not advocating removing the course nor is he blaming it, but rather he is suggesting that if this course is a big feeder of top political positions, the university should take ownership and analyse the products of its education, and think about how to improve it. I think this is an appropriate outlook for most things in life.

I think it's a lot more likely that the ideology driving them and the political structure and zeitgeist of this country is the main cause of the problem. They do exactly what gets them the votes. If the only thing politicians needed was the ability to think deeply and rationally about issues and make the best possible decision based on the evidence, you'd have a government made up of academics, not politicians.

Quite a lot of the big names in British politics did the PPE degree at Oxford- Cameron, Ed Miliband (and David Miliband), Jeremy Hunt etc.

A consequence of this phenomenon is detailed perfectly in an article written by an Oxford PPE graduate. I linked someone to it in the argument over David Cameron being a more suitable prime minister than Corbyn, purely because of the former's academic credentials.

This isn't meant to upset any Oxford PPE students/graduates! Feel free to chip in. This is the writer of the article's opinion, not necessarily mine.

Article Text in spoiler


What are your thoughts?

Well said, dude.

One, any ambitious young Oxonian needs to subject themselves to the strictures of the political machine if they want to gratify that ambition. That means trooping through the lobbies to vote for policies that are red lines for the blue rinses in South East England or the trade union bosses. That's how politics works; each party is, essentially, a coalition of interests, not some genuinely unitary phenomenon. They have to act within the constraints of the society and the political structure in which they live and work. It's facile to blame the PPE syllabus for some claimed failure to live up to SJW standards

Two, for all their faults and for all the shrieking and bellowing and conspiracy theories, we haven't been that badly served by our politicians if you're able to take a broader, more historical view. When I flick a switch, a light comes on because politicians and civil servants have created policies that bring about a regulated, reliable energy industry. When I turn on the tap, clean water that won't poison me comes out.

If I am attacked in the street by a criminal, a generally competent law enforcement organisation will come to my aid. If I need to resolve a dispute, I can have it adjudicated in a court system which is generally accepted to be free of corruption. If I am sick, I will be taken care of in world-class hospitals. If I am out of work, I will be assisted. By historical standards, and world standards, we live in a paradise.

It's very easy to take the parochial view that everything is awful and corrupt. But if you are able to take a more rational, objective, historical view, you see that things actually aren't that bad if you're living in Britain in the early 21st century. When do the people who brought about this state of affairs, politicians and civil servants, get any thanks? Modern society is ****ing complex, you can't make any policy decision that doesn't effect a thousand other things in countless ways. To keep this astonishing social machine running really is something worthy of recognition

I'm not an Oxford graduate and I have never claimed to be.

I am interested in your potential bias which is important in the context of a discussion