How the Oxford PPE degree created a robotic governing class

Sorry if this sounds dumb but saying such and such about the course does imply a want to remove it.

Also, I daresay that it's the course that's hardly at fault, rather the people who take them.

On the flip side, I, like many others I'm sure, don't like what Margaret Thatcher did, but she studied Chemistry at
Oxford. Does that mean that the whole Chemistry course should be put under scrutiny?

When you mentioned a "candid observation", I thought you were referring to yourself



Where I'm studying is irrelevant, and it's frankly a bit hamfisted to get onto the subject of imagined biases. You are more than welcome to respond to the substantive points I made in my response to you or to plagioclase a couple of comments above.

There should be more than enough on your plate between those two comments to be tucking into, rather than derailing the discussion with unsubstantiated imputations of bias

Asking for your situation enables me to link your opinion and reaction with your experiences.

Fine. I have no reason to be biased for or against. Happy?

Yes. It certainly means I take your opinions in a different way to the way I would if there was a bias. It wouldn't negate or invalidate your opinion even if you did, it would just help to provide the context around it. That's something we should all do in life otherwise we would take people's opinions with no cynicism or consideration of ulterior motives.

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

@Fullofsurprises

(Rote learners) gobble up received wisdom (liberal whitewash), have a superficial appreciation of complex systems, and fail to think outside the box

Who is this user and why he so relevant? Foo.mp3 also tagged him.

I think she did a PPE degree at Oxford.

I agree that a gradual reduction in inequality is necessary but through slow and steady reform, not by killing people.

I'm not certain all types of inequality need to be addressed - Specifically, I was thinking of wealth, but:


People are born stronger, smarter, faster, better looking and yes - Even wealthier. Despite this, our lives continue to grow by leaps and bounds - A poor westerner now eats better than the aristocracy of 3 centuries ago, has better clothes, less drafty homes and a vast array of entertainment options as well as access to information nobody else could think of.

The problem isn't wealth inequality - The problem is a lack of options for upward mobility.

Only 1/10 of poor, white boys from disadvantaged areas will attend further education(I mention race ironically so this doesn't become a 'Create laws to address (x) races disadvantages'), people who are born in to single parent families represent 90% of incarcerated criminals -

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/

Generational poverty, self-imposed ghettoization, integration, the curse of single-parent families et al - These are things that cannot be solved by a social revolution.

What it requires is an evolution - A stronger community with closer ties and a firm commitment to education, communal values and unified families. There are so many problems related to the collapse of the family and community - The government can't solve that, so it wouldn't matter who we voted in. We need to fix that ourselves.

What are your thoughts?

I think that article has been discussed before on TSR, it's interesting and provocative.

I agree there's some truth in the idea that weaknesses in the format of PPE at Oxford, particularly the cramming together of quick but intense doses of the three disciplines and the pressure to sound knowledgeable in all three without necessarily having the depth is a risk, at least in the first part of the course.

What I think the article misses is the way a career structure of PPE >> Intern in MP's office >> SPAD >> MP >> Minister has evolved. The bad thing is probably not PPE at Oxford but the way politics at that level has developed a fixed career track with PPE as Step 1 in an inevitable sequence of tightly defined steps. There ought to be far more experience of life, business and other jobs in ministerial ranks than there has been in the last 25 years in all parties.

A massive part of the problem is the intern/SPAD part of it. This has evolved because politicians do not trust civil servants (perhaps rightly in some cases) to carry out their policy objectives. A US style system of bringing in a cadre of your own hand-picked people when you arrive in office has developed. These are the SPADs and they are drawn from people ministers knew as MPs, their interns. They in turn are recruited in the main from Oxbridge and from PPE in particular, although not exclusively - there are PPE and Politics/Economics/History interns from other universities and there are non-PPE interns from Oxbridge - but there's a recognisable pattern there.

Probably what should happen is that we should move to a US system where the top level of the civil service are replaced by each government and recruited from people they choose.

We also need the sort of insurgent parties Nick Cohen describes in the article, but we need ones that are genuinely radical and not just reworkings of the status quo wearing different clothing. We need more Green politicians and we need Parliament to reflect the actual voting via some form of PR.

Probably what should happen is that we should move to a US system where the top level of the civil service are replaced by each government and recruited from people they choose.

The problem of this solution is that it creates instability in the administration and leads to short-term policies rather than long term strategies.

I think we've got that anyway.