This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- An Offer-Holder's Guide to Applying for English at Oxbridge
- Help. No friends, lonely, hurt,
- medicine Cambridge application
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- Could some mark/give criticism please
- Durham English Exchange
- does it really matter what uni you graduate from?
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- Can someone please mark my creative writing?!!
- Personal Statement from Oxford Student for Year Abroad at Yale - Review
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- Picking courses
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- Brampton Manor vs NCS
- Royal college of art
- GCSE English Language Creative Writing Piece
- Supercurriculars
- Pros and cons of second year credit university transfer
- which sixth form is better- brampton, lae or ncs?
- How to make my application strong
NEWS!!!--Oxbridge faces fresh criticism over selections
Scroll to see replies
smoosabitmega
I chose not to apply to Oxbridge not because I have inverse snobbery/don't think I'm good enough/am a State schooler...but because I didnt *gasp* want to. It would be an amazing oppurtunity, but it's just not for me :/
Good for you - I don't think anyone was implying that those were the only reasons why people choose not to apply, though.
Lewi
Chip on shoulder? Just a bit, I'm sensing.
Is this about me?
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I was just making a comment. I live in Northern Ireland, I think we have about TWO private schools at the most, its not like I'm an embittered state schooler or anything.....
smoosabitmega
Oh so that's the only reason they bother with them then? Sorry if this is read out of context, but that's the way it comes across.
yeh sorry that's not at all how i meant it. i was just saying that they have no reason not to choose state schools, and they are under pressure from the government to accept more, however oxbridge don't do that because they pride themselves on selecting solely on academic merit and potential. what i mean is that they'd love for more state school people to apply to oxbridge since so few do it makes them look bad. however i'd like to believe that they assess applicants solely on merit. the reason private school students have slightly higher success rates is more down to the fact that private schools give better preparation etc.
basically what i was trying to say is that it's this bloody stereotype of oxbridge which puts off able state school applicants and so it perpetuates. it's the attitude towards oxbridge that needs to change above anything
monagro
Let me explain something here, I am generalizing, I know this but:
rich parents are often very competetive and make their kids competetive too -> rich kids working harder on average than poor kids
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
private schools are full of rich kids and give better teaching than state ones
-> private school students understand the material better
Therefore, as rich kids generally work harder and are smarter, rich kids get admitted and more often get into a better school, so they understand the stuff better. Therefore, they are usually better entrants than state-school ones
rich parents are often very competetive and make their kids competetive too -> rich kids working harder on average than poor kids
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
private schools are full of rich kids and give better teaching than state ones
-> private school students understand the material better
Therefore, as rich kids generally work harder and are smarter, rich kids get admitted and more often get into a better school, so they understand the stuff better. Therefore, they are usually better entrants than state-school ones
3 pages and no one's picked up on this load of *******s...
how about explaining that, so you may come to realize it actually is true
I haven't read every single post but i'm bored, so fancy posting something.
I'm at a state school. I've only ever had friends from state schools, and have only ever attended a state school.
My Opinion is Oxford or Cambridge should be able to pick and choose who the hell they want. It annoys me that they get criticised for it. If they want to take their majority from the so called "rich" schools (and probably because these applicants are stronger) then that should be their decision. Surely? Is it not their right to decide exactly who they want in their University for whatever reason?
I'm at a state school. I've only ever had friends from state schools, and have only ever attended a state school.
My Opinion is Oxford or Cambridge should be able to pick and choose who the hell they want. It annoys me that they get criticised for it. If they want to take their majority from the so called "rich" schools (and probably because these applicants are stronger) then that should be their decision. Surely? Is it not their right to decide exactly who they want in their University for whatever reason?
monagro
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
rich parents are often smarter than poor parents and IQ does generally come from the biological parents (you can see this with adoptions)
-> rich kids are generally smarter
I agree with some of your statements. But this is particularly incorrect to make, and to wide and ignorant for you to claim true.
I believe that its more of this. Both your parents are sucessful, more intelligent, and they fuel and motivate you to be like them. You are more likely to do so, unless you are predisposed to being the 'bad apple' of the family.
IQ does not come from biological parents, i know very poor people, who have been driven by their poor status to do well. Rags to riches? Heard that story? Sometimes its luck but other times it brains.
A lot of rich parents are born into old money. They dont earn it? I know 3 generations that have lived of their great, great, grandfathers wealth. Thats somthing. Also out of practical knowledge I know of situations, where students get into Oxbridge because of their last names, as perhaps their parents, and the grandparents went there.
And sometimes their parents only get in because of their grandparents, and this happens ALOT, as far as i'm concerned.
But i'm not trying to rip you apart, I just want you to see my logic.
IQ is inherited from biological parents. The truth is that, statistically, children are nearer the average IQ level of 100 than their parents but moved away from the average towards the same direction as their parents. This means that intelligent parents, statistically speaking, have children that are more intelligent than the average but not as intelligent as themselves. Correspondingly, unintelligent parents have children that are less intelligent than the population average, but more intelligent than their parents.
There is a general correlation in the west between intelligence and earning power and, if you set aside inherited wealth (which is not too prevalent) wealth is an indicator of intelligence.
Of course, all this assumes that intelligence is the only factor, which is not necessarily true. Drive, attitude, opportunity, luck and other factors are all important. But intelligence is a very important factor in terms of getting into university in the UK. I seriously doubt that the parents' network is much of a factor any more.
There is a general correlation in the west between intelligence and earning power and, if you set aside inherited wealth (which is not too prevalent) wealth is an indicator of intelligence.
Of course, all this assumes that intelligence is the only factor, which is not necessarily true. Drive, attitude, opportunity, luck and other factors are all important. But intelligence is a very important factor in terms of getting into university in the UK. I seriously doubt that the parents' network is much of a factor any more.
My Opinion is Oxford or Cambridge should be able to pick and choose who the hell they want. It annoys me that they get criticised for it. If they want to take their majority from the so called "rich" schools (and probably because these applicants are stronger) then that should be their decision. Surely? Is it not their right to decide exactly who they want in their University for whatever reason?
Actually, both universities get a lot of government money, so they don't really have the right to decide who they let in without any bounds. That being said, they should take whoever are the best candidates.
The problem in my opinion is that the government is trying to shift its own failings at improving aspirations and schools onto the universities.
Both Oxford and Cambridge work hard on improving their image to encourage more state school applicants to apply, but articles giving the idea that you may as well not bother if you went to a state school have the effect of making it harder to get state school applicants.
A lot of rich parents are born into old money. They dont earn it? I know 3 generations that have lived of their great, great, grandfathers wealth. Thats somthing. Also out of practical knowledge I know of situations, where students get into Oxbridge because of their last names, as perhaps their parents, and the grandparents went there.
I suspect this is complete rubbish.
Just for completely pointless anecdotal evidence. Of the 4 best students that I know here (in my opinion). 2 went to private schools and 2 went to state schools.
Good bloke
IQ is inherited from biological parents. The truth is that
Good bloke
This means that intelligent parents, statistically speaking, have children that are more intelligent than the average but not as intelligent as themselves.
Really? Thats interesting, where is that from? Since its a statistic- there will be many exceptions though, right?
Good bloke
There is a general correlation in the west between intelligence and earning power and, if you set aside inherited wealth (which is not too prevalent) wealth is an indicator of intelligence.
There is a general correlation in the west between intelligence and earning power and, if you set aside inherited wealth (which is not too prevalent) wealth is an indicator of intelligence.
In the west, perhaps so. But in Asia, it is VERY common, to have many of the richest people wealth found to be inherited.
Sometimes, in the few cases I know the dumbest people make it big, for example just giving a million pounds to their broker, and asking them to make 10 times that. Surely this does not mean they are intelligent? I mean okay, you are smart enough to put your money in stocks, but..then what?
Good bloke
Of course, all this assumes that intelligence is the only factor, which is not necessarily true. Drive, attitude, opportunity, luck and other factors are all important. But intelligence is a very important factor in terms of getting into university in the UK.
Of course, all this assumes that intelligence is the only factor, which is not necessarily true. Drive, attitude, opportunity, luck and other factors are all important. But intelligence is a very important factor in terms of getting into university in the UK.
Agreed.
Good bloke
I seriously doubt that the parents' network is much of a factor any more.
I seriously doubt that the parents' network is much of a factor any more.
Not true.
Teebs
I suspect this is complete rubbish.
Just for completely pointless anecdotal evidence. Of the 4 best students that I know here (in my opinion). 2 went to private schools and 2 went to state schools.
I suspect this is complete rubbish.
Just for completely pointless anecdotal evidence. Of the 4 best students that I know here (in my opinion). 2 went to private schools and 2 went to state schools.
It really isn't rubbish. If your great grand father was once a king? And you grand father a crown prince?
It doesn't mean they are intelligent.
And I have some more friends whos families have just too much Old money not just from being royal, but striking it big. You really think i'd even bother mentioning that if it was rubbish? I am really not that driven to pursue false arguements. Sorry.
Good bloke
IQ is inherited from biological parents. The truth is that, statistically, children are nearer the average IQ level of 100 than their parents but moved away from the average towards the same direction as their parents. This means that intelligent parents, statistically speaking, have children that are more intelligent than the average but not as intelligent as themselves. Correspondingly, unintelligent parents have children that are less intelligent than the population average, but more intelligent than their parents.
What makes you assume its biological? I don't want to get into the whole nature/nurture debate or pretend to know a great deal about the subject but I know one thing, and that is that the general consensus today seems to be that intelligence is influenced much more heavily by your upbringing as opposed to biological factors.
I also wouldn't put as great a stress on a rich/intelligent correlation as monagro seems to be doing. Intelligent people aren't always rich, rich people certainly aren't always intelligent and I wouldn't think there's a particularly strong correlation at all, but maybe i'm wrong.
What I can accept is that private school kids (rich kids) are more likely to succeed because their encouraged to, because they are brought up for Oxbridge and the top universities. They are not more intelligent on biological grounds.
mongaro
how about explaining that, so you may come to realize it actually is true
There i've just explained, although I thought your post spoke for itself and I wouldn't need to bother. I can accept that rich kids are likely to be more competitive academically, but thats it. You seem to have a general idea in your head that rich kids/private school kids are superior from the moment they are born, on average.
Pikey
What makes you assume its biological? I don't want to get into the whole nature/nurture debate or pretend to know a great deal about the subject but I know one thing, and that is that the general consensus today seems to be that intelligence is influenced much more heavily by your upbringing as opposed to biological factors.
I also wouldn't put as great a stress on a rich/intelligent correlation as monagro seems to be doing. Intelligent people aren't always rich, rich people certainly aren't always intelligent and I wouldn't think there's a particularly strong correlation at all, but maybe i'm wrong.
What I can accept is that private school kids (rich kids) are more likely to succeed because their encouraged to, because they are brought up for Oxbridge and the top universities. They are not more intelligent on biological grounds.
I also wouldn't put as great a stress on a rich/intelligent correlation as monagro seems to be doing. Intelligent people aren't always rich, rich people certainly aren't always intelligent and I wouldn't think there's a particularly strong correlation at all, but maybe i'm wrong.
What I can accept is that private school kids (rich kids) are more likely to succeed because their encouraged to, because they are brought up for Oxbridge and the top universities. They are not more intelligent on biological grounds.
I agree with you. Maybe your middle para i'd be wary of, I think we may be wrong, but it would be the most horrifying fact if there was a direct correlation between the rich and the intelligent. Cause I know many Harvard alumni, who dont go on to make the $$$$ but use their brains to save the world, and do good. So I think we could be right
(If you except my example)Teebs
Names of these royals who don't deserve to be at Oxbridge?
I don't think having inherited a lot of money should automatically disqualify you from entry to Oxford or Cambridge which seems to be what you're implying.
I don't think having inherited a lot of money should automatically disqualify you from entry to Oxford or Cambridge which seems to be what you're implying.
Oh I think you misunderstood me.
I didnt mean to say because they have money, they should automatically disqualify you! Thats a bit extreme. I was just responding to the post where this um, ignorant person stated that rich people=the most intelligent. These people are just rich end of story.
I dont know royal family that go to Oxbridge. I know some that go to Upenn and Yale though!
kashmir.noir
A lot of rich parents are born into old money. They dont earn it? I know 3 generations that have lived of their great, great, grandfathers wealth. Thats somthing. Also out of practical knowledge I know of situations, where students get into Oxbridge because of their last names, as perhaps their parents, and the grandparents went there.
See. 2 seperate points
.But there are some people who get into Oxbridge based on their last name. As I said above. 3-4 people from my ex-school have been in this situation. I mean they worked to get decent grades etc. But there were better grades, and personal statements that just got rejected. I guess it does pay to dine the admissions officers! (IN SOME CASES)
You may just think im ranting. By no means do mean to say being rich should mean that you get disqualified from going to Oxbridge. That makes no sense!
I'm sorry to have angered you, its just you said what I was saying was rubbish. I just got offended.
ut there are some people who get into Oxbridge based on their last name. As I said above. 3-4 people from my ex-school have been in this situation. I mean they worked to get decent grades etc. But there were better grades, and personal statements that just got rejected. I guess it does pay to dine the admissions officers! (IN SOME CASES)
I'm sorry, but that's blatently not true, not in current times, anyway.
I've got to say, while I agree that in the majority of cases people are picked solely for their academic ability and not on other factors (though, of course, people from public schools are often more likely to have had the better teaching and coaching to get them into Oxbridge), I also don't understand why so many people are completely in denial about faults and unfairness in the system.
Sure, the majority of people don't get in because of their daddy's contacts, but a few still do, very sadly.
Is it not better to address and change this than just issue a blanket denial of the fact?
I have read articles by students at Oxford who freely admit that they were told if they applied to a particular college they would definitely go in... because of special contacts.
While this is only true of a very small minority of students at Oxbridge, cases most definitely do exist and I don't understand why other students who have been picked on their personal merit can't understand that this does happen.
Sure, the majority of people don't get in because of their daddy's contacts, but a few still do, very sadly.
Is it not better to address and change this than just issue a blanket denial of the fact?
I have read articles by students at Oxford who freely admit that they were told if they applied to a particular college they would definitely go in... because of special contacts.
While this is only true of a very small minority of students at Oxbridge, cases most definitely do exist and I don't understand why other students who have been picked on their personal merit can't understand that this does happen.
kashmir.noir
In the west, perhaps so. But in Asia, it is VERY common.
In the west, perhaps so. But in Asia, it is VERY common.
And the relevance of this in the context of a discussion about entry to British universities is ... what precisely?
thomasjtl
I'm sorry, but that's blatently not true, not in current times, anyway.
It is! i know 3 people who have got in in the past, hmmph 4 years? I think, they were my seniors in school.
It helps that they have good grades too. But they would have otherwise been rejected, if they didnt have their last name. Its a minority. But its still there.
I think however this rhetoric is much stronger at American universities.
Related discussions
- An Offer-Holder's Guide to Applying for English at Oxbridge
- Help. No friends, lonely, hurt,
- medicine Cambridge application
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- Could some mark/give criticism please
- Durham English Exchange
- does it really matter what uni you graduate from?
- Applying for Maths at Oxford, Imperial and Warwick
- Can someone please mark my creative writing?!!
- Personal Statement from Oxford Student for Year Abroad at Yale - Review
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- Picking courses
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- Brampton Manor vs NCS
- Royal college of art
- GCSE English Language Creative Writing Piece
- Supercurriculars
- Pros and cons of second year credit university transfer
- which sixth form is better- brampton, lae or ncs?
- How to make my application strong
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 12 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 12 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
