Is the government intent on damaging Oxford?

Scroll to see replies

The emphasis on Oxford is fairly redundant when every prestigious university south of Birmingham has participation issues.

Reply 41

lordash

All this demonstrates is the failure of state school teaching compared to that of private schools.

Also, one of the things I always considered unfair is that because private school students are entered for more exams by default, kids from state schools would never be able to compete even if they were better academically. E.g., if one application was from a person from a private school with 16 A/A* GCSEs and 5 A grade A-levels, and another from a state school with 3 A grade A-levels and 9 A/A* GCSEs, of course they are going to pick the private school person. Unfortunately, state schools rarely enter people for the same number of exams as private schools, which puts their students at an automatic disadvantage. Also, a lot of the harder required subjects and specialist entrance exams, such as further maths and STEP, are not taught or sat at a lot of state sixth forms, making the problem worse.

Basically, the government needs to get its act together and put people on an even footing before they start crying "discrimination".

Reply 42

nulli tertius

Original post by TurboCretin

I don't think Oxford will ever sacrifice its entry standards to comply with government whims. It's been operating virtually unchanged for hundreds of years; that's a lot of momentum.

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

The government has been staying stuff for years and Oxford - I'm proud to say - hasn't been bowing down to that pressure. Instead it's been constantly trying to attract more diversity in far more sensible, less demeaning ways :smile:

First of all Cameron is an Oxford graduate with, like me, a memory of how things used to be.

He knows that the policy of admission on the basis of academic excellence to the exclusion of everything else is less than 30 years old. Further, it is simply that; a policy not a law of nature or a divine command.

Furthermore, given that Oxford accepts bucket-loads of public money, the government is entitled to say that "your policy brings about wider social evils and we, the government, consider that the benefit to you, Oxford and the country as a whole, of recruiting only on the basis of past proven academic excellence is outweighed by the harm that you do to society in so doing."

That isn't a novel approach by government. We prohibit employers from discriminating against women even in jobs where it is obvious that men have a physical advantage. We require employers to make reasonable adjustments in favour of the disabled where they would have to make none in favour of the able-bodied. Government says the public interest in, say, having firefighters' jobs open to women outweighs the fact that male firefighters will have greater physical strength than female ones. Government says that provided male and female firefighters achieve a minimum standard of physical ability that is pitched at a level a reasonable number of women can achieve, that is to be the admissions standard. We do likewise with age and disability discrimination.

We also allow Spanish trawlers to catch fish in British waters, Polish plumbers to work here without work permits and Italian cars to be sold here without import duties. We do this because the government perceives membership of the EU, which carries those burdens, to be preferable to non-membership although our fishing industry was destroyed, we have 3 million unemployed and car manufacture takes place in this country.

Government will change the method of funding personal injury litigation even though this will throw lawyers and support staff out of work and in the view of many, both inside and outside the legal profession, harm access to justice because access to justice is seen as less important than curbing the burden on society of a compensation culture.

One is entitled to disagree with government policy on any of these matters, but one cannot deny the right of government and Parliament to set wider or different objectives than the internal self-interest of an organisation or that organisation's perception of the public interest.

Cameron attended Oxford in the comprehensive school era. He knows that Oxford then was more socially diverse than Oxford today. He also knows there were biases in admission in favour of certain extra-curricular activities. I am sure he does not think that Oxford in his day was, taken as a whole, less academically successful than Oxford today.

The weakness of Oxford's (and Cambridge's) position compared with the Laura Spence affair, is that the people making these criticisms are Oxbridge graduates who simply do not accept the institutional assertions of these universities.

They don't accept that the products of comprehensive education in the 1980s were so much better than the products of comprehensive education today. They don't accept that Oxford has been trying hard enough in those 30 years during which the proportion of state school students has fallen. They don't accept that the talent pool in which Oxford should be fishing is limited to candidates with AAA at A level.

What has been very noticeable, and for Oxford very worrying, is that other senior politicians have not leapt to Oxford's defence. Cameron's view is widely held.

Amongst others, by yours truly.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 43

manchild007

Original post by storna

Oxford commands an excellent academic reputation, internationally, because it only accepts the very best and brightest.

Really?

It barely made it into even the 10 best universities in the world recently.

Reply 44

Kolya

storna

Oxford commands an excellent academic reputation, internationally, because it only accepts the very best and brightest.

As others have said, that is questionable. After all, there are universities with just as good academic reputations as Oxford but where they have affirmative action, legacy admissions, and the like. Furthermore, Oxford has had its academic reputation for decades despite it having discriminatory policies in the recent past. So I'm not sure about the connection between academic reputation and how admissions policy.

Reply 45

The_Lonely_Goatherd

Original post by nulli tertius

I've come to the conclusion that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on these kinda matters, tbh :smile:

I'm far too lazy to repeat the same discussions each time as well :biggrin:

Reply 46

Don John

I'd hardly call a faux-pas by a man who actually went to Oxford warranting a big conspiracy...

Reply 47

Abbadon27

Original post by manchild007

Really?

It barely made it into even the 10 best universities in the world recently.

Yeah, because universities outside the top 10 worldwide are average at best. /sarcasm

Anything in the top 50/100 are universities all very good.

Reply 48

manchild007

Original post by Abbadon27

Yeah, because universities outside the top 10 worldwide are average at best. /sarcasm

Anything in the top 50/100 are universities all very good.

Did I say they were average you moron? :rolleyes:

No I didn't; I merely stated for all the hoopla in this thread that Oxford is one of thee best institutions in the world, its not. Its a good/great university yes, but not the over-extensive best-of-the-best promotion it is getting by the OP in this thread.

Perspective.

Reply 49

manchild007

Original post by Kolya

As others have said, that is questionable. After all, there are universities with just as good academic reputations as Oxford but where they have affirmative action, legacy admissions, and the like.

If you're talking about the top US universities, they have an academic reputation greater than Oxford to be honest.

Reply 50

Teveth

Original post by juliewho

At the end of the day, It isn't Oxfords fault. They cannot take applicants that do not have the required grades or skills for the courses simply because they are poorer, or from a state school. The problem should be addressed much further down. Oxford are doing a lot more than some universities to try and widen participation, and if the government tries to force them to hit quotas, it isn't fair on the university.
As someone from a state school/poorer background, I would hate to be accepted into Oxford simply because they wanted to look more diverse, and it isn't fair that the government picked on one specific university either.

Yes they can. A working class child from an impoverished household and run-down, low-performing state school who achieves AAA is almost certainly going to be someone of immense ability. The same cannot be said for a privately schooled upper-middle class pupil who achieves the same grades, or even higher, as those kind of grades at the top schools are not all that exceptional. Statistics show us that comp-state schooled pupils are much more likely to get a first at university than their private school counterparts who achieve the same grades at A-level.

Oxford do already take this into account when making offers, and that's a good start, but in my view it needs to go further. ABB for a working class child at a low performing comprehensive should be put on par with A*A*A for a middle class pupil at a private school when it comes to making offers.

Reply 51

Abbadon27

Original post by manchild007

Did I say they were average you moron? :rolleyes:

Play nice

There is no need for that kind of language.

Reply 52

manchild007

Original post by Abbadon27

Play nice

There is no need for that kind of language.

Well then please refrain from putting words in my mouth/post, simply to formulate and justify whatever your imaginary line of argument is.

Reply 53

HighestKungFu

If breaking down its obvious prejudices is 'damage' then I hope so.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 54

juliewho

Original post by Teveth

Thats not what I meant, obviously if they are achieving highly for their circumstances then they should have just as much a chance as everyone else - but it still isn't Oxfords fault that further down the line people are being let down by education and many people capable of great stuff aren't achieving it.
It wasn't fair of the government to pick on one single university when they do quite alot more than others for widening access anyway. As a person pretty much in the scenario you described, I know many hoping to apply to Cambridge etc through access schemes, and they should always have an equal chance even if they achieve lower grades if they had awful circumstances.

Reply 55

Iqbal007

Original post by storna

Oxford commands an excellent academic reputation, internationally, because it only accepts the very best and brightest. Even people with As and A*s are not guaranteed admission unless they demonstrate exceptional academic ability.

But will all this talk from the government about Oxford not having enough people from: a) poor backgrounds b) state schools c) of black ethnic origin put pressure on them to water down their strict academic standards to appear more diverse?

Will they start putting affirmative action and diversity before merit? Will this be voluntary (albeit through pressure) or will the government enforce it?

Just to point out that your very biased, just because someone is from a poor background, state school or different ethnicity doesn't mean there dumb.
Because I know of plently of people from my school (state school) who themselves are from working class, but they worked hard and were able to 90%+ UMS at AS one of them is a black guy whos going Cambridge for Engineering and a another chinese guy whos putting Cambridge medicine as back up.
I really dont know what your talking about to be honest because those students do also demonstrate exceptional academic ability ¬¬

Reply 56

toofaforu

Original post by TurboCretin

Uh-huh...and what does that have to do with the government?

nothing.

"It's been operating virtually unchanged for hundreds of years"

Reply 57

TurboCretin

Original post by toofaforu

nothing.

"It's been operating virtually unchanged for hundreds of years"

That was a side point which may or may not have been fair to make. If you look at the title of the thread and assess my posts in relation to that, it'd be much appreciated. My point was made in the first sentence; it is there that the relevance to the thread is made explicit.

Reply 58

TShadow383

Original post by JCC-MGS

Are you intent on damaging social progress for minority groups and people from working-class backgrounds? In the hierarchy of how much I give a **** about things, the sanctity of Oxford as an institution of white public school kids ranks pretty low.

Why should oxford admit those who don't meet its very high standards?
It's not about race (and david cameron didn't check his facts, by the by) or parental earnings, and in fact oxford already does a lot to widen participation.
If pupils from private education are much more likely to get in, surely that just demonstrates that those schools produce a much higher calibre of student.

The problem is with state education. Not Oxford.
Bring back grammar schools and the problem will be lessened significantly

Reply 59

nulli tertius

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I've come to the conclusion that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on these kinda matters, tbh :smile:

I'm far too lazy to repeat the same discussions each time as well :biggrin:

Don't worry about it. I am not demanding an answer. :smile:

I keep repeating the points for two reasons.

Firstly there is a tendency amongst the young to assume what is now has always been.

Secondly, Oxford is using the old political trick of trying to establish as an unchallengeable assumption something that inevitably leads to the conclusion it desires. Teveth's posting in this thread captures and rebuts this very well.