Am I the only who finds the royal family's educational qualifications embarrassing?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Sheepish153
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Jack Robinson)
Yes, considering Prince William's gotten himself into Cambridge, and though the course isn't a conventional one, I don't think anybody gotten in with more mediocre A levels than his. Then there's prince charles our future king, he's done 5 O levels and TWO A levels gettings Bs and Cs AND he got HIMSELF into Camb as well. Then there's the others who've done way sub-par subjects such Georgraphy, PE, politics etc for A level and have still gotten awful grades - Bs and Cs, the like. Then there's the cherry on the pie, the Queen herself - she's got no qualifications AT ALL according to the Telegraph.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing? Surely not? We're being ruled by a pack of dunces. They admitted it themselves (Princess Diana did, at least)! What are we waiting for??? REVOLUTION!!!!!!
Geography is not a "sub-par" subject!!!!!!!!!!! >
0
shahbaz
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
Its easy for rich people to get into oxford and cambridge..
1
Aniaa
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by castelo)
It seems you don't know English history. Cromwell killed the King of England almost 150 years before Robespierre killed Louis XVI.

PS : I'm not british either.
I am in the Belgian school so I know France better than England :P. Although I must say I know English history better than history of my own country (****ing school programme)
0
fred292
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by Jack Robinson)
Yes, considering Prince William's gotten himself into Cambridge, and though the course isn't a conventional one, I don't think anybody gotten in with more mediocre A levels than his. Then there's prince charles our future king, he's done 5 O levels and TWO A levels gettings Bs and Cs AND he got HIMSELF into Camb as well. Then there's the others who've done way sub-par subjects such Georgraphy, PE, politics etc for A level and have still gotten awful grades - Bs and Cs, the like. Then there's the cherry on the pie, the Queen herself - she's got no qualifications AT ALL according to the Telegraph.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing? Surely not? We're being ruled by a pack of dunces. They admitted it themselves (Princess Diana did, at least)! What are we waiting for??? REVOLUTION!!!!!!
Current day grades are grade inflated non-sense.
0
The Wild Youth
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by Namige)
Anything below an A is embarrassing to have. Considering almost everyone gets As nowadays.
Oh pipe down and get off your high horse. Snobbery and ignorance are not attractive qualities.
2
Namige
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by The Wild Youth)
Oh pipe down and get off your high horse. Snobbery and ignorance are not attractive qualities.
So is calling anything embarrassing considered snobbery?
0
*Dreaming*
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
To be fair what qualifications did they even have when the queen was in her teens :confused: My nans about the same age as her and I don't think they did things like O levels back then?
0
tes1996
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
You StudentRoom lefties are starting to contradict yourself.
When BoJo said that the majority of people were stupid, this site was up in arms.
Yet here are the same people, accusing the Royal Family of 'stupidity'.
All the bitter Cambridge rejects, and those that have acquired an air of self-righteousness and superiority because they got 3As and higher: get over yourselves.
I care far more about how well the Royal Family do their jobs than their UMS and how well they **** off the exam boards. Anybody that says that a) qualifications really matter in life and that b) qualifications completely reflect intelligence is a fool (regardless of their 90%+ average).
And actually, Prince Will got ABC which in many people's books would be a fantastic set of grades- my father got into Cambridge in 1978 with AAB, which was about the average then by all accounts.
0
BC95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by Clip)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. This isn't an undergraduate course. It's a 10 week short course, and he's already a graduate. His A-levels are utterly irrelevant.

He's got an upper second from St Andrews. He meets the Cambridge Postgraduate requirements. I do not understand what you object to.
I object to the fact that no matter if this were a 10-week short course, undergraduate degree or any form of higher education he would have been given a place regardless of results. Hence why myself and those members of the University of Cambridge stand in protest.
1
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by BC95)
I object to the fact that no matter if this were a 10-week short course, undergraduate degree or any form of higher education he would have been given a place regardless of results. Hence why myself and those members of the University of Cambridge stand in protest.
Now you're just making stuff up. You're retrospectively changing things. Earlier you made out that William didn't meet the minimums. Now you're saying that you object to something hypothetical and not in evidence. (i.e. William could have gone to Cambridge as an undergraduate with no qualifications) you don't know that - you've made it up.

I suspect you jumped on the bandwagon without even realising what the situation was, and now you've made a fool of yourself for making claims counter to reality.
1
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by cherryontop)
I think the fact that they were able to go to prestigious universities is a bit disheartening for students who have put so much effort into achieving top grades to try and get a place :/ not really fair
Have you even bothered to read the thread? What is not fair?
0
tes1996
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by *Dreaming*)
To be fair what qualifications did they even have when the queen was in her teens :confused: My nans about the same age as her and I don't think they did things like O levels back then?
No, they lived in caves and thought about how to make fire.
They had exams of sorts, although evidently not in their present format.
I remember my grandfather saying he just had to pass the Oxford entrance exam to get a place back in '38.
0
marcus2001
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
Willing to bet no royal will ever study maths at Cambridge..
1
marcus2001
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by tes1996)
You StudentRoom lefties are starting to contradict yourself.
When BoJo said that the majority of people were stupid, this site was up in arms.
Yet here are the same people, accusing the Royal Family of 'stupidity'.
All the bitter Cambridge rejects, and those that have acquired an air of self-righteousness and superiority because they got 3As and higher: get over yourselves.
I care far more about how well the Royal Family do their jobs than their UMS and how well they **** off the exam boards. Anybody that says that a) qualifications really matter in life and that b) qualifications completely reflect intelligence is a fool (regardless of their 90%+ average).
And actually, Prince Will got ABC which in many people's books would be a fantastic set of grades- my father got into Cambridge in 1978 with AAB, which was about the average then by all accounts.
Your father's a fool
0
castelo
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by Aniaa)
I am in the Belgian school so I know France better than England :P. Although I must say I know English history better than history of my own country (****ing school programme)
Just for your amusement


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_of_Charles_I
0
tes1996
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by marcus2001)
Your father's a fool
So I to go to the trouble of writing my post, and this is the only comeback?
You're going to get a good hiding one of these days my boy.
One cannot simply go making those statements.
Terribly naughty, slapped wrist for you
(N.B. my father got a 2:1 and has made a great success out of his life)
0
BC95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by Clip)
Now you're just making stuff up. You're retrospectively changing things. Earlier you made out that William didn't meet the minimums. Now you're saying that you object to something hypothetical and not in evidence. (i.e. William could have gone to Cambridge as an undergraduate with no qualifications) you don't know that - you've made it up.

I suspect you jumped on the bandwagon without even realising what the situation was, and now you've made a fool of yourself for making claims counter to reality.
Ha Interesting how you're now relying on evidence:
  • Give me evidence his 0-Level grades were adequate to go to St. Andrews
  • Give me evidence he achieved a substantial score on an entrance
  • Give me evidence that my first argument that Tax > Royal tourism revenue is incorrect


Perhaps give me evidence for these things before asking for evidence yourself.

I suspect your throwing phrases around such as "fool" and "ignorance" because you know you have been careless enough to assume no one understands the context of this news other than yourself. Get off your high-horse and stop being so lackadaisical in your argument.
0
tes1996
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by BC95)
I suspect your throwing phrases around such as "fool" and "ignorance" because you know you have been careless enough to assume no one understands the context of this news other than yourself. Get off your high-horse and stop being so lackadaisical in your argument.
Ooh big words time!
Why the pointless buffoonery? You, like the majority of posters on here, don't understand the full situation.
You're not superior, so stop playing the I'm more intelligent card.
Going around with the view Cambridge graduates shall inherit the earth won't do you any good in the real world.
0
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by tengentoppa)
1. We're not being ruled by them. They're merely figureheads
2. Removing them would be bad for the economy (tourism etc.). Also, too much hassle.
3. I do agree royals should not get into uni on account of their status. It should be meritocratic.
Removing them WOULD NOT effect tourism, that is complete made up BS by Royalists.
0
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by BC95)
Ha Interesting how you're now relying on evidence:
  • Give me evidence his 0-Level grades were adequate to go to St. Andrews
  • Give me evidence he achieved a substantial score on an entrance
  • Give me evidence that my first argument that Tax > Royal tourism revenue is incorrect


Perhaps give me evidence for these things before asking for evidence yourself.

I suspect your throwing phrases around such as "fool" and "ignorance" because you know you have been careless enough to assume no one understands the context of this news other than yourself. Get off your high-horse and stop being so lackadaisical in your argument.
the royal family have near enough no effect on tourism.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (178)
55.97%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (44)
13.84%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (34)
10.69%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (30)
9.43%
I haven't started researching yet (18)
5.66%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (14)
4.4%

Watched Threads

View All