'Russel Group Universities are not as Elitist as the Left-Wing Claims.' Discuss.
I strongly get the idea from the amount of RG offers here already, that the elitist image its institutions have, is an absolute pile of tosh. The grades are high, but if you're predicted them, it's clear that there's a good chance of an offer- regardless of background or school. I do not study three traditional subjects and I already have 1 RG (no decision from my other two RG choices) offer. The idea that it's elitist is left wing boswollocks. I must also add that I am working class and disabled.
Edit: * Russell, I also spelt it wrong, as many of us do sometimes. Whoops.
Edit: * Russell, I also spelt it wrong, as many of us do sometimes. Whoops.
(edited 9 years ago)
definitely agree with the claim, the left is full of people who didnt bother working hard and then blame there troubles on others (immigrants, students, lawyers) etc etc. in my opinion they are anti business and socialist
I already have four offers , three from RG and I am state school
Original post by Magnus Taylor
I already have four offers , three from RG and I am state school
The evidence keeps on growing.
Russell Group consists of 24 universities (a small number) yet accounts for over 50% of all doctorates awarded.
If anything, they are incredibly inclusive and non-elitist. The requirements are high because they need to be. 26% of all A-level results were A*-A grade, 52% were A*-B. Anyone who claims they are elitist are just sour that they got rejected.
If anything, they are incredibly inclusive and non-elitist. The requirements are high because they need to be. 26% of all A-level results were A*-A grade, 52% were A*-B. Anyone who claims they are elitist are just sour that they got rejected.
I went to a failing state school and I got offers from all 5 Russell Groups: Imperial, UCL, King's, Edinburgh and Leeds no problem at all. I am also many other things... Ethnic minority, Disabled (mentally ill) and none of it made a difference. At my local private school only 6 girls went to Russell Groups but the rest of the year (30+) went to ex-polys so I don't think it really matters.
Now being at Imperial I wouldn't say it is elitist but what they do want is people that work hard. It works in these university's favour to attract the best and the brightest regardless of background from the poorest to the richest because the better the talent the better the students will ultimately impact their respective fields and Russell or non-Russell I honestly believe that any University worth its salt will appreciate this.
Now being at Imperial I wouldn't say it is elitist but what they do want is people that work hard. It works in these university's favour to attract the best and the brightest regardless of background from the poorest to the richest because the better the talent the better the students will ultimately impact their respective fields and Russell or non-Russell I honestly believe that any University worth its salt will appreciate this.
I'm not sure that the issue is that they're elitist - there's nothing wrong with aiming for the highest standard. The problem is that privately educated students are disproportionately represented at these institutions. The more money your parents are, the more likely you are to have the education to allow you to enter these elite institutions. That's the real problem.
Original post by neal95
definitely agree with the claim, the left is full of people who didnt bother working hard and then blame there troubles on others (immigrants, students, lawyers) etc etc. in my opinion they are anti business and socialist
Have you met many lawyers? Most are Tory as ****, and work pretty hard. Immigrants I would argue also work hard, but that's a bigger discussion. And I suspect many lawyers worked hard enough to use the correct version of 'their/there/they're'.
OP, to an extent, but basically it was middle class as at my uni.
Original post by arson_fire
It`s also true that the more money your parents have the more likely you are to apply in the first place. If you don`t apply you won`t get a place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10629098/Poor-schoolchildren-reluctant-to-apply-to-posh-Oxbridge.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10629098/Poor-schoolchildren-reluctant-to-apply-to-posh-Oxbridge.html
Largely because the wealthier children will be in a better position to apply for those places in the first place, not only because of grades but because of support from their schools and parents. It's very easy to point the finger and say "But you're not applying" - the actual reason behind this is once again wealth inequality.
Original post by Joinedup
What's the actual claim 'the left wing' are making... cos it looks like you might just be ascribing some opinion to a generalised TSR bogey-group.
It's common knowledge that the Guardian and the like often criticise the RG for being 'elitist'. Just look at their publication of Oxbridge interview questions on their website today. They present them as elitist, 'arty farty' questions. But they're taken out of context to feed their left wing stance on elite institutions.
Original post by arson_fire
I think that's a separate issue. It`s a bit unfair to blame the unis because people aren`t applying as they can`t admit people who don`t apply. If state and private school kids were applying in equal numbers but the state kids weren`t getting places then I would agree they were being elitist. Admittedly, the unis do have a part to play in encouraging applications - which they are doing. Perhaps its the school system that`s elitist not the universities?
I'm not blaming the universities at all! I think they're doing a very good job and the access schemes of Oxford and Cambridge are brilliant. I'm blaming the British education scheme in general.
Original post by arson_fire
Ironically, most of the staff at the Guardian are Oxbridge graduates themselves........
Haha very true!
Original post by Alex347_
Haha very true!
Apparently the Guardian is in fact snobbish about going to Oxbridge according to one of its own non-Oxbridge journalists...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/30/open-door-guardian-oxbridge-graduates
Russell Group unis are academically elite, but they are not elitist.
They are very explicit in their desire to take the brightest and best students regardless of socio-economic background. Indeed, they spend millions every year on helping and encouraging bright students from working class backgrounds to apply. Widening Participation programmes such as UNIQ (Oxford), Manchester Access Programme, Access to Leeds and Newcastle Partners are all examples of how universities go about this.
When arguments are made about RG unis being elitist, people often look at the number of state schooled / low income etc students who are admitted, which does vary enormously across RG and is invariably lower than the sector as a whole. However, this is because RG unis demand higher grades, because these are academically demanding courses that want to take the brightest and best students. However, unfortunately pupils from working class backgrounds don't tend to do so well at school for a variety of reasons, and this means that they often simply don't have the grades to get in - but that's a problem that's happening at school level, years and years before students get anywhere near a UCAS form.
They are very explicit in their desire to take the brightest and best students regardless of socio-economic background. Indeed, they spend millions every year on helping and encouraging bright students from working class backgrounds to apply. Widening Participation programmes such as UNIQ (Oxford), Manchester Access Programme, Access to Leeds and Newcastle Partners are all examples of how universities go about this.
When arguments are made about RG unis being elitist, people often look at the number of state schooled / low income etc students who are admitted, which does vary enormously across RG and is invariably lower than the sector as a whole. However, this is because RG unis demand higher grades, because these are academically demanding courses that want to take the brightest and best students. However, unfortunately pupils from working class backgrounds don't tend to do so well at school for a variety of reasons, and this means that they often simply don't have the grades to get in - but that's a problem that's happening at school level, years and years before students get anywhere near a UCAS form.
There are a lot of 'societal elites' at the universities. But the universities are not elitist themselves. There are people at my university from upper class backgrounds. Equally my GCSEs were CCCCCB, the rest fails. My A Levels were ACDa. I got into a course with much higher entry requirements based on other things I'd done. They didn't write me off because I was from the wrong background or because I wasn't perfect in school. I'd hardly call that elitist.
Original post by Le Nombre
Have you met many lawyers? Most are Tory as ****, and work pretty hard. Immigrants I would argue also work hard, but that's a bigger discussion. And I suspect many lawyers worked hard enough to use the correct version of 'their/there/they're'.
OP, to an extent, but basically it was middle class as at my uni.
OP, to an extent, but basically it was middle class as at my uni.
I am talking about real leftists who are socialists lol i am a tory :P
Original post by Alex347_
It's common knowledge that the Guardian and the like often criticise the RG for being 'elitist'. Just look at their publication of Oxbridge interview questions on their website today. They present them as elitist, 'arty farty' questions. But they're taken out of context to feed their left wing stance on elite institutions.
Saying 'the guardian just attacked oxford' isn't the same as saying 'the left just attacked the russell group'
If it's this article http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/15/oxford-university-tutors-intervierws-admissions
The chap putting the knife in is a former RG admissions tutor.
Probably the admission tutors at oxbridge should have a think about the type of questions they're asking because it might be that state pupils are less equipped to stand up for themselves when faced with a deliberately provocative question like 'Why are Welsh speakers worse at remembering phone numbers than English speakers?'
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Russell Group Universities
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- Law at Lancaster or Politics at York??
- Honest opinions on Cardiff University?
- Scared to apply for uni because of my GCSEs.
- Do uni names matter?
- Is TSR a hotbed of conservative right conspiracy theorists?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- who is donald trump
- Should I defer? Durham vs Cardiff
- Are Russel Groups equals
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Do russell groups accept my course
- Predicted grades vs personal statement
- If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to be
- computer science at university
- Is worth it going to Nottingham or bristol through clearing
- In which universities (UK & USA) can I apply with 4A in AS levels (CIE)?
- Grades not good enough for a PhD?
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
