Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Oxbridge FAQ! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    SUFFERING FROM A POLICY OF FAIRNESS? you fascist.

    to repeat my argument: more public school people get in to oxbridge because they are better educated than those who have gone to state schools. the only way to make education fair is to disestablish the public school system entirely and replace it with a true meritocracy that has nothing to do with your parents' ability to finance your education. oh, how terribly shocked you are.
    Wow... I don't think I've ever found one of my own opinions so diagreeable before. You know you really have a rare talent for making the most rational notions sound like a cry to 'burn the witch'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    Wow... I don't think I've ever found one of my own opinions so diagreeable before. You know you really have a rare talent for making the most rational notions sound like a cry to 'burn the witch'.
    i am following a policy of violence for a reason though bob, as you are of course aware. there are just too many witches, not enough time to burn them all...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    SUFFERING FROM A POLICY OF FAIRNESS? you fascist.

    you are quite manifestly completely misunderstanding my point, which sadly shows the strait-jacketed state of your institutionalised mind. i assume you are yet another product of the great british public school system?

    firstly, i never suggested, as you have however erroneously concluded from reading my earlier posts, that oxbridge does anything at interview except accept the best candidates.

    to repeat my argument: more public school people get in to oxbridge because they are better educated than those who have gone to state schools. the only way to make education fair is to disestablish the public school system entirely and replace it with a true meritocracy that has nothing to do with your parents' ability to finance your education. oh, how terribly shocked you are.

    secondly, it is rather amusing that you resort to the tompkins table in your quest to repress the unwashed masses. as far as i am aware, few people who are interested in either academic value or other factors in real terms use the tompkins table to compare the colleges. perhaps students at king's are interested in other things than the gaining of firsts. as far as i am aware king's college has long been one of the most highly competetive colleges, pools a lot of candidates- ie the admissions tutors have a lot of people to choose from.

    king's college's policy of positive discrimination is the fairest admissions procedure out of all the cambridge colleges. this is because it gives ignorant state school people such as myself a fair chance in our corrupt society. had i had the infinite honour of going to a public school i would still have applied to king's in order to take advantage of this fairness, being a person of conscience unlike you.
    you are wrong on quite a few factors. Firstly about although you are more likely to get an offer from private schools there are reasons behind this. If many people from your school have applied before you are likely to have a better idea of what your chances are, but if noone from your school has applied before you only have the 3As to go with. Oxbridge look for enthusiasm and interest. You can get 3 As regardless of which school you go to, it is quite common now. A good aplicant will be someone who reads around the subject shows interest ect. How much does it cost to read a newspaper a couple of times a week, get a book out of the library, do some work experience? Practically nothing. Enthusiasm and interest easily shines through in an interview, and looks much more impressive than 5As.
    Also, Private schools are not only for the very rich, they do offer 100% scholarships, not many, but there are plenty of people at my school who would not be here without some sort of aid.
    Also you clearly do not see that there are plenty of state schools which are as good, if not better than private schools. Private schools are just much more effective at what they do as they are controlled by the government much less, and also have to run as a self sufficient business.
    And kings is no more over-subscribed than any other college, just to point out. Many admissions tutors choose not to look which school you go to, so they cannot be accused of discrimination. Anyway how are the to know if "St.Josephs's School" is state or private.
    You seem to have this obsession with making life fair. One of the first things I learn is "Life ain't fair, you better get used to it."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    i never suggested...that oxbridge does anything at interview except accept the best candidates.
    And yet you say this

    (Original post by leda swanson)
    people have as vested interest in insisting that we're all equal in the interview room...sounds like oppression to me
    You cannot maintain Oxbridge accepts the best candidate from interview at the same time as saying people are not treated equally at interview. Furthemore, the statistics for Oxford suggest that the difference in acceptance rate for maintained and independet school is minor, provided you consider state candidates apply for more competitive courses.

    (Original post by leda swanson)
    to repeat my argument: more public school people get in to oxbridge because they are better educated than those who have gone to state schools. the only way to make education fair is to disestablish the public school system entirely and replace it with a true meritocracy that has nothing to do with your parents' ability to finance your education. oh, how terribly shocked you are.
    Fine in principal, impossible in practice. Even among your supposedly egalitarian state schools there are enormous discrepencies. A top state schools shares more with a public school than a really underachieving state school. You cannot have perfect equality. It simply does not happen. In any respect, this is entirey irrelevant to the Oxbridge argument. Sure, society is flawed. That does not mean Oxbridge is, too.

    (Original post by leda swanson)
    secondly, it is rather amusing that you resort to the tompkins table in your quest to repress the unwashed masses. as far as i am aware, few people who are interested in either academic value or other factors in real terms use the tompkins table to compare the colleges. perhaps students at king's are interested in other things than the gaining of firsts. as far as i am aware king's college has long been one of the most highly competetive colleges, pools a lot of candidates- ie the admissions tutors have a lot of people to choose from.
    The fact remains that I have provided evidence that King's has declined, and you have provided none to the contrary. You are basing all your statements on your own beliefs, without a shread of hard evidence.

    (Original post by leda swanson)
    king's college's policy of positive discrimination is the fairest admissions procedure out of all the cambridge colleges. this is because it gives ignorant state school people such as myself a fair chance in our corrupt society. had i had the infinite honour of going to a public school i would still have applied to king's in order to take advantage of this fairness, being a person of conscience unlike you.
    Why are you so patronising about state school pupils? Many of them do fantastically both at school and university. Don't let your own inferiority complex affect your views of some of the stunning state educated students in Cambridge, Oxford, and countless other universities.
    Secondly: Cambridge is a university, not a social engineering facility. It has no business engaging in social engineering for several reasons. Firstly, this is no what is designed for; in my view, this has been demonstrated by King's decline, which you've entirely failed to disprove. Secondly, Cambridge receives a huge amount of public amount to provide cutting each teaching and research. It has no right to abuse thes funds. We have an elected government in this country, designed to promote social justice. Let the government do its job, let Cambridge do its job.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    well done for realising that i think 'state schoolers can't compete with public schoolers on an equal footing'. it is impossible to gain this equal footing on such an unequal playing-field. hence need for revolution
    Why are there any state schoolers here then? I'm sure the current Oxbridge students from the state sector wouldn't be to pleased with being called stupid, which you just basically did. But then you're not even at Cambridge yet, so they probable wouldn't care what a little sixth former whos read a bit of Marx and Lenin (and the rest) thinks.

    And yes King's takes 80% state students, but of the 20% of private schoolers, a fair few will be from a rather large public school in Berkshire; so you won't be in a complete state school enviroment. And of course I'm off to King's next year too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    i am following a policy of violence for a reason though bob, as you are of course aware. there are just too many witches, not enough time to burn them all...
    You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world. You tell me that it's 'evolution'. Well, you know, we all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction don't you know that you can count me out?

    You know it's gonna be alright.

    ( You say that you've a real solution? We'd all love to see the plan. )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The point is that Oxbridge do not accept the best people - the best people have not had the opportunity to prove themselves to be the best - instead they accept the people who have proven themselves to be the best. This is disadvantageous to those who have not the same means to prove themselves, and the fault of this lies in the public/private divide.

    PS_ as for the highly performing state schools, they dont really count becasue parents move to be in the catchment area, the better the school the higher the surrounding property value, the average wealth of the families in the surrounding areas goes up, so not only are they getting a good education, they're rich which sounds surprisingly familiar... oh yes, private schoolers!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Secondly: Cambridge is a university, not a social engineering facility.
    Don't you think that as one of the premier institutions in the country, Oxbridge have a duty to further the cause of egalitarianism on which the country is based (as all institutions have), and given they receive such large amounts of funding, doesnt that increase the obligation?

    Also, if they're not going to positively affect the country, they should at least be neutral rather than negative in their attitudes towards disrimination
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leda swanson)
    i think it's terrible that my state education was so bad that my parents had to pay for me to have extra tuition in order to get into cambridge. yes, this is the sorry state of our real world.
    Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in ages.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveMyChamberD)
    Don't you think that as one of the premier institutions in the country, Oxbridge have a duty to further the cause of egalitarianism on which the country is based (as all institutions have), and given they receive such large amounts of funding, doesnt that increase the obligation?
    No, this country is capitalist. That in its nature is not egalitarian.

    You have said yourself that removing the private schools will not solve the problem, as the people who go to the best state schools with mostly be the people whose parents can afford for them to live in the right place. Plus, all the private schoolkids will then have nowhere to go to school, makeing the funding crisis worse than it already is. Tax them, I hear you cry? More than they are already? Currently the parents of private school children are paying twice for their education; once for their school and once through taxing, to fund their "place" at state school.

    Leda, if you got 11A*s, I hardly think that the tutoring was an influential factor. In using a tutor yourself you are destroying your own egalitarian argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    No, this country is capitalist. That in its nature is not egalitarian.

    You have said yourself that removing the private schools will not solve the problem, as the people who go to the best state schools with mostly be the people whose parents can afford for them to live in the right place. Plus, all the private schoolkids will then have nowhere to go to school, makeing the funding crisis worse than it already is. Tax them, I hear you cry? More than they are already? Currently the parents of private school children are paying twice for their education; once for their school and once through taxing, to fund their "place" at state school.

    Leda, if you got 11A*s, I hardly think that the tutoring was an influential factor. In using a tutor yourself you are destroying your own egalitarian argument.
    "I love you Doctor Johnson, and I want to have your babies."
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    "I love you Doctor Johnson, and I want to have your babies."
    Erm, ok?

    aren't you a girl??? :confused: (sorry if I got this wrong)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Erm, ok?

    aren't you a girl??? :confused: (sorry if I got this wrong)
    No. Male ( should I be offended? )

    Obviously you don't know you Blackadder well enough. Too many medical textbooks, not enough classical british comedy. I was expressing my admiration for your sentiments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    No. Male ( should I be offended? )

    Obviously you don't know you Blackadder well enough. Too many medical textbooks, not enough classical british comedy. I was expressing my admiration for your sentiments.
    No, sorry, I think I had you mixed up. My mistake. :rolleyes:

    No, I remember the phrase, but couldn't remember where it was from! I have actually seen every episode of Blackadder (my neighbour has all 4 series on DVD, excellent work distraction last term) and I remember that episode, just can't remember why he said it. And thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    No. Male ( should I be offended? )
    You should be flattered
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    You should be flattered
    Seeing as you've popped in just at that moment, has anyone ever told you that you're the spitting image of Julia Stiles?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    Seeing as you've popped in just at that moment, has anyone ever told you that you're the spitting image of Julia Stiles?
    Did you see the "separated at birth" thread? It's a very flattering comparison, so thank you , but I think it may have more to do with the pic seeing as everyone's picking up on it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    You should be flattered
    :rolleyes: I suppose this really depends on the circumstances .....take for an extreme example......that you were in an old-school communal shower (okay bear with me here ).......and you were called a girl......

    Note that this example is also quite P.C. in that it doesnt really insult the other "species"


    (Original post by Faboba)
    Seeing as you've popped in just at that moment, has anyone ever told you that you're the spitting image of Julia Stiles?
    I'll second that....from 10 things I hate about you, i believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F. Poste)
    Did you see the "separated at birth" thread? It's a very flattering comparison, so thank you , but I think it may have more to do with the pic seeing as everyone's picking up on it!
    No, honeslty I was just taking a swatch through the picture thread to see if anyone I knew was there. Have other people mentioned it too?

    (Original post by MadLy)
    I'll second that....from 10 things I hate about you, i believe.
    Or Save the Last Dance, but lets use your example because it was... good. Fantastic soundtrack.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadLy)
    :rolleyes: I suppose this really depends on the circumstances .....take for an extreme example......that you were in an old-school communal shower (okay bear with me here ).......and you were called a girl......
    Hehehe, communal showers! Towel-whippings and all? Mind you, I'm pretty traumatised by memories of what went on in our changing rooms in year 7/8. :eek:

    I'll second that....from 10 things I hate about you, i believe
    You do, although obviously it could just be that photo. It's not a bad thing
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 13, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.