Running to the press Watch

This discussion is closed.
Bumblebee3
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 16 years ago
#81
(Original post by Tek)
Yes...sort of: http://www.oxbridge-info.co.uk/profi...isp.asp?id=480
Thanks for that - that guy reminds us not to loose sight of our own happiness when we're smothered with the expectations of parents/society.
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#82
Indeed. However, I would have taken the course at Homerton merely for the prestige associated with Oxbridge.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#83
Report 16 years ago
#83
Why do people take copious numbers of A-levels? Do they think it will improve their chances of getting a place at an Oxbridge institution? My school only allows candidates to follow 3 courses (daytime, except further maths) to A2. I got a place at Cambridge to do natural sciences on three grades alone - none of this AEA or STEP rubbish. Also - I wish some of the more vociferous Oxbridge rejects would put a sock in it!! There's always a legitimate, underlying reason for their rejection - despite the 7 As or whatever they may have earned. How can people have time to properly study and enjoy so many subjects? Perhaps such compulsive achievers should slow down and enjoy their work a bit more - how are you supposed to develop the kind of passion Oxford/Cambridge want you to have for a subject when you spend so little time on each?
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#84
Report 16 years ago
#84
erm. i assume that she was rejected before she got her results (candice). if she was rejected,how could she have posibly assumed that she would have got into oxbridge, regardless of her results (incredible though they are). silly girl.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 15 years ago
#85
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Exactly, well said.
Good point.
Personally I dont give a **** about individual cases but i wish that Candice had kept her trap shut because what she's said could seriously damage the work oxbridge students like myself do to get students who don't fit the (outdated) stereotype to apply. If she genuinely did care about Oxbridge becoming more open to working class students she would have used the publicity to big up the work we do instead of shooting her mouth off cos she's bitter. This applies to everyone in the media who starts gobbing off about Oxbridge elitism- by presenting such a negative image you handicap our attempts to become more accessible to everyone.
I live on a council estate myself and also had a lot of family problems when I applied but Oxford took me. Mind you, I like to think that even if they hadnt I'd have had a bit more dignity then Candice and her mare of a friend.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#86
Report 15 years ago
#86
(Original post by lala)
Good point.
Personally I dont give a **** about individual cases but i wish that Candice had kept her trap shut because what she's said could seriously damage the work oxbridge students like myself do to get students who don't fit the (outdated) stereotype to apply. If she genuinely did care about Oxbridge becoming more open to working class students she would have used the publicity to big up the work we do instead of shooting her mouth off cos she's bitter. This applies to everyone in the media who starts gobbing off about Oxbridge elitism- by presenting such a negative image you handicap our attempts to become more accessible to everyone.
I live on a council estate myself and also had a lot of family problems when I applied but Oxford took me. Mind you, I like to think that even if they hadnt I'd have had a bit more dignity then Candice and her mare of a friend.
I'm with you there. I didn't get in. Am having another shot. No whining. And if I don't get in the 2nd time then I'll be adult about it- disappointment is part of life. No reason to foam at the mouth your whole life. You try again, then move on.

One thing I want to say is that Oxbridge have really tried very hard to improve access, I was very impressed. Also lots of people including me have a tough home life. But I bet there are worse situations than mine. And well done everyone who is coping, the net is the only place some can talk about these things. You wouldn't exactly put it on your UCAS form would you?
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 15 years ago
#87
(Original post by Unregistered)
I'm with you there. I didn't get in. Am having another shot. No whining. And if I don't get in the 2nd time then I'll be adult about it- disappointment is part of life. No reason to foam at the mouth your whole life. You try again, then move on.

One thing I want to say is that Oxbridge have really tried very hard to improve access, I was very impressed. Also lots of people including me have a tough home life. But I bet there are worse situations than mine. And well done everyone who is coping, the net is the only place some can talk about these things. You wouldn't exactly put it on your UCAS form would you?
Its certainly true as well that Oxbridge are trying to improve access- I wrote my thoughts about this on the Oxbridge medicine thread but it was too long to write it all again here!

Good for you for trying again- I dont know if I'd have had the balls to come back a second time. Where are you applying?
Good luck.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 15 years ago
#88
(Original post by lala)
Its certainly true as well that Oxbridge are trying to improve access- I wrote my thoughts about this on the Oxbridge medicine thread but it was too long to write it all again here!

Good for you for trying again- I dont know if I'd have had the balls to come back a second time. Where are you applying?
Good luck.

why do people want Oxbridge to be more open? (ie. employing politically correct quotas). they provide the country with ppl who will ultimately be going into higher positions in government or the civil services and lead the country. i couldnt care less if youve got triple A-stars, its about upbringing, values and a certain flair as much as any academic ability. the majority of ppl who fit the bill are from public(private) schooling and are naturally suited to this unique form of education...is no British institution safe from the big liberal dumbing down machine??
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#89
Report 15 years ago
#89
Thats a very sad way of looking at things.

To say that people from public/private schools are in anyway superior to the rest is wrong.
0
Bumblebee3
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#90
Report 15 years ago
#90
(Original post by vienna95)
why do people want Oxbridge to be more open? (ie. employing politically correct quotas). they provide the country with ppl who will ultimately be going into higher positions in government or the civil services and lead the country. i couldnt care less if youve got triple A-stars, its about upbringing, values and a certain flair as much as any academic ability. the majority of ppl who fit the bill are from public(private) schooling and are naturally suited to this unique form of education...is no British institution safe from the big liberal dumbing down machine??
:mad: Ok, Oxbridge access is not about pushing unsuitable people into high positions, it recognizes that natural talent and attributes that would benefit from their education, and would shine in positions of resonsibility, can be found in all areas of society - not just the upper classes. Some of the students with potentially the most to offer don't have the opportunity have private schooling. The fact that they achieved high grades incicates that although they have not had privilaged schooling, they have the skill and determination to succeed - qualities we should look for in our leaders.

Also, you say that the majority of people who don't come from privilaged backgrounds lack a good up-bringing, values and flair. What ridiculous comment - why should grammar and state educated students not have these qualities? Money doesn't buy flair and orgiginality, less privilaged families are still perfectly capable of bring up children well, and the same goes for instilling good morals and values. I wonder in fact, whether the morals and values of some members of the private sector are as admirable as you would have us believe - you are effectivly saying that the upper classes (a small minority) are the only people suited to positions of responsibilty. I would ask what kind of values allows you to say that under privilaged students shouldn't be given an opportunity at a better university education, and unltimately a fuller life.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 15 years ago
#91
(Original post by pkonline)
Thats a very sad way of looking at things.

To say that people from public/private schools are in anyway superior to the rest is wrong.

firstly, i find it disheartening to find you are unable to accept that a public school background and upbringing does provide a person with superiority in certain walks of life, while a state school upbringing has mutual benefits in other areas. i see you appear to have embraced this political correctness culture whole-heartedly.

secondly, this is more about maintaining an institutional policy and philosophy that has served Britain very well. Oxbridge is unique in that stresses so much importance on your temperament and personality, of which the qualities i mentioned in the previous post both benefited and contributed. it is no coincedence that a public schooling provides these best and i hope oxbridge are not phased by current trends into altering their vetting procedures. if fearing the destruction of a time-honoured British institution, by the infantile liberal system is deemed as a sad way of looking at things, then i shall continue weeping...
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 15 years ago
#92
(Original post by Haz)
:mad: Ok, Oxbridge access is not about pushing unsuitable people into high positions, it recognizes that natural talent and attributes that would benefit from their education,
correct

Also, you say that the majority of people who don't come from privilaged backgrounds lack a good up-bringing, values and flair.
i never said that. youve implied it, when in fact i cited that it was normal to find that private schooled pupils had what Oxbridge deemed, in your words, the 'natural talent and attributes that would benefit from their education'.

why should grammar and state educated students not have these qualities?
they do. but if you take a cross-section of society, public schooling provides character and qualities in other areas, that reflects in a larger percentage of their pupils. [/QUOTE]

you are effectivly saying that the upper classes (a small minority) are the only people suited to positions of responsibilty.
ok, now your talking about social class, when that is irrelevant. secondly, that is a rather tenuous assumption and my statement made no where near such a generalisation.


the fact of the matter is that certain ppl will adapt better and have better qualities that will suit and Oxbrige education. It is natural for a public education to provide those qualities and history has showed that a decent percentage of them are succesful at those institutions. Who is accepted to Oxbridge is for them to decide, and i refute any interference from outside, suggesting who may or may not be suitable.

your argument is motivated by what you perceive to be a difference in class and privilege, when in fact its rather intangible to the argument.
0
Bumblebee3
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 15 years ago
#93
Vienna -

My comment was: " Also, you say that the majority of people who don't come from privilaged backgrounds lack a good up-bringing, values and flair" in response to you:

"its about upbringing, values and a certain flair as much as any academic ability. the majority of ppl who fit the bill are from public(private) schooling "

Please read again and you will see that actually it was an entirely accurate relation of your point. Moving on, you say that class and privilage are irrelevant. They are completely relevant as private schooling is extremely expensive. If only public schools provide an education suitable for an Oxbridge student, then why do Oxbridge accept 40% and rising from state schools? Why are they so keen to recruit more from the state sector? They realise as you do not, that state educated students can have much to offer. They would obviously not 'dumb down' as you say, their own institution in the name of political correctness. I would be interested to know your educational background - what kind of school you are at or if you are at university, which one? If not, which one do you hope to attend?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 15 years ago
#94
(Original post by Haz)
Vienna -

My comment was: " Also, you say that the majority of people who don't come from privilaged backgrounds lack a good up-bringing, values and flair" in response to you:

"its about upbringing, values and a certain flair as much as any academic ability. the majority of ppl who fit the bill are from public(private) schooling "
read again and you will find that i never suggested that children of less privileged backgrounds lacked them, but as far as requirements to get into Oxbridge as an institution is concerned, better-schooled children fit what the selectors are looking for in these areas.

Moving on, you say that class and privilage are irrelevant. They are completely relevant as private schooling is extremely expensive.
firstly, does class automatically imply wealth to you? secondly, i suggested that your argument is fuelled by these when they are not directly relevant to the actual argument, that being, are public schooled pupils better suited to Oxbridge methods...

If only public schools provide an education suitable for an Oxbridge student, then why do Oxbridge accept 40% and rising from state schools?
Look, im taking offence to you continually mis-representing my point. You use the word 'only', when i stated that of course there will be state-school pupils suitable, but that suitability should be restricted to the opinion of Oxbridge and not quotas trying to get your 40% upto 60 or 70% regardless of ability. In terms of figures, 40% is not that much if you consider the respective numbers involved and as my initial anger set out, a number of that percentage will be 'forced' upon the university to keep equality groups happy.

Why are they so keen to recruit more from the state sector? They realise as you do not, that state educated students can have much to offer.
er, are they keen? i dont think it matters, they want the best for their university quite rightly. if that means that public school children are more suitable than thats where they'll take them from. the injustice is in forcing them to take state school pupils to appease ppl who are keen to play the equality card. i darent say that an Oxbridge education would suit everyone and i doubt everyone would benefit nor want it.

They would obviously not 'dumb down' as you say, their own institution in the name of political correctness.
have you been living in a cave for the last decade?

I would be interested to know your educational background - what kind of school you are at or if you are at university, which one? If not, which one do you hope to attend?
why?
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 15 years ago
#95
(Original post by vienna95)
firstly, i find it disheartening to find you are unable to accept that a public school background and upbringing does provide a person with superiority in certain walks of life, while a state school upbringing has mutual benefits in other areas.
Feel disheartened if you want, thats what I believe. OK so private educated kids may have better facilities etc at their schools, but money cannot buy you the qualities a person needs. When I talk about superiority I don't mean size of wallet, bank balance etc... I mean qualities such as honesty, caring for society, doing good and right.

(Original post by vienna95)
i see you appear to have embraced this political correctness culture whole-heartedly.
Thankyou . I hope we continue to bring equality through all walks of life.

(Original post by vienna95)
secondly, this is more about maintaining an institutional policy and philosophy that has served Britain very well.
Surely Britain will be served better where the people running it have greater ability (experience, ethics).

(Original post by vienna95)
Oxbridge is unique in that stresses so much importance on your temperament and personality, of which the qualities i mentioned in the previous post both benefited and contributed. it is no coincedence that a public schooling provides these best and i hope oxbridge are not phased by current trends into altering their vetting procedures.
Do private school kids have qualities that state-educated kids don't? And are these anything to do with Oxbridge? They seem to think not as a lot of state-educated kids also go to Oxbridge. They want the best, and probably don't subscribe to your theory in that case.

(Original post by vienna95)
if fearing the destruction of a time-honoured British institution, by the infantile liberal system is deemed as a sad way of looking at things, then i shall continue weeping...
I like change, if it results in a fairer society. A fairer one is a prosperous one. Britain will be good for it.
0
LH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#96
Report 15 years ago
#96
Only the rich can afford public schooling, therefore, in your world they should run the country. This is a very sad state of affairs, sdaying that only people born with money should be able to be in government/civil service jobs.

Liberal 'dumbing down'? You are saying that people from state school and even independant school backgrounds are 'dumb'? That only people with rich people are intelligent? You have a very sad, misguided view-point.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#97
Report 15 years ago
#97
This is an interesting argument I copied from another thread (Oxbridge Medicine). I thought it would make interesting reading here :

________________________________ _____

And now, at the risk of starting another war, I am going further say that I firmly believe that the concept of one school for students of all abilities to study together is fundamentally flawed. It does not work, never had and never will. Streaming students according to academic ability is the way to do it. Only then it will be fair to the brightest kids because it will allow them to stretch and maximise their intellectual potential. By putting students of mixed abilities together, you are slowing down the brightest kids, ultimately leading to a poorer standard of students who will become a lower quality workforce, and hence our nation's economy will crumble.

What I am saying now is politically incorrect and extremely controversial, but only because simple logic dictates that there are far more weaker students than clever students. But seriously, anyone who thinks carefully knows that what I am saying here is right. But it is just socially and politically unacceptable to say it.

In Singapore, where they stream students according to academic ability, the results are so much better for everyone. The weaker students are given less challenging work, while the stronger students are placed in a few top schools, with work that really pushes them. The result - in the top schools, an average of 70% of candidates get a minimum of AAA for A-levels (which are significantly harder than the UK A-levels, so as to challenge them more)!

If you talk about equality and all, why do we have Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE and all those top universities? Surely it is EXTREMELY UNFAIR that some students get to study at such places, whereas others have to go to poorer ones? Surely we should only have one type of comprehensive university for all students, regardless of academic ability, so as to "be fair"?

I give way to hear your views.

XX

He continues :

The whole idea of putting everyone in university is darn wrong! It's that simple. WHY DO WE WANT EVERYONE IN UNIVERSITY?! For equality? For fraternity? For political correctness? Society can only function if there are people doing different things. The car mechanics, plumbers and electricians are just as important as the doctors, lawyers and bankers. By advocating this idea that everyone should be given an "opportunity" to go to university, we are essentially saying that university is a great and mighty thing and that those who go to uni are thus better than those who don't. University is and should always be a place for the academically gifted. Is it not "unfair" that I am not allowed to represent England in the World Cup, although I can't kick a ball for the life of me?! Surely "equality" should dicate that all people irrespective of their football-playing skills should be given the "opportunity" to play for their country? Think carefully about what I say, and see whether it makes sense.

XX
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#98
Report 15 years ago
#98
just been reading through the posts here, aren't the top universities or universities that traditionally take public school boys cutting down on the number they intake at the moment anyway?

Also reading about the posts about people who get straight A's and get rejected, they are a lot of people who get rejected who get full marks, why dont they just reapply the next year and maybe could get a unconditional offer?
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#99
Report 15 years ago
#99
Btw, that bloke XX who wrote that previous argument is a white male from an upper-middle class background (dad's a surgeon, mum's a barrister), went to grammar school, extremely outstanding in extra-curricular acitvities and took a high first in law from Oxford (although his parents could easily afford independent school), thereby gaining a string of job offers including the fast-track civil service, which he turned down in favour of a £38,000 p.a. corporate law job in the City.

I think his background is relevant when reading his views.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 15 years ago
#100
QUOTE=pkonline]Feel disheartened if you want, thats what I believe. OK so private educated kids may have better facilities etc at their schools, but money cannot buy you the qualities a person needs. When I talk about superiority I don't mean size of wallet, bank balance etc... I mean qualities such as honesty, caring for society, doing good and right.
[\QUOTE]

what? look its not about money. we are talking about ppl coming out of these schools having improved their abilities in, for example, public speaking, wider political sensitivity, pastoral care etc.. that has nothing to do with material things, that is an upbringing and way of life they receive there.

Thankyou . I hope we continue to bring equality through all walks of life.
very sarcastic of you!

Surely Britain will be served better where the people running it have greater ability (experience, ethics).
(oh, i love the hypocrisy of the left.)
yes, which is why Oxbridge must be allowed to set its own standards and choose the best ppl for their university. your PC quotas stop them from doing that...if you want to take employ students from other unis then fair enough, but Oxbridge cant be faulted for wanting the best ppl for their methods.

Do private school kids have qualities that state-educated kids don't?
in certain areas, YES...and vice versa.

And are these anything to do with Oxbridge? They seem to think not as a lot of state-educated kids also go to Oxbridge. They want the best, and probably don't subscribe to your theory in that case.
yes they are as history and figures show. they want the best, so do i, thats the same theory. you the one spouting about PC and equality which is grossly unfair.

I like change, if it results in a fairer society. A fairer one is a prosperous one. Britain will be good for it.
Join the Conservative Party
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

882

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
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

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (220)
12.48%
Excited (165)
9.36%
Worried (308)
17.47%
Terrified (389)
22.06%
Meh (182)
10.32%
Confused (38)
2.16%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.84%
Impatient (217)
12.31%

Watched Threads

View All