Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Bring on Oxbridge quotas" Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    obnoxious meme removed
    tl;dr: There is clearly a problem that should be resolved, but the increasingly common attitude of "meet inequality with pushing the inequality the other way", is fundamentally problematic and will do nothing to resolve the issues at hand.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    A bigot is simply a fanatic who will not change their mind on a subject. You, I know, use the word as an insult but you ought to be aware that it also applies to you, as I don't expect you can be persuaded to change your own mind.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Top unis should take top people regardless of their social background. Discrimination is always negative, whether against working class and black people or against privately educated students.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Without continuing to go off-topic, your comments on other threads make it very clear you have no interest in anything other than continuing the degradation of marginalised groups by ignoring the fundamental race issues at hand and perpetuating the equally damaging and racist approach of "colour blindness" by pretending that you don't see race at all and thus it is not an issue.

    This is while using Western white standards as the metric to compare others and holding and furthering the view that deviation from this as being bad and the fault of those failing to live up to these standards - despite the fact that necessarily impossible to do so due to the entrenched racial dynamics of the country (and many others, albeit with different characteristics). Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.

    Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group - and even then these frequently flagrantly engage in casual racism, be it white women playing into the "men of colour as sexual aggressors", white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men and not acknowledge the damaging white Anglo-European beauty standards which are at best the cause of this and that these need to be unlearned, white working class people acting as those immigrants of colour are the reason they can't get a job.

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    Are you proposing that we shouldn't be free to date only white-skinned people? Most black people have a preference for their own skin colour when it comes to sex and dating. We do as well. I could decide to only date Swedish blondes and that would be a legitimate use of my freedom, not discrimination.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    You literally have made about 20 comments on another thread espousing offensive ideas and commentary, some of which have actually been removed by moderators due to the offensive nature of the commentary.

    My intention is to defend those from abuse and being intolerant of intolerance is the first step towards that.
    "You literally have made about 20 comments on another thread espousing offensive ideas and commentary, some of which have actually been removed by moderators due to the offensive nature of the commentary. "

    Well if that is the case, then you shouldn't have any difficulty pointing to me to a specific post which calls for the abuse of people. I accept that my views are offensive to you, but that doesn't make them invalid and I invariably back them up with sources and statistics.

    One post has been removed, but I have no idea why. In it, I mentioned the Target Oxbridge scheme funded by Oxford and Cambridge Universities which is a year-long programme exclusively for high-achieving black students to help them prepare for admission tests; write personal statements and get interview practice etc and thus secure a place at Oxbridge. Do you object to it or something? Anyone can look at it; they have a website:

    https://targetoxbridge.co.uk/the_programme.html

    I said I thought it was unfair that such a scheme was only open to black prospective students given that 3% of the population at the last Census was black and 3% of Cambridge applicants are black so their application rate seemed reasonable.

    The post also referred briefly (one line) to yesterday's news that far fewer black students get firsts:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-firsts.html

    The MSM have all reported on this fact; so I cannot think why this would be offensive.

    Nevertheless this particular post was reported by someone (perhaps you?) and it was removed.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    tl;dr: There is clearly a problem that should be resolved, but the increasingly common attitude of "meet inequality with pushing the inequality the other way", is fundamentally problematic and will do nothing to resolve the issues at hand.
    Raising a marginalised group;s ability to achieve the same level as the group that is the dominant power is not pushing the latter into a state of inequality - by definition it is creating equality. Even creating tailored increases to certain marginalised groups is not "over-privileging them" over another group which already has a powerful base platform it exists on. Removing systematic barriers to attainment is not imposing them on the privileged group.

    It's a fallacy to claim otherwise, and this fallacy is the cornerstone of modern fascist rhetoric. Putting a ramp in for wheelchair users does not prevent those who do not require a wheelchair from accessing a location. Allowing LGBT* people to marry and have the same employment protections and tax allowances as heterosexual people does not remove them from those groups. Allowing Muslims to wear Hijabs if they so choose does not force Christians to do so. Putting in place targeted education programmes to improve education for those in low performing inner city schools whose parents are unable to move to affluent country schools that achieve high results consistently does not prevent those who are able to from doing so.

    The reverse is not true. Expecting wheelchair users to navigate steps or require a carer to lift them over steps directly limits their ability to access areas. Preventing LGBT* from marrying stops them benefiting from the tax allowances associated with marriage and prevents them from having the same privilege, rather than "identical but in another name". Banning Muslims from wearing hijabs while allowing Christian nuns to maintain their formal attire necessarily affords the latter the privilege of covering their hair in accordance to their religion but not the former. Not putting in place educational achievement programmes for inner city school students whose parents have no choice but to have them attend those schools materially disadvantages those compared to other families who are more affluent, have jobs which are more able to move location and more able to accommodate such moves.

    It is staggeringly ignorant to suggest what you are trying to suggest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Oxbridge should accept the best students that can, regardless of social class or ethnicity. If those happen to mostly be from the top two then so be it. They shouldn't influence their admissions system to let in less able (if underprivileged) students.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Raising a marginalised group;s ability to achieve the same level as the group that is the dominant power is not pushing the latter into a state of inequality - by definition it is creating equality. Even creating tailored increases to certain marginalised groups is not "over-privileging them" over another group which already has a powerful base platform it exists on. Removing systematic barriers to attainment is not imposing them on the privileged group.

    It's a fallacy to claim otherwise, and this fallacy is the cornerstone of modern fascist rhetoric. Putting a ramp in for wheelchair users does not prevent those who do not require a wheelchair from accessing a location. Allowing LGBT* people to marry and have the same employment protections and tax allowances as heterosexual people does not remove them from those groups. Allowing Muslims to wear Hijabs if they so choose does not force Christians to do so. Putting in place targeted education programmes to improve education for those in low performing inner city schools whose parents are unable to move to affluent country schools that achieve high results consistently does not prevent those who are able to from doing so.

    The reverse is not true. Expecting wheelchair users to navigate steps or require a carer to lift them over steps directly limits their ability to access areas. Preventing LGBT* from marrying stops them benefiting from the tax allowances associated with marriage and prevents them from having the same privilege, rather than "identical but in another name". Banning Muslims from wearing hijabs while allowing Christian nuns to maintain their formal attire necessarily affords the latter the privilege of covering their hair in accordance to their religion but not the former. Not putting in place educational achievement programmes for inner city school students whose parents have no choice but to have them attend those schools materially disadvantages those compared to other families who are more affluent, have jobs which are more able to move location and more able to accommodate such moves.

    It is staggeringly ignorant to suggest what you are.
    I think you misconstrued my position completely.

    Raising a marginalised group;s ability to achieve the same level as the group that is the dominant power is not pushing the latter into a state of inequality - by definition it is creating equality.
    I didn't say it was.

    (Original post by _gcx)
    the increasingly common attitude
    If I thought creating opportunity for minorities inherently disadvantaged majority groups I wouldn't have argued to the contrary in the rest of my post.

    Removing systematic barriers to attainment is not imposing them on the privileged group.
    I didn't say it does. I said that quotas unfairly discriminate against a majority group on the basis of their association with said majority group.

    It's a fallacy to claim otherwise, and this fallacy is the cornerstone of modern fascist rhetoric.
    Fascists would not propose that the admissions process should be unbiased as to race, gender, disability and otherwise.

    Putting a ramp in for wheelchair users does not prevent those who do not require a wheelchair from accessing a location.
    You know that this is a null comparison that relates very little to the issue at hand. Quotas disadvantage majority groups. Wheelchairs do not disadvantage those who are not disabled. Perhaps if the ramp somehow made access to the facilities difficult for non-wheelchair users (as I said, awful comparison), it would be more representative of the situation with quotas.

    Allowing LGBT* people to marry and have the same employment protections and tax allowances as heterosexual people does not remove them from those groups. Preventing LGBT* from marrying stops them benefiting from the tax allowances associated with marriage and prevents them from having the same privilege, rather than "identical but in another name". Banning Muslims from wearing hijabs while allowing Christian nuns to maintain their formal attire necessarily affords the latter the privilege of covering their hair in accordance to their religion but not the former.
    Agreed. Why would you think that I'd disagree? Did I even mention this? I'm not sure why you're assuming that I'm a social conservative when my posts clearly demonstrate the converse. I have repeatedly expressed that individuals should be treated equally regardless of religion, race or gender, yet you seem to think I'm doing the converse? I don't understand. Are you even addressing my post?

    It is staggeringly ignorant to suggest what you are.
    What do you think I'm suggesting?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    "meet inequality with pushing the inequality the other way"
    Either you're extremely dumb and don't even understand the bigotry you're espousing, or you're trying to save face by claiming what you said is not what you mean.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Either you're extremely dumb and don't even understand the bigotry you're espousing, or you're trying to save face by claiming what you said is not what you mean.
    How about you stop trying to attack and actually start addressing arguments being made instead of strawmanning and throwing around buzzwords like "fascist" and "bigot"?

    People who suggest quotas are under the impression that it is fine to discriminate against majority groups in order to increase representation of minority groups. This is discriminating against the majority groups, and is pushing the inequality the other way.

    Talented applicants from every background should be given every opportunity to land a place at a top university. At no point should those from ethnic minorities have an advantage over "white" people, on the basis of their race alone. This is my argument. How is it bigoted?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This is nothing new. Guardian writers have been coming out with this kind of nonsense for a long time. Thankfully it's never going to happen because no-one who matters in this context cares what they think.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    This is nothing new. Guardian writers have been coming out with this kind of nonsense for a long time. Thankfully it's never going to happen because no-one who matters in this context cares what they think.
    "Thankfully it's never going to happen because no-one who matters in this context cares what they think. "

    In a sense, it is already happening due to the pressure universities are under from OFFA to meet targets for student admissions in terms of being state-educated; living in a deprived area and in a protected characteristic group. Since the penalty for meeting these targets could result in the loss of £millions of funding, they must be taken very seriously.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    hehe. Other than a few tens of millions of pounds and a few acres of real estate. Perhaps Gap College might be an appropriate start for such an initiative, or River Island Hall, or maybe Next College. Presumably FCUK wouldn't be acceptable.
    FCUK yeah

    :teehee:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, if only they could make some complex software that applies a weighted value to people's GCSE, A-Level and entrance exam scores based on their race, home income, school, parental status, medical circumstance etc.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeldor711)
    Oxbridge should accept the best students that can, regardless of social class or ethnicity. If those happen to mostly be from the top two then so be it. They shouldn't influence their admissions system to let in less able (if underprivileged) students.
    That said you must also consider potential. Who's more likely to succeed in a degree, some who has worked hard with little or no encouragement or soneone who's education has been a 13 year coaching routine paid for with daddy's money? It's a question of training vs natural ability and tbf Oxbridge already take this into account by considering gcses in the context of applicants school.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black1blade)
    That said you must also consider potential. Who's more likely to succeed in a degree, some who has worked hard with little or no encouragement or soneone who's education has been a 13 year coaching routine paid for with daddy's money? It's a question of training vs natural ability and tbf Oxbridge already take this into account by considering gcses in the context of applicants school.
    Yeah I totally agree
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GradeA*UnderA)
    Ah, if only they could make some complex software that applies a weighted value to people's GCSE, A-Level and entrance exam scores based on their race, home income, school, parental status, medical circumstance etc.
    Or it could remain a very human process where the judgement of very experienced educations is used. Of course there are mistakes and very capable students might have a very bad interview day or something. Thing is those students who slip thru the net will go onto get v high alevel grades, go to another top uni and probably do very well in degree (maybe even than they would have done at oxbridge).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Quotas are boll*cks. People should get into top universities based on merit. Quotas will inevitably undermine this principle.

    The reason that so few poor kids get into top universities is because comprehensive schools are mostly utter sh**. Expand academically selective schools aimed specifically at the brightest rather than forcing smart pupils's potential to rot away in classes where the teachers are focused on the dumbest and you'll see results. Until then, you can expect this distribution of Oxbridge places to continue because Oxbridge doesn't give a f*** if your daddy delivers pizza for a living or is a Saudi billionaire, they take the academically strongest.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No of course we should not introduce quotas. What a daft suggestion.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black1blade)
    That said you must also consider potential. Who's more likely to succeed in a degree, some who has worked hard with little or no encouragement or soneone who's education has been a 13 year coaching routine paid for with daddy's money? It's a question of training vs natural ability and tbf Oxbridge already take this into account by considering gcses in the context of applicants school.
    The difference in private schools regarding academic achievement and being successful is as great as the difference in state schools.

    Very few students are in private education for 13 years. Some enter at Senior School and some only enter in the Sixth Form.

    Very very few private schools are like Eton, Malborough etc.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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 1, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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

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