This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Can i still get into oxford phys
- Eton 16+ Personal Statement Help
- Why is Exeter full of private school students?
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- Any tips for writing a personal statement for Eton?
- Questions about kings scholarship Eton college
- Eton Subjects
- Oxford vs Bristol
- Eton Advice
- Questions Regarding Eton College
- Eton Orwell Award
- What universities would accept me to study medicine?
- EtonX
- Durham or Nottingham?
- Question about College House in Eton College
- What colleges should I consider?
- Oxford med interview
- Worth applying to Oxbridge medicine?
- Why do schools and colleges focus so much on Oxbridge?
- Chemical engineering super curricular activities suggestions.
Oxbridge the new Eton?
I read the Eton debate from beginning to end, and I found it utterly fascinating. I fear that re-opening a similar discussion would be like opening Pandora's box 
, but could Oxbridge be likened to public schools with regard to negative effects it may have on the social composition of the top earners in the UK? (The debate touched upon this area slightly). And is Oxbridge successful in its attempts to equate the system for all applicants?
p.s. Apologies for the title - I have since learnt that a catchy but irrelevant title pulls in the crowds.
, but could Oxbridge be likened to public schools with regard to negative effects it may have on the social composition of the top earners in the UK? (The debate touched upon this area slightly). And is Oxbridge successful in its attempts to equate the system for all applicants?p.s. Apologies for the title - I have since learnt that a catchy but irrelevant title pulls in the crowds.
Scroll to see replies
Queen_A
I read the Eton debate from beginning to end, and I found it utterly fascinating. I fear that re-opening a similar discussion would be like opening Pandora's box , but I was just wondering whether Oxbridge could be likened to public schools with regard to possible negative effects it may have on the social composition of the top earners in the UK? (The debate touched upon this area slightly). And is Oxbridge successful in its attempts to equate the system for all applicants?
p.s. Apologies for the title - I have since learnt that a catchy but irrelevant title pulls in the crowds.
, but I was just wondering whether Oxbridge could be likened to public schools with regard to possible negative effects it may have on the social composition of the top earners in the UK? (The debate touched upon this area slightly). And is Oxbridge successful in its attempts to equate the system for all applicants?p.s. Apologies for the title - I have since learnt that a catchy but irrelevant title pulls in the crowds.
well, no. obviously you are going to have some people from exclusive social backgrounds, but there are generally a good mix of people from what i can gather. hell, they let a commoner like me in...
Before I begin, I'd like to say I'll be choosing my words very carefully; I got a lot of neg rep from people for my comments in the last thread, and I think I'm part of a very small mnority on this board who is opposed in principle to selective schools, to say nothing of independant schools.
I can see why people might make parallels between Oxbridge and Eton: both are very elite institutions, with largely the same demographics, both have a long list of illustrious alumnae, etc, etc.
However, I think in Oxbridge's case, this notion of exclusivity is largely a result of its past rather than its present. Today it is a thousand times easier for people from non-traditional backgrounds to get in than it was even fifty years ago. Obviously the system, like all of society, seems to be weighted in favour of one group of peopl rather than another, but to a much lesser degree than previously.
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
I can see why people might make parallels between Oxbridge and Eton: both are very elite institutions, with largely the same demographics, both have a long list of illustrious alumnae, etc, etc.
However, I think in Oxbridge's case, this notion of exclusivity is largely a result of its past rather than its present. Today it is a thousand times easier for people from non-traditional backgrounds to get in than it was even fifty years ago. Obviously the system, like all of society, seems to be weighted in favour of one group of peopl rather than another, but to a much lesser degree than previously.
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
Queen_A
I was just wondering whether Oxbridge could be likened to public schools with regard to possible negative effects it may have on the social composition of the top earners in the UK?
That isn't particularly clear, but presumably you suppose that an Oxbridge education is a way of guaranteeing high earnings and that Oxbridge admissions procedures discriminate in favour of particular social classes - and consequently you conclude that Oxbridge works as a kind of filtering device for keeping certain groups under-represented among the highest earners? Neither of those suppositions seem to be true.
WhatFreshHell?
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
I'm not sure about that last bit. Oxford's policy of improving the number of blacks & other ethinic minorites may be seen by those of a more 'traditional' background (whatever that means) as positive (it should really be called 'negative') discrimination. There have been circumstances where it could be argued that institutions such as Oxbridge seek to widen the public view of their 'elitism' by allowing in the non-traditional students. I personally believe that, for education to be based sololy on academic potential, it shouldn't be a case of what colour skin you have, or whether your parents went to university.
I don't see why Oxbridge makes such an effort to get people from non-public schools or of whatever ethnic origin. Maybe it should make more of an effort to get them to apply, but if the best people happen to be middle class public school peeps, then they should be the ones to get in. It's all about getting the best right?
d750
That isn't particularly clear, but presumably you suppose that an Oxbridge education is a way of guaranteeing high earnings and that Oxbridge admissions procedures discriminate in favour of particular social classes - and consequently you conclude that Oxbridge works as a kind of filtering device for keeping certain groups under-represented among the highest earners? Neither of those suppositions seem to be true.
Well, I was trying not to imply anything (though I must admit, I failed in that respect), but in my opinion, Oxbridge does almost certainly guarantee higher earnings than most other universities - internationally famous university graduates have a habit of being snapped up by famous international companies! do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Institutions like Oxbridge do tend to create an elite to which many aspire to for job gurantess in the highest fields. Although my argument is generalised and oversimplified, it still holds in many instances.
Lozza
I don't see why Oxbridge makes such an effort to get people from non-public schools or of whatever ethnic origin. Maybe it should make more of an effort to get them to apply, but if the best people happen to be middle class public school peeps, then they should be the ones to get in. It's all about getting the best right?
That's exactly how I feel. Encourage greater range of applicants but people should not be chosen by their background just to meet some quota (the background can be considered in the admissions process, but it shouldn't be judged too highly)
Hoofbeat
That's exactly how I feel. Encourage greater range of applicants but people should not be chosen by their background just to meet some quota (the background can be considered in the admissions process, but it shouldn't be judged too highly)
But then you get the problem with a student pictured after receiving her A - level results in the Guardian, along with an embittered report on how this young, bright hopeful from a "non-traditional" background was rejected from Oxbridge (and just received 7 As), and all these stats about the number of public school, white people who were accepted, some who achieved only AAB!
I can see how difficult it is for Oxbridge...but I agree with you - they don't deal with it in the best way.
WhatFreshHell?
Before I begin, I'd like to say I'll be choosing my words very carefully; I got a lot of neg rep from people for my comments in the last thread, and I think I'm part of a very small mnority on this board who is opposed in principle to selective schools, to say nothing of independant schools.
I can see why people might make parallels between Oxbridge and Eton: both are very elite institutions, with largely the same demographics, both have a long list of illustrious alumnae, etc, etc.
However, I think in Oxbridge's case, this notion of exclusivity is largely a result of its past rather than its present. Today it is a thousand times easier for people from non-traditional backgrounds to get in than it was even fifty years ago. Obviously the system, like all of society, seems to be weighted in favour of one group of peopl rather than another, but to a much lesser degree than previously.
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
I can see why people might make parallels between Oxbridge and Eton: both are very elite institutions, with largely the same demographics, both have a long list of illustrious alumnae, etc, etc.
However, I think in Oxbridge's case, this notion of exclusivity is largely a result of its past rather than its present. Today it is a thousand times easier for people from non-traditional backgrounds to get in than it was even fifty years ago. Obviously the system, like all of society, seems to be weighted in favour of one group of peopl rather than another, but to a much lesser degree than previously.
I'm not sure the extent to which Oxbridge initiated the widening access idea, but that's largely irrelevant, and today there is no overt prejudice and I honestly don't think terribly much institutionalised prejudice exists today. However, that isn't to say the system's fair; I for one would like to see a radical overhaul of the admissions process as it is, I feel, unfairly favourable to private schools, the south of england, and the middle classes
but then isn't that true of the university admissions process in general?
Lozza
I don't see why Oxbridge makes such an effort to get people from non-public schools or of whatever ethnic origin. Maybe it should make more of an effort to get them to apply, but if the best people happen to be middle class public school peeps, then they should be the ones to get in. It's all about getting the best right?
That's a fair response in my opinion (to a virtually incoherent posting).
It's only fair though that ALL pupils have the CHANCE of applying EVERYWHERE, assuming equal ability / qualifications. In that sense, could postees please remember that:
(a) independent schools are not by definition (academically) selective.
(b) grammar schools (e.g. Kent) are state schools and they ARE selective.
(c) the top (non-grammar) state schools - comps and 6th form like Hills Rd - are ALSO effectively selecting as they are oversubscribed and pick pupils to raise their league table positions.
(d) independent schools do not by definition have better teachers.
Therefore, it is not axiomatic that independent school applicants to Oxbridge have better results because of the 'independence' of their schools.
And, to those who will suggest that the qualifications of state schoolers do not reflect their ability, I say ..... the same is the case for independent schoolers.
p.s. As a (successful re Oxbridge) state schooler, I can do without being patronised. I don't need it!
Oxford made my brother. It's not the new Eton - it's the new grammar school. Put it this way, he qualified for all the subsidies but now works for a pretty famous investment bank. So Oxford took a younf man of modest means and put him into a higher economic class. Just like grammar schools did for poor working class children... I just saw the title and thought how ridiculous it was. People get into Eton if and only if they can afford it. People get into Oxford if and only if they are intelligent. I'm all for a system that redistributes wealth.
riccardo
Oxford made my brother. It's not the new Eton - it's the new grammar school. Put it this way, he qualified for all the subsidies but now works for a pretty famous investment bank. So Oxford took a younf man of modest means and put him into a higher economic class. Just like grammar schools did for poor working class children... I just saw the title and thought how ridiculous it was. People get into Eton if and only if they can afford it. People get into Oxford if and only if they are intelligent. I'm all for a system that redistributes wealth.
Read the p.s. at the end of the posting. The title was irrrelevant to the issue - it is infact a lot more subtle than I make out - and I apologised.
Has Oxford refined the process of application so that only those intelligent enough get in? Or is it more about widening access, and fulfilling quotas?
Lozza
I don't see why Oxbridge makes such an effort to get people from non-public schools or of whatever ethnic origin. Maybe it should make more of an effort to get them to apply, but if the best people happen to be middle class public school peeps, then they should be the ones to get in. It's all about getting the best right?
As far as I can see that is what it does (encourages people to apply I mean). I can't see that Oxbridge would ever deliberately harm itself by going out of it's way to recruit people on grounds other than the benefit applicants' intellects will bring to the universities. Oxbridge goes out of its way to encourage 'non-traditional' (or whatever we're calling it) applicants to ensure that it DOES get the best, many people from these backgrounds don't apply simply because they think their background will prevent them gaining a place.
Yes it does redistribute wealth. My brother has more money than he would have done and I'm pretty sure the same is true for many of his friends. Unfortunately I'm not going to Oxford because I was less motivated and didn't like school but the future is bright for anyone who gets a good degree from this university. Unless you enter rich this university does redistribute wealth. Sorry about the comment on the title - I was qualifying my comment, since I'm not actually going to Oxford.
riccardo
People get into Eton if and only if they can afford it. People get into Oxford if and only if they are intelligent.
As a wannabe mathematician, I must take issue with these statements.
You are saying:
get into Eton <=> can afford it and
get into Oxford <=> are intelligent
However, only the => implication is true in each case. Be able to afford it does not imply you'll get into Eton. Likewise, being intelligent does not imply you'll get into Oxford.
Sorry for being an arse, but pedantry is in my blood.
you're dead right about Eton and I was wrong. Oxford though, I don't believe that idiots get in. I think that only the cleverest applicants get into Oxford, of course being clever doesn't mean you apply. So you're right, you mathmo, you. The people that winge about rejection from oxbridge with their strings of As longer than the great wall of China don't seem to realise that it's about potential more than achievement. You can get As, even at A level, Parrot fashion. I like maths too, so you're forgiven.
You do have to be vaguely intelligent to get into Eton yes?
But with state schools intelligence is not considered AT ALL (I do know this for a fact, and I personally don't agree with it).
Schools that charge fees have entrance exams...my point is that therefore the students must be, on the whole, more intelligent than those at a random state school? Sure, there are some geniuses (genii?) at non-public schools but the average intelligence is higher at a school with an entrance exam. People are going to fail.
Anyway! My point is that therefore, there is a higher percentage of possible Oxbridge candidates, hence Oxbridge applicants, and hence Oxbridge-headed people?
Although fee paying schools have more money and more facilities to teach their students, and even if they're not supremely intelligent, will get the best education possible and therefore do better than someone more intelligent at a not-so-good school, and therefore have a better chance at Oxbridge.
That thing about some kid with 7 As or whatever, maybe she's just not Oxbridge material (not trying to sound snobby) - there are some really clever people I know who simply would not suit being at Cambridge. It wouldn't be in the paper if it was commonplace, surely?
I stick to my idea that it should go on ability and whether you are suitable for Oxbridge in terms of your academic potential etc. Nothing else. They should not take anything else into account (ok ok, maybe a few exceptions but let's not go into that for the sake of my argument!).
Apologies for my dreadful dreadful English, I'm a natsci!
But with state schools intelligence is not considered AT ALL (I do know this for a fact, and I personally don't agree with it).
Schools that charge fees have entrance exams...my point is that therefore the students must be, on the whole, more intelligent than those at a random state school? Sure, there are some geniuses (genii?) at non-public schools but the average intelligence is higher at a school with an entrance exam. People are going to fail.
Anyway! My point is that therefore, there is a higher percentage of possible Oxbridge candidates, hence Oxbridge applicants, and hence Oxbridge-headed people?
Although fee paying schools have more money and more facilities to teach their students, and even if they're not supremely intelligent, will get the best education possible and therefore do better than someone more intelligent at a not-so-good school, and therefore have a better chance at Oxbridge.
That thing about some kid with 7 As or whatever, maybe she's just not Oxbridge material (not trying to sound snobby) - there are some really clever people I know who simply would not suit being at Cambridge. It wouldn't be in the paper if it was commonplace, surely?
I stick to my idea that it should go on ability and whether you are suitable for Oxbridge in terms of your academic potential etc. Nothing else. They should not take anything else into account (ok ok, maybe a few exceptions but let's not go into that for the sake of my argument!).
Apologies for my dreadful dreadful English, I'm a natsci!
Related discussions
- Can i still get into oxford phys
- Eton 16+ Personal Statement Help
- Why is Exeter full of private school students?
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- Any tips for writing a personal statement for Eton?
- Questions about kings scholarship Eton college
- Eton Subjects
- Oxford vs Bristol
- Eton Advice
- Questions Regarding Eton College
- Eton Orwell Award
- What universities would accept me to study medicine?
- EtonX
- Durham or Nottingham?
- Question about College House in Eton College
- What colleges should I consider?
- Oxford med interview
- Worth applying to Oxbridge medicine?
- Why do schools and colleges focus so much on Oxbridge?
- Chemical engineering super curricular activities suggestions.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 11 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)University of Oxford
60
141
Last reply 5 days ago
Any Oxford Phil & Theo applicants heard back about interviews?
