Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Frankly, I'd rather pay higher fees and attend a university where I know I'm among others who have also been selected merely on merit than pay lower fees, knowing that there are probably numerous students who only got in because they came from a state school, even though they might well have been worse candidates than their competition from the private sector.
    The problem is those from "the private sector" are normally better then their competition because they recevied better teaching, more focus and resources then their state school peers. Whereas those from the State sector who are intelluctually blessed but may of been subjected to poor standards of education, large class sizes and a lack of resources should be left out in the cold?

    Illogical and infact completely against the notion of meritocracy which you seem to uphold. Those who have been given every help and those who haven't should be judged on the same standards? Irrespective that the latter have proven to flourish in even the most dire of situations, which we could quite easily speculate those with priviledge would of never succeeded in?

    Complete ********, IMO.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Wrong, about 55% are from state schools.
    Is that proportional compared to number of applicants from each kind of school then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Hood is talking not for the here and now, but for 20 years plus down the line. If they could, I don't see why not- it'd free up more money for everyone else. In reality, only Oxbridge have the might to raise that sort of cash from endowments- while a few others could get away with charging higher fees, they simply don't have the donator network to sustain a large endowment fund in order to shake off state funding. Most private (and some state) universities in America have at least several billion dollars of an endowment to invest, by contrast, outside of Oxford and Cambridge's combined £9 billion (still half of Harvard's figure), only five other UK universities break the £100m mark- Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow, UCL and KCL. They'd all need to quadruple that figure plus make significant returns on how they invest it to even think of reducing their dependency on the state.

    It's debateable the effect this will have on students. Arguably, standards will slip based on those who can afford to pay. But the much larger scholarships could attract some very talented students that might be financially better off applying to Oxbridge, and perhaps redressing the balance (I don't see Oxford doing it but Cambridge not). In addition, the better funding available for the rest of the Russell/1994 group etc might see them improving relative to other countries aswell, making it perhaps a win-win situation. At any rate, this won't happen any time soon, so I suppose the point is moot for at least the next VC's term.
    Do you ever stop talking about Glasgow and endowment? Lmao.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belle_xx)
    The reality is, most of the students at Oxford are from public schools anyway, apart from the token few people from state schools which they are forced to take. This infuriates them. Why is Oxford's preference for people from more privileged backgrounds such a revelation? To be honest, it's always been pretty damn obvious that they want the university to primarily be a club for the elite in society. Oxford lecturers have proclaimed themselves that the main thing they go by when choosing candidates for the interview is their own test, the criteria for which are incredibly vague. Everything they have always done smacks of their fervent desire to be an independent establishment.
    Have you even spoken to these lecturers and tutors you're talking about? I don't know about you, but the majority of the ones I've met don't care where you're from; what they care about is that you can grasp the material and that you'll work hard. You can do this regardless of whether you went to a private or state school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Oxford decided to become a private univeristy, I think it would be a shame for a lot of hard-working and bright students. For many, going to university at all is a financial struggle, despite any grants or aid supplied, so by taking such a step, Oxford would become even more unattainable than it already is for so many students. Recieving a high standard of education is not, in my opinion, something which should come with a ridiculous price tag; students should be rewarded for their academic achievements and merit, not because they happen to be fortunate enough to be free from financial trouble. Obviously those who recieve offers from Oxford will excel academically, but it still leaves those who struggle to pay at a disadvantage.
    I understand that Oxford wish to improve and compete at an interntaional level, however it may be the case that by raising fees to an even higher amount, people are put off from applying at all, which could potentially do more harm than good.
    However I'm no expert on the subject, this is just my opinion
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prospectivEEconomist)
    Do you ever stop talking about Glasgow and endowment? Lmao.
    Is it relevant to the point? Is your post relevant to the point?

    I'll help you out here: Mines is, yours isn't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it does go private maybe slightly lower ranked unis like UCL will gain higher reputation because people (who can't afford to get into oxford) decide to go to 'second best' which eventually becomes more reputable because it attracts higher caliber students. Which might be a good thing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    I think it's a pity, but I'm not surprised that this course of action has been raised as a possibility.

    Frankly, I'd rather pay higher fees and attend a university where I know I'm among others who have also been selected merely on merit than pay lower fees, knowing that there are probably numerous students who only got in because they came from a state school, even though they might well have been worse candidates than their competition from the private sector.
    I dont think you understand the way universities positively discriminate. What they do is look beyond grades and personal statements. They try to answer the question, "If both students had had the same educational opportunities, who would have fared better?" All they are doing is removing the advantages gained through better teaching and tuition and looking at who is the more enthusiastic, intelligent candidate.

    Better Grades =/= More suitable for the course
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belle_xx)
    Is that proportional compared to number of applicants from each kind of school then?
    Roughly, yes. However, what I will say is, the lion's share of those applicants come from some of the highest performing state schools (y'know, the kind of ones where parents have to pay over the odds for a house because they're in the catchment area)- very few get an offer (partly because very few apply, or are encouraged to apply) from inner city, low attaining state schools.
    Offline

    10
    My parents will be paying full fees anyway, so it makes no difference to me.

    The big problem is that private unis are snobbish, opaque and definitely not equitable. Having a relative to went there can get you in (as it does in Stanford), and this isn't something i'd agree with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnyofengland)
    I think places like Harvard have a lot more scholarships and bursaries to widen access to those who get in on merit but can't afford it, so I'd imagine a similar thing would happen with any University going private in this country.
    The problem is that at Harvard there are far fewer people from lower economic backgrounds than in the country as a whole: around 80% of its students are from the richer half of America. Oxford is by no means perfect in this sense but it is improving and on a much better level than Harvard, it would be a great shame to see the best university in Britain become almost exclusively a place for the rich.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Caltech is state funded. That has about the best science research in the world. It's not essential to go private.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    Caltech is state funded. That has about the best science research in the world. It's not essential to go private.
    Caltech also has about 3,000 students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Not quite my thinking, no, although I can understand why it appeared badly thought through. I'm working on the basis that if Oxford do attempt to incorporate the Ivy League system they'll also introduce much larger scholarships and bursaries (which are readily available in American unis), and therefore wouldn't be the preserve of the rich.

    I'm much more concerned by the fact that universities are told to take certain numbers of students from the state sector, as I don't think what schooling system you came through ought in any way to affect your chances of getting into the university of your choice.
    Oxford give preference to students from worse schools (often state sector) because it is harder to achieve the same grades and success than at a successful private school where 50%+ achieve AAA. This means that the best students are more likely to be chosen, those best at learning, not those students who have been luckiest in their education thus far. Oxford want intelligent students, and by that I mean students who are most capable at learning new things.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So much for widening participation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Not quite my thinking, no, although I can understand why it appeared badly thought through. I'm working on the basis that if Oxford do attempt to incorporate the Ivy League system they'll also introduce much larger scholarships and bursaries (which are readily available in American unis), and therefore wouldn't be the preserve of the rich.

    I'm much more concerned by the fact that universities are told to take certain numbers of students from the state sector, as I don't think what schooling system you came through ought in any way to affect your chances of getting into the university of your choice.
    Phrased like that- it makes more sense. Assuming the bursaries were fair, then it might well level the playing field out a good bit. However, we'd still have the old chestnut of the AAB student from the school where only 1/5 of people get 5 Cs or better at GCSE vs the AAA student where half of his/her year also got AAA. A standardised entrance exam which tests critical thinking might be useful (like the American GRE/SAT), but then we're becoming a bit too close to the Americans for my liking, and they've got too good at thinking their way is the right way for everything for too long.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Caltech also has about 3,000 students.
    So? Doesn't mean the principle isn't the same.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    So? Doesn't mean the principle isn't the same.
    It's a sufficiently smaller drain on the state financially to fund a high quality, small scale specialist institute than to make the sweeping generalisation that the state can maintain a lot of world class universities with its own reserves alone.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    It's a sufficiently smaller drain on the state financially to fund a high quality, small scale specialist institute than to make the sweeping generalisation that the state can maintain a lot of world class universities with its own reserves alone.
    How's it funded, national or state level?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belle_xx)
    The reality is, most of the students at Oxford are from public schools anyway, apart from the token few people from state schools which they are forced to take. This infuriates them. Why is Oxford's preference for people from more privileged backgrounds such a revelation? To be honest, it's always been pretty damn obvious that they want the university to primarily be a club for the elite in society. Oxford lecturers have proclaimed themselves that the main thing they go by when choosing candidates for the interview is their own test, the criteria for which are incredibly vague. Everything they have always done smacks of their fervent desire to be an independent establishment.
    There are actuallly a greater number of people going to oxford from state schools than private so i suggst you do your research properly next time.
 
 
 

University open days

  1. University of Oxford
    All undergraduate colleges and departments Undergraduate
    Fri, 14 Sep '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.