Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by [Shea])
    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
    Totally agree with this
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Hallelujah!


    +++++rep
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    for all the people who are argueing that this means people from poorer backgrounds won't consider oxford if you actually read the article it says they are asking the alumni to donate money i.e. they are going to be giving large bursaries like american unis... IMO
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I'm sure they would rather be a uni for the rich anyway. I view Oxford/Cambrige as an elite club. They allow a few here and there to infiltrate it to maintain appearences but we all know which type of student they favour.

    If they want to go private, they should be allowed to do so. They are providing a service. How and who they provide that service to should remain at their discretion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Go for it!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Sorry, but while I see what you're trying to say, I disagree with it entirely. An AAA student ought to be compared entirely equally with every other AAA student. State school students don't necessarily show any greater intelligence than private school students by getting the same grades! All that proves is that they are probably harder workers/more intelligent than the rest of their class, which is absolutely no grounds for preferential treatment as that still doesn't detract in any way from the achievements of the private school students who will also have worked extremely hard to achieve what they have.

    Exactly. It's really annoying when people say "AAA from state school must be smarter than AAA from private school". You cannot assume that at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C++Hacker)
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6689637.ece

    They say they'd have to become a private university, not recieve government funding and have their own (much higher) tuition fees in order to maintain their position in the world's top 5 and compete with harvard. What are your thoughts on this?
    Also, would it mean that it will only be for rich people? :confused: If the tuition fees are similar to that of Harvard (tens of thousands) will the government provide loans of such a great quantity to students?
    Harvards tuition fees are about $50,000 per year ONLY IF your household income is greater than $180,000 per year. If you earn over $60,000 (but less than the previous figure) than you only pay a fraction of that (about 10% usually but it depends on your income)

    less than $60,000 harvard give full scholarships with a bit extra
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (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.
    (Original post by Nick_000)
    To be honest, I'm sure they would rather be a uni for the rich anyway. I view Oxford/Cambrige as an elite club. They allow a few here and there to infiltrate it to maintain appearences but we all know which type of student they favour.
    :eyeball:

    How insulting. I got in on merit, thank you very much, not because I tick ********* of PC boxes for them :yep: belle_xx , I'm offended by your complete lack of knowledge in particular: if you knew anything or had read anything about Oxford applications and the government and had understood it correctly, you'd know that Oxford has consistently refused to be "forced" to take anything near the amount of state school students that the government is insisting upon :p: Nick: as for infiltration, that implies subtlety. I'm not particularly subtle in my infiltration :p:

    (Original post by Andiio)
    Who cares. Generally speaking I wouldn't even want be in the same room as an Oxford graduate, particularly if this came about. More ferrero rocher and champagne darling? :P

    Bit tounge in cheek, but still, I have found that people who attend the higher grade Universities have a certain air about them.
    Not my fault I like Ferrero Rocher milkshakes (just over 2 quid) and champagne bottle-shaped bubble bottles. Darling :p:

    (Original post by weet_ABI_x)
    I think it's a horrible idea, I'm not at Oxford, but I did apply and get an interview -say I had got in, I can barely afford to go to university anyway because I come from a council estate, what would happen if they had gone private? Some people on this website are very snobby, of course someone who has got AAA at a state school with 13% GCSE pass rate deserves more recognition than someone who has got AAA at a private school with 100% GCSE pass rate.
    My understanding of this issue (which I agree with some others on this thread won't happen - if it ever happens - for a very long time) has always been that the increase in fees will be matched by an increase in bursaries... So people like you and me would get bigger bursaries
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Sorry, but while I see what you're trying to say, I disagree with it entirely. An AAA student ought to be compared entirely equally with every other AAA student. State school students don't necessarily show any greater intelligence than private school students by getting the same grades! All that proves is that they are probably harder workers/more intelligent than the rest of their class, which is absolutely no grounds for preferential treatment as that still doesn't detract in any way from the achievements of the private school students who will also have worked extremely hard to achieve what they have.
    Surely thats the point of the interview and admissions test process. I went to a state school and will be applying to Cambridge in october, and from what I gathered at the open day, 90% of applicants will get an interview. Simply because if you are anywhere near the required standard (so your predicted grades are a little low), they'll consider you for interview.

    So the private pupils get an interview, and so do the state schooled ones. From then on, the process is designed to discriminate purely on your intelligence, and that is something that, in my opinion is something you are born with, whether rich or poor, and you can't be taught it because its all about the way you think. GCSE grades are then out of the window - good because otherwise Id be f*cked with my couple of Cs, one in Citizenship (long story), and the other in ICT when we were given the wrong coursework to do :woo: (and no, you cant say that would happen in a private school).

    And for those that think the TSA some sit when applying will mean the private school pupils will have an advantage, thats bullsh*t. I took a practice one recently and got an above average score (fingers crossed I get the chance to sit a proper one then), and I can honestly say its a test of the way you - just you - think. Mainly because the questions aren't about anything.

    So, to surmise. If you're even close to the expected standard then you'll get an interview, at which point, you will be assessed on you alone, not your schooling or wallet size. And theres no bias to either private or state school pupils, the high percentage of private school is probably due to state schoolers not even bothering to apply when they could easily get in. Im going to assume Oxford is similar in the regard.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banburyhammer)
    Surely thats the point of the interview and admissions test process. I went to a state school and will be applying to Cambridge in october, and from what I gathered at the open day, 90% of applicants will get an interview. Simply because if you are anywhere near the required standard (so your predicted grades are a little low), they'll consider you for interview.

    So the private pupils get an interview, and so do the state schooled ones. From then on, the process is designed to discriminate purely on your intelligence, and that is something that, in my opinion is something you are born with, whether rich or poor, and you can't be taught it because its all about the way you think. GCSE grades are then out of the window - good because otherwise Id be f*cked with my couple of Cs, one in Citizenship (long story), and the other in ICT when we were given the wrong coursework to do :woo: (and no, you cant say that would happen in a private school).

    And for those that think the TSA some sit when applying will mean the private school pupils will have an advantage, thats bullsh*t. I took a practice one recently and got an above average score (fingers crossed I get the chance to sit a proper one then), and I can honestly say its a test of the way you - just you - think. Mainly because the questions aren't about anything.

    So, to surmise. If you're even close to the expected standard then you'll get an interview, at which point, you will be assessed on you alone, not your schooling or wallet size. And theres no bias to either private or state school pupils, the high percentage of private school is probably due to state schoolers not even bothering to apply when they could easily get in. Im going to assume Oxford is similar in the regard.
    Cambridge do not only use the interview to decide who they give offers to. They use the UCAS form as well as the interview, which will include your GCSEs and AS module scores etc. So I guess the school you went to will have some impact. But they do try to take it into account (I think) if you went to a very bad school.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Banburyhammer)
    And theres no bias to either private or state school pupils, the high percentage of private school is probably due to state schoolers not even bothering to apply when they could [...] get in. Im going to assume Oxford is similar in the regard.
    :yep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Cambridge do not only use the interview to decide who they give offers to. They use the UCAS form as well as the interview, which will include your GCSEs and AS module scores etc. So I guess the school you went to will have some impact. But they do try to take it into account (I think) if you went to a very bad school.
    Yeah I was trying to say that, evidently not very well. GCSEs arent the be all and all end all is what im trying to say, so people should get really hung up about it unless theyve got ones that glare out at you liike me, but they should be fine if theyve got reasons like mine. I hope.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    1)The 'state' refers to a governing body, which may be devolved to an actual US state, or kept within central government.

    2)'The state' does not equate to a state within the USA, when we're using economic definitions.

    3) But to answer your question, educational funding in the U.S. is usually the responsibility of the individual state, in this case, California. By doing so, they can charge those from California less than students applying from Oregon, or similar.
    Umm...

    1)I knew that, hhence why I asked the question of whether it was funded nationally or by state.
    2)I knew that.
    3)Thankyou. That's all I needed to know. Hell if one US state can fund a college that good then I'm sure UK as a whole can fund Oxford. California has 33 million people, UK has about 60+ million.

    More broadly, this is just part of a growing trend. A kick in the face for social mobility, which has declined for 12 years under a so called Labour government.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banburyhammer)
    Yeah I was trying to say that, evidently not very well. GCSEs arent the be all and all end all is what im trying to say, so people should get really hung up about it unless theyve got ones that glare out at you liike me, but they should be fine if theyve got reasons like mine. I hope.
    I don't think a couple of Cs is the end of the world by any means anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    I don't think a couple of Cs is the end of the world by any means anyway.
    Im gonna keep telling myself that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Good for them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    But how can a claim to meritocracy be justified when students who have achieved different standards, be it as it may that they've had differing levels of input, are being compared as like-for-like candidates?

    If anything, I think that's more biased. Parents pay thousands and thousands of pounds (often going into dept to do so)to guarantee their children a better education than the government can give them in the state sector, in order to improve their chances of finishing Sixth form at the kind of level that will improve their chances of going to the university of their choice, and now the government is putting all those students at a disadvantage by saying that even if state students don't achieve as highly as their private counterparts, they deserve the top university places anyway because they've out-performed the rest of their year group in their own school - be it as it may that the rest of that year is completely thick and he or she is actually only an average student? Where's the justice in that.
    they aren't at a disadvantage. just universities recognose that results dont mean raw intelligence
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    In the nicest possible way, Lafin, I'm glad you're getting pwnt, so I don't have to do it.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    I think your argument overlooks a vital point; just because the private school student achieved AAA in his so-called 'privileged position' in no way implies that he could not have achieved that same result in a state school. Therefore, the suggestion that the state school AAA student shows greater promise than the private school student with the same results absolutely does not prove the state school student has greater potential than his private school counterpart!
    The fact that he achieves it doesn't prove it, but do you not admit that private schools have the ability and resources to turn a BBB student into an AAA one where a state school does not? (If you don't admit that... well, it's just true, so you should).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This whole thread is infuriating! I can't believe the ignorance of some people on here, who have absolutely no experience of the oxford selection process and then go around saying how "elitist" it is. I find it insulting that people think if you've got in and you're from a state school it's only to meet some "state school quota." The interview is entirely academicly focused and designed to see how you think - they couldn't care less what school you came from.

    As for privatisation, I would only support it if the large bursaries were in place to ensure that poorer, bright students could still attend. Although I agree that to increase the fees would probably puts loads of state school people off applying and reinforce negative stereotypes.
 
 
 
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.