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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    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).

    Yes that is true in general.

    But you cannot ASSUME that the AAA private schooler wouldn't have got the same at a state school, so it's unfair to penalise them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't give a ****. That's my opinion. 90% there are public school toffs and 10% are foreign students wanted purely for their massive uni fees. Cambridge, Oxford and Durham uni are all like this, and a girl who attended Durham uni told me this herself, (she is from a public school background and has friends in each uni mentioned.) So will it make much of a difference? No. One kid got into Oxford from my school (a state school) last year and is transferring to Bristol this year after bullying from fellow students due his family's background and wealth - comments and insults made referred directly to this.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Yes that is true in general.

    But you cannot ASSUME that the AAA private schooler wouldn't have got the same at a state school, so it's unfair to penalise them.
    This is true, this is true. It's a tricky one.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katieloula)
    I don't give a ****. That's my opinion. 90% there are public school toffs and 10% are foreign students wanted purely for their massive uni fees. Cambridge, Oxford and Durham uni are all like this, and a girl who attended Durham uni told me this herself, (she is from a public school background and has friends in each uni mentioned.)
    Official statistics disagree.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Katieloula)
    I don't give a ****. That's my opinion. 90% there are public school toffs and 10% are foreign students wanted purely for their massive uni fees. Cambridge, Oxford and Durham uni are all like this, and a girl who attended Durham uni told me this herself, (she is from a public school background and has friends in each uni mentioned.)
    Fair enough for not giving four asterisks, but this is totally noooot true. I am neither of these and I have an offer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I can't for the life of me work out how they don't turn a profit... they have 50% foreign students who all pay extortionate amounts to come to the uni. Then they have arts students like myself who pay £3k for a library card. The only expensive courses are the science based ones and they pull in millions of pounds per year in research money.

    These are supposed to be the smartest people in the world and they can't even make a university work when they only have hundreds of millions of pounds to spend per year, what's going on?!
    One of the reasons is the huge wages some staff are paid.
    The Vice Chancellor of Bath (can't remember her name) is one of the highest paid VC's in the country, yet is still calling for higher fees. If she just took a pay cut, there would be no need for her to want higher fees for the uni.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Massive generalisation on both fronts
    How is that generalisation? It's true. I don't know what to do about it, but it's true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Official statistics disagree.
    I wasn't quoting official statistics was I, I was quoting something I have been personally told.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katieloula)
    I wasn't quoting official statistics was I, I was quoting something I have been personally told.
    That's my point. What you have been told is inaccurate, which you can in fact verify by checking the offical statistics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    Fair enough for not giving four asterisks, but this is totally noooot true. I am neither of these and I have an offer.
    Oh yeah, you may have an offer, but you are in no way in the majority. I was quoting a remark made by a student of Durham with connections in both unis, obviously there are some state school kids there, but the vast majority are as I described.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    That's my point. What you have been told is inaccurate, which you can in fact verify by checking the offical statistics.
    It's coming from a personal point of view, she wasn't saying it as an analytical statement, she was poking fun, as that what it seems like from an attending individual's p.o.v.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Reintroduce grammar school system ftw. :awesome:
    Maybe we should, I don't know... no system is going to be perfect, I suppose. What I'd worry about with that is that we'd leave the kids that don't get in/wouldn't be suited to grammar schools with a crap education not worth the paper it's written on. It would have to be done properly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    Maybe we should, I don't know... no system is going to be perfect, I suppose. What I'd worry about with that is that we'd leave the kids that don't get in/wouldn't be suited to grammar schools with a crap education not worth the paper it's written on. It would have to be done properly.
    Lol I just deleted that post cos I didn't want to start a huge debate about it :p:

    (The "crap" education would just be like crap state schools now. And at least there's less chance of the people who don't want to work dragging the ones who DO want to work down)
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Katieloula)
    Oh yeah, you may have an offer, but you are in no way in the majority. I was quoting a remark made by a student of Durham with connections in both unis, obviously there are some state school kids there, but the vast majority are as I described.
    While I accept that your friend's comment was a flippant joke, I think it's really important to dispel these kind of stereotypes. Here's the first statistic I could find:

    (Original post by Times Higher Education)
    Figures released by Cambridge this week show that 58 per cent of UK students accepted into Cambridge in 2005 were from state schools - compared with 57 per cent the year before. The Oxford admissions figures, released late last year, show that in 2005, 51 per cent of UK students were from state schools, compared with 53 per cent the year before.
    Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...sectioncode=26.

    So, over half are from state schools, basically. Not 90%.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Lol I just deleted that post cos I didn't want to start a huge debate about it :p:

    (The "crap" education would just be like crap state schools now. And at least there's less chance of the people who don't want to work dragging the ones who DO want to work down)
    people who are not academic is not the same as people who don't want to work. but let's not go there, as you said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They should be. As things are they make a loss on undergrad home students, and the tutorial system which is the bedrock of what makes Oxford special in many subjects could be seriously jeopardized if the government squeezes them further.

    Being as elite as they are they could become like Harvard, and Harvard can afford to pay in full for poorer students, which the UK government doesn't do. This model doesn't work except for the top brands, and Oxford has one of the best brands going. So long as it doesn't become favourable to legacies or undergraduate athletes it could be more equitable and socially responsible as well as more internationally competitive as a private institution.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    people who are not academic is not the same as people who don't want to work. but let's not go there, as you said.
    Same point though.

    Less academic = work at slower pace = hold back more intelligent (in the same way that the more intelligent people prevent the less intelligent ones from getting the extra support they need).

    We should indeed NOT continue this, but just pointing out I hadn't made that massive generalisation.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Reason 101 I would never consider Oxford. They are too bothered about being the best.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tabbycat1)
    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.
    Exactly this! Once you've got past the grades if they like you at interview and think you're suited to the university you'll get in then. Does show who's able to cope with the Oxbridge workload.

    And I agree with only supporting it if more bursaries were put into place, but negative stereotypes would be reinforced even further I think. At my old school which had a lot of problems, we went on a day to Oxford and the stereotypes about the students didn't help at all. I went on an open day and whilst some people were snobby and didn't want to mix with state schoolers, there were absolutely lovely people too. Decided not to apply in the end but that's because they don't do what I want to rather than not liking the place.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    That's not the reality at all. The people who chose who to accept at Oxford are the tutors, and most of them couldn't care less where you're from. They don't want the university to be a club for the 'elite' in society, they just want to accept the best candidates they get, and if about half of the 'best' went to a private school then that's not their fault. It makes perfect sense that they go by their own criterion when deciding who to accept rather than relying on vague predicted A levels, personal statements and references (which are mostly full of crap anyway), and extra curricula nonsense (who cares if you can ride a horse?).

    That article doesn't really say anything solid at all, and if Oxford, and presumeably Cambridge and maybe a few others, do go independent it won't be for a fair while yet. And I can't see the university receiving such large donations as they would like: a lot of people wouldn't donate anyway, and for the ones who would like to they would have to chose between donating just to their college or donating to the university as a whole.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.