Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I wouldn't even bother arguing with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by revisionnightmare)
    Reason 101 I would never consider Oxford. They are too bothered about being the best.
    :confused:

    What's wrong with a uni wanting to be the best? I'd like to think that any university out there aims to be the best it can be for its students :yes:
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Arrogant Git)
    I wouldn't even bother arguing with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    I'm not arguing, I'm encouraging people to make vaguely plausible arguments/accusations
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm surprised it hasn't happened already to be honest, although is ratings and rankings everything? It's still the best uni in England, the UK, Europe, etc. So Harvard is better, so what? Oxford is still Oxford.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    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.
    Population has nothing to do with it- California's GDP, through things like silicon valley, is greater than the UK's (Edit: 2008 fugures show UK's total GDP is greater, by about £400billion- 1.7trillion vs 2.1, with around 60% of the UK's population) . California has less public institutions to fund than the UK (122 universities and 169 degree awarding institutions in the UK vs 35 four-year public university campuses in California) and even in-state students get charged between £6000 and £10000 per year to study at public universities, out of state ones sometimes three times that. Berkeley, UCLA among other have endowments which run to near Oxbridge levels into the bargain, and the American system allows for more money to be dedicated to education because they can claw it back in other areas, such as Americans paying for their own healthcare. It isn't as simple as suggesting the UK government could suddenly drop everything and triple Oxford and Cambridge's funding to allow them to compete with Harvard- then we'd have a truly two-tier system anyway, so privatisation would be a more sensible option, giving them potentially the same benefits without the policy and funding headache in Westminster.

    Edit #2: Caltech is also private, and has an endowment of nearly $2 billion, and just 2100 students to support with it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It would appear the debate has moved on in the several hours since I was last on- and nothing productive has been added. We have the idea that everyone sits the same exam, ergo it must be fair (despite four exam boards, Scottish qualifications etc), and the sheer stubborness to accept that grades achieved at school don't always indicate future potential, and that some people may have had to work a hell of a lot harder to get where they are than someone who has mummy and daddy to pay for it all- indeed, students with the same entry grades at the same institutions tend to show the state schooled performing better, which is interesting in itself. Surely, if we are to believe some, and the extremely bright students are so downright brilliant, then they should have no qualms about not attending Oxbridge, as they'll be a success wherever they go, so why the uproar if they pay tens of thousands and don't get in? Standardise the entry tests, open applications up as to not to exclude some who may not have got staight As, but is undoubtedly very talented, and see whats what.

    Oxford have ambitions, nowt wrong with that. They'll have to raise a lot of money to fulfil them, but at the end of the day, they're wanting to attract the world's best with a package that can match the Harvard's of this world, for rich and poor students alike, and I'm all for that in theory. Providing it doesn't become about who can afford to pay, and its the brightest students that benefit from it, with the hundreds of millions saved being spread around everyone else, I can see plenty of upsides.

    Alas, on TSR, when a debate reaches eight pages, its usually pretty tired, and this is no exception. Anything I've said above I stick to, and no one is compelled to agree with me if they think they have evidence to the contrary. Other than that, I feel I have nothing more to add, so enjoy your argument one and all, I'm out.

    *unsubscribes.*
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    These threads always bring out TSR's idiot population it makes me a little uncomfortable.

    On topic, I'm very much against the idea of Oxford or Cambridge going private. I think it would be horrendous for access and would end up with the universities conforming much more strongly to the stereotype that they're given.

    The problem for them is lack of funding, but I don't see how there would be a sudden explosion of donations if they went private meaing the extra money would all have to come from fees and you can bet the government wouldn't fund student loans for those increases.

    I'm tentatively in favour of tuition fee increases being allowed, but dead against privatisation. I certainly wouldn't donate any money to Oxford if it went private while I probably would if it stays as a state institution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I'm not arguing, I'm encouraging people to make vaguely plausible arguments/accusations
    Canute and waves spring to mind...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teebs)
    These threads always bring out TSR's idiot population it makes me a little uncomfortable.

    On topic, I'm very much against the idea of Oxford or Cambridge going private. I think it would be horrendous for access and would end up with the universities conforming much more strongly to the stereotype that they're given.
    That's a fair point. But I'm not entirely sure larger fees would deter people that much. Fees are already so much that raising them more wouldn't have a massive deterrent effect (a large number times ten is still just a large number).

    The problem for them is lack of funding, but I don't see how there would be a sudden explosion of donations if they went private meaing the extra money would all have to come from fees and you can bet the government wouldn't fund student loans for those increases.
    Theoretically, Oxford could set up its own Student Loans Company, a non-profit organisation offering to loan people tuition fees charging interest at a rate that it covers its costs and the tuition of people who don't earn enough to start paying back. There's no reason student loans have to come from the government.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Population has nothing to do with it- California's GDP, through things like silicon valley, is greater than the UK's. California has less public institutions to fund than the UK, and even in-state students get charged between £6000 and £10000 per year to study at public universities, out of state ones sometimes three times that. Berkeley, UCLA among other have endowments which run to near Oxbridge levels into the bargain, and the American system allows for more money to be dedicated to education because they can claw it back in other areas, such as Americans paying for their own healthcare. It isn't as simple as suggesting the UK government could suddenly drop everything and triple Oxford and Cambridge's funding to allow them to compete with Harvard- then we'd have a truly two-tier system anyway, so privatisation would be a more sensible option, giving them potentially the same benefits without the policy and funding headache in Westminster.
    Not quite - were California a standalone country, GDP would rank 7th, and the UK 5th - with a significant gap between the two (IMF 2008). Logical post though; if they want to go private - as long as provision of bursaries/scholarships increases about a million-fold (in this respect, people overestimate how difficult university in the States is to fund despite the prohibitive fees) - personally I say let them.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It must have been at least a whole week since the last "Oxbridge is elitist" thread. :rolleyes:

    Actually on topic, I don't believe that Oxford going private is compatible with equality of opportunity. Oxford has enough problems attracting highly intelligent poorer students as it is. Allowing it to go private will only worsen this problem. Oxford doesn't have the same kind of system of legacies that US unis have, and it would take years to make up the shortfall necessary for them to provide proper bursaries to counteract massive fee increases, by which point the damage would have already been done.

    I could deal with raised fees, provided that there are grants and bursaries for students who would be unable to pay for them.

    I think the worst thing Oxford could do is to pull up the drawbridge on many hard working, intelligent students who haven't been so fortunate as to have parents with high paying jobs. Punishing people for parental income in a way that will impact their employability in the future is grossly unfair.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arrogant Git)
    That's a fair point. But I'm not entirely sure larger fees would deter people that much. Fees are already so much that raising them more wouldn't have a massive deterrent effect (a large number times ten is still just a large number).
    Simply not true, at present students don't have to pay anything until they're earning sufficient money and when the choice is between somewhere good charging the government maximum of £3000 and somewhere excellent charging £10,000+ there'd be a very strong effect.

    Theoretically, Oxford could set up its own Student Loans Company, a non-profit organisation offering to loan people tuition fees charging interest at a rate that it covers its costs and the tuition of people who don't earn enough to start paying back. There's no reason student loans have to come from the government.
    The government recovers around 50% of the money it lends as student loans. I don't see how Oxford or any university could take that kind of loss. The fact that no American universities have done this suggests its unlikely to happen.
    Offline

    14
    (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.
    ********. Complete load of rubbish
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Arrogant Git)
    Canute and waves spring to mind...
    I don't understand... :o:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    I don't understand... :o:
    Canute was a king chap who stood in the sea and told the waves to stop coming. I think the inference was that your attempts to elicit coherent debate were similarly futile.

    I'm glad the debate has been raised above "Oxbridge is full of toffs so who gives a ****" vs. "Screw the poor kids, we want good unis!". Am reading with interest.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    Canute was a king chap who stood in the sea and told the waves to stop coming. I think the inference was that your attempts to elicit coherent debate were similarly futile.

    I'm glad the debate has been raised above "Oxbridge is full of toffs so who gives a ****" vs. "Screw the poor kids, we want good unis!". Am reading with interest.
    Ah, I get it now. Arrogant Git may well have a point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teebs)
    Simply not true, at present students don't have to pay anything until they're earning sufficient money and when the choice is between somewhere good charging the government maximum of £3000 and somewhere excellent charging £10,000+ there'd be a very strong effect.
    I don't think that's true. I live in Wales and when I applied to university, top-up fees weren't in place in Wales but were in England. Faced with the choice between applying to decent Welsh universities like Cardiff, Bangor and Aberystwyth and paying £1000, most of the people in my school (pretty ordinary state comp) who were in a position to apply to better English universities did so (and pay £3000 pa in doing so).

    Once you're making the decision to go to university, you've already committed to take on a huge debt. At that point, it doesn't really matters how huge.

    The government recovers around 50% of the money it lends as student loans. I don't see how Oxford or any university could take that kind of loss. The fact that no American universities have done this suggests its unlikely to happen.
    Nearly all Oxford grads earn enough to pay back their student loans at some point. You can just raise the interest to a point where you can cover the minority who will never earn enough.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jabed786)
    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?
    That was my first thought as well. :-)

    The problem for them is lack of funding, but I don't see how there would be a sudden explosion of donations if they went private meaning the extra money would all have to come from fees and you can bet the government wouldn't fund student loans for those increases.
    That was the second.



    Anyway, I don't think it really matters... if they want to be apart, let them. There are enough institutions where you can get a high quality undergraduate education.

    I'm just here because I'm wondering on what level Oxford wants to "compete" with Harvard? I don't see how undergraduate education has anything to do with it. Or is the plan to put the income from increased tuition fees into research?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like the sound of this.

    My view is that everybody has the right to free education, and this includes schools!

    And why does going private mean being a better place to be educated?

    Hmm. :confused: :confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    But that places at a massive disadvantage that 50% of students whose parents have possibly gone into dept paying their school bills in order to ensure they get the best possibly education for their children, and who have worked their arses off throughout school to achieve those grades.

    I completely agree that intelligent students should go to the best universities. However, I disagree that students who may be only slightly above average intelligence but who are much more intelligent than the rest of their year be given a clear advantage in comparison with students who may be much brighter, but who just happen to attend a school where average IQ is also a lot higher...
    He didn't say that at all....
    What he meant is: a student with IQ 145 capable of learning, but in a crap school which meant he got AAB and no extra reading, should be accepted... over a private school student with IQ 130 who has been spoonfed all their life, but appear clever because their parents made them read New Scientist and paid for Oxbridge Applications coaching.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.