January 23, 2009
Explanation
I’ve not posted anything here for a while. Mostly this is because I have had nothing to say.
The Gaza conflict was horrible, but I had nothing constructive to say except that Israeli politicians presented particularly arrogant and unapologetic responses to the often needless death of innocent civilians (hardly man bites dog).
Obama’s inauguration was fun to watch, but there were no surprises.
Ken Clarke is back, which means the Tories are steeling for an election and Peter Mandelson will be getting Machiavellian.
The economy is even worse that we thought, the banks are even more of a mess than we thought, and Britain may actually be bankrupt.
Until something happens I have something worthwhile to say about, I’m afraid it will be silence.
Toodle pip.
Grace said,
January 24, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Oh no! Don’t stop writing stuff regularly! I really enjoy reading your blog, and have been recommending it to a few worryingly right-wing friends in the hope of swaying their views…
Maybe you could post some old tutorial essays… (if there are any you didn’t put up on your last blog)
Paul said,
January 24, 2009 at 11:42 pm
well, I wouldn’t want to inflict my tutorial essays on anyone anymore, but i’ve been playing around with a book review blog, over at http://www.boatsagainst.wordpress.com
hopefully more people will be joining it soon, though it’s taking a while to sort out. If you’d like to contribute that would be really welcome. Just let me know.
Grace said,
January 27, 2009 at 12:00 am
“Inflict” is a bit of a harsh word! I’ve actually found your essays (eg http://clicheguevara.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/another-recycled-tutorial-essay/) really interesting + helpful – am planning on applying to oxford for PPE later this year, so am trying to do as much reading as possible, + some of what you have written (esp. the one on choice vs interest theories of rights – much easier to read than Theories of Rights!) has helped me clarify my thoughts.
I suppose they might not be of so much interest to the other people who read this blog, though… still, better than nothing!
Paul said,
January 27, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Grace,
I’m glad you found the essays helpful, I guess they are sort of indicative of what you’d be expected to produce as a second/third year PPEist. However I would urge you not to pay any attention to the argument in that Choice Vs Interest essay; although it’s probably a reasonable model of how to argue philosophically, it’s a very bad argument for many reasons.
As regards the “Theories of Rights” collection, it’s a useful book if you get some guidance with it. The Waldron introduction is really good (most things by Waldron are) and worth reading a few times. Otherwise, the last essay by Raz is especially good. I would also recommend the essays by Hart and Dworkin. If you are still interested after all that, I will send you an essay if mine where I attempt to show Hart and Dworkin are going wrong for the same reasons. Apart from that, I would leave most of the essays alone (they get technical, and without a roadmap or assistance you will struggle to follow what’s going on). However you might want to read the essay by Gewirth (sp) as an example of how NOT to do philosophy, as his entry is fantastically inane and possibly the worst thing I’ve read not written by Swineburne (trying to refute it carefully is good practice of how to do Oxford analytic philosophy).
Which college are you thinking of applying to? I’d recommend Balliol, but of course I would say that.
Grace said,
January 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Oh dear… I didn’t notice any major problems in either Gerwith’s or your essays… not a good sign, oh well – I did read his a few months ago, I may try and work out what’s wrong with it.
College-wise, I like the look of Wadham, Trinity and Oriel but haven’t yet made up my mind. (Any words of wisdom?) Balliol would obviously be the best but there’s no way I’d even consider applying there – too competitive, I know they say there’s a realloction system and so it doesn’t matter which college you apply to but I’m not convinced. If anything reduces my (small) chances by even a few % it’s not worth it. Plus I reckon that even if the number of applicants is smoothed out a bit, the quality will still be much higher at the more prestigious colleges + the amazing Westminster/Eton type are more likely to apply (it’s depressing how much going to a school like that raises your chances, St Paul’s Girls got 60% of the year in to Oxbridge while we got 15% and their entrance exam isn’t much harder than ours).
And I’d love to see the rights essay – I really liked Hart’s and Dworkin’s contributions – though I hope your criticism of them isn’t too damning as I wanted to use some of the points that they made (esp. Dworkin’s reasoning for why a utilitarian shouldn’t to try to fulfil Sarah-loving preferences) in an essay I’m writing!
Paul said,
January 27, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Re Gewirth: notice how he uses the “your mother is being tortured” line to throw all sorts of emotive issues at you, trying to get you to say “ok, there must be some fundamental rights or else I’d have to torture my mum”. Put the essay to one side, and ask yourself: if the whole world was going to be nuked, but if (somehow) by getting some unknown person to torture her own mother the world wouldn’t be nuked, would that person have a right not to torture her own mother? Bear in mind you have to explain to the 6billion people who are going to die why they have to die because somebody has a fundamental right not to torture their mother. Starts to sound fishy, right?
And that’s just the start: there are all sorts of holes in the logic of his arguments.
But don’t worry if you can’t spot them yet: the whole point of a PPE degree is to *train* you to do those things. The fact that you are attempting to understand stuff that I didn’t touch until my 2nd year, and then took repeated attempts over 18months to really feel in control if, is in itself impressive.
Re Colleges: Balliol has a reputation for being competative, but here’s some things to consider.
1. The tutors are incredibly committed to getting the best people. A lot of people who either aren’t good enough or have a bad attitude apply, and the tutors are dedicated to not letting those people in (so that affects the numbers game: more may apply, but equally, more won’t be good enough). From the comments you have put on my blog, you are clearly very very sharp and have a genuine interest in intellectual issues. Hence you are the kind of person PPE tutors at Balliol are looking for. The truth is, this is not always the case at other colleges, where lots of tutors see admissions as a compulsory drag to be gotten over with asap.
2. Balliol is THE best college for re-locating people. Last year I think they found placed for a full 1/3 of people they didn’t take, across subjects (and I seem to remember being told that the percentage of PPEists relocated was even higher). People like Adam Swift, the old admissions tutor, fostered a dedicated attitude to getting people who are good enough for Oxford into Oxford, and that has been continued by James Forder (current admissions tutor, i think), as well as the rest of the PPE teaching staff in particular.
3. Remember also that Balliol takes 12-14 PPEists every year, a lot more than most colleges.
4. And (I would say this, but I think it’s true) you get a far greater degree of care and attention given to your intellectual development at Balliol than most colleges, so if you do get in you get the best education.
5. Re the “amazing Westminster/Eton” types, actually they are not that amazing. A lot of them are just well-trained monkeys who wouldn’t have gotten through A levels at a normal state comp. Although there are colleges which tend to reward the public school trained – coughChristChurchcoughOriel – Balliol isn’t one of them. Balliol is very strongly committed to taking people who it thinks will work hard and who want to study there because they are interested and interesting people.
Re Rights: I’ll track down the essay, as I think I have it somewhere. Even if my arguments are damning, that doesn’t mean I’m right, remember. After all, Dworkin and Hart spent a lot longer doing this stuff, and got a lot further, than I ever did/will. If you agree with them, then you might want to decide why you don’t agree with me, which is probably a safer bet all things considered.
Finally, if you are writing essays on rights at A-Level and using stuff by Dworkin and Hart, as well as actually being genuinely interested in the stuff enough to read old tutorial essays from some former PPE-ists blog, then you should be top of any Oxford college’s list for admissions.
It’s worth remembering that confidence has a huge amount to play in the admissions process. Part of the reason PPE is dominated by boys from posh schools is that they are brough up to believe that they have a birth-right to go to Oxford. For girls – and often this is true of the most intelligent girls – this is all to often (sadly) not the case.
The most important thing you can do between now and applying to Oxford is to believe in yourself. Frankly, I was amazed to hear that you are not yet studying philosophy at undergraduate level. Your comments on the organ donation thread a couple of months ago were very very sharp, and I remember having to think long and hard in order to answer your points. If you are able to put somebody who just graduated with a PPE first on the intellectual back-foot, you are *definitely* Oxford PPE material. You just need to believe that now.
Honestly, it will do you more good (not just when applying, but also when studying at a frequently sadly male-dominated, macho bullshit institution) than reading any book or essay ever will. Though do keep reading the books and essays (I can give you some reading suggestions, if you like?)
Grace said,
January 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Thanks a lot for the kind comments.
” Bear in mind you have to explain to the 6billion people who are going to die why they have to die because somebody has a fundamental right not to torture their mother. Starts to sound fishy” – Aren’t you doing the very kind of thing you’ve accused him of? (using “emotive” arguments to exploit our natural ethical “weak spots” – eg who would think that either torturing their mother or standing by while 6bn are killed is anything other than horrendous.) I feel a bit uneasy with some bits of ethics because of appeals to our moral feelings – eg Rawls’ whole concept of reflective equilibrium – is there no way of deriving moral principles without relating back to “does this seem intuitively acceptable”? What happens if humanity’s sense of morality is completely warped? How could we ever find out? Are there any necessary truths that we could argue from?
I’d be so grateful for reading suggestions! I feel a bit lost, and that my reading’s a bit all over the place.
Theories of Rights (Waldron)
Utilitarianism & On Liberty (Mill)
Introduction to Political Philosophy (Wolff)
A Theory of Justice (Rawls)
If You’re an Egalitarian… (Cohen)
Equality (Stuart White)
The Communist Manifesto (Marx)
The Road to Serfdom (Hayek)
The Goldilocks Enigma (Davies)
I am in the middle of/have read parts of:
Free Will (same series as Theories of Rights)
Anarchy, State and Utopia (Nozick)
The Republic (Plato)
An Introduction to Logic (Hodges, I LOVE this)
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (Landes)
Models of Democracy (Held)
Against Equality (various, edited by William Letwin – thought his essay was awful though)
When Race Counts (Edwards)
When I’ve made some progress with the above, I’m planning to read:
The Social Contract (Rousseau)
Political Liberalism + Justice as Fairness (Rawls)
Parliament Today (Adonis)
Political Parties and Party Systems (Ware)
Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cohen)
Prospects for Democracy (Held)
Prisoners of the American Dream (Davis)
Some game theory books (I’ve heard this is important for interview)
I know there are huge gaps eg economics, stuff outside of political philosophy.
What should I read on free will? -interesting. Also, what logic book should I use once I’ve finished working through Hodges (preferably something as mathematical as possible, but still understandable). Does the amount of maths they ask in the interview vary from college to college? (I’d like as much as possible, feel comfortable with it)
And the confidence issue – I think it’s a bad thing to believe you’re “PPE material”.
1. There is a large chance you aren’t. People’s impressions of you could easily be wrong + you could easily be deluded + self-deception is bad.
2. If you have this attitude, and get rejected, it would be even more crushing. It’s going to be bad enough as it is.
Again, thanks so much for the help, sorry if I seem a little OTT about the books (this is rather long), you must be busy (it’s just that I really want to get in and I don’t know anyone who can give good advice on this)
Grace said,
January 28, 2009 at 11:50 pm
sorry the first list of books is the stuff that I’ve finished
Paul said,
January 29, 2009 at 9:49 am
I don’t think i’m doing the same thing as Gewirth, because what i’m invoking is the fact that 6billion people also have rights, which appear to compete with the right of one person not to torutre their mother. So what i’m raising is a rights-in-conflict issue. What Gewirth is raising is a “torturing mothers isn’t very nice” issue. My point is salient, because Gewirth’s line is “there are some fundamental rights that cannot be violated”. Yet if that is true, some explanation must be made of what happens when those “fundamental” rights come into conflict with other rights – for example the rights of 6 billion people to go on living. So no, I don’t think i’m using emotive arguments a-la-Gewirth.
On books, here’s some advice: slow down and read less.
You are reading WAY too much.
Analytic philosophy is not best tackled by sheer volume. The best approach is to take just one or two books and read them very slowly, think about them, read them again, think about them, and read them again. Then think about them. To that end, I’m going to suggest that the following all get left off any reading lists until you are in your 2nd year of uni:
A Theory of Justice
If you’re an egalitarian…
Road to Serfdom
Political Liberalism/Justice as Fairness
Rescuing Justice and Equality
Prospects for Democracy (Held)
Prisoners of the American Dream (Davis)
Anarchy, State and Utopia (Nozick)
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (Landes)
Models of Democracy (Held)
Against Equality (various, edited by William Letwin – thought his essay was awful though)
Seriously. Just leave them alone (for now). If you try and read ALL of that – and you are looking at months worth of reading there – you will only confuse yourself and end up frustrated.
Far more fruitful to read a few core texts. So here’s my suggestion.
If you are interested in “classic” texts, pick ONE of
Mill On Liberty
Rousseau’s Social Contract
Plato’s Republic
and read it, carefully. Then read it again. After the 3rd time you have read it, maybe you will want to try another one off the list. But, seriously, wait until then.
If you want an introduction to modern political philosophy, then try
Wolff’s Introduction
Adam Swift’s – Political Philosophy: a beginners guide for students and politicians
Stuart White – Equality.
Again, read one only, slowly, and repeat.
I would STRONGLY recommend leaving books by Rawls, Cohen, Nozick etc alone. You are, frankly, not ready for that stuff. Oxford PPEists don’t touch any of those 3 until their 2nd year, remember; that’s after 1 year being trained in how to do analytic philosophy. The work by authors such as these is highly complex and very very technical; without an experienced tutor guiding you, you are far more likely to come away confused and mis-informed than enlightened.
As regards philosophy generally, the Free Will book is ok, especially the intro, but take it easy on the essays. The object should be to feel to-grips with 1 essay, not to have read them all. Otherwise i would recommend:
Think – Simon Blackburn
Ethics, A Very Short Introduction – Simon Blackburn.
Again, read very slowly, then repeat.
As regards more political science type stuff, you can probably get away with reading a bit more a bit faster than with philosophy. But not much. I’d say pick yourself up ONE introduction to UK politics, ONE for the US, ONE for France (of wherever you fancy) and read slowly. You may also want some background history, so try:
Morgan – The People’s Peace.
As regards economics, if you are doing A-Level then the best bet is to ask your teacher for some old, pre AS/A2 era past papers and crack on at them. You might enjoy reading something like a biography of Keynes (very topical) which will give you more useful historical background. As regards game theory, what you do in A Level will be enough. It is a serious mistake to listen to people who say that “it is very important to know about game theory for interview”, because that’s not how it works. If you do A Level economics, they will establish what you have done in school and then push you to see how you cope. If you haven’t done A level economics, they will give you some economics-type logical problems and ask you to solve them. IN either case, your raw intelligence is what will count; even if you “train” for the interview, your interviewers will just work out what level you have been trained to, and then just move it up a gear. So in all, the best thing to do is not try and double-guess interviewers, but read books you are interested in and answer honestly in interview (and take this from somebody who has done significant access work encouraging people to apply to Oxford, so who knows what they are talking about re interviews).
Re Logic, i’m not a logic person. Couldn’t do it in first year, dropped it, never looked back. But I would recommend sticking to Hodges and slowing down. There’s a lot wrong with the book (so i’m told), so go looking for problems you can solve in it, rather than accepting it as gospel. But again, go slow.
RE thinking “you are PPE material”
Re1: While that little sylogism is true of many people, I’ve seen enough to believe it’s not true of you. Hence your conclusion should be : I am good enough, and my chances will be increased by believing in myself
Re2: YEs, it would be more crushing. But that’s life. When you want something and don’t get it, it hurts. But fear of getting hurt is a bad policy when it in turn heightens your chances of failure. BELIEVE in yourself!
So in sum, my advice is this: read less, read slower, think more, stop worrying about interviews that are months away, and believe in yourself. IF you do that you are giving yourself the best chance.
And take that advice from somebody who learned about reading too much the hard way.
Duncan said,
January 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Post up more of your old politics and philosophy essays, some of us have got to sit Pol Theory mocks this term then the real thing in a few months time and never did do any do any training in analytical philosophy.
Grace said,
January 29, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I see what you mean about reading too much + reading stuff that’s too difficult to understand properly. But
1. I need some of the books on your “avoid till second year” list for the corpus christi essay competition – I’m doing “Is an unequal society necessarily unjust?” – and my answer would be a bit superficial if I only used Stuart White etc. I know it’s an impossible task for me to do even a semi-decent answer to that question but I didn’t really like the look of anything else on the list (eg write a whole essay on the paradox of the heap!), so I’m stuck with it.
2. Isn’t it good to read difficult books even if you don’t understand everything 100%? I really enjoyed reading some of the books you banned + I went to a debate chamber thing and spoke to an admissions tutor, and he was telling everyone that we should read as much as possible (one guy there was reading 2 books/week and he thought that was excellent), even stuff like Nietzsche and Leibniz (I bet Models of Democracy is easier than that).
I probably shouldn’t be so disagreeable though, especially as you’ve been so helpful. Thanks again.
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 11:54 am
alrite guys,
im also thinking of applying for PPE like you Grace, and from what ive been told,merely reading the beginner’s guide to the Keynes’, to the Nietzsches’, to the Rousseaus’ etc, (hopefully, you notice all 3 cover the spectrum of PPE haha) is sufficient for the application. They give adequate background on the basis of the famous theories and ideas, as well as the background on the people themselves.
Now reading this conversation between you 2, it looks like I have been completely mistaken haha. Its not actually funny if it were to ruin my chances of getting in. Should i actually be reading Das Kapital instead?
Grace you seem to have read a much larger volume of books concerning political philosophy than myself, and when I saw it i was very impressed. Paul believes you to be very sharp and i agree with that.
Anyway, my teacher has always said any sort of reading is not pointless so i think its admirable that you are investing your time in so many books and theorists that i have not even heard of. I don’t see how it can be damaging your prospects. In contrary, it actually boosts them in my opinion.
So basically, i was just wondering which would be better: the beginners guides or the real deals such as reading Mill’s Utalitarianism? obviously, reading the beginners guides means i would be able to cover a lot more ground regarding the course than say only reading 2 or 3 more sophisticated books as you suggested Paul.
And also, you both mention essays as a great resource, so i was wondering which essayists in particular you recommend to future PPEists?
For example, my english teacher says reading George Orwell’s essays are brilliant for PPE but after reading this conversation, it seems its completely out of its depth. ( Mind you they are still a very good read)
My art teacher then recommends the essays on Leo Tolstoy, but im sure that is way off the mark. so like you grace, i am a bit stuck as to how to prioritise my reading.
anyway thanks alot, get back if possible.
cheers.
(P.S i was also wondering Grace why you think PPE is the best course for you, as many people question me on that topic frequently. have you always specialised in history and politics, or are you quite a rounded student in terms of your subject preferences) Thanks
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Oh and by the way Grace,
i recommend reading Nietzche. Well i’ve only read extracts and various ideas he had but they are brilliant. the guy is really different and controversial. he opened my mind to a whole new area of …. of everything, a whole new way of thinking of ”stuff”. thats actually why i love philosophy.
Also, Wittgenstein. Again i’ve only read extracts but the guy is a revolutonary thinker. I don’t know if its the most important things to do for PPE but it is linked and its really interesting.
Sophie’s World is also a very good read for philosophy in my opinion.
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Sorry i keep missing bits out,
i keep being told that reading the broadsheets and the Economist, and watching Newsnight and Question Time are the best way to prepare for PPE?
Is that right, Paul? im getting a lot of advice and it all seems to muddle up somwhere along the way.
thanks anyway.
Grace said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Tom,
I think PPE’s the right course for me because
1. I love arguing/debating/discussing (too much for my friends’ liking :D)
2. I also really like maths (a year ago wanted to do maths+phil) – PPE lets carry on some maths (in economics) and formal logic is apparently quite mathsy (eg LSE offers a course in Set Theory to philosophy students)
3. I find all three subjects really interesting (cliched I know)
And I guess I’m reasonably rounded – doing maths, further maths, economics, history and latin for a level. I did always like science a lot tho but couldn’t fit in chem/physics into the timetable. (but very almost chose chemistry, physics, double maths and english lit) -what subjects are you doing?
Paul said,
February 16, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Tom,
“merely reading the beginner’s guide to the Keynes’, to the Nietzsches’, to the Rousseaus’ etc, (hopefully, you notice all 3 cover the spectrum of PPE haha) is sufficient for the application. They give adequate background on the basis of the famous theories and ideas, as well as the background on the people themselves.”
plus newspaper, as you suggested, is fine. More than enough, in fact. If you read over my comments you will see that i advocate reading only one or two things, very slowly and carefully, and thinking about them.
And you are wrong in thinking that Grace is “boosting her chances” by reading complex, difficult books she hasn’t yet been trained in how to approach or understand. To repeat: the best prep you can do is reading one or two things you feel you can understand, slowly, and then repeating. Twice.
Reading lots of big hard books won’t help you – it will hurt you.
My general advice for interviews etc is: read books you are generally interested in, keep abreast of what is happening in the news, have an opinion on things that you can back up with reasoned argument. In the interview, be yourself, don’t lie about anything, ask for clarification if you don’t understand, be prepared to acknowledge when you have gotten something wrong, know the difference between holding your ground and being pig headed.
Ultimately, THERE IS NO FORMULA for getting into Oxford. Tutors are looking for people they want to teach for three years. Your best bet is to be yourself. If ‘yourself’ is a person who reads a lot and is interested in intellectual matters with a politico-philosophical-economic slant, then you have a good chance. There is no “ideal” PPE candidate, there is no “perfect” interviewee, there is, repeat, NO FORMULA. Thus the best policy is to be yourself.
Grace,
those sound like as good reasons as any for wanting to do PPE. You might want to think about why you want to study it at Oxford, though. After all it’s full of pig-headed private school males with ego problems and a penchant for getting naked in the bar.
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Thanks for the advice paul,
I take your point about too many books being harmful, but surely even if you extract only one idea from a book, regardless of its complexity, that has got to be worth it. but yeah, i guess you just have to be careful.
Paul what is your opinion about slightly emphasising one of the 3 elements of PPE? would they mind that for example, someone had a tendency to favour say, philosphy, out of the 3? or would it be better to try and equal everything out as much as possible, around the 3 subjects?
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm
hey grace,
Yeah, they look good subjects and its clear you like to debate and discuss.
I’m doing IB (International Baccalaurette) and if you dont know much about it, let me know and il explain later.
But basically you do 6 subjects: 3 at a higher level, 3 at a standard level.
So my higher levels are 1. Maths, 2. English, 3. Chemistry.
my standard levels are 4. History, 5. Economics, 6. Spanish.
i had an idea from about year 10 that PPE was for me as it seemed the best course for someone of my nature. I’ve always been interested in people and society etc. You might think my subjects are strange considering i knew i was going to PPE, as in why didnt i do history and economics at higher? Well my reasoning was that i wanted to be a rounded student, so i thought what is better than maths, english and a natural science (chemistry seemed to be the best mix of the natural sciences).
I hope my choices arent a mistake as PPE says you dont need specific subjects so it should be ok.
You say you like Maths, and i do too, to some extent. Its always been one of my best subjects but its not the biggest interest of mine.
My strength is English. i’ve excelled at it from a young age and in particular, my essay writing. i love writing essays on literature.
I’m not going to lie, the attraction of PPE to me was partly based on it being offered by Oxford, and also partly the fact that the greatest minds of recent history have done it ( such as PM’s). PPE is the course for the best (sorry if thats a bit naive haha)
despite having a passion for english, i know i couldnt do straight up english lit as it has no significance in the outer world, i guess. Or at least, it has a smaller influence. i want to make a difference in my life. I mean ive thought of becoming a PM for example. So i want to use my ability to get into oxford and get one of the best degrees it offers by the most skilled professors in the world.
I mean PPE is the definitive course to understanding about society, how it functions, individuals in society, the great thinkers of the past, current affairs , the economic crisis etc, and so the underlying reason why PPE is for me is because it is that huge platform that i need to step onto to understand about my life and the world. It will enable me to make that difference in the world (in particular to those less fortunate but others aswell) which is ultimately what I’m going to do. I guess thats where english lit lost out even though it is my talent but PPE carried far greater attractions to me.
anyway haha i was getting quite passionate there,
thats a bit about me grace and why i want to go to PPE.
like paul says to you, i guess i need to think about why i want to go to Oxford as well.
by the way Grace, i take it your in year 12?
Comment back if poss, peace.
Paul said,
February 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm
My friend James said in his interview that he was only interested in philosophy and some politics.
As he was very adept at answering the philosophy questions they asked him, they let him in.
He got a First.
There is no requirement to demonstrate enthusiasm for all three components. Remember, I told you there is no formula. Candidates often disqualify themselves by making up lies to show they are intersted in all three. Best just to be honest. Which you will notice has been my consistent and advice.
Oh, and by the way
“PPE is the definitive course to understanding about society”
No, it isn’t. It’s a training for how to be a good civil servant, which some dedicated intellects manage to turn into an intellectual experience if they are lucky to get committed tutors and classmates.
You don’t learn about people or society from reading dusty old tomes on philosophy. You learn about stuff like that by keeping your eyes and mind open and talking to those around you. PPE might help make your mind sharper, but it isn’t going to bring you enlightenment.
It really is just an undergraduate degree qualification, at the end of the day.
Paul said,
February 16, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“It will enable me to make that difference in the world (in particular to those less fortunate but others aswell) which is ultimately what I’m going to do. ”
Have you read back over this to notice how obnoxious you sound? (Actually, you sound like me aged 17).
PPE will not enable you to make a difference to the world. It’s a degree qualification, not a magic spell.
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Lol, i feel stupid right now.
No, I do realise its only an undergraduate degree, but like i say its that step in the right direction for me. It will develop me, there’s no doubt about that. and not only the course of PPE, but my being at Oxford will also develop me. I’m gonna be around the most skilled minds in the country and that can only help me with what i want to do wen i am older ( which i have no idea as yet) and you are saying that in the previous response.
yeah, reading back it sounds like a bit of a superman statement when i imply that im gonna change the world or something. of course, it didnt meant to sound like that. I just meant that PPE and being at Oxford will give me a broader understanding of areas that i need to understand in order to do something with my life.
I take it you did PPE, so sounding like you at 16/17 can’t be all bad can it , lol. I have to stress that i have no idea what’s going to happen to me after uni (hopefully, Oxford) but with PPE, i should have a large number of options. thats the plan anyway.
So why did you take PPE?
And i have fully absorbed the advice about being honest and being yourself. I totally agree.
And thanks for whether its possible to specialise in one of the 3. i guess all applicants have some sort of specialist area out of the 3 so yeah.
Grace said,
February 16, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Tom, why don’t you do english lit? -after all you do say you have a “passion” for it. I know you say it has “no significance in the outer world” – but do you really think everything that you’ll study in ppe will be directly relevant? “I mean ive thought of becoming a PM for example” – ppe isn’t compulsory, brown did history.
“the attraction of PPE to me was partly based on it being offered by Oxford…i want to use my ability to get into oxford” -ok. imagine you don’t get it (statistically by far the most likely possibility). mightn’t you regret doing ppe then? -if you chose it because of oxford…
“it’s full of pig-headed private school males with ego problems and a penchant for getting naked in the bar.” -actually, the fact that ppe/oxford are quite male-dominated is an attraction. i like being in hostile situations where everyone attacks opinions really forcefully, from my experience boys tend to be more aggressive (in arguing etc) than girls. though maybe i’m under-estimating how bad it is… and i wouldn’t be keen on the getting naked in the bar… but the degree looks so much more interesting at oxford – it’s amazing how many options there are in the final two years. what did you do? and the only other place/course i really like the look of is st andrews – but you don’t get to do proper politics there, only international relations, which doesn’t look that great. oh well.
where else would you recommend applying for ppe/philosophy and politics? to, where are you going to apply? my list at the moment is: lse (p&p), york (ppe), bristol (p&p), st andrews (philosophy & economics) + oxford. also considering durham and warwick.
Tom said,
February 16, 2009 at 6:31 pm
yo grace,
i dont think i would be able to do english lit. i do have a passion for it but its not strong enough for me to do lit because i think i would struggle in seeing the point of it in the long run. i guess also the PPE degree is better than a Lit degree for job prospects, in my opinion.
Although, i am set for PPE, i am actually considering Lit as another option just in case. urm, you say that your going to apply to unis other than oxford for the related branches off PPE, and yeah il probly do the same but, (and this really is something ive only thought of recently) i was thinking of maybe applying for eng lit at Kings in London. i understand this may not be possible because of the personal statement but it is an option.
But yeah, you are right in that i am actually considering english lit as its my best subject.
at the same time though, i think my essays in english are what i really enjoy and in these, my ideas often lean towards philosophy and politics so PPE is the one for me.
”imagine you don’t get it (statistically by far the most likely possibility). mightn’t you regret doing ppe then? -if you chose it because of oxford… ”
i know the chances of me getting in are exceptionally small. and to be honest, i havent really thought of an alternative other than P&P at LSE or English Lit at Kings, i guess i need to do that.
By the way, im not sayin im applying for PPE because purely its at Oxford. that isnt the case. im applyin for the course as it will develop me as a thinker and intellect and help me in the future. I have genuine interest and passion for current affairs and PPE, no doubt. But being along the best minds is part of the attraction as that too will help me develop. and equally, going to a uni with the reputation of Oxford is also attractive. it is by no means the primary reason, but in a way, merely a bonus.
And boys are way more aggressive (and more often than not, right) when it comes to arguing and debating… and if that turns you on Grace so be it lol. nah im only jokin.
I actually find those from less privileged backgrounds in terms of education are more forceful in their discussion as well. They aren’t equipped with as much firepower i guess, but they are more persuading i find.
What do you think the minimum GCSE’s required are by the way for the course?
Wilbert said,
February 21, 2009 at 1:50 am
hi grace, i’m also going to be applying for PPE.. as paul suggested above, i’m one of those eton monkeys, and i was just wondering what school u went to. hope to see you at balliol,
wilb x
Alice said,
February 23, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hi everyone,
as Wilbert said above, i am also a (female) ‘well trained monkey’ and personally, i think it is a little presumptuous to say that we all think that we have a ‘birthright’ to go to Oxford. I have spent years preparing and we do not have grades handed out to us for free- we have to work just as hard as you do- the A levels are all the same. Also, is it not now a known fact that people at state schools with good grades and potential are now more readily accepted at Oxford and Cambridge because these universities are desperate to fulful their quotas?
Just wondering about your thoughts on that.
Alice
Paul said,
February 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Alice, my thoughts on that are as follows:
This is horse-shit perpetrated by cry-babies who are unable to recognise that they are already enjoying phenomenal advantages in all walks of life, but especially regarding entrance to Oxbridge. All because their parents were able to BUY them a better shot of getting in through better quality education, which is simply not feasible for the vast majority of students.
Oxford and Cambridge do not fill quotas at interview. They have targets to boost the PARLOUS levels of state-school admission – but this is achieved by trying to encourage more state school talent to apply in the first place, and attempting to judge candidates on potential given context and backgrounds rather than mere grades on a piece of paper alone. But at the interview stage, interviewers take the best candidates – those who are likely, on balance, to do most well. It is ILLEGAL for tutors to accept or reject a student because he/she went to private school.
You seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy against the privately educated – without realising the huge irony of the fact that because you are privately educated you are the recipient of a centuries-long educational, social and economic conspiracy against the vast majority of non-wealthy people in this country.
Perhaps if you spent a day in the classrooms of a normal state comprehensive you would start to understand the huge advantage you have received simply by being privately educated. You might sit the same A Levels as kids from the state sector, but your 14-year educational journey before sitting them will have been VASTLY different.
Oh, and as the trained monkey comment seems to have gotten up your nose, FYI during my three years at Balliol I can instantly think of over a dozen fellow students who were seriously lacking in ability, and frankly weren’t up to scratch – but all of whom went to private schools. I struggle to think of any state-educated students of whom that was true. And Balliol does “well” on admissions as it has a 50-50 state/private split, which roughly tracks the university-wide trend.
But this is an appaling statistic when you remember that JUST 7 PER CENT of all children in this country are privately educated. That’s right, 7 per cent nationally, but nearly 50% at Oxford. Go figure.
So if you think there’s some sort of conspiracy being perpetrated against you because of the fact you have been privileged to a degree 93% of children have been denied because their parents were poorer than yours (and don’t give me any crap about how daddy deserves to be rich because he worked hard – you never did anything to “deserve” to be daddy’s child) – well take it somewhere else because I don’t want to hear it on my blog, you spoilt, over-privileged and ungrateful brat.
Tom said,
February 24, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I side more with Paul particularly when you, Alice, seem to disregard the the whole ”14 year educational journey before” students sit their A levels, which differ unbelievably between those privated educated and those that dont. Its not even about the poor quality of teaching or the poor quality of the resources, even though those things by themselves play a huge role in the development of students. But often those that do not go to private schools, a lot of them have backgrounds in terms of family and society that really leave them trailing behind. They do not have the same advantages that private students have, and you being a private student cannot understand that because you havent been to a comprehensive etc. the difference is huge so when people from these less well-off backgrounds reach the top and are predicted 4 A’s at A level for example, they have had to push open more and often stronger barriers to their development as students.
I know a lot of private kids that are unbelievably ignorant and obnoxious and ungrateful when it comes to the life that they have. Its actually incredible the extent of their ignorance and lack of awareness. Not all of them are like this, but alot are. They are fed the textbook and they learn this tectbook to pass the GCSEs, pass the A levels and appear good on paper but i put trust in the Oxford interview system to separate the men from the boys.
I find the more elaborate and posh the school such as Eton, the worse it gets as well.
So when you say you work hard, yeah you may well study hard but just bear in mind for example someone who cannot afford private education, but who is just as sharp, just as intelligent, yet because of his family background, that person also has to help raise their younger siblings together with their mom as the dad ran out on them. (I know thats really stereotypical but i know real-life examples of that sort of thing. it actually happens.) Now this person too works hard at their studies but they have minimal time to do it on top of the other things he has to do to survive. In these current times, this person’s mom is probably struggling to pay for the mortgage, so on top of his other worries (helping his mom, being a teenager etc.) this person has the huge emotional struggles to deal with.
I mean the very fact that this person has seen education as a step in the right direction is a major barrier already crushed. This is another thing private students take for granted. They have parents that push and motivate them. Where’s the motivation for people like in my example. They have to motivate themselves and that in itself, is something private people cannot appreciate.
What im trying to show are the many other things a person who is not private educated has to deal with besides the lack of good teaching and Oxbridge connections, which again in itself reduce someones chances considerably of getting in.
I think Paul you are too quick to group everyone is privately educated as the same. I dont know people from Eton but maybe they are like that but not everyone i know at a private school is that up their own ass, but a lot are. I mean a person that is private educated may have a terrible upbringing such as the one i suggested in the example but then the benefits of that private education are really seen as the teachers can really put him on track again and offer encouragement, but in a comp or at a state school, you are often left to find your own path to hopefully somewhere better, but often it leads to crime etc.
So i think you should just be aware Alice when you say stuff like I work just as hard as everyone else that applies to Oxford. Maybe in terms of pure studying, you may well do, but just bear in mind the problems that other students face that prevent them from working just as hard.
But equally, you shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed that you are privately educated, as its not your fault your guardians care about your education and have earned enough money previously to help pay for your fees. But neither am i saying you believe you have a divine right to go to Oxford, not all private students are like that. But you do convey a certain lack of awareness and appreciation.
Private education is always a benefit, and it definitely means you are at an advantage to your state school counterparts.
Thank you.
Tom said,
February 24, 2009 at 7:52 pm
By the way Grace,
You asked what unis im looking at … i think ive got a better list but its still very in the process of being finalised
Urm.. Oxford PPE, LSE – maybe P&P or economics, or accounting and finance,
Manchester – Politics or Philosophy,
Warwick – PPE, philosophy
(Kings – Eng Lit????? not sure about this one, il see if its possible, i know its different to PPE)
Im also looking at St. Andrews and Bristol.
Not Durham even though it does PPE.
I am looking at York for PPE though.
Urm there the ones im looking at.
So, Oxford, LSE, Manchester, Warwick and (Kings hopefully) or York.
Alice said,
February 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I am totally aware of all of the things that both of you have described in your previous posts, and i do not believe that i, nor any of my friends, are as ignorant or unaware of the rest of the world as you believe us to be. there are people at my school whose parents have had to give up a huge amount just to send them here and although i will grant you that there are some people for whom your statements are true, it simply does not apply to the majority of us. as a matter of fact, i am not at all an advocate of private schools and believe that in an ideal world they would not exist, as everyone would have the right to a free and good education. I really want you to understand that i do not believe that just because i have been to a private school i am in any way better than anyone else, and that this applies to most of the other people that i know at private school. i would also like to let you know that i am aware that i am privileged and lucky to go to a school that gives me a good education and that i do not think that it is fair to say that i lack awareness of other people’s situations and problems.
but i am sorry if i caused any hurt.
Grace said,
February 25, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Tom – I was thinking about personal statements for english lit and PPE. Maybe you could get the philosophy in by talking about eg Hard Times (utilitariansim) / Brothers Karamazov (loads)? Politics is easier- perhaps Orwell/Gorky (I really enjoyed My Childhood, though very depressing). economics is a bit of a stretch but maybe something about free speech – censorship of books eg lady chatterly’s lover vs reporting on the faliure of the economy eg peston and northern rock, osborne and the pound – how far does “public responsibility” (i.e. not “corrupting” the nation, not causing confidence to fall) limit what people should [be allowed to] say. though that is straying off economics, oh well.
On the topic of bratty private schoolers, did anyone see “Rich kid, poor kid”? -I still can’t believe how awful the private school girl was (eg saying “money brings superiority”, the worst-case scenario for her future life was – gasp! – sending her children to a state school, worst of all that “state school people deserve to die”!?!?!?) – I feel a mixture of pity and disgust, not sure which is more appropriate.
Sarah said,
February 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm
About that programme ‘rich kid, poor kid’, I must say that it is very unfair to assume that she is representative of public schoolers. I don’t think most of my friends at my school are as immature and insensitive as that, and many people think that she was just picked to raise publicity for the programme. It’s a shame that the show has reinforced stereotypes, and I think that it is unwise to make sweeping generalisations. We don’t aLL think that ”state school people deserve to die” or anything similar to that. Plus people at my school have many friends who go to state schools, we don’t believe that we are too ‘superior’ to associate with them, or anything equally as ridiculous. We have as much a variety of people in public schools with different views and personalities as in state schools; I think everyone should be openminded and not jump to conclusions.
+ I heard that the girl in that TV show got expelled from her school for what she said.
Grace said,
February 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm
That girl obviously isn’t representative of all private schoolers. I never claimed that. However, the fact that private schools, by enabling children like her to grow up in an artificial bubble of wealth and privelege, barely even ever speaking to someone who isn’t rich (it’s clear that was the case with her as she thought every poor person was a dirty lazy scumbag) provide the kind of atmosphere in which these repellent attitudes can flourish, raises very serious questions about their desirability. Won’t you at least admit that?
Tom said,
March 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Hey grace,
thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, im not very knowledgeable about russian lit (brothers karamazov and gorky etc)… I am trying to read some so maybe i can still go in that direction.
Actually, you kind of just spelt out to me that it would be possible for the english lit/PPE statement because of writers like orwell (whose work i do know). So thanks for that because i was struggling to see how it would work.
But are you only allowed one personal statement, or can u do different ones for different courses, or unis? Im not sure about that.
Who would you say is a good writer for philosophy (as well as english lit)? Im thinking Nietszche or Schopenhaer, even Wittgenstein but at the bits ive seen they seem very difficult, and im not sure how notorious they are for their literature style, as well as their ideas. Im thinkin Wittgenstein might be too advanced but…
Thanks again
Grace said,
March 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm
The personal statement has to be the same for all universities.
I wouldn’t ask me about philosophers as I’ve barely read anything! Maybe you could talk about the use of metaphor/analogy… Plato and the cave etc…
Tom said,
March 17, 2009 at 9:56 pm
lol its ok. thanks as well.
ive decided to study percy shelley the poet, should be good.
Grace said,
March 18, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Tom, did you go to the st anne’s ppe open day on saturday? you know there’s 6 applicants per place for ppe… somehow it looks scarier that way than when said as a %. i wonder how many of those are serious contenders for a place though – i met a few at the open day who didn’t seem that great (dim/bad english/really weird and not in an academic, geeky way but as if they had something wrong with them/really inarticulate). Though obv there were hardly any of those compared to the really good types.
What was interesting tho was that the admissions tutor said that often the difference between the accepted and the rejected is negligible (“paper-thin”). I’m not really sure whether to be depressed (because there’s clearly quite a lot of luck involved in admissions decisions and this REALLY puts pressure on for the interviews) or cheered (because this will be an encouraging thing to think about if i get rejected – that rejection doesn’t mean you’re an academic faliure). On that last point it was quite odd that two ppe tutors there said they had been rejected for ppe themselves! i guess that shows (a) that competition’s RIDICULOUS (because they’re clearly stupidly clever, being oxford academics) and (b) that it isn’t the end of the world if you fail, you can still be successful in doing academic stuff.
Tom said,
March 22, 2009 at 8:08 pm
hey grace,
nah i didnt go to st annes, im too far for that but was it useful? I’ve only seen its website but it does look hot for PPE and in general.
Yeah PPE is going to be hard to get a place for. I’ve seen a couple of people been refused by Oxford because they were probably just an inch on the wrong side of that tiny line between in or out, and these people that I know are really bright students who you’d think belong at Oxford yet….
There is going to be luck in getting into Oxbridge but most things in life involve it and I’m just going by the thinking that if they want me and i do everything i can to get in, they will take me next year. If not, then its their loss lol, what else can i do?