May 20, 2010
The Truth About Oxbridge Admissions: A Reply To Dave Osler
Dave Osler just wrote a piece attacking the “Oxbridge Mafia”. I thought I’d take it upon myself to offer The Family’s response. So, cards on table: I graduated from Oxford in 2008 with (horror of horrors) a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics – the very same degree that Dave singles out for particular disapprobation. But for the record, I was also educated at a normal state comp and attended the local state sixth form college.*
Firstly, I’d like to note something odd about one of Dave’s initial concerns: that the top level of politics is over-represented by people with Oxbridge degrees. This is often put forward as a self-evident problem. But I’m not sure that it is. Oxbridge has the toughest admission standards (high grades, written tests, plus at least two interviews in most cases) and has built its standing on giving people the very best education available (hence, when my mates at other Unis were doing three essays a term, I was doing two a week). It’s thus not altogether surprising that people who are educated at Oxbridge end up at the top. And it may not be obviously undesirable, either; I’ll proceed to make myself no new friends and question whether it really would be better if 70% of the cabinet had degrees in Events Studies and Sports Tech from Popleton Met.
However, Dave Osler is right to point out that there is a problem with Oxbridge: the admissions are heavily skewed towards the privately educated. 93% of UK schoolchildren are state educated, yet they accounted for just 53% of Oxford and 57.6% of Cambridge students in 2008. There is most definitely a problem here. But what exactly is it, and what’s the solution? Dave thinks we need positive discrimination, targeted at the Oxbridge end. I beg to differ.
Let’s be clear: Oxbridge accepts, roughly, the same proportion of state school applicants as apply. The problem therefore is that not enough bright state school kids are applying, not that they are being discriminated against once the UCAS forms are in. Although there may be some crusty old dons favouring the privately educated, most tutors doing admissions are simply looking for the brightest, most hardworking applicants (not least because they’ll have to teach the buggers for three years). And most tutors make allowances for the fact that a state education is (to be blunt) generally worse than a private one.
After all, rich mummies and daddies shell out small fortunes to get their sprogs taught privately for a reason: they get a better education. And that’s not even to mention the marked decline at the top end of the state sector over the past 20 or so years. But this means the quality of students at interview is unlikely to reflect true potential as oppose to where applicants were educated. Consequently tutors look for potential, and accordingly correct for the fact that students from state backgrounds may be unfairly disadvantaged.
But there is another major problem: vast ignorance in the state system about Oxbridge, and an ingrained prejudice against applying. As an undergraduate I did outreach work, going to state schools and trying to encourage bright kids to just apply. The two most common experiences were bright kids from modest backgrounds saying “people like me don’t belong in a place like that”, and teachers – yes teachers – putting-off bright kids with similar (false) memes, or simply giving them insane advice about applications, which usually stemmed from basic ignorance about the applications system.
The net result? Not enough bright kids from the state sector apply to Oxbridge hence not enough bright state kids get in to Oxbridge. It really is as simple as that. So stop taking pot-shots at the Universities and start asking why the Government isn’t doing more to sort out the state sector.
–
* Christ the King Catholic High School, Southport and King George V Sixth Form College, Southport, for those who are into conspiracy theories.
Peter said,
May 20, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Did teachers really trot out those memes? Bloody hell! I’d go apeshit if I had a kid that was told that.
Stephen Wan said,
May 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Completely and utterly true. I’m in exactly the same situation, having been offered a place at Oxford University to do (god forbid), PPE, and am seriously looking forward to it. I am completely state educated, not a trace of private education to be found, but I was fortunate in that I was given every encouragement by my teachers to apply, and so I went straight for it – the interview stage was one of the most nerve-wrecking experiences of my life. Before that, I was one who thought Oxford was not the place for the likes of me – fortunately, I’ve been proved otherwise.
Now, I try to encourage as many people who I meet at college who I think are smart to go for it, because it can happen. Osler’s piece I think makes completely the wrong judgements and completely the wrong attacks, even if he does see the problem clearly. I’m just glad someone else was able to articulate my worries as well as you.
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Peter,
They absolutely do.
Usually it’s born of ignorance, or bad personal experience. It’s really tragic. Often, however, teachers just give students insane advice about UCAS applications and what to write in them, and that really doesn’t help either TBH.
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Stephen,
Brace yourself. PPE can be a lot of fun (eventually). But expect to work harder than you’ve ever worked in your life (at least, if you really want to get something out of it).
What college are you at?
Stephen Wan said,
May 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Paul,
Cheers, I’m really looking forward to it. I do Politics and Philosophy now for A Level, and Economics seems pretty interesting. I’m looking forward to being stretched – I’m really passionate about it. I’m (hopefully if I get the grades), going to be at St Catz this October. Loved it when I went there for the interview, and the people were really nice.
Any advice for the first year in particular?
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Stephen,
“and Economics seems pretty interesting. ”
Don’t worry, the economics faculty will soon disabuse you of that misconception.
Advice? Er, work hard (because that will give you the grounding for the next two years; people who don’t do anything in first year rarely pull it together enough to do well at the end), but not too hard because it is university and you need to have fun as well.
Ignore rugby playing idiots and football playing nobheads (hard if, like me, you play for the football team), hang out with who you like rather than who you think you’re supposed to like, don’t try and read everything but get clear on what you do read, and generally don’t take it more seriously than you want to.
Basically, make of it what you want. It ends up not being for everybody, and that’s OK. And first year can be nasty in a way that second and third year aren’t (though that’s not true for everyone).
Stephen Wan said,
May 20, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Paul,
Ah, I suppose I still have a lot to learn! Sound advice though, and I’m fairly optimistic about the next few years. Annoys me though that after that, it seems I should keep my head down low and not mention the university or course I’ve done, since that might count against me in the future. Cheers!
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 8:16 pm
As a tutor once pointed out to me: there’s a basic reason that a lot of people are resentful of Oxbridge graduates, and it’s that Oxbridge rejects 3 times as many people as it accepts.
Furthermore, however, there’s also the worthwhile point that saying “I went to Oxford” in a certain manner can be synonymous, or taken to be synonymous, with saying “I am cleverer than you”. And there’s all sorts of basic, good-mannered reasons to not want to get up peoples’ noses by saying things like that.
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Also, so you know, Oxford philosophy is quite different from A Level philosophy.
And that’s a very good thing, because A Level philosophy is rubbish and bad for your brain. So do expect to be doing something rather different (i.e. actually making arguments rather than vomiting out mis-quotations of dead people).
Grace said,
May 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Also quite a few people at private school get forced to apply by their parents (at least 5 out of ~35 applicants at my school) – when you’ve forked out £10,000+ per year on your child’s education, you very often become seriously pushy (want value for money!) – some of these people got in and are now going. + Parental pushiness, not teacher encouragement, was the main thing which overcame my classmates’ reservations about applying due to fears that “people like me don’t belong in a place like that” (feeling too stupid to apply was very common among my friends, private school =/= superconfident) – if anything teachers were actively unhelpful and unencouraging. So the greater pressure (on avg) provided by private school parents will always contribute towards making private school application rates higher.
Stephen, I swear you were really quite confident before you went for interview though? eg the 99% thing. And you seemed quite relaxed there (compared to me anyway haha)
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Grace,
On average, I think you’re also far less likely to find the pushiness at state schools. So yes, that is likely to be another important factor.
Tim Worstall said,
May 20, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“and teachers – yes teachers – putting-off bright kids with similar (false) memes,”
Declarations of interest: I applied to Cambridge and didn’t get in (I still use the excuse that I was 21 when I tried and 3 years as a waiter isn’t quite what they’re looking for) and thus went to the LSE. Economics is vastly more interesting than either politics or philosophy. But having said that…
I am absolutely certain that Paul has grasped the essence of the problem here (and my agreeing with him will no doubt make him reconsider his views). Paucity of ambition for the bright yet not socially (or wealth) connected is the cause of low non-private school entry to the best universities in the country.
There’s an old PJ. O’ Rourke line “anyone who doesn’t understand what is wrong with the education system has never dated a B Ed student”. I’ll go with that….even though I am and was too dumb to reach Oxbridge myself.
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Tim,
But did you do economics before it was colonized by autistic mathematicians? I imagine it was quite good back then. Now it’s all differentiation and rational choice tautology.
Will said,
May 20, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Hi Paul,
To say that Oxbridge “has built its standing on giving people the very best education available” makes a huge assumption about what education is.
For all your Millibands, Camerons and Cleggs, there are also your Prescotts, Johnsons and Majors who I’m sure would say that their non-academic learning was invaluable and continues to give them a unique insight into the job they do. (Maybe not Major)
Will said,
May 20, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Anyway, my point is tangential. There are more important things to get heated over like this ghastly thing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8695367.stm
Paul Sagar said,
May 20, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Will,
I didn’t mean to say that Oxbridge is the only place to get a good education, or that the only good “education” is an academic one. But that’s perfectly compatible with saying that, insofar as it does what it does, an Oxbridge education is a very good one. But you are right, I drew the circle a bit too narrow.
Also, good point re rape anonymity. Because clearly it’s not the 6% conviction rate we need to worry about, it’s the tiny fraction of women who are making it up, and the implication that being accused of rape and found not-guilty is much worse than being accused of (say) murder and being found not guilty that needs our collective attention. Just in case we didn’t need to go on reinforcing the idea that women are basically lying or asking for it, and the poor men need to be protected. Sheesh.
I’m sure Lauria Penny or somebody at the F Word will have a good piece on this soon enough.
Mark said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:48 am
I can’t understand how it is possible to be in favour of egalitarianism and elitism at the same time. We are told that people earning considerably less money than others is a terrible thing – not because differences in consumption, but because of differences in influence and the regard they receive from others.
So, why aren’t the social benefits of a good education or a good brain a similar cause for concern? Do the elite have less regard for hard slog than brilliant minds, or is it just a good old fashioned power grab?
I’m not sure that it’s a coincidence that highly articulate, highly educated people favour a system in which the articulate and educated get a disproportionate amount of power.
Nakul said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:55 am
>>Don’t worry, the economics faculty will soon disabuse you of that misconception.
Paul, give the boy a chance!
Not that I did much economics mind. You’re entirely right about admissions, of course. The hardest part of doing outreach is convincing people that the interviews are exactly like the prospectuses describe them. The number of people who know people who know people who had rugby balls thrown at them in their interviews…
That said, Oxford could certainly do with a more egalitarian ethos, and Parliament (and the Labour leadership race) could certainly do with people who’ve taken career paths that didn’t involve living in the Westminster bubble from the age of 21. So I say, and proceed to comb the jobs section on w4mp…
senusert said,
May 21, 2010 at 8:32 am
I resent the implication that anyone who has an interest in maths is autistic!
Nick said,
May 21, 2010 at 10:23 am
Mark, this may come across as elitism/intellectual snobbery but do you really want the country to be run by those less able simply to fulfil an egalitarian fantasy? Even Marx in his, admittedly insufficient, often ambiguous/contradictory and sketchy, outlinings of the Communist society did not completely remove the notion of a meritocracy in terms of performance of tasks. He stated that the products should be consumed according to need rather than ability, not that tasks should be performed by those unsuited to them.
(There is a great story from mid-20th century about a senator who was asked to defend a blatantly sub-par Supreme Court pick for the President and, realising he was in trouble, resorted to the argument that there was enough representation of A-students on the bench, and it was only fair that C-students got a go.)
You can, moreover, ally “elitism” – of a sort – and egalitarianism. Egalitarianism (especially in its American ideological construction) is to do with equality of opportunity and respect (Tocqueville saw the US as equal in the absence of social status distinctions). This can be combined with an intellectual/professional elitism which simply says that those who perform difficult tasks best deserve to rise to the top. The combination of these two is the aim of Oxbridge (and other Uni and professional) access schemes.
Indeed, the Fail and other papers (including, bizarrely given the CVs of its staff, the Guardian) should spend less time counter-productively discouraging state school applicants with horror stories about Oxbridge and more time pressuring businesses/professions to give opportunities (as Paul noted in a previous post). Our PPE tutor was, a few months ago, bemoaning the fact that he had been unable to give any places to state applicants.
chris said,
May 21, 2010 at 11:08 am
I agree, Paul. For years, many tutors have made great efforts to encourage state schools applicants. Back in the 80s, some colleges had an arrangement whereby they offered places to students from inner London comps who had potential but poor A levels. One beneficiary of this scheme was David Miliband – evidence, I think, of the value of such programmes.
» The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler | Liberal Conspiracy said,
May 21, 2010 at 11:21 am
[...] ———- cross-posted from Bad Conscience [...]
Barney said,
May 21, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Hi Paul,
First, let me say that I read your blog on a regular basis and really enjoy it. I think that there is a non sequitur in your argument here, however. You say:
“Let’s be clear: Oxbridge accepts, roughly, the same proportion of state school applicants as apply. The problem therefore is that not enough bright state school kids are applying, not that they are being discriminated against once the UCAS forms are in.”
Since 53% of Oxford students went to state schools, this means that around 53% of Oxford applications come from state school students. This means that 53% of Oxford applications come from 93% of the population, and 47% come from just 7% of the population. Yet, applicants from private and state schools enjoy roughly the same rate of success. This is surprising, and plausibly indicates a bias in favour of private school students. To see why, let us make two natural assumptions:
(1) Generally speaking, only the brightest students from state schools apply to Oxford.
(2) Generally speaking, private school students are no more naturally intelligent than state school students.
It is exceedingly probable that the brightest several thousand people from 93% of the population are, overall, more naturally intelligent than the brightest several thousand people from just 7% of the population. Therefore, one would expect that the success rate of students from state schools would far exceed the success rate of students from private schools. Consequently, far more than 53% of the students at Oxford should be state school students, despite the fact that only 53% of applications come from state school students.
Note that assumptions (1) and (2) only have to be *very roughly* correct for the argument to go through, in view of the enormous disparity between the proportion of people who are state-educated and privately-educated. Thus, my argument is unaffected by your point – which is no doubt correct – that many bright comprehensive students are put off from applying to Oxford.
If I am right, then even if the proportion of state school applications to Oxford went up dramatically, we wouldn’t see a similarly dramatic increase in the proportion of Oxford students who are state educated. Therefore, the problem isn’t only that “not enough bright state school kids are applying”.
The question this raises is: why are less naturally bright privately-educated students getting into Oxford at the expense of more naturally bright state-educated students? I think it’s got a lot to do with the fact that the less naturally bright privately-educated students are fed a far better educational diet, so by the time they arrive for their Oxford interviews they look more full of “potential” than their naturally brighter, yet malnourished, state counterparts. (Excuse the metaphor!) So I think that Dave is probably right. The allowances that admissions tutors make for state-educated students simply aren’t big enough to offset the enormous advantage of a private education. Part of the solution here might well be positive discrimination.
The bigger problem, of course, is the despicably unjust institution of private education.
Chris Brooke said,
May 21, 2010 at 12:27 pm
One beneficiary of this scheme was David Miliband – evidence, I think, of the value of such programmes.
Whether or not this was intended ironically, this is exactly the traditional problem with this kind of thing. Affirmative action programmes in the States for college admissions disproportionately favour the minority of middle-class black kids, not poor students from inner-cities, whom people fondly imagine are the ones who are going to benefit; in Britain, outreach programmes to inner-city comps turn out to benefit the children of leading Marxist intellectuals who, one imagines, have other advantages in life.
And, again, when we’re told that the state school intake in Oxbridge is rising (by very small increments) it’s likely that this reflects additional recruitment from middle-class kids in middle-class comps in middle-class areas, rather than because more people are arriving from working-class backgrounds.
Paul Sagar said,
May 21, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Barney,
That’s a really good comment, thanks for that. You certainly have a point.
But as you yourself identify, it starts coming down to two uncomfortable truths:
1. that privately educated students are getting a better education and hence look better at interview stage (indeed, having done a bit of paid teaching work at weekends, I can atest that at age 17 average student from private school is vastly more articulate and well-read than average student from state school, even though the latter is, if you stick at it, often more intelligent than the former).
2. that privately educated students are trained-up with special Oxbridge coaching classes and that gives them an edge, if because of nothing more than the fact they go in feeling more confident and prepared than state applicants.
But then, I still don’t see how this is Oxbridge’s fault: tutors do their best to correct for these things, but it’s bloody hard. So even if you are right about proportions etc, I still don’t think the blame lies with Oxbridge (though I think we agree on that, though please correct me if not).
And I’m not sure why you only restrict your proposals to two solutions: abolishing private schools (which I support) and quotas (which I don’t). There’s also a third alternative: improve the standard of teaching in state schools drastically. We could, for example, stop expecting kids to jump through hoops and get through their exams by simply vomiting out factoids their teachers pushed into them for two years without any emphasis on actually thinking independently….
Paul Sagar said,
May 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Well exactly.
Chris Brooke said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm
We could, for example, stop expecting kids to jump through hoops and get through their exams by simply vomiting out factoids their teachers pushed into them for two years without any emphasis on actually thinking independently…
Teaching in Cambridge now, after nine years teaching in Oxford, a much higher proportion of my students are (i) from non-selective state schools and (ii) have studied social science A-Levels like Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Economics or – at a pinch – Philosophy, rather than older-fashioned subjects like History, Maths, German or Physics. (This isn’t so much to do with the move from Ox –> Cam but to do with the Colleges I’ve been attached to and the nature of the degree courses in each place.) And they have a lot more bad writing and thinking habits than I’m used to, which are hard to dislodge (though when they do get dislodged, it’s very happy-making) and I get a lot more, “but this is how we were told to do things in school” remarks from my students, as they try to stay inside their intellectual comfort-zone — and I have to tell them that they aren’t at school any more.
Two other comments, perhaps related:
First, the trouble with gearing the whole state school system around success in public examinations is that when it comes to competitive university admissions, this is a game they can’t win. The public schools used to be very un-academic places. Parents paid to send thick kids to them who otherwise would have to attend the local secondary modern (because they’d failed the 11+ and couldn’t go to the local grammar school), and they didn’t offer a very demanding curriculum. As the universities began to recruit on A-Level results, the private schools turned themselves into A-Level factories, churning out people with very good scores. And as AAB offers become AAA offers which then become A1AA offers, the private schools will continue to stay one step ahead of the state sector, in virtue of the fact that they have more resources to plough into exam success, and they have a real incentive to do so (because if the kids aren’t getting into the competitive universities, the parents will stop sending their kids to them, and they will go bust).
Second, there’s a real problem with this “potential” ideology. The kids who have the most “potential” to get a phenomenal amount out of their university courses are – bluntly – the kids who are best prepared ahead of time, so that they can hit the ground running as soon as they arrive: they have good work habits, good thinking habits, and they’ve always been the kind of people who read far beyond what they’re required to for their work. And these tend to be people from relatively privileged backgrounds, for obvious reasons. We’re told to look for “potential”, as if there are these uncut diamonds who have been overlooked at school (or whatever) but who will blossom in a university environment, and be up there along with the best, and while of course you do run across people a bit like that from time to time, it’s not at all common (and it’s very hard to know just what it is you’re supposed to be looking for, in any case).
In practice, it seems to me, what’s basically involved at the admissions stage is a willingness to gamble: do you take someone from a less privileged background who might do very well, but may do pretty badly (relatively speaking), over someone from a more privileged background who is much more likely do pretty well? There’s a great deal of uncertainty in these kinds of choices, and Colleges that are more willing to gamble more often than others will do better on the state-school-admissions stats, but they may find that the quality of the median student goes down rather than up (because more gambles fail than come off), which is an outcome they are (obviously) trying to avoid.
Paul Sagar said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Chris,
Very quickly, as I have to run to, well, Oxford.
I see your point about “potential”: it’s bloody difficult. Combined with previous point about private sector A-level factories, it just makes me think that the only answer (and it keeps coming back…) is to abolish private education.
re falling quality of students – i’m glad (in a sad way) that your experience correlates with my hunches. I was lucky in that I had some really good teachers at school, but even then it was such a dramatic kick up the arse in my first year. Looking back, it was the best thing that ever happened to me. But I’m not really surprised that moving from Magdalen and Balliol – where the independent/overseas/grammar contingents are very, very high – that you’re seeing a drop-off in the basic skills at year-1 level.
James A said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm
To all,
It seems that there is a broad agreement that the private:state school ratio of Oxbridge is not, or not primarily, the fault of the Oxbridge admissions system. Assuming this, what do people think are good solutions to the problem (because it clearly is a problem)? Three kinds of response have been mentioned: (1) abolishing private schools; (2) investing more money and resources into state schools; and (3) introducing quotas.
I prefer (1) and (2), but I’d like to hear other people’s views, and, more importantly, their reasons for them.
James
Gregory said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I’m a Tab, and I wrote something similar to this for my student rag (cheekily titled “if you’re from Private school, you probably don’t deserve to be here”). And I’m reluctantly sceptical about the hope that access will solve the admissions disparity.
If we look at class (at least for Cambridge), the figures are horrific. 40% of those at Cambridge are upper middle class, whilst the UK average is 4%. There is a gargantuan skew to those higher up the social ladder (the lower middle classes are somewhat less starkly over-represented). I’m certain that academic ability is nowhere near so skewed in real life. So middle class kids are beating those more able than them but less wealthy.
I think private schools are somewhat of a read herring: virtually all the ‘state students’ I know at Cambridge went to high-performing grammar schools or comprehensives. Private education is just one manifestation of how well-off parents can transfer advantage of opportunity to their offspring. Although private schools are obviously unjust, its not like middle-class parents won’t find other ways to help them (and who’d blame them: they aren’t cynical agents of class warfare, just people who want their kids to get on in life.)
I likewise don’t think Oxbridge (or other top unis, as they show similarly skewed representation) are at fault. I think they aren’t showing a class or wealth bias. It is simply the case that middle class students have advantages that allow them to construct better applications and perform better at interview. Although I’m sure interviewers look for ‘potential’, I don’t think they can do so reliably, and thus they’ll favour those candidates who come up stronger: besides, people might be squeezed out by having appalling A-levels or GCSEs before they even get to interview in the first place.
Access schemes are definitely the right thing to do, but I don’t think they’ll solve the problem alone. I hope I prove pleasantly surprised, as I don’t think there’s any political will to make the changes necessary.
James A said,
May 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Paul,
Also — speaking from one member of the The Family to another — rather than expending all these words wouldn’t it have been better just to make Dave an offer he can’t refuse?
James
Mark said,
May 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Nick,
Nope – but to what extent does the ability to climb the political ladder coincide with an ability to provide good service for the electorate? I’m not sure that the two are the same thing.
In my experience, the middle management in large companies tends to be entirely pointless. You only have to have opened the newspapers over the last few years to see the failure of top management too. Is it incredibly cynical to view higher education (of the PPE type) largely as a signal that you’re ready to start on the rent-seeking road to management, rather than something that provides the rest of us with any particular benefit? What should passing a test actually entitle you to do?
And, whatever Marx might have said, the current fetish for greater equality is not concerned with equality of consumption and it isn’t about American style equality of opportunity either. A millionaire doesn’t buy a $500 pen because the pen itself is 500 times better than my biro. He buys it because he expects to receive regard for owning the pen (or perhaps because 500 dollars isn’t worth very much to him). If what we are actually concerned with is increasing equality of regard, then pens and differences of income are really the least of our worries.
If on the other hand, we were aiming for a complete meritocracy then surely we’d be extremely relaxed about people making themselves filthy rich. Which doesn’t square with the whole “poverty is increasing, whatever shall we do” stuff coming from all of the major parties.
Mark said,
May 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm
James,
Is the education you receive from Oxbridge worth as much as the prestige you get from having attended?
If so, I reckon we should try and find a way to improve education more broadly to the same level, if not we should be more circumspect about giving power to people on the basis of their college.
James A said,
May 21, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Mark,
To who? Potential employers? Probably mainly the prestige (if it counts at all). The board of admissions when applying for further study? Probably mainly the education. To myself? Definitely the education: I couldn’t give two hoots about prestige.
James
Mark said,
May 21, 2010 at 5:35 pm
James,
If an Oxford education really is something special, then surely we should be trying to provide everyone who is capable of enjoying it with one.
So the issue isn’t really who should get to go to Oxbridge, unless it’s just the name that is important.
Tim Worstall said,
May 21, 2010 at 5:52 pm
“But did you do economics before it was colonized by autistic mathematicians?”
Indeed, one of my profs was Richard Layard and he was teaching us all about shifting the Phillips Curve. All of the stuff which near 30 years later is the intellectual underpinning (no, really, there is some, it’s not just all bash the chav stuff) for reforming the welfare state. David Freud and all that….and from the other side Welfare to Work and so on.
That’s certainly the part of economics which I enjoy ….micro, incentives and all that….and that’s also where all the maths ain’t.
some2199 said,
May 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm
There is sociological evidence, specifically from Oxford, to the effect that state school pupils with the same GCSE results as private school pupils do significantly better at Finals. Oxford students from private schools underperform compared to their GCSE results, but not more generic measures of aptitude, which suggests teaching effects inflate exam results in private secondary schools. We have to be careful about the sense of “better” used when we say private school teaching is better than that of state schools.
Adopting an explicit policy of discounting private school GCSE results (which are most strongly correlated with success at Oxford admissions) might be a good step forward. It’s not all about schools – even within the current pool of applicants, there are state school pupils missing out who are likely to do better than some who got in.
Barney said,
May 21, 2010 at 10:14 pm
James,
It seems to me (and I have had a few beers!) that the three solutions you mention are jointly exhaustive: (1) we abolish private schools, (2) we make state schools better, or (3) Oxbridge introduce quotas. So let me make a boring argument. (1) simply ain’t going to happen. (2) could happen, but not to the extent required to cancel out all of the advantage that results from going to private school. (3) is realistic, but unattractive to Oxbridge for the simple reason that they want to maximise academic excellence. Letting in a bunch of state school dunces isn’t going to achieve this, even if it does make for a fairer society. (I speak loosely – the booze – but you know what I mean.)
Like you, I prefer (1) and (2). But the only realistic solution to sorting out Oxbridge inequality is (3). The question is whether the solution is worse than the problem. My inclination is to think that quotas are justified.
Barney said,
May 26, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The comment thread seems to have died. But the suggestion of Peter Wilby’s that George Monbiot endorses in this article seems to be eminently sensible:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/05/24/universal-cure/
Michael Medley said,
June 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Interesting but this doesn’t explain how 1 in 3 pupils at Eton can get into Oxbridge which is well over the 1 in 4 average.
Timothy Clark said,
August 24, 2010 at 9:28 am
You guys might be interested in my conceptual Art:
http://www.timothy-clark.com/portfolio/artist.html
Cassim said,
December 15, 2011 at 6:36 am
PPE? Is that not a subject who could not smart enough to study Philosophy or Economics on their own?
Cassim said,
December 15, 2011 at 6:37 am
PPE? Is that not a subject for students who were not smart enough to study Philosophy or Economics on their own? That is what one of my teachers told me… I mean no offence…