State school oxbridge bias

People in these threads always go in about BJ and JRM as if they somehow represent children in today’s independent schools. It does my head in.

In my entire life, I be never met anybody who vaguely resembles BJ or JRM. I doubt anyone has - these men are caricatures of themselves. And my DD goes to a London day school JRM’s sister once attended (apparently)? These particular two men got into Oxbridge in the days when you could bluster through and get EE offers. It’s pointless and tiresome bringing these two up as representative of anything because those days are long gone.

Why did he consider £250k a year for writing a newspaper column as a second job “chicken feed”?

Whilst Johnson may have had a difficult childhood he has developed into quite the epitome of privilege.

There are too many of one particular type of person at the top. Needs to broaden out - for the benefit of all of us. Not changing my mind on that.

Research Boris Johnson’s full life from childhood. You will find that he was very far from “privileged” once you collect all that info.

I didn’t vote for him. I don’t like him. But to dismiss him as a toff who never suffered hardship is wishful thinking based on surface evidence.

Exactly. Which is why the system needs to be nuanced to recognise this and to bring through talent. Not a shoo in for the Boris Johnson /Rees Mogg types.

Some private school pupils had scholarships or bursaries to get there. Some had parents who were considerably poorer than some others at state schools.

'Hugo' means a certain type of public school boy who lives a rich and privileged lifestyle and thinks he is better than everyone else because of it and makes sure you know it.

It does not mean everyone who goes to an independent school, nor even everyone at say Eton.

That’s the irony, though newgirls about levelling up. My dh is someone who was “levelled up”. Son of a cleaner. Worked very hard, very intelligent.
Went to Cambridge with financial assistance. Got a good job. And now has a child. Child is a “Hugo” apparently.

How certain privileged people have acted over the years has not been ‘polite’. For far too long it has been about recruiting in own image, to contacts, to friends. That’s not polite or fair minded. Levelling up is long overdue

The point well made earlier is they have been massively advantaged for years and frankly still are - odd that any attempt to redress this causes upset. Really?!

I do find Oxbridge acceptance puzzling. 3 of the brightest people I know are Oxford 'rejects' (what a horrible word that is). Ds's local school is excellent and has very good Oxbridge success and RG.

No campaign needed - it’s just basic manners and decency towards others.

How awful to talk about children as “Hugos” with all the associated connotations.

How did we get into a position where a child of a successful person cannot be recognised for their own efforts and achievements and is disposable to our nation?

Discrimination and sweeping judgement seem to be OK as long as it’s against the rich and successful.

Someone posted statistics earlier in the thread and I saw that there are about 9000 applicants from state schools and about 4000 from private.

About 6% of students are at private schools. So this means that a vastly higher proportion of private schools have applicants apply in the first place.

I think the UK could do with losing a few Hugos to be honest

We need far more diversity in our top jobs and plenty of people are more than capable

(I’m sure there are some v nice Hugos too)

Rather than fretting that the rich might flounce off the counter concern is that raw talent in less privileged sections of society won’t be allowed to flourish and be fully realised. That’s more of a concern than “brain drain” surely?

Think things are improving a girl in the year above Dd at her state school already being mentored by Oxford - straight 9s in everything mums a single parent in a deprived area of our city. That will make up for “losing” Hugo to Harvard 😁

But otherwise, yes, @MrsTSwift, that’s also my thought.

I remember too all that kerfuffle about Laura Spence back in 2000, as though Harvard had somehow got it right and Oxford got it wrong, which I think is short-sighted. She was a brilliant candidate, but so presumably were the others competing for a tiny number of places.

Just find the argument that we have to continue to prioritise the offspring of the wealthy over everyone else because otherwise we may lose these superior beings just sticks in my craw!

Grinding
“Indeed. Also, what is the alternative — give them Oxbridge laces so they don’t flounce off overseas? “

Re: “flouncing off”
I don’t think it is so much flouncing as that now we have to pay such higher fees here, for some America is worth considering. Their universities are excellent especially if a student wants a wider base of knowledge before specialising. Then some others are able to get scholarships in America.

I somehow think we will manage just fine with our home grown talent!