to not understand why young girls are told to aspire to be like michelle obama

[HRHShoesytwoesy]

have I missed something? if so what?

That sounds like inverted snobbery to me, sorry

Did you read that in the Daily Mail?

That was to happybubblebrain

Yes it actually does pretty much rest on the interview once they get to that stage. Everyone who gets to interview meets their provisional requirements - grades, extra-curricular activities, bla bla bla. The interviews are not easy - it's not a sit down and chat about your education.

Obviously they vary according to subject and college, but the one I did was a form of test, albeit in an informal manner. When I arrived I was given a stack of paperwork about a particular legal matter and a couple of cases and we had to go away, read it, digest it, get more info, form opinions etc etc. The main interview (one of three) was with the head of the law section for that college, and it was almost a 2 person debate. Whatever viewpoint you put forward was challenged and you were expected to be able to justify yourself and not just roll over.

One person, who applied for the same course as me, was the Head Girl of a very prestigious public school, top grades, great extra curriculars. She didn't get in.

I think MO is a great role model - and one million times better that Sarah Palin and her Mama Grizzlies

Its like a job - lots of people apply with the same qualifications but only one person actually gets the job.

Happy, I have friends whose DC now go to Oxford and many of them are from state schools too (not just my generation). Those personal statements and interviews (and in one case a test) are incredibly important - they give you the edge over those who also had A*s.

Scotsgirl - that pretty much proves my point then. If the headgirl of a prestigious school with top grades, great extra curriculars etc didn't get in then what hope is there for anyone else to to rise to the top, you need much more than hard work. Michelle Obama is giving people false hope.

I admit I was probably wrong about only private ed kids getting in, does anyone know the stats for this?

I've never read the Daily Mail, never will.

When you see what Michelle Obama has done with her life , despite her background, you really want to do something with your life.
She appears to be a very nice person and even managed to charm the queen.
However, what i liove most about her is the admiration , love and respect that she has for her husband and he for her.
She has the whole package.

WTF?! You argue that you can't get in if you go to state school and that you need to go to private school, I give an example of someone from a private school not getting in, and that somehow proves your point?! EH!

Your suggestion was that more than hard work you needed MONEY and my point was that her not getting in suggested that wasn't the case. Yes, you need luck, or more you need that little something extra to swing it for you. That could be cash but realistically it's in many cases it's something extra - demonstrating drive, interviewing well, charisma, good people skills, ability to build rapport.....

OK, not everyone who works hard will make it to the top. I don't think MO was suggesting that. I think the idea was that if you work hard you create opportunities for yourself. For some they will lead to the top, for others they won't. That's life. But surely it is better to inspire these young women to at least try.

I think MO was suggesting that all you need is hard work, her story is that she came from a poor background but she still succeeded because she worked hard. That is the message. A tiny minority of people are going to Oxford, many many more who who work very hard will not. Inspiration or false hope? I think it's important to be honest.

I think inspiration to be honest. No, not everyone can make it to the top, but does that mean we should never try? Really?

She said this "I realised that if I worked hard enough I could do just as well as anyone else. I realised that success is not about the background you?re from; it?s about the confidence that you have and the effort you?re willing to invest."

She's not saying, to me, that all you need is hard work, but that hard work and confidence create opportunities. Surely that can only be a positive message to give young women from poor backgrounds?

And the outcome will be that many more women from poorer backgrounds will be working harder, trying harder, getting better grades and a teeny tiny minority will get somewhere and the vast majority will spend their lives feeling like failures. Because they were set up for failure. There are a limited number of spaces at Oxford and only a small number can become top lawyers etc because there were only ever a certain number of posts available. Opportunities aren't created by everyone trying harder. There are still the same number of opportunties, just more and more people competing for them.

What, so young women from poor backgrounds should just roll over and give up? Drop out of school, pop out a few kids and live on benefits?

Maybe they won't get in to Oxford. Maybe they won't become a top lawyer. But maybe they'll work harder than they would have instead and get decent grades, go to uni where they might not have before, and become teachers, or work in finance, or 1001 other possibilities. And the vast majority of them won't feel like failures for not having got to the very top. They'll feel like a success for escaping from their backgrounds.

I agree with jeckadeck and mummytime - if you know the area of Chicago, where Michelle was raised, you will know that it is almost impossible to do what she has done. Social mobility just doesn't happen. And, what I love about her (well, both of them) is that, even when they began to do very well - professors at U of C, they didn't leave the area. Yes, they have a large, expensive home in a slightly more integrated area, but they still live on the Southside, not far from where Michelle started. And they were always a highly thought of family in the neighbourhood.

Last week I read that 50% of graduates are now unemployed or in low-paid employment. I don't think there are the opportunities you think there are. Plus, how is someone from a poor background ever going to afford the uni fees in the first place?

The average student debt for Ivy League universities (which both Princeton and Harvard are) is something like $17,000.

I think Michelle Obama is a brilliant role model. I can't think of anyone in the current media spotlight that I'd rather a DD aspire to.

HappyBubbleBrain, I'm FROM the piss poor background you are talking about. Couldn't be much worse, single parent family from a rough as council estate, abusive alcoholic mother, father who didn't even recognise my name when I tracked him down. I also know the reality of graduate employment levels because I'm currently waiting on my results.

However, despite being from one of the roughest parts of town, I had multiple job offers with the top companies in the industry. I was getting offers where the typical students weren't, and I think in some ways it's because of my background, not in spite of it. I ended up not going to Oxford (very long story and not the fault of Oxford!) and have worked full time to support myself the whole way through my degree. If I'd been from a wealthy family I wouldn't have had to do this. BUT, several of my interviewers told me that this gave me a huge edge, it meant I had something different and fresh to say in interviews.

I know how many opportunities there are and aren't. But I don't think we should just give up on our poor young women because the world is competitive.

Uni fees are a red herring really - if you're motivated they won't stop you.

That's the thing though - some people just aren't motivated. But Michelle Obama (like many other women) was, and continues to be. Which is what makes her a good role model.

Oh definitely Grockle - there are plenty in my own family who see the tiniest amount of effort as an insurmountable barrier to improving their lives. There isn't a lot you can do sometimes.

happy - I believe there are around 35-40% of privately educated students at Oxbridge. Which means , given that only 7% of the total schools population are in private schools, they are extremely over represented.

It's also woorth noting that of the state schooled students, grammar schooled students are extremely over represented.

However, one of the main reasons for this is that insufficient students from comprehensives apply in the first place.
Then there is the issue of unsuitable A level choices (something independent schools and G schools are all over).
Then there is the reading around the subject (many independent and G school students will have had teachers helping them with their choice of reading matter)
Then there is the interview ...you see where I'm going.

That said, every year bright kids from the worst schools do get in. Kids who ave had no help with reading matter and interviews etc. It can be done.

Sorry Scotsbirl, I'm obviously not feeling very positive or optimistic today. Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder. Growing up I was always told that if I got a degree it would open so many doors, that the degree was the key and I'd be in the top 5%, have a good career etc. Not true for me, nor for the other 50% of graduates, obviously. I think I was given false hope.

Well done to you for escaping your background. It sounds like it actually helped in your case and maybe made you more determined. I still think you are very much the exception rather than the norm though.

Smallwhitecat, I agree - we need leaders, not just leader's wives. Michelle Obama was very well respected as a strong, independent woman in her own right before Obama was elected. Now she seem's have become 'the President's wife'

Perhaps though, with the security detail she will now need, continuing inthe leagl profession just wasn't viable.

Perhaps with the amount of travelling her husband will have to do she decided se'd rather travel with him.

After all it's only for two terms max...