Gina and Oxford PPE

[Possiblynotever]

My DD is in year 12. She is currently thinking about a History degree and her State school is (heavily) pushing her towards Oxbridge and a double honours. She is giving her best and her results are very good, so she probably will have the marks (although this is no guarantee). She chose a Maths A level and she is finding it hard - she reached an A but with a lot of sweating which in my mind is quite normal. She has decided not to do anything at Uni requiring further maths. Apparently, some of her classmates are amazing, especially those who want to apply for PPE at Oxford, which seems to be the achievement of all achievements. Those who get in are the best of the best, at least in my DD mind. Now, Gina Colandangelo gained an Oxford PPE which means she must have been bloody talented. The only thing she will ever be remembered for was snugging the Health Minister in his office.
What a waste. Why? AIBU in thinking that there is still a cohort of women who work bloody hard to get into the most difficult jobs and then just sit on their achievements? And why do they do this?

It's just that this woman does not seem to have done anything with her degree really, apart from working in a leading communication firm quite some time ago

Thank you so much for trivialising the achievements of those of us who work in comms. It’s nice to know our careers amount to nothing.

I know two young people who have turned down Oxbridge places in the past few years and two who have dropped out. The ones who turned down places felt they wouldn’t fit in. The ones who dropped out were deeply unhappy. All northern.

Do you just not really understand corporate / advisory roles OP?

Doing ppe oxford is the 'achievement of all achievements', and its not that hard

Well, that is what my DD says. Her highly politically charged friends seem to think that they will be able to enter politics and change the world only by gaining a PPE degree

Yes, that’s a common feature of PPEists at Oxford 🤣🤣🤣 Most of them don’t, of course. Or they change it for the worse.

@Moonlaserbearwolf

Theresa May was a Geographer - Oxford of course - but Geography is pretty lowly as Oxford degrees go. I can say that with some authority as the proud holder of a first in Oxford colouring in. Do you know how many politicians didn’t read PPE at Oxford OP?! Clearly not.

You are right I do not. And I do not know anyone who went to Oxford, only the politicians on the telly/ newspapers. It seems that most of them have gone to Eton/ Oxford...

I knew someone who went on to have an, erm, notable career in politics. He did Anthropology.

Don't a lot of women do this? Most of the women in my family, (myself included) and many friends have degrees, various qualifications and experience they don't currently utilise as they prefer a work/life balance?

A lot of politicians went elsewhere. Manchester, UCL, Hull, Sheffield.

She was director of a comms firm then director at her husband’s firm. Her job with MH was not I think full time either. In my eyes she has an excellent career.

@HopeClearwater

Well, that is what my DD says. Her highly politically charged friends seem to think that they will be able to enter politics and change the world only by gaining a PPE degree

Yes, that’s a common feature of PPEists at Oxford 🤣🤣🤣 Most of them don’t, of course. Or they change it for the worse.

Exactly! Not a good advertisement for this prestigious course when those who do enter politics after receiving this degree proceed to fuck up the economy - is how to do that an elective or mandatory module?!

It's just that this woman does not seem to have done anything with her degree really, apart from working in a leading communication firm quite some time ago

The good news is that you don't HAVE to do anything with the degree you get, even if it is PPE from Oxford. I have a first from Cambridge and spent 9 happy years as a SAHM perfecting my baking skills, helping out with the PTA and generally having a lovely time. It doesn't mean my degree was a waste of time- it has given my choices, which are more valuable than anything.

Clever women in adjacent professions don’t often become MPs because it’s very badly paid. Politics also has very inflexible and unsociable hours.

Posted too soon. Gina earns loads for very little. I definitely aspire to that definition of career success.

@TableFlowerss

Not denying that Oxbridge generally have a privileged intake but it hasn't been majority private-school-educated in 20 years. It used to be majority private-school-educated until around 2000.

Right now, of UK domiciled students, most either went to comprehensives or grammar schools. "Only" around 37% went to private schools.

With that said, 75% of the kids who go to Oxford come from households making over £40,000 a year. The median UK household income is around £29,900 so Oxbridge intake is definitely much wealthier than the UK average.

I know I'm probably defending Oxford far too much on this thread but this is a harsh reality of life. It doesn't matter what you know, it matters who you know. Privileged people will remain privileged - society in general has very low levels of social mobility.

My parents are Doctors so I've definitely benefited from a system that favours wealthier people. Heck, would I be defending Oxford if I was someone coming from an industrial estate in Workington? Probably not.

@DarkMatter731 only 7% of UK children are privately educated. You know full well yeah the Oxbridge intake disproportionately favours the privately educated. If you want to defend the indefensible fine. The system, as it is suits people like you and it’s in your interest to keep the status quo. Please don’t insult our intelligence by trying to dress it up as fair.

[quote Jahebejrjr]@DarkMatter731 only 7% of UK children are privately educated. You know full well yeah the Oxbridge intake disproportionately favours the privately educated. If you want to defend the indefensible fine. The system, as it is suits people like you and it’s in your interest to keep the status quo. Please don’t insult our intelligence by trying to dress it up as fair.[/quote]
Almost 20% at 6th form level.

And I think you meant to say a council estate, not industrial estate. What do I know though?

If that’s true, 20% is still less than 37% the last time i checked.

Yes it is less. But that 20% is going to have a lot of very highly academic kids with top grades. Unpalatable maybe, but a fact.

Perhaps they are only highly academic because of the expensive education they’ve benefited from?

[quote DarkMatter731]@TableFlowerss

Not denying that Oxbridge generally have a privileged intake but it hasn't been majority private-school-educated in 20 years. It used to be majority private-school-educated until around 2000.

Right now, of UK domiciled students, most either went to comprehensives or grammar schools. "Only" around 37% went to private schools.

With that said, 75% of the kids who go to Oxford come from households making over £40,000 a year. The median UK household income is around £29,900 so Oxbridge intake is definitely much wealthier than the UK average.

I know I'm probably defending Oxford far too much on this thread but this is a harsh reality of life. It doesn't matter what you know, it matters who you know. Privileged people will remain privileged - society in general has very low levels of social mobility.

My parents are Doctors so I've definitely benefited from a system that favours wealthier people. Heck, would I be defending Oxford if I was someone coming from an industrial estate in Workington? Probably not.[/quote]
Brilliant post 👏👏

I completely respect what you’re saying. I certainly agree with the vast majority of it.

I have the upmost respect for doctors, more so than any other profession. To me, the are the epitome of intelligence. An MP? Pahhhhh, a doctor is a far more respectable profession!

Actually, what you assert here is not a fact @Bryonyshcmyony; it’s your personal belief. If you have any facts about the achievements of the 20% of sixth formers who are privately educated, please share!

@Jahebejrjr

In no way am I saying the system is fair.

It isn't fair. The system isn't fair.

But that mirrors society as well.

I work at a banking firm. Pretty much everyone in a client-facing role comes from the same background even before you look at the universities we went to.

First year analysts straight out of university make around £80,000 a year (base + bonus). But that quickly climbs up to around £220,000+ a year by the time you're 25. Is it fair that those jobs exist while most people in the country will never even be given the opportunity to access them?

It's absolutely not fair. I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that life is fair. University admissions aren't fair, the job market isn't fair, and outcomes aren't fair.

But how much can Oxford do about the situation? From their perspective, they're trying hard but you can't fix a problem that starts from the moment someone is born.

Our lives are largely determined when we're born.

@Jahebejrjr

Perhaps they are only highly academic because of the expensive education they’ve benefited from?

And I completely agree with this.

The top unis can decide that that A is the only grade they will consider, as oppose to a mixture of A’s and A’s.

These finite differences in grades are arguably down to the elite educational establishments and private schooling….

This is where those that attended private schools absolutely have the advantage.