To be pleased most of the cabinet are Oxbridge graduates?

[sagerosemaryandthyme]

That's it really. Surely we want the brightest and best in the cabinet.

LittleRed - believe it or not, I knew a handful of Nazis at Oxford, and at least one of them got a first or 2:1.

I have to disagree nighbynigh re. the teaching. It's not so much the quality of the tutors (which I agree is variable) but the tutorial system which lifts Oxford teaching way upon average. Having to discuss my subject in depth for at least an hour with someone who had dedicated a large part of their life to studying that area teaches all sorts of skills far beyond mere subject matter. I'm sure it changes depending on the subject area and the faculty but often my tutorials were one-to-one - absolutely terrifying but they allowed no room for skiving.

toloalola is, imo, right about the extent to which it has been/is possible to buy your way into Oxford. (and the reasons why it happens). Although I challenged curiosity for evidence I am actually, myself, aware of one example. it was a college that was up shit creek financially. and the donation/transaction(s?) actually had the effect of creating places - which is not to defend it - just to point out the impact of this, in this particular case, was not to close the college to people unable to buy a place - it was the exact opposite. It was also not English class connections/aristocratic money - it was from abroad. The story was spread all over the papers and the guy in question sent off to retire. If Curiosity can find me one single other example I'll eat my hat. I've never seen any other evidence of it happening.

actually I remembered the story wrong. it was a honey trap - the guy was British (and fictional). and the place would depend on the kid being up to standard - capable of getting a 2:1. there was a hint it had happened before - but no hard and fast evidence.

I'd like to know what they studied as much as where they studied it I think. It would be interesting. And yes, what else they have done before becoming politicians (if anything...).

I knew two people who both did ok in A-levels (eg, my friend got A, B, C, D) but not straight As and both sets of parents had made enormous donations to the college. One of them used to joke about it - how his parents had donated so much that they were renaming a quad after his grandfather etc and about how thick he was eg, the only subject he could read for was French because he was half-French.

One other college was also notorious for mainly accepting students from abroad because it was about to go bankrupt and needed the foreign students' higher fees.

Though like I said, to the majority of students, Oxford was a cheaper place to study adn the colleges were very generous to us.

nightbynight - me too. I don't know if it is right to be more scared when very bright people hold beliefs like that, or not. I only mentioned the 2.2 because it does suggest that Griffin wasn't as good at academia as he himself seems to think.

Btw, as far as the quality of teaching goes: well, I'm biased, but I think Oxbridge sees both the highs and the lows. Some teachers are brilliant in their subject and thrilling to be with; others would have been sacked for the quality of their teaching/interaction with students if it weren't for the Oxbridge laissez-faire attitude towards regulating academics.

staranise, my tutors were rubbish and the tutorials were a waste of time.

The engineering tutor taking us for electronics, who couldnt work out the exam questions himself.
The arrogant young piece of shit who had a gold medal for research sitting on his desk, and wrote that I was having problems, while my tutorial partner seemed to understand everything - the truth was, neither of us had a clue about the subject, but she kept her mouth shut, and I asked him some questions, to try and get him to actually explain something during the hour.
The tutor at another college who was famous for making his students (men and women) cry.

They all had one thing in common - their utter self belief and arrogance, and not giving a shit about undergraduates.

LRD - yes, when I think of one guy in particular, I shudder (rich parents, ex top public school).

Oh yes, and the tutor who used to give us set books that were out of print.
And the one who despised the best ever book written about engineering mathematics, because it divided subjects up into bite-sized chunks that were easy to understand - this was for less able students, according to her.

Utterly stupid misguided ignorant first post.

That's a shame but wasn't my experience at all. Some tutors were more engaging than others but they were all quite professional, give or take large quantities of alcohol. I did arts subjects - maybe they lend themselves to tutorials better? Plus the tutors in my own college were clearly more interested in my work & grades than those at other colleges.

star, I think they do.
I had a very positive experience at another university, studying an arts subject later.

Wish I had studied an arts subject at Oxford, tbh, they are so much easier than science/engineering, and I would have been more genuinely interested. I know loads of people will kick off about that, but its true!

nightby - tutors making students cry, hmm, that sounds familiar! I had one (last year, not decades ago, believe it or not) who referred to all female students as 'pretty things'. He didn't believe we could think and made some rather, er, obvious speculations about our sex lives. I do think that anywhere but Oxbridge, he'd have been sacked or at best quietly asked not to teach.

I do think Oxbridge is great, but it's by no means perfect and I hope the politicians who went there will want to help it become better, not to shut the door on people who're deserving.

zookeeper - its not misguided. There really are more bright people at Ox/bridge than other unis.
The top 10% at any uni is pretty much the same, I think, but the next 50% or so is noticeably brighter at Ox/bridge.

LRD - god yes, that reminds me of the don who said there would never be a woman teaching his subject at his college while he was there....

And the one who was moved on from his job at college A following loads of complaints from female students, only to turn up at college B the next term.

And the tutor who, no matter how many chairs there were in the room, would sit down in the one next to you, put his hand on your knee, and start by saying "Dear boy...." (that one was men, of course)

Argh, you know I have to disagree with you nighbynight at least on the English Lit front, which demanded huge amounts of reading and 2 to 3 essays a week, and very pushy tutors.

I admit that history was not quite so demanding (I did joint) but the work was still intense. The difference wwith science I think is that the science students had to do large amounts of lab work whereas my week was free except for the tutorials - perhaps giving the impression -ahem- that I might not have been studying as hard as I do doubt was.

I should have chosen Classics - now there was an easy option...

Oh dear ... I wonder if we know the same people, or if this stuff is just depressingly widespread? In Cambridge it was known that if you wanted money out of a certain bursar for clubs and so on, you sent a pretty boy along with the request.

I wish Oxbridge would get on and get rid of these idiots, then maybe they'd have a better reputation and be able to encourage more bright people!

nighbynight - "the next 50% or so is noticeably brighter at Oxbridge".

According to whom?

I had the most gorgeous tutor and was always waiting for him to make a move but despite my shortest skirt he was boringly professional...

At least the alcoholic tutors were fun in an unpredictable way. And they were always encouraging you to smoke - do you think that sort of thing happens at all these days?

LRD - lol I think they breed in the HMCs during the long vacation....

anise - the difference is, that your stuff is easy to understand. You just have to read enough to get to know the main arguments, and form your own opinion.
In engineering, there is conceptually difficult stuff to understand.
2 tutorials + labs is the equivalent of 3 tutorials a week, and I had that for my whole course. Often, they were out of kilter, so we'd be doing a lab about something we hadnt yet studied, and have to try and understand what we were doing!

Having said that, I remember that Eng Lit was notoriously capricious, and people who were expected to get 1sts got 3rds, because of the way finals were marked.

I worry about threads like this now DD is at Cambridge.

She is the first in our family to go to ANY University, went to local Comp & worked her socks off. If she decided to go for any "public" job I would hate for people to be cross that she went to Uni where she did

I do, zookeeper.

Also, I seem to remember reading something about the pass rates for the civil service fast stream exam - average pass rate(including Oxbridge) is 15%, Oxbridge is 45%. That is a simple intelligence test.

George Osborne may have been to Oxbridge but his highest financial qualification is GCSE Maths. He also has zero experience of business. If that fills you with confidence for his role as Chancellor, then you are sadly naive OP!

dont worry Milliways, it will open more doors for her than it closes.

There's nothing wrong with the majority of the cabinet being Oxbridgers.

What's wrong is that Oxbridge (and othe Russell Group and other prest. group unis) is uneder-populated by state educated pupils.

The BBC, the judiciary, barristers, doctors, journalists - all of these professions are under-represented by state educated pupils (esp non selective state educated pupils).

What's wrong with our state schools? And if state schools are producing kids who are good enough to get in, why aren't state school pupils applying to Oxbridge and other top unis?