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.

Max - most of us agree about that.

Easy to understand!

Cue lots of Oxford-type scoffing. Luckily I'm off out now so don't have to get into that particular argument...

Milliways, your DD will be fine! Hope she is having fun too.

nightbynight, that is not correct about arts subjects. It is a common misconception.

I didn't struggle to understand the first year nat sci. courses, although I don't have science A levels. So I could say science is 'easy', although I am an arts student.

I doubt, to be honest, that you would be able to read the texts I work with.

You could learn to do so, of course, but then, I expect I could learn parts of your subject. I would get nowhere if I simply read the extant arguments and worked out my position based on them. To do successful work in the my arts subject, you must do research and come up with original findings that are verifiable beyond reasonable doubt. I think it is great fun and I love it, so I don't like to think it is 'hard work', but it is rigorous.

Pooh. I read lit crit for light entertainment. Bet you don't read control theory!

LRD, I have studied both arts and sciences, so I know what I am talking about.

Believe me, what you consider rigorous, is the level that the most incompetent engineer must reach when s/he is building a product, otherwise it simply wont get to market.

Could I ask what lit crit? (Sorry, I am interrogating you, but it's so rare to have this discussion in a calm context!)

I don't read control theory, sorry. I do read psychology (soft science, often annoyingly so), and I read about relativity and pure maths. My brother is a pure mathematician so he often tries to explain to us about his work, although I have to say he admits I don't understand it any better than his first-year students.

Haven't read the whole thread but surely you are not being unreasonable?

The way I see it, we want the best people in every job! We want doctors with the best qualifications from the best medical universities, engineers from the best engineering colleges, musicians from the best music colleges, chefs from the best catering colleges etc. etc. etc.

Surely the best politicians will come from the universities with the best academic & political background? If that happens to be Oxbridge why should anyone have any reason to complain?

night, I cross-posted with you.

I really do not think you are right here. I know some (incompetent) engineers. My dad is metallurgist with a PhD who is well respected in his field. He can't follow my subject, and when he tries to discuss it with me, his arguments are very, very, basic.

lit crit = literary criticism

Is there such a thing as a "simple intelligence test"?

ladylush, what are you replying to?

fallenmadonna - no, there isn't. I'm sure there's not, as different 'simple' intelligence tests on me differ by nearly 70 points!

FM -the civil service test is about 10 separate tests, which fall roughly into the categories of logic and ability with words.

LRD, I guess this argument can go on all night! My time on an arts course was like gorging myself with sweets, I loved it and never found it hard work.

I consider myself to be still learning about literature, so although I hazard arguments, I am perfectly prepared for them to be shot down in flames. :-)

nighbynight you have me seriously nosy curious now - you were an engineer? Which year/college? It sounds as though we may have had some tutors in common

"simple" as opposed to the assessment 2 days that follows the civil service test, btw.

Ah, so that's their definition of intelligence then. No non-verbal reasoning or similar?

Or is it mathematical logic?

I cant CAT you stealth, as my subscription has run out, and I dont have a UK style bank card to renew it.

(Am off to bed, as have a heavy cold, head is spinning and busy day tomorrow.)

You're right nightby. And I think it's a discussion that can't really come to a conclusion, it just rumbles on.

I love my subject precisely because it is so much fun. Parts are annoying of course, but mostly I enjoy it. I do agree that arts subjects are often really good fun.

The thing is though, you seem to think that putting forward an uninformed argument is somehow acceptable in arts as it is not in sciences. This is a fallacy. If you studied my subject, you would not be able to read the texts. If you learnt to read them, you would need to learn about the context in which they were written. You would need to demonstrate that your interpretation was more correct than someone else's. It would not be enough to simply look at the text, or to look at the criticism, and to make up an argument.

nighbynight - stealthsquiggle at hotmail dot co dot uk.

Well, if it's logic I think I'm ok.

Imo, it is quite easy to pick up an understanding of certain sciences. It's not hard, for example, to understand my dad's DPhil (which may suggest he was quite dim - and he is one of those working-class students we've been talking about).

Science isn't that hard to understand. Well, actually I think it's fair to say I struggle conceptually with quantum mechanics , but on the whole, it's not a massive leap to read a science paper. What's difficult is to work out what to do to be able to write the paper.

I'm a state school Oxbridge graduate.

There are lots of reasons why state school pupils are under-represented, particularly at certain colleges (my own, alumni including Michael Howard, Portillo et al was at best about 25% state when I was there, and most of those were grammars rather than the run of the mill comp).

Private schools are by and large exam factories. Certainly the good ones. My good friend went to St Pauls. Every single day of his education was geared towards exams, and getting straight As. He referred to it as an exam factory. They were also specifically tutored on entrance interviews etc. And the overwhelming presumption was every pupil would go to Oxbridge, or at a push a Russell Group uni.

Private schools from what I have seen, work on the basis that every child has Oxbridge potential, and work back from that iyswim.

Conversely, in 7 years of secondary school (state comp) I only had 1 teacher who actively encouraged me to apply to Cambridge. Most were of the view that I shouldnt aim too high My uni friends who went to comps had a very similar experience.

Have things changed in 20 years? Not from what I have seen. My son goes to the comp at the end of our road. In his speech at the start of the year, the head said he hoped a few of the new Year 7s (my sons year) might get to university. A few, from a year of 200! and not a few to Oxbridge...a few to ANY university.

Oh sorry LRD That will teach me to read the whole post.

No, don't worry ladylush! I just wasn't sure I was following.

Btw, nightby, hope you feel better soon.