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.

Surely the main point is that they are all from similar backgrounds, very different from the vast majority of the people they are governing? And most of them probably have no idea of the reality of life for most people in the country - most people of David Cameron's age did not go to any university, not because they aren't clever enough but because the opportunities simply weren't there for ordinary people.

What we need is a government made up of a variety of people to represent the variety of people in the population - where are the women and the ethnic minorities (of course, co-incidently it would have been much harder for them to get into Oxbridge!).

Oxbridge clearly turns out the brightest and the best .

That would be why Prince Edward got a Cambridge degree then, despite a well-known lack of brains?

No there is nothing wrong with it. Only the point that's is not the most academically challenging A level, and that is what everyone seems to assume you need to go to Cambridge!

Agree with fiofio. Nothing wrong with going to Oxbridge and much right with it but it's neither a necessary nor a sufficienct criterion for either political greatness or general good eggery, imo.

Prince Charles too hahahaahahhaah

"best to ahve the people who have benefited from the best education in charge."

And people wonder why we have a social mobility problem in this country!

I think the point about the OEs is that they see an Oxbridge education as their birthright and spend their time there focused on the Oxford Union/JCR politics/OUSU, which are basically an extension of their school environment - and from there, they move seamlessly to the Houses of Parliaments (as working in business is still looked down on). So the top politicians (on both sides) tend to come from this very cocooned life with very little experience of real life eg, having a job or meeting anyone who isn't white, well-educated, middle/upper-class and (usually) male.

Note how many of the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet were either President of the Union or of their JCR. Off the top of my head I can think of both Milliband brothers, William Hague, Boris Johnson etc.

I've just said thius on another thread so apologies for repeating, but do politicans need to be that bright?

It's not like they're buildig the collider thingumy.

Surely what politicans need is bags of confidence, high self esteem, articulacy, empathy etc

"It is bloody hard work getting into Oxbridge, it isn't all mummy and daddy. When I was at school Oxbridge prep classes started in yr 8."

erm, not as I remember (and I went to a not-particularly-academic comp) I think having a knack for taking exams and being able to bullshit talk convincingly is what you need (or at least what was needed 20 yrs ago when the cabinet members also went to uni)

FWIW I have an Oxbridge degree, and would be rubbish at running the country. My mum has no qualifications at all, and would be excellent (she has loads of union experience, amongst other things).

Plenty of bozos in Oxbridge. Even more in the Oxford Union, where they train to become alcoholics politicians.

The cabinet is made of a handful of people. You could fill it with idiots or geniuses from any background you chose.

I'm a huge fan of Oxbridge btw - I think it does offer the best education out there. But that certainly doesn't mean that everyone takes it (by a long shot!) or that you can evaluate people's worthiness for a job by virtue of having gone there a couple of decades ago. My guess is that what they've been doing for the last 20 years or so will have a lot more bearing on how well they do their jobs.

Milibands went to comp though, I think.

I think it's actually quite worrying.

The trouble with the privately educated, oxbridge bubble, which dominates the cabinet is that it means that too small a world is unfairly represented, and its interests upheld at the expense of others.

Also, the bigger wider world is only understood intellectually rather than emotionally.

Finally, there is a real lack of experience in the cabinet. Most of them are career politicians who know nothing about industry, business, the professions, academia, the clergy or the military. That must mean poorer government because they won't have a deep understanding of any of the issues.

Mistake, I think. Broader would be better. I think this is what diversity is about. Cameron instinctively only trusts people like him.

Good post, quattro.

This is all based on the assumption that there is only one kind of intelligence and that the intelligence that gets you a First at Oxbridge is exactly the same as will make you a good leader of the nation. Imo a political leader needs all sorts of qualities- people skills, honesty, common sense, integrity, ability to think quickly under pressure but avoid knee jerk reactions- which academic exams simply do not test for. Of course, it is perfectly possible for these qualities to be combined with high academic ability. But there is no guarantee.

Holland Park comp - it doesn't bear much resemblance to the majority of comps in the UK...

I agree with PP - I went to Oxford and cannot manage the laundry, much less run a government department.

Don't know to be honest Takver. For us it was more public speaking practice, debating, running extra-curricular activities, extra academic lessons, Duke of Edinburgh, interview practise, extended writing, random sports like fencing etc. They tended to be what was built into the programme as against just tests and exams. But that isn't to say that any of those things (bar public speaking and debating I guess) would necessarily a good Prime Minister make.

I'm not arguing that they are the be all and end all, merely that those who go shouldn;t be dismissed as only having got there because of mummy and daddy (I didn't apply in the end for personal reasons so no axe to grind here)...that to me seems unfair and typical reverse snobbery.

wikipedia says they went to Haverstock Comprehensive school in Chalk Farm.

I stand corrected!

Excellent post Quat. And I think it cuts all ways in politics.
I was, until recently, involved with the Labour party and so many MPs are parachuted into safe ( often northern) seats where they have no ties ir understanding of the local working class community.

I was askd at one point if I would stand - am lovely Labour poster girl but a. woulkd be a rotten MP and b. have no interest.

Hmm MrsC2010 -
All I did was find colleges that didn't ask for S levels & didn't want further maths if you were planning to study economics (as my school didn't offer either) . . .
No public speaking, fencing, Duke of Ed etc . . . about the only 'extra' I had apart from my 3 A levels was touch typing and shorthand

my experience of getting into Oxford, like Takver, from a bog standard comp, was that it wasn't hard (the school didn't do prep or anything), it was just flukey. You did a few exams, wiffled and argued in a few interviews, and if those particular tutors happened to like you, you got in. Fencing lessons not necessary.

But it is a very coccooned existence, the Oxbridge university experience, and I don't like seeing so many Oxbridge graduates in the cabinet. It's too easy to come through that route and have absolutely no idea about how 90% of the population lives.

Spot on, Quattro.