Is it hypocrital to be against private schools as a matter of principle and be in favour of Oxbridge?

[PooshTun]

In the last few weeks there have been various threads about private education and a number of posters turned up to say that they were against private education because it was socially unfair and because it lacked diversity.

Fair enough but some posters then go on to say that the went to a comp and that didn't stop them from going onto Oxbridge while others go on about how they aspire for DC to go to Oxbridge.

Am I the only one that thinks that this smacks of hypocrisy? It is generally acknowledged that Oxbridge favours the middle classes especially those from a GS and private/public school background. Some companies that I know of exclusively recruit their fast track graduates from Oxbridge. Just look at our political leaders and where they went.

Oxbridge is one of the most exclusive and privileged clubs around. How can you be against sending to your DC to the indie down the road while being an Oxbridge graduate yourself or while aspiring for DC to gain entry to Oxbridge?

Private school entry is based on money while Oxbridge is based on merit, I hear you say. Tell that to the working class kids that don't get in despite having great grades.

Private school kids are all full of well off kids whereas Oxbridge has a diversified student base I hear you say. The place is full of mega rich kids from the UK and overseas. Not to mention the private school kids you are so keen to avoid.

"Yes, my perspective is what I was giving. Because you asked what people thought the difference was. So I gave you my perspective. Do you see, or would you like a brick to bang your head with some more?"

Yes please to the brick. I was trying to get you to question your perspective as opposed to getting you to recycle it.

"In someways I find it stupid to refer to two SEPERATE universities as Oxbridge. Both universities offer a wide range of courses and all these courses have different admission tutors"

It is shorthand and IMO I find it stupid to complain about something that has no relevance to the point. I mean, you don't find me pointing out your spelling mistakes. Why? Because it is not relevant to the point.

Sorry, havent read the whole thread, only the last few posts, but since you started the thread Poosh please could you tell us what your first hand experience of Oxford and Cambridge is?

The fact that you work in IT in a City firm which recruits Oxbridge graduates doesn't in any sense give you a proper perspective of Oxbridge graduates. Obviously.

And yes, a First from Oxford and Cambridge is certainly superior to a First from Bristol (or Durham or anywhere else equivalent), even though achieving the latter is obviously extremely good. Same as a 2.1 from Oxford being superior to a Bristol 2.1.

PooshTun, if you're finding people don't get what you're saying, rather than banging your head off the wall, you should consider two possibilities: a) you're not explaining very well or; b) your point is bollocks.

I offer no suggestion as to which of these could be the answer.

Many people support meritocracy. Not so many in favour of plutocracy.

I suppose OP I do find it odd that parents who have been adamant that their DC must be educated with all types of people at school level decide that at tertiary level it doesn't matter a jot .

In fact the more elite and selective the better at tertiary level. Apparently.

"PooshTun, if you're finding people don't get what you're saying, rather than banging your head off the wall, you should consider two possibilities: a) you're not explaining very well or; b) your point is bollocks."

or c) some people are demonstrating first hand the shortcomings of a comp education

word there's a false premise there since there are in fact all types of people at Oxford and Cambridge these days, increasingly so.

I think argument could usefully be inverted. Perhaps those nervous of their DC fraternising with all types of people and sending them to independent precisely for that reason should steer clear of Oxford and Cambridge and send them to a safer (and less intellectually taxing) haven elsewhere. Plenty of less socially mixed unis to choose from.

I think you yourself demonstrate admirably the shortcomings of a 2.2 though Poosh.

"I suppose OP I do find it odd that parents who have been adamant that their DC must be educated with all types of people at school level decide that at tertiary level it doesn't matter a jot".

Finally someone gets my point. Here, have a

Oh come now yellow Oxbridge itself fully accepts that middle class students are over represented. That's why it has to do so much outreach work. It has much work to do by its own admisiion.

The majority of students come from private schools and grammar schools.

There are some disadvantaged areas of the UK where the schools send no or almost no pupils to Oxbridge.

How about addressing the false premise though Poosh?

"And yes, a First from Oxford and Cambridge is certainly superior to a First from Bristol (or Durham or anywhere else equivalent), even though achieving the latter is obviously extremely good. Same as a 2.1 from Oxford being superior to a Bristol 2.1."

"I think you yourself demonstrate admirably the shortcomings of a 2.2 though"

And people accuse me of being elitist and snobbish :o Teach me master, I want to learn to be as elitist and snobbish as you.

I feel sorry for all the graduates from Camford. No-one ever thinks of them

word, 'over-represented' is not in any way the same thing as claiming that the two universities have no social mix. And 'the majority' is not in any way the same as 'the overwhelming majority'. The fact that the two universities aren't complacent doesn't mean that diversity doesn't exist, however much skewed statistics and slack journalism would like to infer that it doesn't exist. It does.

Word I don't think the 'apparent-ness' of that comment works unless you can say that all state school parents are definitely in favour of their children going to Oxford or Cambridge and will be trying very hard to get them there, though.

I have reservations about both - I'm not mad keen on the nudge-and-a-wink thing, I do know dp's Cambridge desmond has impressed more people and opened more doors than my non-Oxbridge first ever will for me, and I'm in two minds about that being a good thing. He himself doesn't think it's merited, as he knows he didn't do a lot when he was there and it doesn't necessarily deserve the response it sometimes get.

As far as the 'more elite the better' line goes - again, that would only really hold water if said parents wanted Oxford and Cambridge to remain largely white and male and posh, and I don't think they do.

All I would say is that a state education needn't be, and isn't, a barrier to going there as an adult if that is what you want to do. And if at 18 my dd decides she wants to, and they let her in, that will be her and their choice.

Ah you, always with the sympathy for the underdog, Fiofio. [affectionate ]

poosh see my post above, and don't be silly - it is most certainly true that a first from Oxford or Cambridge will do more for you than one from somewhere else. I didn't say I thought it should be so, but it is.

On another level, I know that students who get firsts where I teach, wouldn't get them where I studied. A degree classification isn't like a GCSE or A level which is standardised, it is institute-specific to a very large extent.

Camford ( :) @FioFio) have acknowledged that their students are disproportionately drawn from the middle classes and that is why, as word has pointed out, they have put in place outreach programs.

If there wasn't a problem then Camford wouldn't be putting in place a solution. Even I with my 2.2 can figure that one out.

"And yes, a First from Oxford and Cambridge is certainly superior to a First from Bristol (or Durham or anywhere else equivalent), even though achieving the latter is obviously extremely good. Same as a 2.1 from Oxford being superior to a Bristol 2.1."

How do people know this? It seems to be an article of faith, but where is the evidence? Is this belief based on how these institutions are now, or historical reputation? Does it apply across the board, or only to certain subjects?

Of course we all know that rich kids are over-represented at Oxbridge, but that's not the point. People can and do get there on merit alone, and the ability to pay is not part of the selection process.

I went to Cambridge from my local comp, and there were plenty of working class students who had gained admission on the basis of academic merit. Sadly, many students from poorer backgrounds are still put off from applying because of people like the OP making stupid claims that perpetuate the perception that Oxbridge isn't for the likes of them.

You might wish that Oxbridge was reserved for the wealthy and well-connected OP, but that simply isn't the case.

"it is most certainly true that a first from Oxford or Cambridge will do more for you than one from somewhere else"

I never said that was not the case. My friend's First from Oxford got him a job that made him a millionaire by 35. My other friend's red brick First got him a IT managers job at a London council so obviously his Oxford degree did more for him.

However, I was challenging Yellow's assertion that Camford degrees are superior to other RG degrees.

OK Poosh but after this I really have to go. I'll state the obvious.

Oxford and Cambridge seek to recruit the most able of the very able students who apply. They then give them an exceptional education through the medium of a unique teaching method in tutorials/ supervisions.

On the whole it's the slightly less able students who go to Bristol, Durham etc. And these are are then taught in much larger class settings, without the rigour that the individual system imposes.

It's hard to imagine that students who start the process at the top of the scale intellectually and then receive this very intense education are not going to emerge with a rather sharper mind at the end of their three or four years than those who started off rather lower down the academic pecking order and who haven't had the benefit of the Oxford and Cambridge approach.

I thought it was well accepted that the Oxford and Cambridge marking schemes require more for a First and 2.1 than unis like Bristol and Durham do. One Cambridge don discussed this recently in the Telegraph, but surely not too many people dispute the point?

Before I'm slagged off, there are bound to be honourable exceptions to each of the points I've just made.

As for the 2.2 snip: snippy, but richly deserved.

jin I don't have any issue with Oxbridge actually.

It is elite acadmeically and socially (htough trying to address this).

I just find it odd that people who have made such a song and dance about academically and socially elite education at school level, seem prepared to be so forgiving at tertiary level.

I would have thought that the comprehensive model and Oxbride could not be more diametrically opposed.

"You might wish that Oxbridge was reserved for the wealthy and well-connected OP, but that simply isn't the case."

Why does everybody have a fecking comprehension problem?

I am NOT wishing that Oxbridge was reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

Social stratification would be much simpler if the social elite co-incided with the intellectual elite, but it doesn't, nor has it ever done so.