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.

I don't object to academic elitism per se, wordfactory - I support setting within the comprehensive system for example. However, I disagree with the kind of elitism that effectively excludes some children at the age of 11, and that is so heavily dependent on socio-economic factors.

I appreciate that socio-economic factors continue to have an impact at the point of students applying to universities, but this is less of an issue by that age. Of course, more work needs to be done to ensure a level playing field, and I hope that this will continue.

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

Then why start a thread perpetuating the myth that working class kids can't get in even if they have great grades?

jin I think socio-economic factors have already played their hand way before 18 years of age.

Which is why I don't blame Oxbridge for being the way it is, and why I think their outreach programs can only achieve so much.

"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".

I'm pretty sure that most of the students who choose Oxford or Cambridge do so because of the quality of the teaching, variety of courses, facilities available to them, and not because of the people they're likely to meet there. Why do people so often focus on the 'social elite' aspect of Oxbridge rather than the academic elitism, which is what university education should really be about - teaching the brightest students in the most challenging way?

The argument about AAA students being rejected has always been true - I applied to Cambridge in the 1990s with 5A grades predicted (at a time when very very few people did more than 3 Alevels, many years before Laura Spence) - from a grammar school but with working class single parent background. I got rejected, and can remember with embarrassment some of the rubbishy answers I gave in my subject interview. I applied again a year later having gone away to study more, learn about new aspects of my subject, widen my knowledge and understanding, and got in. It's emphatically not just the grades that matter, but the way of thinking that they're interested in.

"Then why start a thread perpetuating the myth that working class kids can't get in even if they have great grades? "

I'll match your and I'll raise you an Are you reading the same OP as me? I'm asking because you are asking me to defend points that I am not making.

Jump - I am not passing any comments social or academic elitism. My comments are on elitism full stop. Namely that parents disprove of elitism at secondary level but seem to rejoice at the elitism at their DC's respective university.

You know, you would have had a much more valid point if you had said it was hypocritical to be opposed to grammar schools but in favour of Oxbridge. I'm unsure about that one myself. Obviously both are examples of selection by merit, so you have to believe that it matters whether selection takes place at 11, or 18. I think it probably does, but it is debatable.

Arguing that it is hypocritical to be opposed to grammar schools but in fabour of Oxbridge is, in my opinion, a non-starter, of the reasons everyone else has already pointed out. But I'll have (another) go at tackling some of your points.

You are obviously not daft enough to not realise that your parents buy you a place at private school but not at Oxford. However, you argue that Oxbridge is still similar because the rich are over represented. Unfortunately, that is undoubtedly still true (despite most dons best efforts). But it is true BECAUSE of the unfair system of private schooling which allows parents to buy a (sometimes) better education NOT because Oxbridge itself is unfair.

Similarly, you object to companies favouring Oxbridge graduates. Well, either that is because Oxbridge graduates are better (which is hardly a criticism of Oxford) or because the companies are prejudiced (again, that is their fault, not Oxford's)

Actually, I think you do have one somewhat valid point. If the main reason you don't want your children to go to private school is because you want them to experience social diversity, then maybe Oxbridge shouldn't be your first choice either. But it's not a very strong point. First, Oxbridge IS more socially diverse than private schools. Secondly, some other universities are less diverse that Oxford. Third, priorities change as children turn into students. Which brings me nicely back to my grammar school point.

If you are still banging your head, then I give up

(Oxford tutor)

jump you may be right, but is eliteism just the same no? A differnet type...but still.

If a parent says of a private school or a grammar 'we are choosing it for the quality of teaching, the wide range of subjects on offer and the facilities, not for the people we will meet there' this is often met with howls of derision.

Apparently at school level that is wrong. But at tertiary level it becomes tickety boo.

Maybe because secondary education is something that everyone has to take part in, and so trying to raise standards for everyone by mixing the brighter with the less bright is a good idea. University is not something everyone does, you are part of a self selecting group, so why not select to be in as good a group as you can?

I don't know. My dad suggested that I apply to the grammar. When it came to university he left the choice 100% up to me and had no influence over the decision.

irregular whilst parents cannot pay for a place at Oxbridge they can buy a hell of a lot of stuff that helps you get in

I'm just not sure why academic elitism is supposed to be such a bad thing once you get to the level of higher education. Then again on Saturday supposedly a vast array of anti-elitist protesters are coming to Cambridge so maybe I can ask them

Your analogy is flawed. It is not comparing like with like.

A much better comparison would be people who criticise grammar schools but are happy for their DC to go to Oxbridge. Grammar schools and Oxbridge give advantages over other state schools/universities. In both cases, ability is required to get in, not money. Money does help (moving into catchment and paying for tutors helps in getting into a grammar school, sending the child to a private or tutoring to get into a grammar school may help the DC get into Oxbridge), but they are at least in theory open to all. Private schools are simply not open to all in theory or otherwise.

Even then, the comparison of grammar school to Oxbridge is not completely perfect. I can see that it would be possible to be ok with selection at 18 but not 11 (since children develop at different rates and it is more likely to have levelled out by 18), and grammar schools are only available to children in some parts of the country.

FWIW, I come from a working class background, got a 1st from Oxford and send my DC to private school. I would be happy to send them to state schools if they were as good as the ones I went to. i think all DC should have access to great state schools. If some children don't and some children do, there is inherent unfairness even within the (non-selective) state system.

oops, cross posts with irregular. took too long to type.

OP, are you saying a first from all universities means the candidates will have reached the same level, because that is emphatically not the case - it's not snobbery at all, it's to do with how the Oxbridge system works (as explained by many)

And to complain that someone you work with got the job because of their tutor's nod and wink - maybe your bank wants to recruit the very best and therefore intelligently networks with the people who teach the best, in order to be tipped off about whom they should be wooing.

Right, the ideal of truly comprehensive education would be that all children had as many choices available at 18 as possible when they go out into the world: I would say that Oxford and Cambridge are two of those choices. A proponent of comprehensive education may well think there are some things about both those universities which aren't yet ideal, but for me the whole point is that as children it is wrong to segregate, and it's wrong to keep on bringing up generations of children who have been segregated.

I mean, what are you saying otherwise? If you are in favour of comprehensive education, the only consistent thing to do is place restrictions on your 18 year old and tell them they can only aspire so high? The vast majority of universities are elitist, to varying degrees - as are jobs, indeed, in that they set the bar and don't let you in if you're under it.

I have reservations about some aspects of Oxford and Cambridge. I obviously have no idea at this stage whether either of my children would get in if they wanted to. But I bloody won't be told that because I am against separating children by parental wealth at 8 or 11, I am being hypocritical if I want them to finish their comprehensive education and go out and take what the world has to offer!

And if they get to surprise a few people and perhaps make them re-think some of their assumptions about state schools in general and their school in particular, then that is also all to the good.

Oh good, I've won.

University courses are so varied. There is no way that you could have a comprehensive university system. Loads of money would be wasted or we would end up with doctors who can't read, yet alone do the job.

Actually which university is the best to go to depends a lot on what you want to do. For example if you want to be a doctor then going to Oxford does not give you a massive advantage over UCL. If you want to be a midwife then Oxbridge would not have a suitable course.

*You know, you would have had a much more valid point if you had said it was hypocritical to be opposed to grammar schools but in favour of Oxbridge"

My point was directed at parents who are anti private schools as opposed to those who are anti selective state education.

"Similarly, you object to companies favouring Oxbridge graduates"

Its kind of worrying to read that you are an Oxford tutor. I am hoping that, for your client's sake, you don't tutor English comprehension. I am NOT objecting to companies favouring Oxbridge graduates. I am merely making the observation that they do.

"If you are still banging your head, then I give up"

I am so please give up.

"And to complain that someone you work with got the job because of their tutor's nod and wink - maybe your bank wants to recruit the very best and therefore intelligently networks with the people who teach the best, in order to be tipped off about whom they should be wooing."

Please point to where I am complaining. I was making the point that Oxbridge graduates benefit from contacts that comes from being at Oxbridge. I was linking this to the argument that some parents use against private schools i.e. they have contacts with Oxbridge admissions.

Basically, how can one be against some private/public school pupils getting a coveted internship that is not open to state school kids while at the same time be in favour of a system where an Oxbridge graduate can get a coveted job that is not avaiable to the general student public?

"are you saying a first from all universities means the candidates will have reached the same level, because that is emphatically not the case - it's not snobbery at all, it's to do with how the Oxbridge system works (as explained by many)"

Once again, that is NOT what I am saying. Obviously a First from Thames Valley is not the same as a First from Oxbridge. I was challenging Yellowtip's assertion that an Oxbridge First is obviously superior to a First from any other RG university

To summarise the day's postings ...

People are against private schools because elitism bought with money is bad. On the other hand, the elitism at Oxbridge comes from hardwork so elitism in that respect is OK.

People are against private schools because it is full of high income families and highly academic children. People prefer their children to mix with a more economically and socially diverse cohort where there is a mixture of abilities. On the other hand, Oxbridge is only 40% populated with the people you would want to avoid at secondary level so that it ok. The remaining 60% will naturally be very academic but, at this stage, wanting your kids to mix with people of varying abilities is no longer a plus point.

Well, you have convinced me. It is not hypocritical to be anti private school and pro Oxbridge. I can't imagine why I started the day with that thought.

I know some of your don't get irony so

A lot of students at Oxford do voluntary work, either going to under-represented schools, or helping disadvantage people. In Oxford that has meant working with kids in the less desirable parts of Oxford.

Students are also adults.
However if anyone assumes an Oxbridge degree is necessarily better than a non-Oxbridge one, or that an Oxbridge first is better than a first from anywhere else, then they are mistaken. Which some employers are, in only looking at Oxbridge. Although in most cases are ally determined and highly motivated student can get themselves considered despite this prejudice.

Much as I love Poosh's 'summaries'.... here's another.

Poosh thought of a thing and asked what people thought. When they told her she didn't always understand, and she told them not to post from their own perspective. She was unable to make anyone understand her 'points' and smashed her head around a lot. She ended the day as convinced of her position as she was when she started it.

On what basis do you say that mummytime? It's not good enough to simply state it as fact. Poosh also disputes the seniority of a degree from Oxford and Cambridge over the same class of degree from elsewhere without anything at all to back the statement up. When I look at CVs I look very closely at the university, the class of degree, the year the degree was taken and the subject studied. In that order. These are all relevant in judging applicants against one another. Of course this is only for shortlisting. Once one gets to the interview stage it's certainly true that a candidate with a 2.1 from Bristol or Durham might knock spots off a 2.1er from Oxford - though it's fair to say that isn't a situation I've encountered yet, but perfectly plausible. The undergraduate teaching at those two universities is entirely different from anywhere else - and the gap has widened in the past few decades, as classes at other RG/ 1994 universities have grown ever larger.
It's not enough in many competitive areas simply to have a degree from either of those two universities; some of the most sought after firms scrutinise the finest detail, including the individual marks from Prelims.