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.

Poosh, the problem is that you're completely misrepresenting the position of those opposed to private schools. And the nature of private schools. eg,

"People are against private schools because it is full of high income families and highly academic children"

Really? Highly academic children. All private schools. OK.

You'd think someone who spends so much time on private school threads might have understood the reasons why people object to them. Oh well.

"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"

:o I just love it when MNetters make sweeping comments without anything to back it up AND when others question those comments they turn it around and demand proof that shows that the original sweeping statement is not incorrect

I don't question the fact that a degree from Thames Valley is an inferior product to that of an Oxbridge degree. I am questioning your assertion that an Oxbridge degree is superior to a degree from Bristol or Durham (your examples).

You offer nothing to back up your assertion beyond the fact that you say so. Now you are demanding that I prove that your generalisation is not true????

At what point do you think parity emerges then, Poosh?

I just love it when MNetters make sweeping comments without anything to back it up AND when others question those comments they turn it around and demand proof that shows that the original sweeping statement is not incorrect

Well, I'd kind of got the impression that was your preferred MO to be honest, yes.

Boulevard - Yes, some private school kids are from 'ordinary' families and are only there because of generous scholarships or bursaries. Yes, some are there because both parents work and are maxing out their income. Yes, some private schools are not selective or academic.

But I was summarising the arguments of some posters, not all of them. I can see that it is going to be another one of those days.

You should have made it clear your summary was selective, then!
Something like 'to summarise the bits I've made up and thought of and haven't changed my mind about......' would probably meet the case.

"At what point do you think parity emerges then, Poosh?"

In your grave :)

It is an unequal world. Which postcode you live in, who you have for parents, what your parents do, which university you go to etc all stops parity from emerging.

I simply choose not to pick on any particular thing and to rally against just that one thing, which is what some people seem to do

No Poosh you were the one who used Bristol as a comparison in the first instance. I added Durham so as to generalise the argument a bit more.

With respect, I did not merely state an opinion, unlike you. I made the point that the students attending Oxford and Cambridge have already pipped many of those going to Bristol and Durham on academic merit, with droves of those who didn't get offered places going to the latter as a second choice instead. That distinguishes those students at the outset. These students then get the benefit of a particular and very intense university education which Bristol and Durham can't offer. At the degree awarding stage there's also a huge amount of rigour in marking, and you don't get a 2.1 without a very good show in the nine (or whatever) papers. There was an interesting article in the Telegraph a few days ago (or the Guardian perhaps, I forget) quoting Oxford dons who were commenting on the recent rash of private school parents who thought they could continue their habit of buying exam re-marks, even at university level. I'm glad to say the Oxford dons were vocal in saying that they kicked almost every single one of these parents into touch. Quite right too

I meant parity between firsts from different universities, sorry.

Interesting article, Yellowtip.
"Students' pushy parents must cut the umbilical cord, say Oxford dons, as demands for exam remarks soar"

Oxford and Cambridge and whichever institution Poosh graced, presumably.

"I made the point that the students attending Oxford and Cambridge have already pipped many of those going to Bristol and Durham on academic merit, with droves of those who didn't get offered places going to the latter as a second choice instead"

It has often been discussed both here and in the Real World that degrees like medicine are so competitive that straight A* alone isn't going to get you in because most of the applicants will be offering that. And that is why it is recommended that students pack their CV with stuff like volunteer work or internships. Then there is the interview. Some students interview better than others. Some draft a better personal statement than others.

So it is naive of you to say that those who attend Oxford and Cambridge have already pipped others based on academic merit.

"I meant parity between firsts from different universities"

I don't understand the question. I mean, its static so I don't see how the emerging parity question fits in.

University has changed so much in the last twenty years. There is no doult that some degrees are a joke.

I have just completed a level 2 city and guild course in web design. It is supposely GCSE level. However our tutor told me that our class were more able and produced better work than students on the foundation degree course in Web development. I feel the governant would be better encouraging people to do city and guilds courses than mickey mouse degrees.

I think a lot depends on subject as well. For example I think a physics degree is probably harder than a lot of subjects. How would the difficulty of a degree in medicine from Imperial College compare with the difficultly of a history degree from Cambridge. Certainly the degree in medicine is more useful.

People who are sucessful in life are those with get up and go. The likes of Richard Branson did not go to uni, yet alone Oxbridge. I am sure that an Oxbridge degree and good A-levels opens doors, but there is more to life than academics. Even a double first from Oxbridge does not guarentee you a good career and a happy life.

You were querying the idea that a first from Cambridge is better than a first from Durham, though you say you do understand that a first from Cambridge is better than a first from Thames Valley.

Which universities' firsts do you think are the same? (Ie., at what point do you think there is parity between firsts?) Oxford, Cambridge and RG?

No Poosh it's hopelessly naive of you to believe that the tutors don't select those they believe are the cleverest even if there are hard cases every year and a very small number may turn on personality etc.

I think the tutors can be given credit for managing to see through action packed PSs and interview nerves. Don't underestimate these tutors.

Only a tiny part of the Medicine interviews at Oxford and Cambridge focus on work experience done. The interviews are overwhelmingly academic, with hideous graphs and concepts put before students with no opportunity to cop out and not follow through. A student won't get a place for Medicine, however great his tally of A*s (and BMAT), unless he can fight his corner through each of the interviews. You don't get a place on the back of a sexy placement. that's for sure.

"The likes of Richard Branson did not go to uni"

True, but how many Richard Brandon-likes are there out there and how many non-grads are out there in dead end, low income jobs?

There are plenty of graduates in dead end jobs. There are many sucessful non graduates. For example a corgi gas engineer can earn a good living. There are some sucessful builders and plumbers who do well in life. There are people who have trained to become accounting technicians and later on gone to chartered accountancy training.

Its a myth to think that university is the only way to get a good career.

www.notgoingtouni.co.uk/

Also you can always change your mind in life. Sometimes better to take a gap year out and really think what you want to do than go to uni to please your parents.

"You were querying the idea that a first from Cambridge is better than a first from Durham"

Wrong again. I accept that I am not in a position to compare the two side by side. Silvertip was the one claiming that its better. I was merely asking her to back up her statement.

"Which universities' firsts do you think are the same?"

I know that a Mercedes is better than a Kia but I do not presume to know whether a BMW is better than a Mercedes. Similarly, I know that a Thames Valley degree isn't that great a product but I'm not in a position to comment on whether Bristol is better than Durham for example.

I don't have the link but I have seen studies (Newsweek?) which ranks the major universities in the world. Various factors like the amount of tutorial time, research projects, employment prospects after graduating, student feedback, assessment of course content etc all go into a computer and a ranking is produced.

Of course Oxford and Cambridge were up there but, depending on the course, they were not always top of the list for UK institutions.

That was why I thought it was 'naive' of Yellowtip to issue a sweeping statement about the superiority of Oxford and Cambridge.

Why do I get the impression that if her high achieving DCs were off to Durham she would be bristling at the suggestion that Durham was an inferior product :o :o

So you want her to back it up, but you're not querying it?

"Its a myth to think that university is the only way to get a good career"

I am not saying that it is the only way. I'm just saying that it is the path of least resistance.

"So you want her to back it up, but you're not querying it?"

Yes.

I know Durham exceptionally well and would be very happy indeed for any of my DC to go there. Very, very happy in fact, I love Durham. My children have not been mentioned except by you; your post is completely gratuitous. Perhaps you should ask to have it removed.

Meanwhile perhaps you could add some substance to your assertion that all degrees from each RG/ ex-1994 upwards are equal. I'm not in the least naive, possibly just rather more worldly than you.

Well, why don't you pop off and find the back up for everything you've said, and by the time you've done that I expect she will have some documentary evidence for you?

I have backed it up TOSN, broadly. I wouldn't hang too much on these various lists. All decent employers should know the calibre of different degrees including the differences between different institutions at different times and between different subjects.