Elitism at Oxford

[piso]

I thought I would post this, not to put people off, but rather to make them aware that Oxford isn't the bastion of egalitarianism that it claims to now be.

My Dd is in her first year at a well known Oxford college. It is an old prestigious one, that has a reputation for being particular pro state school.

In her year group, there is a clear clique of London schoolers, think St Pauls and Westminster. They tend to bother with one another only. "Do you have a place in London?" "I'm from London, smugly the middle bit" "Oh you're so South Ken"

Then there are the old Eton boys, Radley boys etc who seem to also stick to one another.

Private dining societies are still a big thing in Oxford. Whilst apparently they are open to non private school kids, you have to be invited and considered suitable. Ergo, those who come from certain families, went to certain schools.

Favourite activities are skiing and horses. Where are you going skiing this vac? Oh you don't ski? "Our family have known each other forever, we always ski together at Klosters"

DD's neighbour for example is a third generation Oxonian. She proudly caresses her signet ring when talking down to others. She said in freshers week that she'd only consider dating someone from Eton, or Harrow if she had to as she wants a husband like her dad. This girl didn't even get the entry requirements for her course, but after some negotiation got in.

My point being, far from reverse snobbery, is that there still is clearly a large group of hugely entitled people at Oxford. Being born wealthy is certainly none of their faults (nor is it a problem!). DH is from the boarding school type of family, but there seems to be a high preponderance of rich, London type who are keen on being exclusionary.

Never have I been asked in a snobbish way where I went to school, but dd has numerous times, and not in an interested way; a way to see if you are suitable for friendship.

Some friendship groups at her college this year were very much decided based on appropriate background. You get a tick if you're from London. A tick if you went to a select few schools. A tick if your parents know of one another. Another tick if you have a lodge somewhere too.

Article itself is behind a paywall but the tabloids have picked up similar stories, complaining that Oxbridge isn't elitist enough

Regardless, Maria, postgrads at Oxbridge are a lot more diverse in terms of educational background than the undergrads are.

There have been

Yes, that story was all over the papers yesterday and on Sunday. The Guardian has significant coverage and it’s not behind a paywall. TBH the Headmaster of Stowe seems to think, much in the way the parents caught up in the US Admissions scandal do, that wealth ought to buy access to anything.

Sorry, fat thumb! - there have been a few letters following that Times piece - mostly pretty much rolling their eyes at that 'woe'.

Postgrads do not hang out as a group, though - they hang out with other students. As I said elsewhere, male postgrads are very popular with female undergrads

Yes, I'm definitely rolling my eyes here!

Postgrads hang out with other postgrads Maria! Not sure what you're on about. The friends I made as an Oxbridge postgrad were both British and international. We didn't hang out with undergrads at all really. The JCR and MCR are separate.

The undergraduate and postgrad communities at US Ivy League universities are similarly distinct. The undergrads are much more homogeneous as a group, mostly privileged Americans. The graduates come from all over the world and there is much more diversity as a result.

As a postgrad who taught undergrads (not uncommon), I find your repeated claim about undergrad women chasing male postgrads to be a bit icky.

Here's a sharetoken link for the Times piece from Saturday :

Private woe over more state pupils at Oxbridge

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-woe-over-rise-of-state-pupils-at-oxbridge-0wz57wvsf?shareToken=9e1027ac9f074119c83d46da3e1b1548

Follow up piece from yesterday (In which the HMC disagrees with the headmaster from Stowe):

State school pupils ‘given boost’ in applying to Oxbridge

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-pupils-given-boost-for-oxbridge-ckj3vbzrj?shareToken=53a1d680b1e44465478e61d1830761a0

And editorial:

Marginal Disadvantage

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-private-education-marginal-disadvantage-xqnp2d8hx?shareToken=f26c627d4f89eaa0caa422c3e1adbd16

Letters (I'm not quite sure what this link gives, may include the whole lot):
The rise of state-school pupils at Oxbridge

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-clean-air-walking-routes-and-our-children-gwsscrbgr?shareToken=ee747971e161f945127539518180899a

I think that's all my sharetokens for today, there's another letter today from the head of the HMC saying he doesn't know any other head who agrees with the Stowe bloke.

The postgrads I know don’t just hang out with other postgrads. Our DCs generate a steady stream of visitors here in Paris and it’s a pretty mixed bunch with affinities that go beyond age.

Ooh thank you Errol! Will have a read. The Stowe headmaster seems both offensive and bonkers. In what universe is it a good idea to compare Oxbridge admissions and their attempts at widening access to Hitler's eugenics?! Insane.

There’s another letter today from the head of the HMC saying he doesn't know any other head who agrees with the Stowe bloke.

Anyone in their right mind is going to want to distance themselves from the crazy Nazi stuff the Stowe headmaster has been spouting.

Well, there's always someone with a different experience to the norm. Which is that postgrads don't typically hang out with undergrads, IME.

And on elitism ... I think it would be fair to say that any 'elite' DD has encountered at Cambridge is largely that of bright kids liable to put study ahead of partying, from all types of school and from various parts of the U.K. and across the world. Southern English are somewhat overrepresented (but a lot of her school friends only applied to northern and Scottish unis eg Durham, St. Andrews and Edinburgh not Oxbridge/Bristol/UCL/Imperial, some of that is simply geography). A high from selective schools (be that private or GS) ... but that's surely inevitable. If you (ok, my DH, he has a strange idea of fun) analyse the admissions private/GS/other state and take selectivity of 6th forms into account, the proportions actually aren't that way out of whack.

I cannot see many agreeing with the Stowe head.

DC seemed to been told they were coming from a position of educational advantage and with that came responsibility. In the mix was a message that the school was not concerned about ‘discrimination’ from Oxbridge. Equally that there were a number of good universities in the UK and US and elsewhere. The right course was the most important thing. No need to fixate on Oxbridge. (In practice the stand-out clever mathematicians mainly went to the US so Oxbridge was not really as big a deal as MIT or Harvard, and others saw advantage in London which provides a better step away from school.)

The real advantage of their schooling as far as I can see was a love for education and the ability to juggle a workload and explore interests. Not ‘networks’, but perhaps mine were not that interested. Within their year group were some that might fit OPs description, but they were a minority and not DC’s type so they ignored them.

In practice the stand-out clever mathematicians mainly went to the US

I'd be curious to see stats on numbers of U.K. private/state applicants to top US universities (successful an otherwise). And the costs - but that's probably a whole other thread.

Anecdotally, from chatting to parents of mainly overseas pupils at UK boarding schools, US universities are increasingly popular.

A DDs school it was roughly 25 a year, almost all to Ivy or equivalent. Her year received 8 Harvard offers, high even by the standards of top US schools.

The pattern is changing. It used to be DC with one or two American parents. Children brought up in an English educational system so University is a chance to rediscover US roots, as well as very international children. Increasingly though a British education is seen as a route to a US University for affluent and bright kids from places like China and Russia, whilst more English parents now consider the US option. Some we know because of sports, or the chance to dual major at a top level (eg music and maths) or a desire to study for a broader based liberal arts degree. One dad though was clear. No drinking till the age of 21 gave US universities a distinct advantage over UK ones.

Numbers are growing, and a lot of schools now routinely support US applicants.

But equally international demand for top UK universities is growing. Without looking at the stats I suspect the Stowe head has it wrong. Places for both private and state school kids alike may be being squeezed by increasing numbers of high quality applicants, particularly in popular subjects like sciences, engineering, law and economics. Top Universities need to recruit talented students.

The Stowe head is not so fucking clever that he knows what Godwin’s Law is.

Places for both private and state school kids alike may be being squeezed by increasing numbers of high quality applicants, particularly in popular subjects like sciences, engineering, law and economics. Top Universities need to recruit talented students.

Indeed.

There are plenty of universities in the USA that will cost $80,000 a year for 4 years. Unless it’s needs blind it’s very difficult for UK students to access scholarships and bursaries. Around 400 students go to US universities from the UK and they either go because they are super clever or super rich. Pupils from Westminster are probably both!

It is consistently over stated that we send lots to study as undergrads in the USA. It’s extremely expensive!

We don’t have much competition to get into engineering courses. Many universities lower offers! A few universities are sought after but the majority are not competitive.

goodbyestranger - I’m not sure why you think the postgrad experience is so very different from the undergrad experience. It’s not as if postgrads and undergrads don’t live together, eat together, go to the same parties and go out together;).

But, but... it's exactly as if they don't live together, eat together, go to the same parties and go out together! Taking it further, in some colleges it's only first and second years living in, so 3rd years and upwards, living out, are seen as fairly exotic, never mind postgrads. I was actually taken aback by how little the two sets of students were integrated (not that it really impacted on my experience, and almost certainly not on theirs. That said, their common room was considerably nicer than ours.)

Indeed, female undergraduates seem to find male postgraduates a lot more interesting than male undergraduates;)

Where's the boak emoji? Gross.

Anthony Wallersteiner taught me GCSE history. I was shocked to see him in the papers. I'm not sure what possessed him to disclose his views - he can't have expected anyone to receive them particularly well!

Ds graduated recently certainly thinks ( amongst his friends ) the post graduate experience is very different from undergraduate. He visits some friends who are post grad - but it is different.

The Stowe head is just

Basilisk - it may, in part, be dependent on subject. DSS1 said that 3rd year students and MPhil students attended the same recruitment events and that was a major part of socializing in his subject. I can imagine that would not always be the case. And sports are also very mixed and there is a lot of socializing there.

Basilisk it's different again for those who did undergrad at Oxford/ stayed on for postgrad and those who come in from elsewhere just for postgrad.

Actually boak is a worthy response to the female undergrad comment Hingle so I'll retract my earlier statement.

Bubbles, there are plenty of British parents shelling out over £30,000 a year for their children to go to boarding school. A child with a talent may well get a bursary or scholarship, plus work on campus, that helps bridge the gap. It is then not such a big leap. (Though obviously out of reach for many/most.) One of DDs friends is finding that he is having to work very hard. Lots of mid-terms and end of term exams and a need to keep up your GPA. There is a perception that good, not top, US universities offer a better experience than several RGs, despite the additional cost.

Engineering is hugely competitive at places like Cambridge, Imperial and UCL, and also Southampton, Lancaster, Sheffield etc.I think it is a while since your DD studied at Imperial. Demand for places has grown year on year, partly fuelled by international students, but also by increasingly hard nosed UK students wanting to do something vocational.