But still - why do we believe that 'cultural capital' and being well-versed in classical literature/the arts etc is so much more important than other kinds of knowledge and skills? I know that in the context of Oxbridge intellectual prowess obviously has to be at the forefront, but why must it go hand in hand with this very narrow definition of what is considered worthwhile knowledge and I don't think questioning that at least amounts to 'dumbing down.' Moreover, if students are reading subjects like English etc they will have to read widely and read around the texts they are specifically studying and if they are doing that thoroughly, as the course progresses they would presumably have increased their 'cultural capital' sufficiently to do well.
I wanted to reply to this because I think the idea of cultural capital is misunderstood by lots of people. It’s not the social window-dressing of having been to lots of plays and museums and so on that’s the thing that is valued when people talk about cultural capital. It’s the fact that having been exposed to more cultural diversity and experiences allows you to make more connections between things; and develop a sense of both the big picture of history, culture, thought etc., and also examples of specific cultural artefacts as well. Calling it “cultural capital” is really a proxy for something more like material to think with.
In arts, humanities and social science disciplines, part of the intellectual discipline is in that big picture thinking - the networks of influences, philosophies and connections that generate ideas and arguments about the “big questions” of the discipline. And part of the discipline is in the detail - the evidence for those big ideas. You need both the big picture and the detail in order to advance an argument, and then back it up with evidence. The more you add to your knowledge, the more you can generate those ideas, and understand the big picture. “Cultural capital” isn’t valued just as some kind of shibboleth or finishing-school polish. It’s really a proxy for saying “knowledge about”.
If you’ve been exposed to lots of different ideas, plays, music and art, then you can start to get a sense of, for example: what is characteristic about seventeenth century culture compared to eighteenth century culture? What styles are fashionable in later twentieth century art compared to early twentieth century art, and why? What are the key features of baroque culture as opposed to classical culture? What are the connections between Shakespeare and Greek drama? Obviously, the more you know about, the easier it becomes for you to start interrogating those questions. People with the talent for these disciplines don’t be necessarily need tons of material to start doing this, but they do need some; and the school and exam system alone doesn’t really provide that much of it any more. Even A-level English only requires one Shakespeare play these days. A-level languages no longer require a significant literature component (I had to do Maupassant, Flaubert, Francoise Sagan and Zola’s Germinal (one of the weightiest French novels ever!) for my French A-level; my niece has read one slim YA French novel for hers). State schools no longer expose students to significant amounts of cultural history (and, of course, some never did). But our wider culture used to at least have some sense that particular poets, artists, writers, composers and so on were important to know about: now, despite much easier access to art and culture of all kinds, many kids just aren’t encouraged to explore what is now thought of as “elite” culture rather than our shared cultural heritage.
These things aren’t important just for social showing off: they’re the material that you begin to develop your intellectual skills with. I’m not romanticising the past, here: there has always been a sharp social divide between those with access to “cultural capital” and those without. But the school curriculum and educational values of postwar culture did actually value the idea of education for its own sake, and art, music, languages, history etc. as an important part of life. Now, much of that consensus has been replaced by valuing only financial capital as a form of success. (No doubt that’s been massively accelerated by tuition fees, the commercialism of everyday life, and so on.) But it’s really notable that you can’t actually easily any more develop the skills required for many traditional academic humanities disciplines just through the school curriculum and popular culture. It doesn’t any longer provide you with a deep sense of what the connections and ideas are that are relevant.
STEM subjects can simply take students with the highest marks in their subjects who can answer science and maths problems; but humanities disciplines are going to be asking applicants things like: Do states create nations, or nations states? Why might Shakespeare refer to a mixture of Christian and Classical gods in some of his plays? Does the geography of Greece have any relationship to why Western philosophy first developed there, and if so, why? Why do you think Surrealist art developed at the time it did? Is studying history a social good, and why? Should law aim to improve life for the population as a whole? What are the connections you perceive between mathematics and art?
And applicants who can think in both broad and deep terms about questions like that are the ones Oxbridge is looking for. They don’t need loads of preparation. But they do need some, and some material to think with. State school applicants can do a lot by just reading around their subject, watching some plays on TV, going to our excellent free art galleries in any part of the country, etc. But it’s not unusual to find applicants who don’t do any reading outside of their school subjects at all. This doesn’t mean they can’t show the skills required to get in; but it makes it a lot more difficult.
Finally, though, most of our applicants and offers are from state schools: so we clearly are able to find good candidates. The numbers and the calibre of these are really declining overall, though, both from state and private sectors, as the education system pushes for STEM subjects above all. Talented kids who could be doing languages, history of art or Classics are being redirected to economics, sciences, business or computing (even if they aren’t really that good at them). But the jury is still out on whether those subjects actually do lead to better jobs and more money. Most STEM grads don’t go into STEM jobs, after all.