Cambridge University discriminates against children from private schools.

[Marchesman]

MN threads persist in claiming that Oxford and Cambridge Universities do not discriminate against private schools. Now two "academics" have written a half-baked book that argues for further reductions in the number of Oxbridge students from private schools (to 10% of the intake).

In 2023 at Cambridge 19.9% of students from comprehensive schools obtained first class degrees (23.5% from grammar schools) compared with 28.6% from private schools - evidence of unequivocal discrimination against the latter at the point of entry.

Cambridge's own analysis shows that British state-educated students already significantly underperform relative to foreign and privately educated British students. If more of the latter are excluded, the inevitable outcome will be that at these universities the best students are foreign, while the best British pupils decamp to US universities.

Is this really what the Left wants? If so why?

I agree @JumpinJellyfish
Very odd post, fawning over old money/ upper class. But so often on MN we get this 'old money good, new money bad' attitude. So strange.

Well they gave me a good chuckle on a Tuesday night! “The elite!”. I think you are a visitor from 1903!

In principle I agree with you. Snobbery, inverse or otherwise, leads to lost talent and it is not good for society. Both kinds are just as bad.

@JumpinJellyfish

"Im embarrassed for you. Diversity results in better outcomes for everyone, in every context."

What an absolute bollocks statement.

The Olympics 100 men's metre sprint final has not featured a white runner since the 1980s. Would it result in a better outcome for everyone if there was greater diversity with more white, Asian runners etc ? No it wouldn't and would just result in slower times because the black runners are simply faster.

Similarly with 90% of engineering graduates being male insisting that engineering hires be 50/50 male female would be mathematically impossible.

This. 100%

@nearlylovemyusername

I know but people come out with such bollocks statements like "Diversity results in better outcomes for everyone, in every context." like some kind of religious mantra that must be accepted and that never gets challenged even when it is clearly not true.

I forget to add 82% of Vetinary graduates are white females- should vetinary practices try to be more diverse by hiring a black male who has never studied veterinary science? If so then it's going to be tough on Mr Tiddles the cat's chances of a successful operation.

Sorry - are you saying that there shouldn’t be diversity in elite sport?

Are there any other areas where you feel that racial differences make a difference or is it just running?

How do you explain the historic underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in positions of power in this country - is it just because white people are “simply” better at these jobs? (Araminta please don’t answer this!)

By the way - the views now openly spouted by @1dayatatime are precisely those I detected in some of your early posts @nearlylovemyusername - there is a distinct flavour of elitism, classism and racism here.

Any belief that some are born to be superior thanks to some kind of “genetic advantage” is abhorrent in my view.

Im signing off now as I frankly can’t stand to read any more of this.

@JumpinJellyfish

"Any belief that some are born to be superior thanks to some kind of “genetic advantage” is abhorrent in my view."

Differences in genes exist - some are tall, some are short, some are fast some are slow, some have high IQs some low IQs.

Everyone is different meaning some people are better at certain stuff than others. This is not abhorrent, it's reality.

Or do you think that the reason there hasn't been a white mens 100 metre Olympic finalist since the 1980s is because of institutional racism against white mens runners or maybe just maybe because the black mens runners are faster?

@JumpinJellyfish

"How do you explain the historic underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in positions of power in this country - is it just because white people are “simply” better at these jobs? (Araminta please don’t answer this!)"

You seem to be looking for opportunities to take offence rather than be open to critical analysis.

For what it's worth my opinion is that because of historic racism and that many ethnic minorities have not been in this country for say the last 8 plus generations there has been less opportunity to build up the intergenerational wealth that exists in many privileged white families. This is not surprising when you consider that in 1900 less than 1% was an ethnic minority.

As a result it is always easier to reach a position of power if you are already coming from a background of positions of power.

This adversely affects poorer white working class people as much as it affects black poor working class people so it has bugger all to do with institutional racism and more to do with intergenerational advantage leading to a reduction in social mobility for those of a poorer background.

There is extensive literature confirming the heritability of intelligence and related characteristics. Whether you like it or not, people are born with genetic advantages and disadvantages, cognitive and physical, but that doesn't mean that they are fixed; and heritability studies on large groups do not predict the trajectories of individuals. The references at the end of some of the papers that various people have cited in this thread put the influence of environmental and genetic factors into perspective.

It is a cheap shot to label people in an attempt to silence them.

In any event, Epigenesis shows that genetics is actually really relevant and understanding what effect poverty/stress may have is quite important!

My noblesse oblige comments were aimed primarily at the House of Lords and persons in the judicial system which are most relevant to a functioning democracy. We absolutely need a second chamber.

The country has changed completely in the last. 50 years, but it should not result in burning all the fundamental structures down. We should work with the best of what we do have and make changes to accommodate diversity and the changing social structures, in a rationale and reasonable manner. At the moment, there is just too much noise. We should redefine our fundamental values as a country and be united in diversity, not just fighting each other.

There are plenty of elite Labour politicians, like Tony Benn and his descendants. I also doubt we have heard the last of the Blair family and its descendants.

Really uncomfortable with the idea of an “elite” and power and privilege remaining in the hands of a few members of the lucky sperm club. Csnt believe anyone is advocating that with a straight face.

Can cause resentment- look at the French Revolution that didn’t end well for the self appointed elite

@TheaBrandt - you have hereditary “professions” across society notably in medicine. So why are you so uncomfortable in let’s say diplomatic services/judiciary? Please explain in detail.
As for MPs, they are of course elected anyway.
The anti-elite rhetoric is trying to break down professions at the top level, but do you also have a problem with generations of teachers/academids and those working for the Council?

Let’s take the current PMs kids or former PMs. They are now elite whether you like it or not. Are they not allowed to go to Oxford now even if they are intrinsically clever? Or is it fine because they went to a state school but Sunak’s can’t because they went private.

Well we need a meritocracy! You can’t have
the plum jobs going to the children of those with plum jobs. Obviously.

Read your history. Look how many excellent kings had useless sons. For every good king there was a shit one.

Imagine a race to London, where some people start in Edinburgh and others start in Leeds.The winners aren't the ones with the fastest cars!

I also think there is a difference in mix of subjects taken.

“Well we need a meritocracy! You can’t have
the plum jobs going to the children of those with plum jobs. Obviously.”

That is only an issue because we have such wage inequality!

Do you really think my DC who has seen Bloomberg screen from an early age (wanted to know) and has been heavily involved in investing in their own junior ISA or my DD who has innate verbal reasoning skills and has read umpteenth cases/judgments with me, out of their own interest, is not at a massive advantage from birth? Regardless of schooling?
And a push to put them off when they have multiple nationalities is really incredibly dumb as a society worried about demographics?

Two sentences in this post contradict each other.

Yes, absolutely, we do need meritocracy. Meritocracy does mean that the plum jobs can and should go to the children of those with plum jobs if these children are the best.

I don't want to be operated by a surgeon who got all contextual offers and is a diversity hire, I want my surgeon to be the best one selected even if they are 10th generation of medical dynasty (I'd dare to say even better so).

Your understanding of meritocracy is that you get a pool of candidates, exclude children of successful parents from this pool and then select out of those who left. This is not meritocracy and this will make life for everyone much worse.

Just a thought - you do know that your pension is held by pension funds which invested it in shares of various businesses, right? Which shares would you prefer to have in your pension? of those businesses who hire predominantly for diversity and contextualisation or do blind recruitment based on candidates skills? Knowing that outcome directly affects your retirement income?

So what's wrong with these golden children going to another good university? Surely if they're that bright, they'll do well wherever?

I don't want to be operated by a surgeon who got all contextual offers and is a diversity hire

I don't think you understand the way contextual offers work, or the benefits they may confer on all of us.

My children went to a school whose students occasionally got contextual offers for Bristol. As it happens they weren't interested in Bristol so didn't apply or benefit. But others did. They're all now in their mid to late twenties, and include one doctor who we know quite well. He has gone through the same training and exams as any of his privately educated non contextual peers and would have been chucked off the course long ago if he wasn't up to scratch.
What a dreadfully ignorant and divisive comment that was about contextual offers.
Oh and that school went into special measures short after our children left. So I suspect an A gained there is every bit as good as an A star elsewhere.

10% is still more of the country than actually attend private school, right?

I went to Oxbridge from a state comp in noughties. I'm not surprised privately educated students did well, they all had a ready made social network there whereas I knew no one. Then they spent their holidays in villas etc while I worked in a meat factory. And they had career plans and inspiration from their social network.

My favourite PM is Lloyd George, brought up by a cobbler and smashed the landed gentry, founded welfare state, curbed house of lords. We could do with more like him.

@Araminta1003

My noblesse oblige comments were aimed primarily at the House of Lords and persons in the judicial system which are most relevant to a functioning democracy. We absolutely need a second chamber.

Interestingly enough, in the last years House of Lords were much more progressive than Commons and saved us (or at least tried to) from many disasters voted by elected MPs, Brexit saga when HoL resisted many stupid bills till the end and now WFA spring to mind

I have to bite this one - my DP was going through cancer treatment. Their surgeon was "the first one from this background, the first one from this social group etc etc" - all published on their hospital profile page.

When I first read this I was super happy, I assumed this would be exactly the case people here are advocating for, that this surgeon being the first one must be really superb to get there despite all odds.

(let me skip the details of their background so not too outing, but they are exactly the one to get contextual).

Let me tell you - this surgeon nearly killed my DP, their incompetence and negligence was confirmed by other consultants on MDT. This surgeon was a prime example of diversity hire and how bad it can be. Ironically, this surgeon were absolutely sure that they are brilliant and treated junior medical staff with utter contempt.