Some colleges/halls were more proactive than others. The college I joined started an "out reach" program in the early 80s, to find academically gifted youngsters from non-public schools, and I was among its first intake. It was a very slow and laborious process, because the simple fact of the matter is that public schools are very good at educating our kids and instilling into them the kinds of education and academic standards that Oxbridge demands of its intake. In order for me get into my college, I had to undertake studies that were never offered to me in the mainstream comprehensive educational system at the time. That's just the way it was. I would hope that things are better today and that gifted kids from less financially privileged backgrounds do not have the fight that I had to gain the same advantage of the more well-off.
Back to the Indy Ref... Salmond has resigned as leader of the SNP and First Minister. Let's see how much of a social egalitarian he is when he's collecting millions as director of some Bank.
You're right about William and Harry - my bad . I know Edward did (he's about my age) cause I remember the controversy about him getting in with inadequate grades. On your other point, there is total contradiction. You can't say a priviledged education is "pretty good at getting thick kids into higher education" - therefore getting better grades than would be normal with their academic abililities - and then saying that going to these schools doesn't give you a better chance of getting into Oxbridge. If I spent the type of money involved in an Eton education, I'd be very disappointed if junior didn't get into a top University.
I think he's saying the opposite of that, that only intelligence gets you in. As you've stated it, I agree fully. I'm not sure if you can buy entrance as an overseas student. But that wasn't my point.
And I mean that in the nicest way possible. I have spent my entire life arguing with people about the merits of the public school system, and the usefulness of our University system. I find those who are hardest to reason with are those who have neither been to public school or been to University. I have learned to smile, nod, drink another cup of coffee, and move on. What concerns me most, these days, is to ensure that both my sons get into either Oxford or Cambridge. I'll pull what strings I can - colleges tend to like it when sons of fathers attend the same place - but, ultimately, everything in awarded on merit, and that is the way it ought to remain.
The sentence "One simply doesn't make it into the system unless one is at least as academically able as all the other candidates" tells me I didn't miss the point And I mean that in the nicest way also.
I don't know about nowadays as both my kids are past that age. But certainly in my day, and theirs, Oxbridge ran a kind of selective meritocracy. I.e. You got in on merit, BUT, only if you were the "right sort"
"On your other point, there is total contradiction. You can't say a priviledged education is "pretty good at getting thick kids into higher education" - therefore getting better grades than would be normal with their academic abililities - and then saying that going to these schools doesn't give you a better chance of getting into Oxbridge." The question is what are those schools doing that the state sector don't ?? If to use a football analogy, their teachers are the Agueros of their trade, then they don't come cheap. The best teachers help, but is that all they do ?? My dad was doing decorating work at Harrow in the 80s, and two things he remarked on was : - The lesson structure was different. When these kids had maths, they had maths ALL MORNING. Not the 30/60 min lessons I had when I did my O levels. - How inquisitive the kids were While he was doing the work a few kids came up to him and were asking stuff like what paint was he using, what brushes etc. No need for them to have even bothered , but they did. "If I spent the type of money involved in an Eton education, I'd be very disappointed if junior didn't get into a top University." If your kid ain't up to it, they ain't going wherever they were educated (IF a meritocracy operates) .
I think those days are largely past. I didn't go to Oxbridge but I have fairly close ties to some of the Oxford colleges through family members who went and I think if anything, some colleges are veering towards positive discrimination towards non-privately/publicly schooled applicants, which is problematic in itself. There shouldn't be any discrimination of any kind in a meritocracy, and a meritocracy it should absolutely be. The only anecdotal evidence I've heard of someone even close to being a 'wrong sort' would be someone I met at university who, in her academic interview for an Oxford college took a different side to her interviewer, who it turned out had spent most of his academic life proving his point and was utterly determined that his was the right point of view on a particular historical question. She didn't end up going because of him, which is a shame because she is a terrifically intelligent person who could have thrived there, but thats the nature of these interviews sometimes by all accounts. Her not going certainly had nothing to do with class or what school tie she was wearing though, of that I am certain. It was just bad luck that the interviewer was a bit of an arse, albeit not an elitist or classist arse in this case. Anyway, I can't believe Salmond has resigned.
"But certainly in my day, and theirs, Oxbridge ran a kind of selective meritocracy. I.e. You got in on merit, BUT, only if you were the "right sort" In my day, I heard stories that kids from state schools were getting quite harsh treatment in their candidate interviews (no doubt all in the name of ensuring they were the "right sort" ) .
O I half expected him to. A couple of Scottish friends have told me that he was not a well liked man in some places. I think the SNP probably see Nicola Sturgeon as less divisive.
My younger son went for an interview there. He told me that they seemed more interested in what I did for a living, and what school he had been to, etc, than his achievements or potential. He went to the LSE instead.
Scottish referendum: The morning after the No before http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29272200 Its going to take a while before all returns to normality and hopefully there will be no trouble over the weekend, yet at least with the weekend arriving it allows the deflated to try and remember that living in Scotland as part of Great Britain, isn't as bad as was suggested. Just I know there will always be that feeling of No supporters winning, being proved right, but while technically that's the case, in terms of the vote, the yes campaign has played their part of forcing these changes as they played it well in the latter stages, forcing Westminster to fear a Yes vote and as much as I dislike certain aspects of their campaign, you can't fault certain people for their passion which has helped make this an exciting campaign, raising issues that needed to be debated, and yes Salmond will leave his position as someone remembered for having the passion to go after what he believed in.
It's fascinating for me to hear how the looking glass world on the other side of the Atlantic uses its top universities to maintain its class system. The top universities here are certainly a bit different. The one I'm most familiar with: 1. Is dedicated to making the rich semi-educated, and the educated semi-rich. 2. Does anything but abound in intellect. There are, of course, plenty of gifted scholars, but they're in the minority and are, somehow, rather low profile. 3. Certainly lets families buy their way in. The thicker the kid, and the richer the family, the more they have to pay. Simple. 4. Manages to like elite prep schools like Exeter, Andover and Groton while not particularly disliking average school backgrounds. The best way to get in might be to be to be the outstanding kid in the worst school in the country. Much less effort involved than to be one of the top 30 or 40 at Exeter. 5. The quintessential student lettered in three sports at a decent but not brilliant suburban school, was president of his or her senior class, did very well but not brilliantly in school, and is a genuinely nice person who is rather boring. Though the top universities have produced a lot of the most powerful politicians, most of the top figures did not go to a top university--though this may be changing, with Clinton, W. and Obama. And yet--W. is the only one who has a real upper class background, and did his level best to disguise himself as a Texan everyman. Both Clinton and Obama came from single mother households that had incomes well below the national average. Without the trappings of power, Clinton would seem to other Americans as a real redneck, though certainly a very sharp one. You would expect him to be a very successful car dealer in Little Rock, or some other kind of fast talker like a con man or preacher. Obama would be Mr. Neutral, a complete mystery, a smart, careful man who gave away almost nothing about himself. His mannerisms would eventually reveal him as a lawyer, but in the meantime you might be thinking accountant, professor or even project manager. W. would seem a typical upper middle class Texan, some kind of middling successful business owner. Traditionally, the top dogs in the US are self-made men without an elite education, like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, and it's the next rung down, the top assistants, who went to the top schools. Clinton and Obama fit into the self-made man paradigm. The difference is that top universities no longer favor the "right sort"-- much.
