The admissions tutor at Magdalen College, Oxford has eneterd the argument over the Monkseaton girl who was rejected. It transpires he's a Geordie, and is pictured proudly in his Toon top in today's Times, urging people from the North East to apply. Made me think how many other football fans would identify the region and football so closely, and be prepared to be seen championing their allegiance quite so openly...not many I suspect.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Answers

Let's face it, if he was a Manc or a makum you wouldn't shout about it would you.

Still think the whole Oxbridge set-up stinks

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Disagree. ANYONE can go to Oxford -just get yerselves the grades. THEY are the only criteria. They have, in fact, been accepring lower grades from state schools for about 30 years to attarct more comprehensive school people. You're right - if he was a Manc, we'd be bawling about it.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

"ANYONE can go to Oxford -just get yerselves the grades. THEY are the only criteria"

That's simply not true - I know of at least 2 people who were straight A predictions who were told at interview they wouldn't fit in and would probably be better off at another Uni. Oxbridge is snobbish, backward looking and still aimed at the upper and upper middle classes.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

didn't some arse at Maggdeleen refer to people from Newcastle 'as like Scots, but with their heads kicked in'. Charming. Dougal - you can't possible be arguing that anyone can get into Oxbridge. 5% of TOffs from the independent schools take up about 50% of the places. However you look at it, that is a waste of talent. There was an article with all these percentages in the Torygraph at the weekend and even Durham- which I thought had a really yah reputation - only had 30% toffs. And that was the third worst after Oxford and Cambridge.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Beardo

Durham is an Oxbridge reject Uni, by and large.

I say class war...smash the system...vive la revolution...let's bash in the local McDonalds and hand out free veggie burgers!

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I'll tell you what Bobby.....you smash up Macdonalds in Ux'y and you'll have my kids to answer to......its the nly place they get a square meal!

Square....in a box....geddit.....alright, pass my coat.....!

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Bobby

If, as the stats show, there are more state school students at Durham than Oxbridge, I guess you are right to say it accepts Oxbridge rejects.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

The history, until very recently, has been that Oxford and Cambridge have been a gentlemen's club where the 'establishment' have sent their sons to continue the Old School Tie traditions. For want of a better term, conservative (nb: small 'c'). The most radical element of late has been the introduction of women into the Colleges, and even then St Hildas (I think) has felt the need to make it female only (although I believe that's just PC crap).

Both Universities have a reputation for being the best, and have for many centuries acted with impunity (I think that's the right word...comp educashun an' al' that) with their selection policy.

Although it's clear that there's political capital to be made out of this, it's also clear that education continues to be a privilegde and not a right, which is simply wrong.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Dougal states that anyone can get in to Oxbridge and that it's grades that count - utter nonsense. The woman who was rejected had 10 A star GCSE grades and three grade A predictions for A level didn't she? She was rejected for lacking confidence according to the report published in the press. Not polished enough for Oxford. Couldn't talk proper like wat they do dahn souf. Had a chin. Has been offered a place at Harvard I believe.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I can`t comment on the entry to Oxford figures, I don`t know enough about it. I just have this big nagging doubt about whether the same political `spin` would have been put on it, had the girl come from a comprehensive in Surrey. The story, I suspect, would have lost some of it`s political street cred. (:o|

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I'm not at all sure I want to enter this argument. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that the facts are being seriously twisted here, often in conjunction with some pretty emotive language. So maybe you don't want to look at any facts that might get in the way of your prejudices, fine by me, scroll on down.

Fact 1 is that I can talk with some experience here. I was a North Kenton lad that through a combination of circumstances got a scholarship to Oxford. Clearly we are talking a long time ago, 1968, and there certainly was a lot of snobbishness then. Amongst the students for sure, far less amongst the staff. My accent, choice of words and behaviour set me out from the great majority. It was, to be frank, not a very happy experience, still less so when a Manchester lad in the year below me who was perhaps less adaptable hanged himself in his room at the start of his second term. Was it a good idea to select him, or should somebody have spotted that he might not fit in?

Fact 2 is that Oxford is a lot more egalitarian know than it was then. Not only are there equal numbers of men and women (95% men in my day, sweetie), the proportion of public school entrants has declined from the 85% or so of old. This has been as a result of a conscious effort to revise selection procedures. The largest weighting is now on tests of reasoning, not on an unstructured interview.

Fact 3 is that it is an utter myth to regard Oxbridge academics as conservatives (small or large 'c) to an old duffer. Never have I met such a lot of rabid Lefties. Bobby would be right at home with some of his comments above. Where do you think the major source of spies for the Soviets was during the cold war? I can tell you with utter certainty that most of them would regard the present Government as dangerously right wing. Don't forget, the Oxford academics were the lot who famously turned down Maggie Thatcher's honorary degree, much to her fury.

Fact 4 is that all of the candidates on that day had equally good predicted grades, and that the lass in question was not placed in the top group on any of the reasoning tests. In fact, she did best at interview, but even on that I think narrowly missed the cut. Either way, it clearly wasn't as simple as "this geordie lass didn't go to the right school, let's not select her".

Fact 5 is that she wanted to study medicine, which is currently about the most competitive subject to get into. If she had applied for the much less popular biochemistry, she would have been highly likely to get a place. She is now going to Harvard - to study biochemistry. So that proves precisely nothing. Good luck to her, anyway, she'll probably enjoy it better.

Fact 6 - I dislike inequality, prejudice and discrimination as much as anybody. So why defend an institution that I've already said offered some of that to me and others, even if it is getting less bad? Firstly, I don't like arguments based on untruths, inaccuracies and spin, whatever their other merits. Secondly, well I was ostracised and sometimes laughed at, sure, but if a chap with a fruity voice, blazer and cravat pitched up at the Strawbeery of a Saturday afternoon, hey, you'd make him feel right at home, wouldn't you. Wouldn't you? Oh, I am disappointed.

One final word. If any of you folks really wants to get me f*cking going, just keep on about toffs, right. Maybe you'd like to resurrect the old "suits with wads" one while you're at it. We used to have a lot of that at one time on this bbs and its predecessor. Countering one prejudice with another equally mindless one is a really bad way to understand anything (but quite a good way to start a war).

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Wow ! Well said, Dr. Bill.

val.

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Bah lad, you can tell yer went tu' that Oxfad like eh? Smashing contribution Doc. I would only add that Oxbridge is more than a sum of it parts. The Don's etc and the system is probably highly attuned to getting the right people in no matter what their back ground is. However, it's the rest of culture that is slow to change. The Ivory tower analogy is probably in most minds when Oxford is mentioned. Oxford is part of the establishment of course. A bloke I once worked with was brought up in Walkergate and went to Oxford Uni (St Johns I think) but he did talk about all the silly dinners, the etiquette, and all the tradition, but he also told me about the amount of work he got through which was far more than me. All the Oxbridge people I've met are a cut above and are really sharp, but what annoys me is the money that sloshes around old Uni's and means that privelidge abounds, economically at least.

Now if you want to talk about entry policies to major Uni's we'll start with the Hypocrisy at the LSE...Oh don't bother....how the hell did we get onto this??????

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Nothing like firsthand experience to paint a clearer picture Dr. Bill. What you said was much as I suspected. There are many institutions, not just Universities, which have been trying to move up to date, and remove the old `class` barriers. As for political leanings in Oxford, what you said comes as no suprise to me, as I have always thought that, barring some of the private schools, the education system, from top to bottom, has a tendancy to veer to the left.

Personally I feel we are being conned with this argument. I feel that it is being used for political mileage (and the same argument would work for whatever political party was in power). I just dont feel the issue would pack the same media `punch`, if the girl had come from somewhere in the South.

Thank you for the insight, it`s much appreciated. Personally, I don`t subscribe to the North/South divide thing, more a case of London versus the rest of the country. Don`t like the `toffs with wads` argument either - it`s insulting to pin that label on people without knowledge of how hard they may have had to work to be successful. But I am blethering on now! (:o)

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000