Oxbridge: Classic Or Dud?

I think that provides an answer.

Anyway, I went to a state comprehensive school and was very lucky indeed to get into Oxford. As such, I think it's classic. It was elitist, but only in terms of intellectual elite, and whilst I often felt out of my depth as a result, it was a wonderfully challenging experience. Sadly, there are quite a few colleges where I worry that money and connections get you further than academic achievement.

The teaching was variable. The tutorial system (two students with one tutor) was amazing when it worked properly, and shameful when it didn't. There were occasions when I had some of the most incredible discussions of jurisprudence with top legal minds during these things, and other times it was just an embarrassing battle of wits where I inevitably lost.

But, I'm glad I went to Oxford, and it was an experience. I don't think it's any better than any other university, to be honest, and I worry some of its traditions not exist just to attract tourists, but there you go.

The (literally) cloistered air of an Oxofrd college does in the end lead to certain bonds of strangeness being thrown up. Most of my good friends from Oxford I wasn't very close to at the time but I think the cronyism comes pretty much from a shared strangeness. In the end it suits certain personality types. Big fish in a small pond....

A place like SOAS is supposedly more inclusive and diverse, but actually looking at political and general opinions here I am not convinced that that is the case.

The Oxbridge mafia was very prevalent amongst the teaching staff at my local comprehensive. The English department especially leaned on me very heavily to apply for either Oxford or Cambridge, but I was having none of it. I already had my heart set on Warwick - it remains amongst the best universities for law, and I was very impressed with the pioneering methods of teaching there.

Due to my snubbing of the Oxbridge system, my tutors decided to lower my predicted grades to B for English, C for Economics and E for History. This was in spite of the fact that I had never got lower than A, B, B in these subjects, and in fact had finished top overall in English that year.

It turned out that any pupil who applied for either Oxbridge or Cambridge was automatically predicted straight A's in their finals, regardless of their past academic record.

I thought this system stank to high heaven at the time, and I still think it stinks now.

Everything turned out for the best though. I got my A and 2 B's as I expected, went to Warwick and never looked back. I still regard Oxbridge with contempt though.

thanks, Chrissy, i live in the "real world" and i *do* care what people think. when i say "Cambridge" and toff-assumptions are made it pisses me right off. i went to a state school and actually chose the college i did because it was the first women's college in the UK and has a history of non-discrimination in terms not only of sex but background, as well as a fairly good academic record. while i was there i met all kinds of people from every part of the UK and beyond, it was great and i will defend it to the hilt.

Then again, the House of Lords, another archaic and outdated institution, can hardly be considered meritocratic (or democratic) yet it contains more than its fair share of enlightened individuals.

I think I'm probably saying Use Other Politico-Cultural Analyses please, cuz this one just obscures far more than it clarifies. At New College in the 70s I got a good basis in the philosophy of scientific and mathematical logics, from a plump communist who wore no shoes during tutorials. I haf v.occasional linXoR to exactly three chum-cronies: one is essex working-class, moved to Australia then Hong Kong and makes a good living in computers; two went into VSO and currently does relief work in Romania; three = recent possibly current Brit Ambassador to Cambodia (and is smartest person i haf evah met tho rubbish taste in pop).

This has helped exactly zero in the rock-write dodge, esp.as I have almost nevah talked abt it as it bears no relevance. I learnt to write at NME.

You mean even if the Oxbridge admissions procedure were to magically deal with all previous disadvantage and truly represent the cream of the intellectual crop? Interesting question. I dunno. My gut reaction would be 'no'.

Well, I was actually referring to the system with the current admissions procedure, but your question is more interesting. I think my gut reaction would still be 'yes' though. Just fixing the admissions procedure isn't going to change the problem that having all your top legal brains trained in two rather conservative institutions with very similar outlooks might well lead to a worrying conformity of thought in the profession.

of course there were also ultra-conservative tory foxhunting bastards there as well, but for the most part they stayed away from Girton.

On reflection, I think the conservatism or not of the institutions is a bit of a red herring. Their similarity and the fact there is only two of them is much more important.

Jonny B was drying his hair. but it's a nice example of the divergent personalities we had there.

I seem to recall he did rather well until he got banned from the student union for taking poppers on stage during his campaign speech.

That said, towards the end of my degree it started to get a bit... weird. Being left-wing and liberal became the new conservatism, if you like, and it got to the point that political correctness went totally overboard. In fact, if RickyT was there 1999-2000, and I graduated in 1998, then he probably saw the progression of this. It was still a good place to be though, and I wouldn't be who I am now if it wasn't for the place. I certainly wouldn't be as confident, since I think that's what I learned the most from Oxford.

And yes, there were a lot of toffs. But I wasn't a toff, and I got the opportunity to prove I'm just as good as them without going to public (private, for those from the US amongst us) school. Which was ace.

Oh, and Strange Fruit started in Oxford, in case you're wondering. At a seedy little bar called YesBut. The meetings of people to set it up all took place in The Grapes. Sigh, those were the days.

I did sing in King's chapel once. that was nice. plus King's Events were top notch when i was there. tho having said that all i can remember now is seeing the men they couldn't hang.

It was Peterhouse outshone all the other colleges in right-wing obnoxiousness stakes though. Amongst various other crimes it was the place responsible for moving Portillo all the way across the politcal spectrum. The most extreme example was the society whose sole purpose was to parade around the grounds wearing black armbands on the anniversary of the vote that let women into the college. They've been existence since women were first let in. Which was all of thirteen years ago.

I also knew two sisters, both rich, called Alpha and Beta. Alpha was in the rowing team and would drive to the river (a five minute walk) in her BMW. What she was doing at Wadham I'll never know. Slumming it, I guess.

I'm honestly amazed how many people I know who went to Oxford or Cambridge, who I didn't know when I was there.

Some of The Poppyheads were at caius in the year above me i think. i were a sarah nut in those days and was stunned when someone pointed one of them out to me!

Sarah is right though, for a lot of us it looks like there is a kind of Oxbridge dillema, we disagree with the privilge aspect of it but man alive we were fucking smart to get there and worked out bollocks off so don't we deserve grace and favour? Do we? Hmm not sure.

gailge shaped prism much more interesting imo

afaik, no one in university admissions has any doubt whatsoever that a levels have got significantly easier

good friend of mine in UCD CS dept says that degrees are getting easier

but when you insist that university attendance goes from whatever % in the 60's/70's to whatever the targets are today.....?

yes, that is also true

you can see it on the timescale of my uni career. like ~2002 when i did finals i was practicing with ~10 yr old past papers, which were noticeably harder than those i ended up sitting, and now i teach what is in principle the same course 8 years later it's easier still. fraction of 1sts much higher than it was

i tell my students this: practice the old papers. it's like practicing at altitude and then coming down to sea level for the big race.

teach them harder and stop displacing yr responsibilities imo

that said my english teacher routinely just marked stuff down by 20% for precisely this reason.

it's true that you've got to have wider grade boundaries to accommodate the fact that most people are studying a-levels now, whereas earlier it was a fraction of the brightest - and many of them failed. it's not necessarily a virtue to have the hardest exams in the world if no one passes. but otoh, there's stuff that was degree level in the 60s which is now on maths a level papers, according to at least one vice-chancellor.

yeah I always like teachers who grade you hard at the beginning so that you'll ~take it to the limit, one more time~

xp re exams that no-one passes-by the same token, there's not much point aiming exams with the aim of having a certain % pass in mind. Ideally, setting the exams to the standard required and seeing how that works is better than either approach- my friend wouldn't agree that this is what's happening over here at least.

the two questions are related, though: unless you want the pointlessly elite a-level system of the 1950s, you've got to set the fixed standards with some reference to what kids are likely to be able to do. that is what's happening in the uk, but very imperfectly of course. (i can't even imagine what perfection would be in this case: you can't please everyone.)

i don't really have a problem with a higher level education system being elitist, as long as it's elitist along the right lines (ability to perform at a high level acedemically).

but maybe at this stage that's where '4th level' research, postgrads etc comes into play- today's equivalent of a university degree in the 70's/80's?

but otoh, there's stuff that was degree level in the 60s which is now on maths a level papers, according to at least one vice-chancellor.

http://www.wwu.edu/depts/tutorialcenter/images/calculator.gif

but otoh, there's stuff that was degree level in the 60s which is now on maths a level papers, according to at least one vice-chancellor.

this is true, but it's not _harder_ stuff, and way more stuff has been straight dropped from the syllabus.

science is a bit more complicated, because stuff has to be very well understood by scientists to be taught at A level. so it's understandable and not indicative of anything significant that, say, quantum mechanics wasn't on the a level syllabus 40 yrs ago.

grade inflation at universities is really pernicious because there are basically only three grades, and without the top one you are not internationally competitive if you want to do a phd, which is what, in principle, science departments (and others) are teaching toward. in a sense, it's surprising that it hasn't gone on more. it was like 10% got 1sts, it's now 20-30%, depending on subject.

grade inflation at a level is basically inexcusable.

although obv. grade inflation is not to be confused with syllabuses getting easier.

STUDENTS ARE GETTING SMARTER

tagline to a conspiracy/horror movie for mail readers

difference between grade inflation and easier syllabi = ?easier marking?

easier syllabus: student who gets an A knows less/demonstrates less aptitude

grade inflation: more students get an A

you can have grade inflation per se without an easier syllabus

one leads to the other surely?

(xp)

well if a student doesn't need to know as much to get an A then the set of students getting A's is gonna be greater, I mean

yes, but you can have grade inflation just from people deciding to mark generously when testing the same material

grade inflation without an easier syllabus is definitely down to easier marking though. right?

xp

which is _definitely_ going on -- impossible to prove, but my strong impression is that grades would have improved if they syllabuses hadn't changed and the students were equally smart

yes xp

so DM conspiracy theories correct then. am posting this thread to the editor as we speak.

DM = dark matter?

too much time on phd

darragh mac

re: grade inflation - that was my point about shifting from a quota in the 80s to criteria-based marking. it's probably right that the criteria have been eased since then as well, but it's not easy to say what the "ideal" level is. depends what you're trying to achieve with a-levels and there's no consensus.

i think i'm just more pleased that more people are taking a levels, passing them and going to university than i am concerned that the top grades are losing cachet. (though in theory it needn't be one or the other, in practice and for political reasons i guess it has tended to be.)

25+ per cent A grades is maaaaaaaaaaybe a little too much, i admit

yeah, to a certain extent it doesn't matter what label they assign to a certain level of performance, or how much detail they resolve grades in.

but there's a lot of moaning at the top, which i think is justified, that _every single applicant_ to oxbridge has 3+ As. like i interview ~20 candidates per year, and will see maybe 1 student with 1 grade other than an A at A level. which is not to say that a levels should be changed to make oxbridge admissions more straightforward.

didn't they introduce starred A levels a few years ago, so now you have kids with A* at A-level too?

i think so. i didn't do admissions last month, and i think they were the first year to be awarded them.

i heard nrq was one of these 500 people

http://www.yaledailynews.com/scene/scene-cover/2010/04/23/whats-better-oxfords-depth-or-yales-breadth/
“There is a group of 500 or so people who aren’t reliant on the college system for a network of friends,” Oxford student Paz Mendez Hodes said. “Oddly these ‘500’ exist because they have assembled themselves around the pre-existing networks from the private schools … Of the people in my phone book, I can count about three who went to state schools … I did not come here intending to mix only with those who went to schools similar to mine, but it appears that you end up in one group or the other.

"In fact, a third-year at St. John’s College, Oxford, who consented to be identified only as 'one who pursues the pleasures of text and flesh with equal zeal'"

thought LJ was cambridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NyzQwwO4Os

tbh

eh tbh a lot of class mixing does happen at these schools. but yeah there's definitely a ton of upper class cliques too.

In fact, one Oxford tutor, or “don,” who asked to remain anonymous for fear of causing offence, went so far as to say the Rhodes Scholarship — which sends about 32 students from the United States to Oxford for graduate school each year — “has nothing to do with scholarship.”

this is pretty otm though - in terms of what you actually get the rhodes/marshall are just about the most overrated fellowships out there

there were four americans doing phds in astronomy while i was there. three were on rhodes scholarships. all of them seem v. smart, but the rhodes three all did ridiculous sports (fencing and alpine skiing iirc) at an elite level. i really don't get the point of people doing another undergrad degree with a rhodes, but i guess it makes sense given how you/that article say it's perceived.

iirc the rhodes were conceived of as a way to reward student athletes, i.e. one of the application requirements is that you play in a varsity sport or have demonstrated some sort of athletic enthusiasm during your time at school. all you get I think is one or two years of paid study at oxford (and if that's your goal, there are other ways of getting a free ride to oxford that aren't quite as conspicuous). somehow along the path of history the rhodes became synonymous with fuck off excellence and as a result 1000 people a year compete for 32 spots. for your application iirc you need something like 8 v. strong letters of recommendation and all sorts of other bullshit, and the 'athlete' got expanded to include ridiculous things like alpine skiing.

wire star and fancier of sam cam dominic west once appeared in a film partly about meatheaded american ringers who are brought over to win at rowing

new board description

xp, yeah, i heard stories of visits with congressman to get those letters

http://driftlessareareview.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/declineandfall230.jpg

this is what I imagine goes on across the pond and you can't tell me otherwise.

Ban Oxbridge

the true story, unburied

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-jakusXoAAT0b-.jpg