|You are in: Talking Point|
Wednesday, 31 May, 2000, 14:10 GMT 15:10 UK
Is Oxbridge elitist?
Mr Brown described as a "scandal" a decision by Oxford University to turn down an application from a girl from a state school who then went on to get a scholarship at Harvard University, in the USA. He suggested Laura Spence had been denied a place because she had fallen foul of "an old establishment interview system".
But the opposition Conservative Party accused Labour of launching a class war and labelled as "absurd" the idea that there is a deliberate policy of discrimination against state schools when it comes to university admissions.
We asked whether you thought Oxbridge and other top-flight universities were dominated by an establishment clique, which favoured students from the "right" social class? Or was the British government making a populist appeal to its supporters by bashing one of the country's "bastions of privilege"?
It is about time someone condemned Oxford as a bastion of elitism. Ivy League schools in the US are just as guilty. However, the admission of a few working class Americans and racial minorities has allowed these institutions to avoid the scrutiny they deserve. Watch out for Oxford to implement minor changes to create the illusion of fairness and equality, but without radical reform these institutions will remain as elitist at heart as they ever were.
Oxford and Cambridge are not intentionally elitist, in my opinion. However, they do attract a large number of public school pupils. This is clearly because of the resources available at public schools, and those that attend public schools tend to be from well off families.
One point that does need making is that the release of the interview details of Laura Spence to the media was highly unethical. I would be very angry if my details were published to all and sundry like that!
I always remember what my tutor at Oxford said to me when I asked about this very subject. He told me that considering how long the average tutor at Oxford (or Cambridge) has spent studying and immersing themselves in their subject, they were not merely looking for people who were academically brilliant, but for those who could think. Whilst somebody might achieve A grades their whole lives, this does not mean that they will be able to form an objective and personal opinion. My tutor said that he was looking for people who would be interesting for him to teach, and not just those who could regurgitate memorised opinions and facts.
In my view, most of the criticisms about class discrimination in Oxford are lies. I went up to Oxford in 1974 from a fairly posh public school - St Paul's - and met no-one, I repeat no-one, in my college from public school. Some colleges were public school oriented - Magdalen was one, then, but I found myself discriminated against on the grounds I was supposedly posh. I hated Oxford and it was partly the discrimination against public schoolboys that was to blame. I note that most of the critics never went to Oxford (too stupid to get in, I suppose)
God help us all if she fails her driving test.
When a lot of my friends applied for Universities, 5 applied for Oxford and Cambridge. Four of those five got in and they all attended a north-east comprehensive school. Every year students from this school are excepted to these Universities. You have to expect rejection if you're applying for some of the most sort-after places.
Rachel Peterken, England
I wonder if the recent government initiative on this, lets face it, hardly pressing and yet definitely controversial point, could be a well calculated (cynical) manoeuvre to draw our attention away from the Dome (er... remember it? Big white thing. Half a billion pounds of public funding). By the looks of things, highly successfully.
The fault thus lies primarily with the culture of under-ambition, low expectations and under-achievement pervading the state education system and is by no means alleviated by the Government's own education policies. Mr Brown would do well to note that Britain's schools will continue to fail their children until politics and fads are removed from the system. He might also wonder why Mr. Blair is so quiet on the subject.
Jeremy H, UK
If this government is so committed to opening up universities to everyone, why have I just typed a "goodbye and good luck" letter to one more student who has had to abandon her degree after a year because she cannot study and work to support herself?
I was at Cambridge 10 years ago, coming from a state school. I was lucky I got a decent grant. However, now I would need to have a term-time job to make ends meet due to Labour's sell-out of working class children's education. But at Cambridge you are banned from having a job in term time as the terms, at 8 weeks, are shorter than other universities. Elitist, probably. Out of touch with the realities of being a student, definitely yes.
Oxford turned down my application - therefore they must be elitist pigs. I've got my job in the City now so I don't care.
Perhaps Laura has learned the most useful lesson of all. How did her story get to the papers? Was it her, her head teacher or her MP? Whoever it was, the story was latched onto, and turned into a media bubble because there wasn't anything much else for the papers at the time, and her cause was a good one for an ailing Labour Party losing touch with its grass roots. It has nothing to do with Laura, her abilities, or her future, at all. Indeed, it's nothing to do with Oxbridge either.
If Labour is so committed to anti-elitism, how come their party leader is the one with the Oxford degree?
I support Gordon Brown. The leaked interview notes show that Laura was seen as being sufficiently bright for the place, but lacked confidence. Thus Oxford has excluded a pupil on non-academic and (unwittingly) prejudicial grounds, since equally bright pupils from private schools often benefit from an environment which fosters greater confidence. This is taxpayers' money - Oxford must reform quickly or lose it.
As an undergraduate at Oxford who went to a comprehensive, I find the Government's statements utterly offensive. Let's face it, no one applies to Oxbridge without good exam results - not everyone who applies gets a place. If the Government were so concerned about the state/private/independent mix in Oxbridge, then they would improve the standards of teaching in comprehensives, so that more comprehensive pupils could apply and stand a better chance of getting accepted.
Why no comment on the "brilliant" students from private schools who are turned down by Oxbridge? I worked as PA to the Head of a girls' private school and recall very clearly straight A students who were rejected. One, in particular, had 13 As at O Level and 5 As predicted (which she achieved) at A Level. So where's the so-called bias to private schools, then, if such students are turned down?
Laura Spence may be an extremely bright and able student, and she was probably intent on studying at Oxford, but let's not blow this out of all proportion Mr Brown. There are people starving to death, whilst a war rages in the north of Ethiopia. I believe that more efforts should be being made to help these wretched people, and less time spent worrying about such trivial matters.
Excellent grades at A level aren't the only criterion for entry to university to read medicine. Medicine is an extremely competitive degree. The interview is vital in discovering a candidate's ability to reason, insight into medicine as a career etc. Many students applying for medicine are rejected each year, regardless of their grades. I am a medical student in London and attended a state school. When I applied to university, two others in my year also applied. We all received offers despite comparatively low grades of ABB. This illustrates that grades are only part of the admissions process for medicine.
A. Alexander, UK
The real scandal is that a Scottish Chancellor representing a Scottish constituency is prepared to allow the Scottish Parliament to abolish university tuition fees at the expense of English taxpayers. If he wants equality of access, not just for the Scottish elite which now runs England (Brown, Cook, Blair, Lord Irvine), he should put up the cash to pay for the fees of English students too.
Maybe she came across so badly at her interview that she was viewed as unsuitable. There is not point in being clever if you can't get your point across at an interview. How stupid to go to the press - now she will only be remembered as the clever girl who couldn't get into Oxford. I doubt very much that it had anything to do with her schooling, probably more to do with her attitude.
Sue Burrowes, USA
I think the only elitism in this story is on the part of Laura Spence.
She clearly had it in her mind to go to a 'top' university, so when
Oxford turned her down she went for Harvard. But there are plenty
of good universities in the UK which she obviously didn't consider.
So who's being elitist?
I was scared witless when I went for my interview at Magdalen, the grounds, the city, the academics, the tradition, was a world away from Birkenhead and Prenton Park. The whole process needs to be looked at and made less Eton-centric.
Neil Walsh, England
The recent reports of an Oxford college's rejection of an applicant from a comprehensive school offer no support to the suggestion that Oxford is elitist unless it can be shown that the rejection of applicants from state schools is a persistent feature of Oxford's admission procedures.
All applicants have brilliant, excellent exam results. There are more applicants than places. Sadly some come away with badly bruised egos, and no doubt with parents who were looking for a little elitism through being able to brag about an offspring at Oxbridge.
The government what to increase tuition fees for "better" universities. The effect would be to render these even more for the well off.
Marc Sheppard, UK
Yet more spin from the politicians, making an issue out of nothing to gain capital for the next election. It doesn't matter if she got a scholarship to a USA uni and not into Oxbridge. Many of my friends who were accepted turned Oxbridge down due to better courses being offered elsewhere. Whilst not deriding Oxbridge, the aura that their degrees are automatically the best in the world is now being worn away.
Neil Matthews, England
My daughter has been offered a place at Cambridge this year after having won a choral scholarship. She still had to pass the interview stage. She is certainly not the brightest in the school but she does have good all round abilities with wide ranging interests, which is why I believe she was accepted over others.
I would be interested to know what percentage of students from state as opposed to private schools a) Do not complete the degree course and b) Obtain 1st class degrees.
I think Oxford and Cambridge should stay the way they are, as special institutions. There are enough other universities to go to.
I am a parent who spends more than half my income paying for my daughter to receive a decent education. This is due to the incompetence and arrogance of the UK Government who are refusing a proper education to the majority of our children. The hypocrisy of Blunkett et al in proposing to discriminate against my family as a solution to their own stupidity and broken promises is breathtaking.
Straight A's does not mean that the pupil is brilliant. Oxbridge recognises that and subjects every applicant to an interview. Unfortunately, the person in question failed that interview.
Nothing will change the fact that Oxford and Cambridge have been and will remain the top universities in the world. The US "Ivy League" universities are simply based on the Oxbridge style of education.
This whole issue is just absolute rubbish! This is tabloid nonsense to stir up some frenzied hatred toward the financially well off. Surely we want to give the best people the opportunity to become our doctors and scientists, not a B-class candidate simply because they're from a minority group.
If Laura Spence really, truly, wanted to do medicine at Oxford, how come she is now choosing to study a totally different subject? Harvard decided against giving her a scholarship into medicine as well, so don't hail them as the heroes of the piece.
Well done Oxford for standing your ground.
As usual, the losers blame the system.
Iain Hollingshead, UK
The fact that Prince Edward got into Cambridge with pathetic grades is not evidence that Oxbridge is elitist. The royals get special treatment everywhere in Britain simply because they're royalty. If you don't like it, join the campaign to abolish the monarchy.
On the subject of academic elitism, it may also be worth noting that when it comes to which graduate of what University gets offered a job, the Oxbridge graduate with a third class degree will always get the job before the red brick graduate with the first.
From the experience of friends of mine who have gone on from Cambridge to postgraduate work in the US, and have come into contact with undergraduates through teaching, the standard of even the best US universities is well below many UK institutions at undergraduate level. Sure, the US government pours money into research and as a result this area is excellent, but some US degrees are little more than extended "A" Levels.
The fact is, as has been said before, Oxbridge cannot take everyone with 3 A's. Cambridge and Oxford are very competitive, stressful places and not everyone will thrive in such an environment. In my experience, and I speak as a Cambridge educated, former state school pupil from rural East Anglia, Cambridge is full of dedicated, ordinary people who got where they are through hard work. It is my friends at Durham and Bristol who speak of people turning up in stretch limos to lectures.
Tom Skwarek, UK
This young lady apparently failed the interview. People fail job interviews every day of the week, even though they may well be the person best qualified for the position. This story smacks of political points scoring.
Could somebody remind me what Prince Edward's A-Level grades were to get him into Cambridge? Was it two C's and one D or two D's and one C? Elitist? Of course it is.
Daniel Chan, Hong Kong
The key question should be - are more and more people's talents being really stretched and allowed to grow? Oxbridge elitism is outdated and an anachronism in 2000. The sooner real meritocracy comes the better!
What about the poor, black American student who will now be denied a place at Harvard? And who, incidentally, would have to pay through the nose for a Harvard degree.
Seeing as people are so concerned about elitism, I find it surprising that they have not been supporting campaigns to abolish tuition fees.
Also, I believe attention should be focused on individual colleges - no-one has highlighted the considerable differences in the profiles of individual colleges at Oxbridge.
It is about time that Oxford woke up to the fact that it is funded by the Tax Payers of this country and therefore should ensure that all Tax Payers receive equal treatment. At present the selection system is intolerable. I would vote now for removal of some state funding!
Certainly it would help no one if such posturing meant damage to the standards of our best national universities. Attention should shift to why our state schools have less resources, and why we are always so centred on 'results' and 'syllabuses' instead of truly stretching students. I expected better of Gordon Brown.
DH Frost, Wales/Cymru
We should stop worrying about whether these institutions are elitist or not, and concentrate instead, on ensuring that standards in every other university in the land is equally good, if not better. Once that is achieved, such institutions would simply become as irrelevant as Eton or Harrow have become, to the education of our children.
Let's face it, 14 double plus A-levels just are not what they used to be. The UK Government has made Exams so easy these days that Grades are almost irrelevant, what matters is personality, energy and enthusiasm. As for trying to portray the US as having a classless admissions policy, think again, Cash is king.
The 'black art' of interviewing is clearly being abused by Oxford University to discriminate against Comprehensive candidates. Gordon Brown's remarks were timely and it's about time something were done about the issue, regardless of the whinging from the old boy network who wish to maintain the status quo.
Simon Watkins, Wales, UK
The entire point of the Oxford interview process is to look for qualities in a student not tested by national examinations. Because almost all of the applicants for the (small number of) places have qualifications similar to those of this candidate, the interviewers are seeking something more.
Certainly, the proportion of ex-state school pupils attending Oxford should be higher, but the fact that it isn't must have more to do with Labour's discriminatory student loans policy than Oxford's admissions procedures. If you were looking for votes on this one, Gordon, bad luck. You're now less likely to get mine.
I cannot take many of the comments expressed above seriously. Of course Oxbridge is elitist. Which other establishments let those from their Royal Family in irrespective of their grades. It's about time Oxbridge learnt the basics of a meritocracy.
Setting up Oxford as a scapegoat is merely a means of deflecting attention from this government's lack of success in tackling the continued underfunding of both universities and especially secondary schools in this country. Brown and Blunkett might reflect that they, not Oxford, are the stumbling blocks to opportunity.
A friend of mine applied to Oxford five years ago. He was told that "we don't get many of your sort here." The implication, clearly, was that he wouldn't fit in so he wouldn't be welcome at Oxford.
Unsurprisingly, we are both products of state schools with good A Level results and now graduates of a good 60s university. Our advice to today's state school sixth-formers is to ignore Oxbridge, leave it to the public school kids. Not only will you be welcomed at universities such as Warwick, York and Lancaster but they will have fewer public school kids with an attitude as they will all be at Oxbridge!
I came from an underfunded comprehensive in the South Wales valleys, one of Europe's poorest areas. My GCSEs were frankly mediocre compared to this girl's; 4 A, 6B, 1C. Most of my teachers were highly sceptical that I would get an offer. Yet Jesus College Oxford gave me a chance because I spoke up at interview and thought about the questions being put to me, and three years down the track I am now mere days away from my finals, and I have had the time of my life here.
I think it is sad that Oxford can turn down a person who has straight A's in all subjects - they did that almost 20 years ago to my sister who was a grade A student. Good luck in the USA, you are better off there.
The entire issue seems to have as much to do with how an individual will fare at Oxford rather than where they have come from or how they have performed, in which case Laura Spence has certainly been done a favour. As for positive discrimination, this will lead to able students being rejected in favour of less able simply to fill the quotas correctly. This can surely not be good if the UK really does want to keep the best of the best.
There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows entry to be bought. I don't believe for one second that private schools (7% of pupils in the UK) can really supply 50% of Oxbridge entrants on merit. It shows that if you happen to be stupid, but the child of a rich Lord, you can jump the queue.
Europe screws up and America gains from the windfall. Some things never change - and never should.
However, a similar thing happened to a friend of mine - he got 4As and a B at A-level and straight A and A* grades at GCSE. However, he also chose to do Chemistry at Cambridge and was rejected. I think that Chemistry is perhaps not the best subject to choose and this is probably another reason for why Laura failed to get in. However, she has done extremely well with her Harvard application. Nice one!
A rather ham-fisted attempt by our intrepid chancellor to win the Northern Comprehensive Student vote.
Oxford have been choosing students for 700 years without input from New Labour. No need to meddle now.
This story reminds me of "Jenny's Ear" in the 1992 General Election. One individual is selected from literally hundreds to illustrate a particular point with little or no regard to the wider picture or to any other factors that may have been present.
I was recently offered a place to study Law at Oxford having gone through the much criticised interview system. While I believe that there is no deliberate discrimination against people from less wealthy backgrounds, I am sure that the fact that I was a white, confident, articulate male maybe gave me an unfair advantage in the interview.
Consequently, the UK literally ends up exporting one of its brighter children. It's really a national tragedy when you think about it...
Robert Rawson, England
The media seem to have an obsession with the proportion of privately educated students at Oxbridge. Why do they not take a look at other 'red brick' universities such as Bristol, Edinburgh and Durham where the proportion of state school students is significantly less than that of either Oxford or Cambridge?
I am secretary of the Oxford Access Scheme, the student-led initiative that aims to widen access to Oxford University. My colleagues and I work very hard to help the university in its aims to widen access, and most colleges take part in our schemes, such as the "student shadowing" programme, special open-days, and the pioneering summer schools.
When politicians exaggerate one very isolated case, it deals a blow to our efforts to turn the situation around. It also reflects badly on individual colleges, like Magdalen, as their hard work and achievements in increasing access are not recognised.
David De Burgh, Spain
Same old Britain, same old story. Will it never change? It's time the country woke up to the fact that if it doesn't do away with this kind of class distinction then the "brain drain" will continue. I wish the best of luck to the girl and hope that once she experiences the freedom of opportunity in the USA she will never wish to return.
The greatest surprise to me is that anyone would expect anything other than unfair discrimination from Oxbridge. I am just thankful that I went to a University which was prepared to even the score a little in the opposite direction.
As an ex selector of students for medical school, I would comment how dreadful the interview is in assessing potential but little is known about how to improve on it. Could a university or medical school consider asking headhunters to find students who would make, for example, good doctors? I wonder what the GMC would think of such an approach.
As a prospective Oxbridge applicant myself (from a northern comprehensive), I find the Chancellor's comments are naive in the extreme. Oxbridge looks for excellence, not social class, and as several of your correspondents mentioned, the nature of the GCSEs is such that not every student with straight A grades can gain a place; competition is fierce and students require much more than pure academic ability.
Many of my friends from public and private schools failed to get into Oxbridge despite having 10 A* GCSEs each and up to four predicted A grade "A" levels each. Almost everyone who applies has the academic ability to be accepted and many more apply than it is possible to accept. Oxbridge interviews are about a lot more than academic ability; they are to do with personality and the ability to fit in with college life. I am not surprised that if this girl has the arrogance to complain to national newspapers about a common case of interview failure, that she was deemed unsuitable by her interviewers.
Ivan Medlicott, USA
As a state school student at Magdalen, I sympathise with Laura for not getting in. However, I got only three A's at GCSE and it is important to remember that at interview your grades are only part of how you are assessed. It is not a fair system, of course, but neither are exams a fair measure of intelligence. Oxford is not free of prejudice but the Chancellor's comments make it clear that neither is he. Oxford is getting better with its access schemes and hopefully, more state pupils will come here in the future and enjoy what it has to offer.
Gordon Brown knows how to lose my respect pretty quickly! I was an undergraduate at Oxford and am now a Masters student at Harvard. Lucky Laura. Harvard is a great place, but then so is Oxford. However, Oxford, unlike Harvard, interviewed Laura. If they thought she wouldn't fit in at Magdalen then I think we should trust their decision
I would rather see greater investment in other universities, thereby allowing them to compete, rather than the current method whereby Oxbridge receives vastly higher subsidies. Also, if anyone watched a recent TV documentary, they would realise the government's current liking for Oxbridge has been to the expense of many other institutions.
The government seems to have a one-track mind
with regard to universities. They seem to think that they are simply there
for the education of those proceeding from
A-levels, GNVQ's, S-Levels and the like.
If you ask any student regarding what they are
looking forward to at university, and they
say the social life, the opportunities outside
their course and many will say intellectual stimulation
as well. However, the interview system at Oxbridge recognises this,
and that university life is rich and diverse. In order
to bring this to excellence as well as much else, they
need people with a broad view on life.
Mike Sawicki, UK
Laura should stop complaining. Have she, the media, and the government forgotten that almost everyone who applies to Oxbridge has 10 A*s and three As? Admittance is based on more than just that: it's about how suited you'll be to the nature of the course, and whether you can convince the interviewer that you really want to study that particular course at that particular college. Perhaps Laura didn't manage to do that. She should be content with Harvard, and not provoke the sort of media vedetta against Oxford that we've seen over the last few days.
As a fairly recent Oxford graduate I would say there is little doubt that such prejudice exists in some areas. However it is a disservice to those who are trying to improve thngs to imply that there is some kind of university-wide conspiracy. ... Here in the USA, the quality of education depends entirely on how much MONEY you or your parents are able to invest in it. Scholarships like Laura's are vanishingly rare. The vast majority of people are excluded from the best universities because they cannot afford them. Whilst the system in UK could be better, at least everyone has a chance.
Ben Jones, UK living in US
It is the case that virtually all applicants to Oxbridge achieved the top grades at GCSE and are expected to get 3 grade As at A-Level so, unfortunately, someone has to miss out. To say that Oxford, and for that matter Cambridge, are biased against state school students is ridiculous. Two weeks ago the two universities hired out Old Trafford stadium for a conference to attract more students from traditionally under represented backgrounds. During the Easter break well over 1000 Oxbridge students visited state schools around the country to encourage students to apply. Oxbridge is working hard to encourage more state students to apply and comments of the sort that Mr Brown has made will only act to harm that process.
I'm a state school pupil at Magdalen College. I got 11 A*'s and was predicted 3A's, but then so were all the other applicants. For every place there at least 4 applicants, and good people do get turned down, but I feel sure Laura didn't get turned down because of her state school background. She probably got turned down because she wasn't the best applicant for a very limited number of places. It's easy to take a pop at Oxford, but Laura seems to be doing OK, it's hardly ruined her life.
As an undergraduate at Hull University, I believe that it is not relevant which 'class' of school a prospective student attended. Many students here come from comprehensive backgrounds and this is no reflection on how hard a student will work once on their chosen degree programme. While prestigious universities are an asset to the country, accepting a student from a comprehensive school as opposed to a grammar school is no way of determining how able a student is.
The candidate should have been able to choose 3 colleges (in order of preference) at Oxford - if she didn't do well at one interview, they might have passed her on to the college she listed as 2nd choice. If she didn't get this option, presumably the interview went very badly and the expectation was that she wouldn't have spoken much in the other interviews either - if not, did she interview with the other colleges too? It seems likely that if all 3 colleges turned her down then they had an academic reason for it. If she only chose 1 college then perhaps she was over-confident and should have chosen 3.
Many, many people achieve excellent academic results at school. From my experience of Oxbridge interviews, they attempt to select those people who may also add to the life of the potential student's college and university. To do otherwise would be to accept only walking calculators and talking analysis programs.
I'm afraid that every candidate with a batch full of 'A's can't expect to get into a medicine cause at Oxbridge. If she didn't say much at interview, and didn¿t present herself well then it's not surprising that the other candidates who were able to demonstrate their abilities got the places.
Comments on this page seem to have deteriorated into a slanging match with loyal Oxford students rightfully defending their university. However having done my undergraduate degree in Oxford and a masters in Harvard, I would have to say that its hands down Harvard!!! More resources, a broader curriculum, more open mind-set in general. The government and British universities in general really need to get their act together.
As someone who has been rejected by Oxford once and accepted the following year, I have reasonably good experience of the Oxford interview system. I have consistently maintained that the system is hugely inefficient when it comes to choosing the best candidates. Two twenty minute interviews (and maybe a short written test) count for very little in determining the quality of a candidate. Candidates' performances in interviews will vary from day to day. Yet, whatever Oxford may say, this is the principal deciding factor in the selection process. Having said all that, I think it is very unlikely that Oxford turned down a candidate solely because they came from a state school. However ineffective their system, their ultimate aim is to select the best candidates ...
As a current Magdalen graduate student, (undergraduate 93-96), I find the response to this girl's unsuccessful application to Magdalen quite absurd. For one thing, everybody knows the 10 stars at GCSEs means little intellectually and for another, I myself am not surprised Harvard took her as I decided not to apply there for my doctorate (further to my studying in New York after Oxford) because the requirements for the degree did not suggest that the students would be up to much. What we have here is a government who has faith in the GCSE 'quiz' system decrying Oxford's tireless efforts to keep the standards as high as they should be in this country. People who perform well at GCSE can congratulate themselves heartily, but should they not let it build confidence, since the qualification is all but meaningless, especially for those who enter the academic arena.
Regardless of the validity of the case for denying Laura a place it is clear that this institution and others like it have considerable work to do to clean up the current public perception. It seems the selection process is viewed very much as that for admission to the Freemasons and it will help to have friends in high places. As for Laura, congratulations in gaining a scholarship to probably the most prestigious institute of them all.
Warwick is now officially the number 2 university in the UK behind Cambridge, Oxford is slipping because it's stuck in its old ways.
I recently had an interview with Cambridge University and if Oxford go about their interviews the same way, then I believe their decision is completely justified. Due to self-selection, everyone who applies to Oxbridge and receives an interview is a top-class student. I personally know several friends who many believed had what it took to get into Oxford; yet they didn't. It's supposed to be competitive. Not everyone can get in. It may have escaped people's notice that there are over 40 applicants per place in Harvard; undoubtedly some of those who are rejected come to Oxbridge. Yet do you hear a similar outcry from America? No. As for the implication that this is just class-snobbery, I would suggest that those who pose such accusations should spend some time talking to students at Oxbridge, who will no doubt disabuse them of this.
If Gordon Brown really cares about "removing old barriers" and focusing on students' potential rather than their backgrounds, perhaps he and his government should take steps to provde proper student grants which will encourage applicants of quality (and not just those who can afford it) to pursue further education. British universities are chronically underfunded. Which British university could offer a scholarship worth more than a fraction of the £65,000 which is being provided by Harvard in this case?
I think that the chancellor has no place in interfering with a particular candidate's case - this is gutter politics from a man who has no knowledge of Oxford and was not clever enough to study there. Oxbridge is open to all candidates, but there is more work to be done. The chancellor has probably discouraged many students from applying to Oxbridge from disadvantaged backrounds.
I had A stars and As for my GCSEs and went to a good arts school in America instead of A-levels. I did well on an interview for Cambridge but I didn't get in. I probably just wasn't good enough, but I had the feeling that because I was Welsh, I might as well have been coming from Mars.
Prince Charles managed 2 E's in his A-Levels and yet "won" a place at Trinity College, Cambridge. That makes a mockery of the establishment argument that positive discrimination would lead to lowered standards.
I graduated from Cambridge in 1996, and found that it's still full of rich public schoolgirls and boys who have more interest in the boat race than academic excellence.
Politicians, like other commentators, should speak based on experience. ... On the other hand, university admissions decisions should relate to abilities in tasks most closely associated to those found in university study. Ability to discuss issues thoughtfully is important to academic success but I doubt that the interview technique employed by Oxford is necessarily the best way to determine this, especially for a young student who may be intimidated by the environment.
I am a state-educated PhD (D Phil) student at Oxford University. In Oxford's defence I would say that admission procedures are nw much fairer than they used to be, and they are trying to do better each year, even if the occasional shy person still slips through. Personally, I have found the large debts I have had to incur the biggest barrier to acquiring the
an elite education. If the chancellor really wants to open up an elite education to everyone
then he should make sure that anyone offered a place at Oxford (or any other university) can afford to take up their place. I for one have struggled, and am unlikely to be able to pursue an academic career due to the debts I have accumulated.
Having fortunately gained a place to study history at Oxford next year, I know how hard it is to get into the university. Howeverver, it is not based on whether you are from a state or private school, but the level of the other candidates. If there are 5 places in the college, and 5 extremely good candidates, it's simply a lottery, it's not rigged against state pupils.
I think that the only issue this raises is the incredibly poor standard of even the best American universities. Oxford graduates are recognised the world over as being the best, and the continuing success is largely due to the selection process which is not impressed by how many GCSEs you can pass, but the candidates' potential for learning, leading and living life to the full
What is the problem? Does the world begin and end with Oxbridge? Laura is going to be a much better person for studying at Harvard which in turn is not the only great university in the USA. Don't overlook the fact that US schools love to enrich themselves with foreign students. Harvard like Oxford is an elitist establishment!
As a state school student at Cambridge at the moment I feel I have to write and say that it may well be the best thing for her that she got turned down. Getting in to Oxbridge is one thing, but the three years I have spent here have been perhaps the most difficult of my life. The culture and atmosphere is "old boy" as Gordon Brown said. You survive here on who you know and having ten A* GCSEs counts for nothing.
Given the appalling state of American universities, I think Miss Spence's scholarship says more about Harvard's standards than it does about Oxford.
The Oxford interview system is a method of finding the ablest people, not the most academically gifted. If there were a straight academic competition then where would the society within the college be, with few sportswomen and actors, just the academic equivalent of sprinters?
What is Oxford to do in order to be seen as accessible to state school pupils? Let all females who apply from northern Comprehensives in? This would sacrifice the university's quality and integrity, on which its reputation is based. The admissions system is not unfairly weighted against state school students - I should know, because I went to a Comprehensive and still got in. It is designed to see who will get the most out of the unique system of teaching.
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy