Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?
Ans: not much – which is of course where the comparison falls down.
Labour’s leadership challengers are, at best, a weak field, competing to distinguish themselves from each other. Jeremy Corbin is probably the only one who is what is actually written on the tin, imho.
2/4 have been in the Cabinet, in 2005 only Clarke of the Tory leadership contendors had been a Cabinet Minister
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.
What is class warrior nonsense about it? Of course the elite tends to be made up of the most educated who went to the best schools and universities, indeed more came from ordinary backgrounds when we had more grammar schools. You can pick exceptions to any rule but most people who left school without qualifications are not millionaires while 2/3 of billionaires are graduates compared to little more than a third of the population as a whole
Yep, if you're clever you have an advantage over those who aren't. However if you're prepared to apply yourself rather than bleat about the elite you can still become wealthy, as two of my pals have. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without even being aware of what "the elite" is.
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn." - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference,1977
As a grammar school boy you make my point succinctly
I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.
The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.
The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor. Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
I really don't get your point. It is irrelevant if a groundbreaking scientist is also a talented linguist, the point is he or she is a groundbreaking scientist. Triallists at Man Utd aren't expected to be good at cricket.
Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?
She challenges her party by making references to the real world, the one in which the Tories got a majority. Stretching a point Clarke was the founding member of TSE's fiscally dry, socially liberal, lets not spend all our time banging on about the EU party which challenged the sad creatures in the Tories who thought being right about the EU was somehow more important than being in power and able to do anything about it (while Tony handed away half our rebate for no good reason).
But to describe her as a Labour Clarke just shows how bare the cupboard is for Labour.
OGH was actually making the point that in ideological terms Kendall, like Clarke, are/were both seen as having policies to close to the governing party's for many of their party members to take. Personality and experience wise Clarke would be closer to Healey, who again had similar problems being seen as too 'moderate'
Healey is someone who I would fully accept is in the same bracket as Clarke. But there is more to being a "big beast" than a few vaguely provocative sound bites that make some of the narrow minded in the party wince. If Kendall holds a dozen serious positions over the next 20 years we can reconsider Mike's point.
True, but if Kendall fails to win the Labour leadership it will be for the same reason Clarke failed to win the Tory leadership ie party members wanted 'a choice, not an echo'
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.
What is class warrior nonsense about it? Of course the elite tends to be made up of the most educated who went to the best schools and universities, indeed more came from ordinary backgrounds when we had more grammar schools. You can pick exceptions to any rule but most people who left school without qualifications are not millionaires while 2/3 of billionaires are graduates compared to little more than a third of the population as a whole
Yep, if you're clever you have an advantage over those who aren't. However if you're prepared to apply yourself rather than bleat about the elite you can still become wealthy, as two of my pals have. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without even being aware of what "the elite" is.
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn." - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference,1977
As a grammar school boy you make my point succinctly
I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.
The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.
The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.
When you look at the choices that the Tories have when Cameron decides to call it a day, Osborne, Hunt, Javid, May, let alone Boris and the choices currently available to Labour it is very hard to see 2020 being a contest but a lot can happen in government and governments more often lose elections than oppositions win them. Labour need to hang in and hope. Its all they can do.
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor. Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
I really don't get your point. It is irrelevant if a groundbreaking scientist is also a talented linguist, the point is he or she is a groundbreaking scientist. Triallists at Man Utd aren't expected to be good at cricket.
You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder.
Not at all. You have misunderstood my point. I was trying to suggest that gaining entry required being strikingly good at a specific discipline rather than exceptionally high allround intelligence. In that sense I am agreeing with you! I was further suggesting that gaining an Oxbridge place today is a significantly greater scholastic achievement than was the case pre-World War 2 - for the reasons given.
I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.
The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.
The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.
I think the comparison Mike is making, principally between the 2001 Tory leadership race and the 2015 Labour leadership race, holds good. In both cases both parties suffered bad defeats and made virtually no progress from terrible defeats they suffered 4/5 years earlier to be thrown out of office. In both cases though the most electable leadership candidate was offering an ideology too close to their opponents for the membership to stomach. However, one crumb of comfort for Labour is that Cameron will not be running again at the next election as Blair was in 2005, so Burnham or Cooper have perhaps more of a chance than IDS/Howard did. The election will also take place in the equivalent of 2007 rather than 2005 because of the Fixed Parliaments Act, giving people longer to be tired of the government. Also, even though Howard lost don't forget he cut the government's majority by 100 seats
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor. Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
Until the 1980s Oxbridge relies on its own entrance exams rather than A levels. Pre-World War2 there was also Manchester, Leeds , Birmingham & Liverpool.
No one has heard of Kendall. Clarke was an established senior minister and had already forgotten more than Kendall has learned by the time he stood for leader. She is entitled to argue her case and mark out a position for herself and her views for the future, but she is in no position to lead the Labour Party because the Labour Party does not want to listen.
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.
The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.
The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.
When you look at the choices that the Tories have when Cameron decides to call it a day, Osborne, Hunt, Javid, May, let alone Boris and the choices currently available to Labour it is very hard to see 2020 being a contest but a lot can happen in government and governments more often lose elections than oppositions win them. Labour need to hang in and hope. Its all they can do.
Much the same could have been said about the Labour leadership contest in 1976, the Tories won the 1979 election. Out of those only really Boris comes close to matching Cameron's electoral appeal
Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor. Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
Until the 1980s Oxbridge relies on its own entrance exams rather than A levels. Pre-World War2 there was also Manchester, Leeds , Birmingham & Liverpool.
Indeed, but you would only be doing its entrance exam if doing A Levels and it was probably tougher than A Levels. I said there were 'a handful of redbricks in big cities'
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
Indeed but you have to have got top grade A Levels to get in in the first place
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
Indeed and put so succinctly !!
I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Given party website is slow in adding CLPs supporting nominations, I am trying to recap them in this google doc basing on what I could find online (twitter and similar). Therefore I probably missed some of them.
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
True - but the sort of people who did well at the exam and interview were not the sort of people who would be getting 2 Es.
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Oxford normally requires 3 As with occasional exceptions (and almost of all of those with 2 E grade offers get 3 As). Cambridge A*AA, with some courses requiring a Merit or distinction in the STEP exam
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
True - but the sort of people who did well at the exam and interview were not the sort of people who would be getting 2 Es.
I do remember this. Indeed, a friend of mine was offered exactly this. It took the pressure off the 'A' levels massively.
It is a horrible referendum - death by a thousand cuts or having the head severed completely by one stroke of the sword.
More like they are committing seppuku perhaps - IIRC the initial stroke was by the person themselves, but someone else needed to be on hand to sever the head after that self wounding.
Mr. Jonnie, perhaps it's more like having a dislocated economy. Getting it shoved back in the right place will bloody hurt, the alternative is to have a painful, useless thing forever.
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
Indeed and put so succinctly !!
I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.
It very much depends on the College. My brother got an Exhibition at Churchill College from a Comprehensive. He says that most of his fellow students there were also from state schools, mainly Comps, and fairly often from fairly mundane backgrounds.
This is how the British Establishment survives; always open to new blood in ways that the more rigid aristocracies of Continental Europe were not. After all what are Aristocrats but the descendents of previously upwardly mobile people?
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Oxford normally requires 3 As with occasional exceptions (and almost of all of those with 2 E grade offers get 3 As). Cambridge A*AA, with some courses requiring a Merit or distinction in the STEP exam
I accept that is the present position - the formal entrance exam no longer exists.
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Well into the 90s, please! (says the recipient of a 2 E offer)
But that's simply because, at the time, you needed 2 E grades to legally matriculate into university (no idea if that is still the case). So Oxford was effectively making an unconditional offer. But tutors were pretty disapproving of people who took their foot off the pedal and just scrapped in
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162
Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
Indeed and put so succinctly !!
I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.
It very much depends on the College. My brother got an Exhibition at Churchill College from a Comprehensive. He says that most of his fellow students there were also from state schools, mainly Comps, and fairly often from fairly mundane backgrounds.
This is how the British Establishment survives; always open to new blood in ways that the more rigid aristocracies of Continental Europe were not. After all what are Aristocrats but the descendents of previously upwardly mobile people?
If you're prepared to consider (true) grammar school students alongside the comps, then it's pretty much 55:45 state/private at Oxford. This is slightly worse than the 65:35 getting AAA (Oxford's standard entry) but since the average admitted student has higher (by definition) than that more or less represents equality. The dramatic difference is of course in the A level performance beforehand.
Anyway I had a friend from a Welsh comp, told not to bother applying. When she got in, and told her careers adviser, she was told she was probably let in to "fill the quota"...
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Well, it's an opinion I suppose.
Appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, let alone the sidebar of shame, is not a measure of class at all.
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Well into the 90s, please! (says the recipient of a 2 E offer)
But that's simply because, at the time, you needed 2 E grades to legally matriculate into university (no idea if that is still the case). So Oxford was effectively making an unconditional offer. But tutors were pretty disapproving of people who took their foot off the pedal and just scrapped in
Sorry but I thought the Entrance Exam had stopped earlier than that - though I am also aware that tests are now given for many subjects as a filtering process!
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Oxford normally requires 3 As with occasional exceptions (and almost of all of those with 2 E grade offers get 3 As). Cambridge A*AA, with some courses requiring a Merit or distinction in the STEP exam
I accept that is the present position - the formal entrance exam no longer exists.
I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.
Well into the 90s, please! (says the recipient of a 2 E offer)
But that's simply because, at the time, you needed 2 E grades to legally matriculate into university (no idea if that is still the case). So Oxford was effectively making an unconditional offer. But tutors were pretty disapproving of people who took their foot off the pedal and just scrapped in
Sorry but I thought the Entrance Exam had stopped earlier than that - though I am also aware that tests are now given for many subjects as a filtering process!
A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.
Indeed and put so succinctly !!
I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.
It very much depends on the College. My brother got an Exhibition at Churchill College from a Comprehensive. He says that most of his fellow students there were also from state schools, mainly Comps, and fairly often from fairly mundane backgrounds.
This is how the British Establishment survives; always open to new blood in ways that the more rigid aristocracies of Continental Europe were not. After all what are Aristocrats but the descendents of previously upwardly mobile people?
A Farewell to Alms shows English history has been one of downward social mobility.
Captain Blackadder: And then the final, irrefutable proof. Remember, you mentioned a clever boyfriend... Nurse Mary: Yes. Captain Blackadder: I then leapt on the opportunity to test you. I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull. Nurse Mary: Well? Captain Blackadder: You failed to spot that only two of those are great Universities. Nurse Mary: Swine! General Melchett: That's right! Oxford's a complete dump!
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!
Many aristocrats now struggle to maintain the upkeep of their piles if they have not handed them over to the likes of English Heritage and the National Trust and they no longer have an automatic place in the House of Lords. The Super rich now control the real power in the financial and business worlds, while celebrities include the likes of Cameron and Osborne as well as Hollywood stars and top sports stars. Those royals who are still relevant eg the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are A+ list celebrities anyway, and the shrewder aristocrats have entered the celebrity market too eg the Duke of Wellington's granddaughter has married James Blunt
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!
Many aristocrats now struggle to maintain the upkeep of their piles if they have not handed them over to the likes of English Heritage and the National Trust and they no longer have an automatic place in the House of Lords. The Super rich now control the real power in the financial and business worlds, while celebrities include the likes of Cameron and Osborne as well as Hollywood stars and top sports stars. Those royals who are still relevant eg the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are A+ list celebrities anyway, and the shrewder aristocrats have entered the celebrity market too eg the Duke of Wellington's granddaughter has married James Blunt
I still love the fact that Apsley House, the Duke of Wellington's residence has the address No1 London.
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162
Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)
In essence correct, though a few of the plate glass universities have now overtaken some of the old red bricks eg Warwick and York
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162
Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)
In essence correct, though a few of the plate glass universities have now overtaken some of the old red bricks eg Warwick and York
Warwick celebrates its 50th anniversary this year!
The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!
Many aristocrats now struggle to maintain the upkeep of their piles if they have not handed them over to the likes of English Heritage and the National Trust and they no longer have an automatic place in the House of Lords. The Super rich now control the real power in the financial and business worlds, while celebrities include the likes of Cameron and Osborne as well as Hollywood stars and top sports stars. Those royals who are still relevant eg the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are A+ list celebrities anyway, and the shrewder aristocrats have entered the celebrity market too eg the Duke of Wellington's granddaughter has married James Blunt
I still love the fact that Apsley House, the Duke of Wellington's residence has the address No1 London.
Indeed, I visited Apsley House last summer, well worth a visit with lots of Wellington memorabilia, some fascinating portraits (including one of the first Waterloo banquet) and an excellent exhibition on his life in the basin
SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty
Well, it's an opinion I suppose.
Appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, let alone the sidebar of shame, is not a measure of class at all.
You are as likely to find pictures of the Queen and Princes William and Harry in the sidebar as a Hollywood actor or actress or a pop star, both are upper class in my opinion (I include B list and above, Z list big brother stars do not count as real 'celebrities' as their fame is almost always too fleeting). Of course in centuries past many aristocrats and royals could be just as debauched as many modern celebrities
Captain Blackadder: And then the final, irrefutable proof. Remember, you mentioned a clever boyfriend... Nurse Mary: Yes. Captain Blackadder: I then leapt on the opportunity to test you. I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull. Nurse Mary: Well? Captain Blackadder: You failed to spot that only two of those are great Universities. Nurse Mary: Swine! General Melchett: That's right! Oxford's a complete dump!
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
If you go to the modern-day University of Northampton (no relation), you can study (or at least used to be able to) BSc (Hons) Waste Management and Dance. Don't imagine anyone did it, but the modular aspect of the degrees allows some funny combinations.
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
Kendall could make a good living in Holywood playing the part of a witch. I think The Wizard of Oz nixed her political career years before she was hatched.
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
There is too much concentration on degrees. We need more vocational ways for young people to succeed in many industries. I am not saying that degrees are pointless, especially in some industries: just that there should be alternative routes.
If you go to the modern-day University of Northampton (no relation), you can study (or at least used to be able to) BSc (Hons) Waste Management and Dance. Don't imagine anyone did it, but the modular aspect of the degrees allows some funny combinations.
The sort of shit degree course that gets me jumping up and down.. and spinning.
True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
That's not actually correct.
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162
Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)
In essence correct, though a few of the plate glass universities have now overtaken some of the old red bricks eg Warwick and York
Warwick celebrates its 50th anniversary this year!
(however, Imperial was my alma mater)
Indeed, was my alma mater (with an MSc at Aberystwyth)
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
A public-school-and-Oxbridge-educated judge, whose identity I can't recall, told a bunch of law students at their college law society's meal that "it was very important to get a good degree". After all, he had got a third himself, "and it was a bloody good third indeed"!
(In seriousness, in some courses in which I have experience, there really is a marked difference between in quality/difficulty between Oxbridge undergraduate degrees and at other Russell group unis, even prestigious ones. I think it is certainly true that there are a fair number of students with Oxbridge II:1s who would have got a First elsewhere in the Russell Group. As for people with Oxbridge 3rds, I think the issue is more likely to be hard work than anything else! They were certainly well-screened for cognitive ability so that is unlikely to be it. In some of the graduate schools, particularly the "professionally oriented" ones, the quality of a course is not guaranteed by the Oxbridge nameplate. Plenty of employers regard an MBA from the LBS more highly than they do from the Judge...)
The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.
I remember that my English master graduated from Oxford with a Fourth ! in the late 1940s. I have often wondered how such a person came to be admitted in the first place. Could he have been the beneficiary of relaxed entry requirements post World War2 for the benefit of ex servicemen? I am also pretty sure that Oxford - unlike Cambridge - did not split its second class into 2.1 and 2.2 until sometime in the 1980s.
The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.
University of Greenwich was the one I had in mind.
I remember that my English master graduated from Oxford with a Fourth ! in the late 1940s. I have often wondered how such a person came to be admitted in the first place. Could he have been the beneficiary of relaxed entry requirements post World War2 for the benefit of ex servicemen? I am also pretty sure that Oxford - unlike Cambridge - did not split its second class into 2.1 and 2.2 until sometime in the 1980s.
You can (as far as I know) still get an 'ordinary degree' - which is one without honors. I think there may be another class too.
The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.
University of Greenwich was the one I had in mind.
i was thinking of london met, im sure the MO is the same.
For those who think "Russell Group" is automatically a seal of Oxbridge-like quality, remember that silly fuss about a Sheffield economics exam (3rd year undergrad) which was in the news?
There was a good discussion of it on Tim Worsall's blog. One of the below-the-line commenters was a former Oxbridge admissions tutor who reckoned that he'd used harder material, with 30 mins prep time, at interview with sixth formers.
This is probably an excessive and isolated example, but an interesting one.
The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.
University of Greenwich was the one I had in mind.
i was thinking of london met, im sure the MO is the same.
No - I think Greenwich is a proper institution with proper standards. Just in my experience those standards seem to be pitched rather low.
I don't think Oxbridge has been immune from the grade inflation that has occurred throughout the UK educational system over the last 30 years or so. In the past there were many Oxbridge 3rds - I think of Barbara Castle - David Dimbleby - Edward Boyle - but nowadays they rare rare indeed as has become the case elsewhere.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
I remember that my English master graduated from Oxford with a Fourth ! in the late 1940s. I have often wondered how such a person came to be admitted in the first place. Could he have been the beneficiary of relaxed entry requirements post World War2 for the benefit of ex servicemen? I am also pretty sure that Oxford - unlike Cambridge - did not split its second class into 2.1 and 2.2 until sometime in the 1980s.
Indeed. It was the basis for a rather good bit of Sir Humphry Appleby snobbery in Yes Prime Minister.
No - I think Greenwich is a proper institution with proper standards. Just in my experience those standards seem to be pitched rather low.
...which triggers in my memory the old chestnut on an Army officer's annual appraisal review: "This officer sets himself extremely low standards - which he consistently fails to achieve."
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
So just a 700 year delay for Northampton to get its university then!
The bottom bottom end of the London Higher Ed market are the private colleges, mostly doing University of London external ("international") exams but sometimes taking franchised degrees from other unis (the University of Wales, when it existed, was a popular choice.)
They're the "London College of Business and Computing Technology" you see above fast food restaurants. Entirely filled with students from Asia, Africa and to some extent South America, there for the visa and the right to work a few hours a week. Even East European students don't bother now they have their EU rights. Sunil will know the type I mean, he's surrounded by them in his corner of Redbridge. Quality of education there is very very very low.
They also have the capacity to collapse suddenly leaving students in limbo, one of the biggest examples in recent years was was the London TASMAC School of Business.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
Not my experience - particularly in the sciences, where Oxford particularly can be ruthless after poor performance in prelims. Both cases I know of (students who were advised to leave my college) proved to be entirely correct, they both went on to get 1sts or 2:1s elsewhere.
In the arts Law, in particular, seemed to be a very different beasts at Oxbridge and elsewhere. 1-2 essays per week at Ox, 1 per term elsewhere. With independent reading expected at Oxford.
I can't really comment about myself, though, because I studied history and so on summer terms spent more time playing cricket and croquet than working...
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
As an alumnus of Brasenose, and my father at Stamford School, I'll give you the wiki version:
"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."
I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
I first heard the story when investigating the background to some mediaval buildings I was excavating at Hawton near Newark. The local vicar had done a load of research and come up with the story. I had not thought much of it until I came across some more official references at Oxford regarding the Stamford college. I am still unsure about the Newark angle as information on that is more patchy and not helped by the fact that a number of families involved ended up on the wrong side of the Lambert Simnel rebellion in 1487.
The Wiki page of Oxford Uni mentions the Stamford college attempt and I will see if I can dig out more details.
I think the Charter was refused by Edward III after representations from Oxford and Cambridge.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
As an alumnus of Brasenose, and my father at Stamford School, I'll give you the wiki version:
"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."
I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.
Snap!
Bit confused by the story though, given BNC was surely founded in 1509 (the 500 year Anniv. was the year after I came down)....
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
Not my experience - particularly in the sciences, where Oxford particularly can be ruthless after poor performance in prelims. Both cases I know of (students who were advised to leave my college) proved to be entirely correct, they both went on to get 1sts or 2:1s elsewhere.
In the arts Law, in particular, seemed to be a very different beasts at Oxbridge and elsewhere. 1-2 essays per week at Ox, 1 per term elsewhere. With independent reading expected at Oxford.
I can't really comment about myself, though, because I studied history and so on summer terms spent more time playing cricket and croquet than working...
I did my one-and-a-half essays a week, eight weeks a term, for my nine terms!
Plus extra when required. ("Perhaps you'd like another go, White Rabbit")
I didn't know anyone who was on for a 2:2 (or third) who left, but they were read the Riot Act.
As for the view across to other unis, one degree classification is the norm. I don't know 2:2ers who think they'd get firsts at Sheffield.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
As an alumnus of Brasenose, and my father at Stamford School, I'll give you the wiki version:
"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."
I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.
Snap!
Bit confused by the story though, given BNC was surely founded in 1509 (the 500 year Anniv. was the year after I came down)....
It was more of a hall before 1509, occupying the part of the site which is now the lodge.
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge
Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?
As an alumnus of Brasenose, and my father at Stamford School, I'll give you the wiki version:
"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."
I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.
Snap!
Bit confused by the story though, given BNC was surely founded in 1509 (the 500 year Anniv. was the year after I came down)....
It was more of a hall before 1509, occupying the part of the site which is now the lodge.
Cripes, that would have been a bit of a squeeze. The plodge wasn't exact spacious, even including the tower and the principal's lodgings.
The bottom bottom end of the London Higher Ed market are the private colleges, mostly doing University of London external ("international") exams but sometimes taking franchised degrees from other unis (the University of Wales, when it existed, was a popular choice.)
They're the "London College of Business and Computing Technology" you see above fast food restaurants. Entirely filled with students from Asia, Africa and to some extent South America, there for the visa and the right to work a few hours a week. Even East European students don't bother now they have their EU rights. Sunil will know the type I mean, he's surrounded by them in his corner of Redbridge. Quality of education there is very very very low.
They also have the capacity to collapse suddenly leaving students in limbo, one of the biggest examples in recent years was was the London TASMAC School of Business.
My favourite was "Empire College London", because it was such obvious attempt to look like my alma mater
Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales. Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2. ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.
@MyBurningEars For a dated discussion, see Salter, 'The Stamford Schism', EHR 37(146), 249-253. I should add the best starting point is Catto (ed.), The Early Oxford Schools in the magisterial multi-volume survey of the university's history.
The impression has been given that prior to World War 2 Oxbridge often acted as a Finishing School for the Brideshead Revisited set. Is the option no longer there for people from such backgrounds to simply turn up and have a good time for thee years whilst also being content to leave with a 3rd or 2.2?
The impression has been given that prior to World War 2 Oxbridge often acted as a Finishing School for the Brideshead Revisited set. Is the option no longer there for people from such backgrounds to simply turn up and have a good time for thee years whilst also being content to leave with a 3rd or 2.2?
The BBC is very depressing this evening. In the last 30 minutes I've seen growing Salafism in Bosnia, an ongoing terror alert in Tunisia, and two families from the UK trying to join IS. These are supposed to be some of the moderate Muslim countries in the world, yet it seems like wherever Islam exists, jihadism goes with it. Jihadism seems to have become more popular among Muslims since 9/11. Why is this happening?
Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales. Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2. ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.
Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
Kendall could make a good living in Holywood playing the part of a witch. I think The Wizard of Oz nixed her political career years before she was hatched.
Hey hello Moniker, make way folks, something wicked this way comes.
Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales. Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2. ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.
Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
United in defeat? United in opposition? United against aspiration?
Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales. Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2. ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.
Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united
United in defeat? United in opposition? United against aspiration?
Comments
The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.
The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.
You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder.
I was further suggesting that gaining an Oxbridge place today is a significantly greater scholastic achievement than was the case pre-World War 2 - for the reasons given.
Pre-World War2 there was also Manchester, Leeds , Birmingham & Liverpool.
She is entitled to argue her case and mark out a position for herself and her views for the future, but she is in no position to lead the Labour Party because the Labour Party does not want to listen.
Metron 4Jul Yes 43 No 49
Pamak 3/4 Jul Yes 40.5 No 46
I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.
Clarke was a proven big beast, Kendall's biggest problem is that she has no top flight political experience in opposition or govt.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14fJtyTh2RTSJdobOwYcU8-GQhFIsc1TYy86y369QdXc/edit?usp=sharing
It is a horrible referendum - death by a thousand cuts or having the head severed completely by one stroke of the sword.
Mr. Jonnie, perhaps it's more like having a dislocated economy. Getting it shoved back in the right place will bloody hurt, the alternative is to have a painful, useless thing forever.
There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class
Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.
There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.
And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.
That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.
This is how the British Establishment survives; always open to new blood in ways that the more rigid aristocracies of Continental Europe were not. After all what are Aristocrats but the descendents of previously upwardly mobile people?
But that's simply because, at the time, you needed 2 E grades to legally matriculate into university (no idea if that is still the case). So Oxford was effectively making an unconditional offer. But tutors were pretty disapproving of people who took their foot off the pedal and just scrapped in
Anyway I had a friend from a Welsh comp, told not to bother applying. When she got in, and told her careers adviser, she was told she was probably let in to "fill the quota"...
Appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, let alone the sidebar of shame, is not a measure of class at all.
Captain Blackadder: And then the final, irrefutable proof. Remember, you mentioned a clever boyfriend...
Nurse Mary: Yes.
Captain Blackadder: I then leapt on the opportunity to test you. I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull.
Nurse Mary: Well?
Captain Blackadder: You failed to spot that only two of those are great Universities.
Nurse Mary: Swine!
General Melchett: That's right! Oxford's a complete dump!
(however, Imperial was my alma mater)
Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.
I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.
At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.
Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.
I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).
England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.
Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).
Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.
If you go to the modern-day University of Northampton (no relation), you can study (or at least used to be able to) BSc (Hons) Waste Management and Dance. Don't imagine anyone did it, but the modular aspect of the degrees allows some funny combinations.
http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/
There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.
I think The Wizard of Oz nixed her political career years before she was hatched.
(In seriousness, in some courses in which I have experience, there really is a marked difference between in quality/difficulty between Oxbridge undergraduate degrees and at other Russell group unis, even prestigious ones. I think it is certainly true that there are a fair number of students with Oxbridge II:1s who would have got a First elsewhere in the Russell Group. As for people with Oxbridge 3rds, I think the issue is more likely to be hard work than anything else! They were certainly well-screened for cognitive ability so that is unlikely to be it. In some of the graduate schools, particularly the "professionally oriented" ones, the quality of a course is not guaranteed by the Oxbridge nameplate. Plenty of employers regard an MBA from the LBS more highly than they do from the Judge...)
I am also pretty sure that Oxford - unlike Cambridge - did not split its second class into 2.1 and 2.2 until sometime in the 1980s.
There was a good discussion of it on Tim Worsall's blog. One of the below-the-line commenters was a former Oxbridge admissions tutor who reckoned that he'd used harder material, with 30 mins prep time, at interview with sixth formers.
This is probably an excessive and isolated example, but an interesting one.
"This officer sets himself extremely low standards - which he consistently fails to achieve."
So just a 700 year delay for Northampton to get its university then!
They're the "London College of Business and Computing Technology" you see above fast food restaurants. Entirely filled with students from Asia, Africa and to some extent South America, there for the visa and the right to work a few hours a week. Even East European students don't bother now they have their EU rights. Sunil will know the type I mean, he's surrounded by them in his corner of Redbridge. Quality of education there is very very very low.
They also have the capacity to collapse suddenly leaving students in limbo, one of the biggest examples in recent years was was the London TASMAC School of Business.
In the arts Law, in particular, seemed to be a very different beasts at Oxbridge and elsewhere. 1-2 essays per week at Ox, 1 per term elsewhere. With independent reading expected at Oxford.
I can't really comment about myself, though, because I studied history and so on summer terms spent more time playing cricket and croquet than working...
"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."
I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.
The Wiki page of Oxford Uni mentions the Stamford college attempt and I will see if I can dig out more details.
I think the Charter was refused by Edward III after representations from Oxford and Cambridge.
Bit confused by the story though, given BNC was surely founded in 1509 (the 500 year Anniv. was the year after I came down)....
Plus extra when required. ("Perhaps you'd like another go, White Rabbit")
I didn't know anyone who was on for a 2:2 (or third) who left, but they were read the Riot Act.
As for the view across to other unis, one degree classification is the norm. I don't know 2:2ers who think they'd get firsts at Sheffield.
Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.
For a dated discussion, see Salter, 'The Stamford Schism', EHR 37(146), 249-253.
I should add the best starting point is Catto (ed.), The Early Oxford Schools in the magisterial multi-volume survey of the university's history.
United in opposition?
United against aspiration?
The party is the most important thing, after all.
Party comes first.