This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?
No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.
Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.
Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.
He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.
The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.
I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.
Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?
The great thing about the Young story is that it shows the people taking power and influence away from the privileged elite post-Brexit. Everything has changed, hasn't it?
Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.
As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.
Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...
As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.
If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.
My comments were not aimed at Corbyn. If anything the questions he has asked about the fairness of the current system are exactly the sorts of questions which should be asked and which haven’t been effectively answered.
And in part they haven’t been bcause I think that we are at risk of losing the art of debate. There is too much assertion not enough argument. Too much complacency - largely by those who benefit. And the Left has hardly been at the forefront of encouraging a diversity of opinion. Free speech is not some optional extra. It’s at the heart of our culture - or should be.
You just wrote another two paragraphs in addition to the original eleven and you still haven't told us wtf you're talking about
I’m sorry you’re not able to understand. I won’t trouble you further.
Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.
As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.
Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...
As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.
If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.
My comments were not aimed at Corbyn. If anything the questions he has asked about the fairness of the current system are exactly the sorts of questions which should be asked and which haven’t been effectively answered.
And in part they haven’t been bcause I think that we are at risk of losing the art of debate. There is too much assertion not enough argument. Too much complacency - largely by those who benefit. And the Left has hardly been at the forefront of encouraging a diversity of opinion. Free speech is not some optional extra. It’s at the heart of our culture - or should be.
For Orwell the thought police, Newspeak, Doublethink and the Ministry of Truth, were the creations and apparatus of an oppressive state. He did not envisage that safe spaces, no-platforming etc. would arise spontaneously from agitation by young people who disdain freedom of speech. For them free speech is indeed an optional extra. It will only be a matter of time before an opportunistic political party adopts their stance.
Miss Cyclefree, got to admit, I did wonder when I heard that Chinese announcement whether that would just be the natural uplift given economic development.
It’s the breadth of their ambition which struck me.
Contrast with Mrs May announcing the construction of a few thousand homes last year.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
People are also forgetting the fact that a role of a board member is different to the role of an executive.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
iirc his father invented the term meritocracy, by writing a dystopian book based on the idea.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He didn't go to a comprehensive. He was in the year below me at my grammar school. He is undoubtedly smart, but so are many other people whose Dad's did not get them into Oxford.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
Kim Jongun's nuclear weapons are intended to be a threat. Threats work when you get your way without deploying them. To work however threats have to be be credible. Kim Jongun needs the rest of the world to believe that he would have absolutely no qualms about lobbing a nuclear missile in the direction of South Korea, Japan or the United States. Donald Trump is playing Kim's dangerous game. Maybe China will start asserting some responsibility in the region.
Toby Young has no obvious qualification for his place on the Office for Students and seems to have been appointed purely as a crony of the minister. The bigger question is what the OfS is there to do. If it had a remit, you would then attempt to give it the means to fulfill that remit and determine the skills you require for the postholders.
On topic, I don't think capitalism is particularly under threat, but liberalism is struggling for acceptance. Liberalism was the big loser of the mid 20th Century dictatorships and the big winner in the post War settlement in Europe. It is under threat now because it is blamed for the excesses of globalisation and stagnating living standards in the West and because autocratic regimes, particularly in China, are seen as effective alternatives. This in turn undermines the western concept of liberal democracy, including pluralism, the rule of law and international cooperation. Liberalism needs to make the case for itself because the alternative arguments are false ones, leading to real detrimental effects for countries and their populations.
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
People are also forgetting the fact that a role of a board member is different to the role of an executive.
What exactly are his qualifications to be a Board member of this particular regulatory body?
What sort of process was there around the appointments to this body?
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He didn't go to a comprehensive. He was in the year below me at my grammar school. He is undoubtedly smart, but so are many other people whose Dad's did not get them into Oxford.
I got my information from the fount of all knowledge:
Young was educated at Creighton School (now Fortismere School), Muswell Hill and King Edward VI Community College, Totnes. He left school at 16 with one Grade C GCE O-Level in English Literature and did menial jobs under a Government Youth Training Scheme. He then retook his O-Levels and went to the Sixth Form of William Ellis School, Highgate, leaving with two Bs and a C at A-Level and managing to obtain a place at Brasenose College, Oxford.
The same fount of all knowledge claims that all three schools mentioned are comprehensives, but William Ellis might not have been at the time he was there.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He didn't go to a comprehensive. He was in the year below me at my grammar school. He is undoubtedly smart, but so are many other people whose Dad's did not get them into Oxford.
I got my information from the fount of all knowledge:
Young was educated at Creighton School (now Fortismere School), Muswell Hill and King Edward VI Community College, Totnes. He left school at 16 with one Grade C GCE O-Level in English Literature and did menial jobs under a Government Youth Training Scheme. He then retook his O-Levels and went to the Sixth Form of William Ellis School, Highgate, leaving with two Bs and a C at A-Level and managing to obtain a place at Brasenose College, Oxford.
The same fount of all knowledge claims that all three schools mentioned are comprehensives.
William Ellis (my school) turned comprehensive in 1978, I think. My year, Young's year and the one below that were grammar.
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
People are also forgetting the fact that a role of a board member is different to the role of an executive.
What exactly are his qualifications to be a Board member of this particular regulatory body?
What sort of process was there around the appointments to this body?
Who else was considered?
Lots of experience of education and interacting with the Education department to get new schools founded. Proven ability to drive change with a focus on standards. A different perspective that will challenge the consensus: this is one of the key criteria for a board member (to know when to challenge and when to shut up)
As for process there would have been the standard process for public appointments (I think I've seen some other people complain they didn't get appointed even though - in their opinion - they were a better candidate).
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
...Proven ability to drive change with a focus on standards. A different perspective that will challenge the consensus: this is one of the key criteria for a board member (to know when to challenge and when to shut up)...
Knowing when to shut up might be a problem for Toby Young, though!
I really can't see what the fuss is about. All sorts of people get appointed to boards like this. They are deliberately chosen not to be professionals in the field, so avoid producer capture. Usually they are Guardianistas, this is a rare example of the opposite.
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
People are also forgetting the fact that a role of a board member is different to the role of an executive.
What exactly are his qualifications to be a Board member of this particular regulatory body?
What sort of process was there around the appointments to this body?
Who else was considered?
Lots of experience of education and interacting with the Education department to get new schools founded. Proven ability to drive change with a focus on standards. A different perspective that will challenge the consensus: this is one of the key criteria for a board member (to know when to challenge and when to shut up)
As for process there would have been the standard process for public appointments (I think I've seen some other people complain they didn't get appointed even though - in their opinion - they were a better candidate).
The complaint was that they did not get interviewed, I think.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
Quite so. That however doesn't reflect badly on him. In fact, he has put a lot of personal effort into improving the chances of pupils from less privileged backgrounds.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
As someone who has a doctorate in Education research, been an educator for 15 years, am now an assistant professor in Denmark and still teach in the computer science dept at Oxford I think Toby Young shouts loudly about education never having done any research;
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
People are also forgetting the fact that a role of a board member is different to the role of an executive.
What exactly are his qualifications to be a Board member of this particular regulatory body?
What sort of process was there around the appointments to this body?
Who else was considered?
Lots of experience of education and interacting with the Education department to get new schools founded. Proven ability to drive change with a focus on standards. A different perspective that will challenge the consensus: this is one of the key criteria for a board member (to know when to challenge and when to shut up)
As for process there would have been the standard process for public appointments (I think I've seen some other people complain they didn't get appointed even though - in their opinion - they were a better candidate).
The complaint was that they did not get interviewed, I think.
I'd be very surprised if there would be any political involvement in deciding who gets an interview. That's handled by the civil service
That sort of edge is only usually relevant either as a graduate trainee (gets you an interview) or in the final shortlist (for a quango)
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
I had to do Grays Elegy in a Country Churchyard for O level and the thoughts therein have stayed with me for life!
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
Do you think he should have gone to the Open University?
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Indeed - especially as there is evidence that state school kids outperform privately educated ones at university:
The Young stuff is manufactured outrage to me. It is merely another example of what happens in the UK and always has - the privileged elite looks after the privileged elite and assumes that the privileged elite will provide all the answers. Labour has done it just as much as the Tories - look at who staffs the Corbyn leadership office, for example: mostly privately educated, upper middle class men.
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
The consultation only closed on 22 Dec! But the Russell Group seems open to the concept:
The principles of risk-based, proportionate regulation in the interest of students forms a welcome basis for the new OfS regulatory framework.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
Do you think he should have gone to the Open University?
Good afternoon all.
I got my degree from the OU at the tender age of 42. Wonderful institution:).
@Cyclefree’s argument is compelling, but, as ever, it’s hard to see how we deal with this kind of informal influence-peddling.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
Quite so. That however doesn't reflect badly on him. In fact, he has put a lot of personal effort into improving the chances of pupils from less privileged backgrounds.
I agree. I have no real problem with his appointment, beyond it being yet another case of the privileged elite not looking beyond the privileged elite for solutions. Nothing ever changes. But we get the society we vote for - and Young is not a dullard. He may be plenty of other things, but he is smart.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
It is not the job of our government to make our hearts sing. Its job is the more mundane one of spending our hard earned money wisely, identifying and addressing social problems and essentially keeping a moderately successful show on the road to the benefit of as many citizens as possible. Its much harder work and much less glamorous but it is damned important.
It is important and it's not glamorous, you're right. But it is the job of political parties to make the heart sing and to envision and advocate a better country and a better world. Only by doing both the vision thing and the delivery thing do you get success.
Something that’s often overlooked when looking at China’s progress is that it’s a lot easier to catch up than it is to overtake. When China’s GDP equals that of the US, her GDP per capita will still be only 25% of the US equivalent. I’m not one of those people arguing that there is no innovation in China; in certain areas, like payments, they are way ahead of most Western countries. However, I’m not yet convinced that innovation is sufficiently widespread for them to go toe-to-toe with the West in most high-value areas.
I think future historians will look back at the West and ponder the incredible naivety with which Western corporates entered China. Huge amounts of IP were given away in exchange for market access, putting short term profits above long term prospects. My own view is that it was a function of Western complacency; we have always been rich and powerful, so why worry if the rules are slanted against us? We have our own variety of this delusion with the unthinking support for free trade by certain Brexiteers, even when unreciprocated by other parties.
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
And yet Young got a first. So he was among the best.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
He got into Oxford because the college screwed up and felt they should honour their original letter, even though it was clearly an error. His father's role was simply insisting on calling for clarification.
The OfS's remit is under consultation, but essentially is to regulate the university system (including who can award degrees) rather than, as currently, it being carried out by central government.
He would have been appointed through the normal public appointments process which should have addressed all your other points, but a bunch of random people on a website won't be able to answer them
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
Do you think he should have gone to the Open University?
Good afternoon all.
I got my degree from the OU at the tender age of 42. Wonderful institution:).
@Cyclefree’s argument is compelling, but, as ever, it’s hard to see how we deal with this kind of informal influence-peddling.
Fair enough. I wasn't wanting to deprecate the OU, which I admire. My point was tongue-in-cheek about cronyism – Young's father was one of the founders of the OU, so perhaps he could have wangled it there too (pointless though it would have been, given the OU's entrance policy!)
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
Miss Cyclefree, lot easier to be ambitious with significantly higher growth and no pesky elections to worry about.
I think it’s exactly at times like these when we should aim high.
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
The challenge is that May believes that the basic system works. We need to fix the housing system is an important point, but hardly a "vision"
Whereas Corbyn is saying it's all sh1t, lets start again. Easy for that to be more "visionary" even if it's wrong.
Does the basic system work? Does it, in @DavidL’s phrase, “benefit as many citizens as possible” when so many of the younger generation feel that they are saddled with debt, have little hope of owning property in regions where the jobs are and any form of saving gets little reward, with all the consequent impact on their ability to make a life for themselves?
“Homes for heroes” was a vision.
If Corbyn’s vision is wrong, let’s show how it is by showing - not just stating - how the current system can do better.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
Well, quite. Lots of people, who know nothing whatsoever about either of the two points you mention, seem to be saying he wasn't.
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
He didn't fail to get in, he just scraped in after narrowly missing the required grades for his conditional offer. The role of his Dad was (according to the article I posted) limited to asking what was going on because there was confusion about whether he had been accepted or not. Whatever the real story, Oxford was right to admit him, as he showed by getting a First.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
It's not normal to have a complete public blow-by-blow comparison between appointees and those who failed to get appointed. However, on paper he looks extremely well qualified. He has some (admittedly patchy) post-graduate/teaching experience. He's a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and a Commissioner of the UK Fulbright Commission. He's taken a lifelong interest in education. According to Wikipedia:
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Young is (IMO at least) something of a controversialist pillock, but I can't see how one should hold his father's calling the college admissions tutor against him. And he's about twenty times as qualified for this particular post as Labour's shadow education secretary is to be in charge of national education policy, however obnoxious he might be...
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
Well, quite. Lots of people, who know nothing whatsoever about either of the two points you mention, seem to be saying he wasn't.
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
He didn't fail to get in, he just scraped in after narrowly missing the required grades for his conditional offer. The role of his Dad was (according to the article I posted) limited to asking what was going on because there was confusion about whether he had been accepted or not. Whatever the real story, Oxford was right to admit him, as he showed by getting a First.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
It's not normal to have a complete public blow-by-blow comparison between appointees and those who failed to get appointed. However, on paper he looks extremely well qualified. He has some (admittedly patchy) post-graduate/teaching experience. He's a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and a Commissioner of the UK Fulbright Commission. He's taken a lifelong interest in education. According to Wikipedia:
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
He is not unqualified. A more interesting question is who are the other appointments to the panel ?
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Which religion is that?
Our value system has evolved over thousands of years during which there have been plenty of different religions including the Graeco-Roman gods etc
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
It is. The number of value systems that have co-existed alongside Christianity across the last 2000 years (and the number of other religions that can co-exist alongside a liberal culture) is proof enough of that. If anything, the Western secularist values precede the Christian era, and can trace their roots back to ancient Greece and Rome.
Something that’s often overlooked when looking at China’s progress is that it’s a lot easier to catch up than it is to overtake. When China’s GDP equals that of the US, her GDP per capita will still be only 25% of the US equivalent. I’m not one of those people arguing that there is no innovation in China; in certain areas, like payments, they are way ahead of most Western countries. However, I’m not yet convinced that innovation is sufficiently widespread for them to go toe-to-toe with the West in most high-value areas.
I think future historians will look back at the West and ponder the incredible naivety with which Western corporates entered China. Huge amounts of IP were given away in exchange for market access, putting short term profits above long term prospects. My own view is that it was a function of Western complacency; we have always been rich and powerful, so why worry if the rules are slanted against us? We have our own variety of this delusion with the unthinking support for free trade by certain Brexiteers, even when unreciprocated by other parties.
India and China are both likely to be in the top 3 economies by GDP by 2050 alongside the US but only China may match the GDP per capita of western economies by then and on a GDP per capita basis the US is still likely to be ahead of China
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
And yet Young got a first. So he was among the best.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
He got into Oxford because the college screwed up and felt they should honour their original letter, even though it was clearly an error. His father's role was simply insisting on calling for clarification.
The OfS's remit is under consultation, but essentially is to regulate the university system (including who can award degrees) rather than, as currently, it being carried out by central government.
He would have been appointed through the normal public appointments process which should have addressed all your other points, but a bunch of random people on a website won't be able to answer them
Hmm..... if the OfS’s remit is still under consultation I am sceptical that you can have made a sensible decision about what qualities/qualifications you need in the people sitting on its Board.
And a bunch of random people on a website seem to have decided that he is the perfect choice on the basis of.... well, not very much at all, other than that he is not liked by people they don’t like.
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
I think that technically the 2 E offers were "unconditional" rather than "conditional". The 2 E requirement was the legal minimum to matriculate
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics ar- beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Indeed - especially as there is evidence that state school kids outperform privately educated ones at university:
The Young stuff is manufactured outrage to me. It is merely another example of what happens in the UK and always has - the privileged elite looks after the privileged elite and assumes that the privileged elite will provide all the answers. Labour has done it just as much as the Tories - look at who staffs the Corbyn leadership office, for example: mostly privately educated, upper middle class men.
If a private and state school pupil enter a university with the same A Level grades the state school pupil is more likely to get a higher class of degree than the private school pupil on average but that is just an example of the extra value added provided by most private schools to their pupils in comparison to most state schools.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
Kim Jongun's nuclear weapons are intended to be a threat. Threats work when you get your way without deploying them. To work however threats have to be be credible. Kim Jongun needs the rest of the world to believe that he would have absolutely no qualms about lobbing a nuclear missile in the direction of South Korea, Japan or the United States. Donald Trump is playing Kim's dangerous game. Maybe China will start asserting some responsibility in the region.
Toby Young has no obvious qualification for his place on the Office for Students and seems to have been appointed purely as a crony of the minister. The bigger question is what the OfS is there to do. If it had a remit, you would then attempt to give it the means to fulfill that remit and determine the skills you require for the postholders.
On topic, I don't think capitalism is particularly under threat, but liberalism is struggling for acceptance. Liberalism was the big loser of the mid 20th Century dictatorships and the big winner in the post War settlement in Europe. It is under threat now because it is blamed for the excesses of globalisation and stagnating living standards in the West and because autocratic regimes, particularly in China, are seen as effective alternatives. This in turn undermines the western concept of liberal democracy, including pluralism, the rule of law and international cooperation. Liberalism needs to make the case for itself because the alternative arguments are false ones, leading to real detrimental effects for countries and their populations.
Then surely it is only right Trump makes clear the USA will nuke North Korea into oblivion if it launches a missile strike against the US, Japan or South Korea. Only an astonishingly weak US President would do any less
Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
The consultation only closed on 22 Dec! But the Russell Group seems open to the concept:
The principles of risk-based, proportionate regulation in the interest of students forms a welcome basis for the new OfS regulatory framework.
I'm open to the concept too, but if the remit is tasks like ensuring standardisation or value for money, you would want people with expertise in those areas on your board. It doesn't seem to have any expertise. Toby Young is only one such deadweight. The OfS board consists of nothing else.
Hmm..... if the OfS’s remit is still under consultation I am sceptical that you can have made a sensible decision about what qualities/qualifications you need in the people sitting on its Board.
And a bunch of random people on a website seem to have decided that he is the perfect choice on the basis of.... well, not very much at all, other than that he is not liked by people they don’t like.
I hadn't realised that it was a merger of OFFA and HEFCE, so the remit is well established - presumably the consultation is on details rather than the overall remit.
He looks like a reasonable choice to make after a formal application process. I'm sure he's not perfect, but presumably the people running the process decided he was the most suitable option.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Are you suggesting fee paying schools should get more input ?
From the employers side they have HSBC, Boots and DLA Piper - seems to me science/engineering ignored again.
A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.
There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.
What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.
But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Are you suggesting fee paying schools should get more input ?
From the employers side they have HSBC, Boots and DLA Piper - seems to me science/engineering ignored again.
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
I think that technically the 2 E offers were "unconditional" rather than "conditional". The 2 E requirement was the legal minimum to matriculate
2E is still conditional.
I've known AEs to have been made in the past - an unconditional offer is, formally, one made when the qualifications presented have been deemed enough i.e. reapplying later (for example, I knew someone when I was there who, post A-level, had done 3ish years as a marine and only then applied).
Anyway, this Young story is some remarkably weak gruel. Have we really got a year of this to come? Or are they going to go harder with the Fake News and Faux Outrage. I would imagine its only got a limited shelflife.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Christianity is now growing fastest in Latin America and Africa while most of the West (outside of the USA, Italy and Greece) is largely secular.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Are you suggesting fee paying schools should get more input ? ...
Unless it's escaped your notice that not all state schools in England are Free Schools, then that is a commendably mischievous comment.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
Selective outrage over the admissions policy of a single Oxford college, nearly four decades ago, is pretty thin stuff. There is rather a lot more in the field of eduction to get worked up about.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Are you suggesting fee paying schools should get more input ?
From the employers side they have HSBC, Boots and DLA Piper - seems to me science/engineering ignored again.
Although Boots employs pharmacists
And many, it appears, are dissatisfied with the policies and practices of their employers.
He didn't fail to get in, he just scraped in after narrowly missing the required grades for his conditional offer. The role of his Dad was (according to the article I posted) limited to asking what was going on because there was confusion about whether he had been accepted or not. Whatever the real story, Oxford was right to admit him, as he showed by getting a First.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
It's not normal to have a complete public blow-by-blow comparison between appointees and those who failed to get appointed. However, on paper he looks extremely well qualified. He has some (admittedly patchy) post-graduate/teaching experience. He's a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and a Commissioner of the UK Fulbright Commission. He's taken a lifelong interest in education. According to Wikipedia:
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
Being generous about a decade’s worth of experience there. Of a particular type of school only.
You’re being generous in saying that he’s “extremely well qualified”.
My brother in law, a teacher and head teacher for 40 years in a variety of schools outside London, as well as a trustee of various educational charities focusing on disadvantaged children, has more experience than Mr Young. I dare say there are plenty more like him who would bring a fresh eye and real experience of teaching and students to such posts.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
In the absence of better information, because the admissions team interviewed him, reviewed the range of options they had and decided to extend him an offer. We know absolutely nothing about whether there were "many other apparently better qualified candidates".
He didn't fail to get in, he just scraped in after narrowly missing the required grades for his conditional offer. The role of his Dad was (according to the article I posted) limited to asking what was going on because there was confusion about whether he had been accepted or not. Whatever the real story, Oxford was right to admit him, as he showed by getting a First.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
It's not normal to have a complete public blow-by-blow comparison between appointees and those who failed to get appointed. However, on paper he looks extremely well qualified. He has some (admittedly patchy) post-graduate/teaching experience. He's a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and a Commissioner of the UK Fulbright Commission. He's taken a lifelong interest in education. According to Wikipedia:
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
Being generous about a decade’s worth of experience there. Of a particular type of school only.
You’re being generous in saying that he’s “extremely well qualified”.
My brother in law, a teacher and head teacher for 40 years in a variety of schools outside London, as well as a trustee of various educational charities focusing on disadvantaged children, has more experience than Mr Young. I dare say there are plenty more like him who would bring a fresh eye and real experience of teaching and students to such posts.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
How does he meet them?
?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Surely he will bring some expertise from schools point of view - they of course supply the consumers of Universities - rather than the producers. Hence why the Marxists are furious with this approach.
From a particular set of schools point of view. Not quite the same thing.
Are you suggesting fee paying schools should get more input ?
From the employers side they have HSBC, Boots and DLA Piper - seems to me science/engineering ignored again.
No. But free schools are only one subset of state schools.
A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.
There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.
What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.
But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
The projected inheritances for millenials won't happen until they're in their sixties, by which time all sorts of things could have changed, including how old-age care is paid for. For people of working age, and particularly for young people with little hope of getting on the housing ladder, such distant windfall prospects are irrelevant.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
That's another way of saying house prices are very high. Inheritance doesn't really help with the generational unfairness since it mostly comes from parents and you (hopefully) don't get it until you're quite old so you live most of your life without it, and if you need a small fortune for a deposit on a house then the only people who can afford to put one down are people who get generous gifts from their parents, which is exactly what the Millennials are unhappy about.
So around half the board are experienced HE quangocrats, and then there are a couple of lawyers and industrialists, a sprinkling of varied HE providers, a student... and Toby Young.
A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.
There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.
What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.
But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
Inheritances when they are 61. Yay!
It’s exactly this sort of complacency which will crucify the Tories.
He didn't fail to get in, he just scraped in after narrowly missing the required grades for his conditional offer. The role of his Dad was (according to the article I posted) limited to asking what was going on because there was confusion about whether he had been accepted or not. Whatever the real story, Oxford was right to admit him, as he showed by getting a First.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
It's not normal to have a complete public blow-by-blow comparison between appointees and those who failed to get appointed. However, on paper he looks extremely well qualified. He has some (admittedly patchy) post-graduate/teaching experience. He's a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham and a Commissioner of the UK Fulbright Commission. He's taken a lifelong interest in education. According to Wikipedia:
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
Being generous about a decade’s worth of experience there. Of a particular type of school only.
You’re being generous in saying that he’s “extremely well qualified”.
My brother in law, a teacher and head teacher for 40 years in a variety of schools outside London, as well as a trustee of various educational charities focusing on disadvantaged children, has more experience than Mr Young. I dare say there are plenty more like him who would bring a fresh eye and real experience of teaching and students to such posts.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
Selective outrage over the admissions policy of a single Oxford college, nearly four decades ago, is pretty thin stuff. There is rather a lot more in the field of eduction to get worked up about.
I am not worked up. I am just calling it for what it is: cronyism, rather than brilliance on the part of Mr Young. If someone less qualified gets a place or a post he denies someone more qualified. It doesn't mean Mr Young will singlehandedly trash the OfS. It seems a pretty useless operation anyway. Young's appointment is merely a symptom of that uselessness.
A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.
There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is possible.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
The projected inheritances for millenials won't happen until they're in their sixties, by which time all sorts of things could have changed, including how old-age care is paid for. For people of working age, and particularly for young people with little hope of getting on the housing ladder, such distant windfall prospects are irrelevant.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
The fact that 52% of first time buyers get financial support from their parents to get a deposit and get on the housing ladder though is very relevant. For those on an average salary they now buy a property thanks mainly to the bank of Mum and Dad. The government is building more homes as are councils through local plans, including affordable homes, but parental assistance for first time buyers is likely to remain very important.
As for social care even now residential care has to be paid for by parental assets down to the last £23k anyway although only a quarter of pensioners will need that. Beyond that social insurance is likely to pay for it longer term
He said himself that he probably got the lowest conditional offer his college ever made. He still failed to achieve those, but they let him in anyway after pater pulled a few strings. Anyway, wasn't his father a famous academic and Labour peer? So a comprehensive school lad in the same way Ed Miliband was.
Nonetheless he got a First. Clearly, therefore, the university was absolutely correct to admit him. He wasn't some duffer getting admitted in preference to better candidates. They got it right, in this case.
He may well have been admitted in preference to better candidates. Toby's life has proved that connections really matter. But he is undoubtedly a smart bloke and the kind of person who should be going to a top university. The issue is not his attendance, but other people's non-attendance, IMO.
That's a fair point but it's not the one that most critics are making. It does again throw up the related point about the admissions procedures (albeit long after the event). if someone like Young, who only got in through the back door, could thrive as he did - beyond that which many who got in through the front door did - how many others who had similar abilities were (and are) missing out?
Young got his place at Oxford University and his place on the OfS board purely through cronyism. Every tinpot dictator, oligarch and deadwood will say they got to the top of the pile because they're the best. The definition of meritocracy
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
And yet Young got a first. So he was among the best.
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
Do you know what? I really don't give a damn.
What matters rather more than the selection process for some Oxford college decades ago is the selection process for the OfS these last few weeks, and whether Young is an appropriate appointment. Time will tell on that one (just as it did in his university application, FWIW).
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
I think that technically the 2 E offers were "unconditional" rather than "conditional". The 2 E requirement was the legal minimum to matriculate
2E is still conditional.
I've known AEs to have been made in the past - an unconditional offer is, formally, one made when the qualifications presented have been deemed enough i.e. reapplying later (for example, I knew someone when I was there who, post A-level, had done 3ish years as a marine and only then applied).
Anyway, this Young story is some remarkably weak gruel. Have we really got a year of this to come? Or are they going to go harder with the Fake News and Faux Outrage. I would imagine its only got a limited shelflife.
At.
Best.
Shirley Williams says she did not take A levels because she had already been awarded a scholarship at Oxford.
My brother in law, a teacher and head teacher for 40 years in a variety of schools outside London, as well as a trustee of various educational charities focusing on disadvantaged children, has more experience than Mr Young. I dare say there are plenty more like him who would bring a fresh eye and real experience of teaching and students to such posts.
Perhaps your brother in law didn't apply for the job?
The projected inheritances for millenials won't happen until they're in their sixties, by which time all sorts of things could have changed, including how old-age care is paid for. For people of working age, and particularly for young people with little hope of getting on the housing ladder, such distant windfall prospects are irrelevant.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
The problem is very simple: house prices are too high and mortgage leverage multiples are too restricted. In addition, it is possible that young people's expectations are too high (I recall my parents telling me they would go to the market at the crack of dawn to buy the previous days leavings cheaply as it helped them afford their first house).
Part of this is a problem with low interest rates inflating asset prices, part of it is a problem with the lack of quality alternative investments, part of it is slow planning processes and part of it is excess demand from the increase in the number of households through family breakups, demographics and immigration.
There is no simple "build more houses" solution to the problem. The government has done some good things (around taxing of investment properties as investments) and some bad things (I am not sure that "help to buy" is a good model).
But fundamentally, you need to institutionalise the private rented sector, build out more social housing and ensure that social housing is used as intended (the anecdotal evidence on illegal sub-letting is shocking) and accelerate the planning process.
So around half the board are experienced HE quangocrats, and then there are a couple of lawyers and industrialists, a sprinkling of varied HE providers, a student... and Toby Young.
So around half the board are experienced HE quangocrats, and then there are a couple of lawyers and industrialists, a sprinkling of varied HE providers, a student... and Toby Young.
Maybe he's there to keep them awake.
One of its duties is to administer the Prevent duty. And Young’s qualifications for this are.....?
So what? More people want to go to Oxford University than can get places. Are you suggesting that Young got his place through convincing the admissions team of his greater potential, rather than simply though his connections? If indeed this is the case it would be useful to understand how the admissions team knew this, so they could apply the same judgement to those of similar potential that they currently reject while no longer admitting the many with lesser potential.
He convinced them to make him a conditional offer.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
That doesn't however address my point of why Oxford University chose to make an offer to Toby IYoung while rejecting many other apparently better qualified candidates. We can't say he was vindicated because he got a first. The admissions team wouldn't have known that and in any case admit other people who don't do so well.
"The admissions team wouldn't have known that" is a surpassingly weird argument. OGH wouldn't have known that Obama was going to be POTUS when he tipped him at 51. Does that detract from the value of the tip? Similarly, "and in any case admit other people who don't do so well" - OGH like all of us has given many duff tips in his time; that didn't make him wrong about Obama.
Toby Young strikes me as being an intelligent but lazy teenager, who applied himself at University. He got a First Class Degree and then a Scholarship to Harvard. I'd say that both of those achievements are quite impressive, and imply an intellectual ability that is well above average.
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
I would query the statement about lowest conditional offer. Maybe Cambridge is different, but an old school friend got a conditional offer in 1980s from a college there for Chemistry that was significantly lower than the 3Bs Toby mentions.
I think that technically the 2 E offers were "unconditional" rather than "conditional". The 2 E requirement was the legal minimum to matriculate
2E is still conditional.
I've known AEs to have been made in the past - an unconditional offer is, formally, one made when the qualifications presented have been deemed enough i.e. reapplying later (for example, I knew someone when I was there who, post A-level, had done 3ish years as a marine and only then applied).
Anyway, this Young story is some remarkably weak gruel. Have we really got a year of this to come? Or are they going to go harder with the Fake News and Faux Outrage. I would imagine its only got a limited shelflife.
At.
Best.
Quite right - no point getting too het up about it. I doubt this watchdog thingy will ever actually do anything if it even meets more than a couple times. It'll probably be wound up in a few years after everyone's forgotten about it. Nevertheless, happy governments tend to reach out far and wide with such appointments - it gives an air of confidence and wholesomeness; when they opt instead for party cronies there's the smell of decay.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
So around half the board are experienced HE quangocrats, and then there are a couple of lawyers and industrialists, a sprinkling of varied HE providers, a student... and Toby Young.
Maybe he's there to keep them awake.
One of its duties is to administer the Prevent duty. And Young’s qualifications for this are.....?
.....irrelevant unless we know both that the qualifications of the others are any better, and that this duty is intended to be implemented directly by the board rather than by a competent and properly selected delegate.
Oh come off it! He got in because his father pulled strings. There may well have been other candidates who equally failed to make the grade who, had they got in, would have benefited and done equally well. But they didn't have Daddies to bat for them. It stinks.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
You are confusing things. Of course there should be a fair and transparent system, and enormous efforts have been made to achieve that (things have changed a lot since the early 1980s). What has that got to do with Toby Young's abilities or suitability for this new role? His critics seem to be implying he was some duffer who didn't deserve to get into Oxford. That is quite obviously not the case.
Without knowing who else was considered for this role or, indeed, what the requirements of the role are, how can anyone tell whether Young was the right choice?
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Are we really at the stage where every public sector appointment needs to be publicly documented in complete detail?
That would really be a FFS point.
Actually, I think such transparency would be a bloody good idea. This is the remit, this is what we looked for, this is who was considered, this is who was chosen, this is why and this is how much they get paid and this is how they will be accountable to you, the public, who pay for it all and in whose interests they are supposed to be acting.
And that would open up huge HR expenses, and legal claims and challenges. Who's going to pay for that?
Comments
Contrast with Mrs May announcing the construction of a few thousand homes last year.
In other words he's just like every other person I have ever met - unlike medicine or law everyone seems to be born an expert on education.
I think he's as qualified to sit on a board pontificating about universities as Alan Rusbridger is to be Principal at LMH in Oxford - I remember the howls of protest from the Guardian about that.
Read in to that what you will.
No, I was the right age, but I managed to avoid it
Toby Young has no obvious qualification for his place on the Office for Students and seems to have been appointed purely as a crony of the minister. The bigger question is what the OfS is there to do. If it had a remit, you would then attempt to give it the means to fulfill that remit and determine the skills you require for the postholders.
On topic, I don't think capitalism is particularly under threat, but liberalism is struggling for acceptance. Liberalism was the big loser of the mid 20th Century dictatorships and the big winner in the post War settlement in Europe. It is under threat now because it is blamed for the excesses of globalisation and stagnating living standards in the West and because autocratic regimes, particularly in China, are seen as effective alternatives. This in turn undermines the western concept of liberal democracy, including pluralism, the rule of law and international cooperation. Liberalism needs to make the case for itself because the alternative arguments are false ones, leading to real detrimental effects for countries and their populations.
What sort of process was there around the appointments to this body?
Who else was considered?
Young was educated at Creighton School (now Fortismere School), Muswell Hill and King Edward VI Community College, Totnes. He left school at 16 with one Grade C GCE O-Level in English Literature and did menial jobs under a Government Youth Training Scheme. He then retook his O-Levels and went to the Sixth Form of William Ellis School, Highgate, leaving with two Bs and a C at A-Level and managing to obtain a place at Brasenose College, Oxford.
The same fount of all knowledge claims that all three schools mentioned are comprehensives, but William Ellis might not have been at the time he was there.
As for process there would have been the standard process for public appointments (I think I've seen some other people complain they didn't get appointed even though - in their opinion - they were a better candidate).
I really can't see what the fuss is about. All sorts of people get appointed to boards like this. They are deliberately chosen not to be professionals in the field, so avoid producer capture. Usually they are Guardianistas, this is a rare example of the opposite.
Good.
Stuff like this brings out my inner Corbynite, it really does. Let’s have a fair and transparent process not this behind the scenes back-scratching to favour those with connections while the rest of us are left on the outside looking in.
That sort of edge is only usually relevant either as a graduate trainee (gets you an interview) or in the final shortlist (for a quango)
I am not a Corbyn fan. But at least he has some kind of a vision for a better society. There is something appealing in that.
A few houses here, a few pence off a Railcard there...... They don’t exactly make the heart sing, do they?
Whereas Corbyn is saying it's all sh1t, lets start again. Easy for that to be more "visionary" even if it's wrong.
I would still like to know what the OfS is tasked to DO.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2591216/State-pupils-outperform-private-pupils-university-Two-thirds-B-C-grade-students-achieve-firsts-upper-seconds.html
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/05/top-state-school-pupils-get-better-degrees-than-those-from-private-schools
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/05/medical-students-from-state-schools-do-better-than-those-who-were-privately-educated-6904961/
The Young stuff is manufactured outrage to me. It is merely another example of what happens in the UK and always has - the privileged elite looks after the privileged elite and assumes that the privileged elite will provide all the answers. Labour has done it just as much as the Tories - look at who staffs the Corbyn leadership office, for example: mostly privately educated, upper middle class men.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/09/status-anxiety-49/
It seems to have been more a case of a balls-up rather than pulling of strings.
The principles of risk-based, proportionate regulation in the interest of students forms a welcome basis for the new OfS regulatory framework.
http://russellgroup.ac.uk/policy/policy-documents/ofs-regulatory-framework/
I got my degree from the OU at the tender age of 42. Wonderful institution:).
@Cyclefree’s argument is compelling, but, as ever, it’s hard to see how we deal with this kind of informal influence-peddling.
He failed to get into Oxford. Just like many others. The only reason he got in is because of his Dad. Yes he got a First and that is down to him.
Now I would like to feel that he has not got this role because of his connections (as has happened in the past) rather than because of his suitability for the role.
Which brings ne back to my original questions:-
What is this body’s remit?
What are the qualities/qualifications needed for its members?
How does he meet them?
Who else was considered?
What does he have that they do not?
Are there any downsides to his appointment and have they been properly considered?
Something that’s often overlooked when looking at China’s progress is that it’s a lot easier to catch up than it is to overtake. When China’s GDP equals that of the US, her GDP per capita will still be only 25% of the US equivalent. I’m not one of those people arguing that there is no innovation in China; in certain areas, like payments, they are way ahead of most Western countries. However, I’m not yet convinced that innovation is sufficiently widespread for them to go toe-to-toe with the West in most high-value areas.
I think future historians will look back at the West and ponder the incredible naivety with which Western corporates entered China. Huge amounts of IP were given away in exchange for market access, putting short term profits above long term prospects. My own view is that it was a function of Western complacency; we have always been rich and powerful, so why worry if the rules are slanted against us? We have our own variety of this delusion with the unthinking support for free trade by certain Brexiteers, even when unreciprocated by other parties.
The OfS's remit is under consultation, but essentially is to regulate the university system (including who can award degrees) rather than, as currently, it being carried out by central government.
He would have been appointed through the normal public appointments process which should have addressed all your other points, but a bunch of random people on a website won't be able to answer them
“Homes for heroes” was a vision.
If Corbyn’s vision is wrong, let’s show how it is by showing - not just stating - how the current system can do better.
He was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[24][25] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education. He is Director of the New Schools Network, a charity founded in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.
What on earth else could he have on his CV to make him more suitable?
And he's about twenty times as qualified for this particular post as Labour's shadow education secretary is to be in charge of national education policy, however obnoxious he might be...
A more interesting question is who are the other appointments to the panel ?
Our value system has evolved over thousands of years during which there have been plenty of different religions including the Graeco-Roman gods etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Students
And a bunch of random people on a website seem to have decided that he is the perfect choice on the basis of.... well, not very much at all, other than that he is not liked by people they don’t like.
He then just missed the target, but because of an administrative mistake he was offered a place. The college decided to honour to offer even though it wasn't a mistake.
Not connections at all - although you could argue that someone who's father was not a confident professional wouldn't have challenged the situation
Still, the intervening three decades or so of his life are of rather more import when considering his qualifications for the job
He looks like a reasonable choice to make after a formal application process. I'm sure he's not perfect, but presumably the people running the process decided he was the most suitable option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Students
From the employers side they have HSBC, Boots and DLA Piper - seems to me science/engineering ignored again.
I've known AEs to have been made in the past - an unconditional offer is, formally, one made when the qualifications presented have been deemed enough i.e. reapplying later (for example, I knew someone when I was there who, post A-level, had done 3ish years as a marine and only then applied).
Anyway, this Young story is some remarkably weak gruel. Have we really got a year of this to come? Or are they going to go harder with the Fake News and Faux Outrage. I would imagine its only got a limited shelflife.
At.
Best.
There is rather a lot more in the field of eduction to get worked up about.
You’re being generous in saying that he’s “extremely well qualified”.
My brother in law, a teacher and head teacher for 40 years in a variety of schools outside London, as well as a trustee of various educational charities focusing on disadvantaged children, has more experience than Mr Young. I dare say there are plenty more like him who would bring a fresh eye and real experience of teaching and students to such posts.
It may well be that parents often help out with buying costs but that's a feature of a problem, not a solution to it. In any case, the average age of the first-time buyer is increasing and home-ownership rates are falling, and they're more relevant facts.
Repeal the planning laws.
Maybe he's there to keep them awake.
It’s exactly this sort of complacency which will crucify the Tories.
As for social care even now residential care has to be paid for by parental assets down to the last £23k anyway although only a quarter of pensioners will need that. Beyond that social insurance is likely to pay for it longer term
What matters rather more than the selection process for some Oxford college decades ago is the selection process for the OfS these last few weeks, and whether Young is an appropriate appointment. Time will tell on that one (just as it did in his university application, FWIW).
That would really be a FFS point.
Part of this is a problem with low interest rates inflating asset prices, part of it is a problem with the lack of quality alternative investments, part of it is slow planning processes and part of it is excess demand from the increase in the number of households through family breakups, demographics and immigration.
There is no simple "build more houses" solution to the problem. The government has done some good things (around taxing of investment properties as investments) and some bad things (I am not sure that "help to buy" is a good model).
But fundamentally, you need to institutionalise the private rented sector, build out more social housing and ensure that social housing is used as intended (the anecdotal evidence on illegal sub-letting is shocking) and accelerate the planning process.