Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
I knew a department manager who only wanted to recruit from his old university. FCGI
I suspect he never rose above his position, or if he did he quickly fell from grace. People get too vexed about this stuff. There are morons in every walk, eventually they trip up and get fired or go bust
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
A betting post? Na, that’s as off topic as it gets.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
I knew a department manager who only wanted to recruit from his old university. FCGI
As I said: 'not very bright but well-educated numpties stroll into well-paid influential jobs'.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
It is of more interest to discuss what will happen than what should happen.
It is all down to the numbers.
I think there are about 200 hardline brexiteers who reject Mrs May's deal and would be happy with WTO with transition or even a crash out. .
There are about 400 remainers of whom half want to "honour" the referendum and half want a second referendum in order to justify remaining. (I simplify).
The 200 brexiteers will vote against a second referendum. If they lose, they'll want "No deal" on the ballot but they will be outvoted on that by the other 400.
The 200 who support Mrs May's deal (but lose the vote on it next Tuesday) will see a second referendum with "The Deal" on it as a way to rescue Mrs May's deal and so will vote for a referendum as long as "Deal" is on the ballot. The 200 remainers will be happy to oblige. The brexiteers can't defeat that. It doesn't matter that "Deal" has been defeated in the Commons. What right do MPs have to pervert "the will of the people"?
So that's what will happen. A second referendum with Deal and Remain on the ballot. Deal might well win in that situation but who knows?
There's no point in chuntering about not it honouring "the people" or perverting democracy. That will have no effect. It is the numbers that count. Bet accordingly.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
I knew a department manager who only wanted to recruit from his old university. FCGI
As I said: 'not very bright but well-educated numpties stroll into well-paid influential jobs'.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. The should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
Oxbridge colleges recruiting dons?
Really? How bizarre/arrogant if true.
Though, I am not sure addressing that will change the world tbh.
Incidentally whislt discussing Republicans subverting the democratic process the Wisconsin (and Michigan) Republicans lame duck actions are truly breathtaking in their contempt of the voters.
What are they doing ?
Do you remeber when Republicans lost the North Carolina governorship election two years ago the NC GOP state legislature majority passed a bunch of laws stripping the govenor of power? Well the Wisconsin GOP are doing the same, on steroids. Stripping the govenor and attorney General of power, setting up a shadow board of education that can overrule the real board of education etc.
All passed in a bill that was voted on about an hour before sunrise.
The metaphors write themselves.
I really don't understand why the US allows these lame-duck sessions (or indeed Presidencies) at all. I understand the historical reasons, but it's time to move on (and, indeed, count the votes a bit more quickly too).
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
The OT button is directly next to the quote one. On phone or tablet screen, it's very easy to mark you as off topic.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
etc.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
Well, if you have a better way to change our education system so that 'not very bright but well-educated numpties' stroll into well-paid influential jobs, I'd like to hear it.
Prosecute employers who only consider Oxbridge graduates.
Are there any? I'd be surprised.
I knew a department manager who only wanted to recruit from his old university. FCGI
As I said: 'not very bright but well-educated numpties stroll into well-paid influential jobs'.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
My suggestion earlier would solve this by putting the onus on the universities to recruit from all sectors fairly.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
The OT button is directly next to the quote one. On phone or tablet screen, it's very easy to mark you as off topic.
What is the point of the OT button anyway - who gives a shit?
It is of more interest to discuss what will happen than what should happen.
It is all down to the numbers.
I think there are about 200 hardline brexiteers who reject Mrs May's deal and would be happy with WTO with transition or even a crash out. .
There are about 400 remainers of whom half want to "honour" the referendum and half want a second referendum in order to justify remaining. (I simplify).
The 200 brexiteers will vote against a second referendum. If they lose, they'll want "No deal" on the ballot but they will be outvoted on that by the other 400.
The 200 who support Mrs May's deal (but lose the vote on it next Tuesday) will see a second referendum with "The Deal" on it as a way to rescue Mrs May's deal and so will vote for a referendum as long as "Deal" is on the ballot. The 200 remainers will be happy to oblige. The brexiteers can't defeat that. It doesn't matter that "Deal" has been defeated in the Commons. What right do MPs have to pervert "the will of the people"?
So that's what will happen. A second referendum with Deal and Remain on the ballot. Deal might well win in that situation but who knows?
There's no point in chuntering about not it honouring "the people" or perverting democracy. That will have no effect. It is the numbers that count. Bet accordingly.
Well, quite. I've been saying this for several days.
My only disagreement with you is that I think the number of extreme Brexiteers who would be happy with a crash-out is much smaller than you say, probably 50-80. It really is an extreme position, involving heroic assumptions about how we get through the immediate chaos. (A lot more MPs might be happy with or actively welcome an orderly transition to WTO, but that's not really available because of the Irish border issue).
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
I was good enough but didn't apply. Possibly the deciding factor was "What the feck is a Tripos???"
They got to the right result for all the wrong reasons.
Seeing Scalia and Thomas voting for an Equal Protection violation was one of those things I thought I’d never see.
A decision process so bad and nakedly partisan they made it non-precedent making in full recognition of what they were doing.
I will mock to their face anyone who claims Scalia and Thomas made rulings strictly by their consistent interpretation of the Constitution through their judicial careers.
Nonsense. They were entirely consistent in saying the Constitution means exactly what they said it does. Subject to their changing their minds.
If electing Boris saw Grieve, Soubry and Wollaston defect to the LDs that may even expand Boris' lead with Tory members even further
If they did so they would be on record then as having threatened to resign the Tory whip whoever won a leadership contest. Would threatening to resign the Tory whip also mean that they were threatening to resign from the Tory Party? (cf. Frank Field) That would go down well. What are the procedures for instigating selection contests for sitting Tory MPs?
Perhaps some helpful journalists should ask them the question straight out and see whether they get an evasive response as opposed to a categorical denial.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
The OT button is directly next to the quote one. On phone or tablet screen, it's very easy to mark you as off topic.
What is the point of the OT button anyway - who gives a shit?
"No, in 2016 the British public voted unconditionally to leave the European Union. There was no conditionality in it. You are saying that we voted to leave only on whatever terms could be negotiated, which amounts to saying is that 17.4m voted to let the EU set the terms on which we are permitted to leave.
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted."
****
The sentence "on the best terms possible" was so obviously on the ballot paper in brackets after Leave that it did not need to be printed. Furthermore such was repeatedly stressed by all the major figures who made the case for Leave. Shafted by the EU? Did the optimum achievable deal and quite a decent one given the hard realities of relative bargaining power? Delete to taste. Matter of personal opinion and not relevant to the choice now faced. Which is that parliament either ratifies and we commence an orderly exit of the EU or it continues to frustrate and we do not leave at all, meaning that the 2016 referendum is trashed. I voted remain myself but I do not wish to see that.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
And how would you judge fairness? Would you want the colleges to accept lesser able students just because they were from state schools?
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
My suggestion earlier would solve this by putting the onus on the universities to recruit from all sectors fairly.
The problem is far more deep seated and the roots are found at school level. Other than making a few teachers and others feel good about themselves, it would not sort the problems that are clearly present.
Also, 'all sectors fairly' is so vague as to be useless. What do you mean by that? What happens if the certain sectors are underperforming at A-level stage (and, indeed, they are).
I do not think your approach would solve anything by itself but might accept it a diluted form as one of a possible set of measures that start at ca. 14 years old and go from there.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
A Cambridge academic has just called for six year olds to be given the vote.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
I was good enough but didn't apply. Possibly the deciding factor was "What the feck is a Tripos???"
Weirdly I also got the grades but also didn't apply as I assumed (probably rightly) that the clubbing was shite in both Oxford and Cambridge. Had I had my time again, I probably would have applied. Whether I would have been accepted or not, I have no idea.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
And how would you judge fairness? Would you want the colleges to accept lesser able students just because they were from state schools?
More places for the type of school their kids go to usually.
It is of more interest to discuss what will happen than what should happen.
It is all down to the numbers.
I think there are about 200 hardline brexiteers who reject Mrs May's deal and would be happy with WTO with transition or even a crash out. .
There are about 400 remainers of whom half want to "honour" the referendum and half want a second referendum in order to justify remaining. (I simplify).
The 200 brexiteers will vote against a second referendum. If they lose, they'll want "No deal" on the ballot but they will be outvoted on that by the other 400.
The 200 who support Mrs May's deal (but lose the vote on it next Tuesday) will see a second referendum with "The Deal" on it as a way to rescue Mrs May's deal and so will vote for a referendum as long as "Deal" is on the ballot. The 200 remainers will be happy to oblige. The brexiteers can't defeat that. It doesn't matter that "Deal" has been defeated in the Commons. What right do MPs have to pervert "the will of the people"?
So that's what will happen. A second referendum with Deal and Remain on the ballot. Deal might well win in that situation but who knows?
There's no point in chuntering about not it honouring "the people" or perverting democracy. That will have no effect. It is the numbers that count. Bet accordingly.
Well, quite. I've been saying this for several days.
My only disagreement with you is that I think the number of extreme Brexiteers who would be happy with a crash-out is much smaller than you say, probably 50-80. It really is an extreme position, involving heroic assumption about how we get through the immediate chaos. (A lot more MPs might be happy with or actively welcome an orderly transition to WTO, but that's not really available because of the Irish border issue).
Yes - sorry. You are quite right that orderly transition to WTO is not available. So my numbers over estimate the hard brexiteers and make my scenario even more likely.
I think good value bets are "referendum before 2020"
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Then how does education vouchers help? All it would do is subsidise the 7% who already can afford to pay for a privileged education for their kids. Oh, and allow some people to make a fat profit out of the provision for the masses.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
And how would you judge fairness? Would you want the colleges to accept lesser able students just because they were from state schools?
Do you believe pupils in private schools are inherently more able?
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
A betting post? Na, that’s as off topic as it gets.
Does anyone even use the off topic button? Is this the modern manifestation of the nonexistent ignore button that some PB snowflakes used to claim to use in days of yore?
Parents, for example, have a far bigger impact on whether students go to University - and which one - than I think is assumed. My current employer is seen by certain local ethnic groups as a good place to send their kids. We have kids who clearly have the tools and skills to go to other, arguably better, Universities. For a number of reasons, they choose not to.
It is of more interest to discuss what will happen than what should happen.
It is all down to the numbers.
I think there are about 200 hardline brexiteers who reject Mrs May's deal and would be happy with WTO with transition or even a crash out. .
There are about 400 remainers of whom half want to "honour" the referendum and half want a second referendum in order to justify remaining. (I simplify).
The 200 brexiteers will vote against a second referendum. If they lose, they'll want "No deal" on the ballot but they will be outvoted on that by the other 400.
The 200 who support Mrs May's deal (but lose the vote on it next Tuesday) will see a second referendum with "The Deal" on it as a way to rescue Mrs May's deal and so will vote for a referendum as long as "Deal" is on the ballot. The 200 remainers will be happy to oblige. The brexiteers can't defeat that. It doesn't matter that "Deal" has been defeated in the Commons. What right do MPs have to pervert "the will of the people"?
So that's what will happen. A second referendum with Deal and Remain on the ballot. Deal might well win in that situation but who knows?
There's no point in chuntering about not it honouring "the people" or perverting democracy. That will have no effect. It is the numbers that count. Bet accordingly.
I'm not convinced it would get through the Commons without remain on the ballot as well.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
Not very bright students get into Oxford.
For example David Miliband got in with a D and 3 Bs.
Cambridge let in Prince Charles with a B & C.
Which I am sure he would have managed to do just as well from a state comprehensive
If I, as the grandson of an immigrant, can attend the finest university in the world, it shouldn't be hard for a working class kid from a state comprehensive to get into Oxbridge.
There was no class, religious, or colour bar for me, I'm a minority on so many levels.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
A betting post? Na, that’s as off topic as it gets.
Does anyone even use the off topic button? Is this the modern manifestation of the nonexistent ignore button that some PB snowflakes used to claim to use in days of yore?
Mainly fat finger stndrome. As for ignore, it wasn’t a button, rather a browser extension.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
Not very bright students get into Oxford.
For example David Miliband got in with a D and 3 Bs.
Cambridge let in Prince Charles with a B & C.
Which I am sure he would have managed to do just as well from a state comprehensive
If I, as the grandson of an immigrant, can attend the finest university in the world, it shouldn't be hard for a working class kid from a state comprehensive to get into Oxbridge.
There was no class, religious, or colour bar for me, I'm a minority on so many levels.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
I was good enough but didn't apply. Possibly the deciding factor was "What the feck is a Tripos???"
Weirdly I also got the grades but also didn't apply as I assumed (probably rightly) that the clubbing was shite in both Oxford and Cambridge. Had I had my time again, I probably would have applied. Whether I would have been accepted or not, I have no idea.
I have to say that student night at The Dome was not my primary reason for choosing Brum!
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
I was good enough but didn't apply. Possibly the deciding factor was "What the feck is a Tripos???"
Weirdly I also got the grades but also didn't apply as I assumed (probably rightly) that the clubbing was shite in both Oxford and Cambridge. Had I had my time again, I probably would have applied. Whether I would have been accepted or not, I have no idea.
I once found the OUSU Student Guide for 1994 (iirc) and it had a thing about the first nightclub in the city.
Clubbing is, sadly, dominated by shitty cheese nights but it also has enough bright sparks doing their own thing to have many, many niche nights.
Other thing is that classical and jazz are a much bigger *thing* than at the other UK universities I've any experience of.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
Oxbridge and the other unis have had plenty of time to sort this out and singularly failed. They should just be given quotas and told to match their intake to the population demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
Of course in the case of some of the most wealthy colleges you run the risk of them simply deciding to withdraw from the public sector.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
And how would you judge fairness? Would you want the colleges to accept lesser able students just because they were from state schools?
Do you believe pupils in private schools are inherently more able?
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
There's a link between intelligence and being able to earn lots of money (which you need to send your kids to private school) and I'm pretty sure intelligence Is genetic, so it makes sense that those sent to private school would be more able on average.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
Alwaus nice to see cambridge lose the varsity/ boat race...
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
Perhaps it is someone who has previously made the mistake of backing some of your F1 tips?
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
demographics, by education type, ethnic background, region etc.
A big problem is that neither Oxford or Cambridge universities control undergraduate admission. This is the prerogative of the colleges who fiercely resist any effort to interfere in their affairs.
Well they are not above Parliament. Of course, many of our MPs are producst of the private education -> Oxbridge conveyor, so intertia rules.
.
Er no... my suggestion would make it illegal for them to accept students unless they meet some minimum standards of fairness.
And how would you judge fairness? Would you want the colleges to accept lesser able students just because they were from state schools?
Do you believe pupils in private schools are inherently more able?
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
There's a link between intelligence and being able to earn lots of money (which you need to send your kids to private school) and I'm pretty sure intelligence Is genetic, so it makes sense that those sent to private school would be more able on average.
That's probably correct. Apparently when grammar schools were still ubiquitous, private schools used to be full of stupid people from rich families, because the intelligent ones would go to the local grammar, but since most of those were abolished they've gone back to using private schools like they would have done before the 1950s.
The key stats are disproportionate attainment for different groups and the gap in getting the grades and even applying rather than anything about relative success rate of applications. Forcing it at university level is window-dressing.
1. Why do certain groups in society - white, working class, some ethnic groups - massively underperform in attainment at A-level.
2. Why do the students that do attain an appropriate standard then not apply.
Fix them two questions, and the rest will fix itself.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
There's a link between intelligence and being able to earn lots of money (which you need to send your kids to private school) and I'm pretty sure intelligence Is genetic, so it makes sense that those sent to private school would be more able on average.
I think there is some truth in this.
There is evidence that the academic results of private schools when adjusted for the socio-economic advantage of their intake are not materially better than the state sector.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
I'd hazard a guess that my alma mater has produced more than its fair share of counter intelligence given it proximity to GCHQ and its good quality tuition of maths and related subjects.
I'd hazard a guess that my alma mater has produced more than its fair share of counter intelligence given it proximity to GCHQ and its good quality tuition of maths and related subjects.
There's a link between intelligence and being able to earn lots of money (which you need to send your kids to private school) and I'm pretty sure intelligence Is genetic, so it makes sense that those sent to private school would be more able on average.
I believe that the correlation breaks down about IQs in the 125-130 range. You need to be quite smart to make a lot of money, but beyond a certain point, adding iq points makes no difference.
And, of course, there is always reversion to the mean.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
Not very bright students get into Oxford.
For example David Miliband got in with a D and 3 Bs.
Cambridge let in Prince Charles with a B & C.
Which I am sure he would have managed to do just as well from a state comprehensive
If I, as the grandson of an immigrant, can attend the finest university in the world, it shouldn't be hard for a working class kid from a state comprehensive to get into Oxbridge.
There was no class, religious, or colour bar for me, I'm a minority on so many levels.
As I understand it there are interviews to assess students as well as grades, and it is at the interviews that unconcious bias can arise in favour of private school applicants.
Do you believe pupils in private schools are inherently more able?
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
No I believe the standard of teaching is generally (although obviously not always) better and things like smaller class sizes and better paid teachers make a huge difference.
The point is that you are trying to deal with the issue by getting universities to pick less academically suitable students rather than dealing with the issue of lack of mobility in the general education system. It is one reason why I prefer the grammar school system.
By the time Oxbridge are looking at which students to pick it is already too late. You need to address this problem much earlier.
Oxford and Cambridge are not what they were. My hunch is that they were never as good as they said they were and greater transparency is revealing their limitations.
Do you believe pupils in private schools are inherently more able?
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
No I believe the standard of teaching is generally (although obviously not always) better and things like smaller class sizes and better paid teachers make a huge difference.
The point is that you are trying to deal with the issue by getting universities to pick less academically suitable students rather than dealing with the issue of lack of mobility in the general education system. It is one reason why I prefer the grammar school system.
By the time Oxbridge are looking at which students to pick it is already too late. You need to address this problem much earlier.
^^^
Plus the biggest gap in the Stutton trust stats is in able state school kids deciding not to apply. Oxford can do something about this - maybe they've moved on from Access Events being soundtracked only by Drum and Bass -_-.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
What's the %s for Oxbridge applications from State schools and then the % of places that they take? its something like 50% and 45%, so a marginal drop.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
I was good enough but didn't apply. Possibly the deciding factor was "What the feck is a Tripos???"
Weirdly I also got the grades but also didn't apply as I assumed (probably rightly) that the clubbing was shite in both Oxford and Cambridge. Had I had my time again, I probably would have applied. Whether I would have been accepted or not, I have no idea.
I once found the OUSU Student Guide for 1994 (iirc) and it had a thing about the first nightclub in the city.
Clubbing is, sadly, dominated by shitty cheese nights but it also has enough bright sparks doing their own thing to have many, many niche nights.
Other thing is that classical and jazz are a much bigger *thing* than at the other UK universities I've any experience of.
Like many house and techno fans, I am also fond of classical music and jazz.
Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?
Not very bright students get into Oxford.
For example David Miliband got in with a D and 3 Bs.
Cambridge let in Prince Charles with a B & C.
Which I am sure he would have managed to do just as well from a state comprehensive
If I, as the grandson of an immigrant, can attend the finest university in the world, it shouldn't be hard for a working class kid from a state comprehensive to get into Oxbridge.
There was no class, religious, or colour bar for me, I'm a minority on so many levels.
As I understand it there are interviews to assess students as well as grades, and it is at the interviews that unconcious bias can arise in favour of private school applicants.
I'd hazard a guess that my alma mater has produced more than its fair share of counter intelligence given it proximity to GCHQ and its good quality tuition of maths and related subjects.
They surely cannot be that stupid , if they beggar the country just because they were absolute idiots last time, it will be carnage.
Hang on a second.
Public votes to leave EU.
Govt negotiates best orderly exit deal that they can plus a soft brexit direction of travel for the future relationship.
MPs ratify.
That is 'beggaring the country and unleashing carnage'?
How so?
Nobody voted to lose everything , Leave promised riches , 350M a week for the NHS, free unicorns , the vote was won on a bunch of lies, how is that for a start. It should be a police matter for those clowns.
At the moment, my bet on the 11 December vote passing is looking heroically optimistic. The bet on a second referendum before the end of 2019 is looking a bit more promising.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
A betting post? Na, that’s as off topic as it gets.
Does anyone even use the off topic button? Is this the modern manifestation of the nonexistent ignore button that some PB snowflakes used to claim to use in days of yore?
There's a link between intelligence and being able to earn lots of money (which you need to send your kids to private school) and I'm pretty sure intelligence Is genetic, so it makes sense that those sent to private school would be more able on average.
I believe that the correlation breaks down about IQs in the 125-130 range. You need to be quite smart to make a lot of money, but beyond a certain point, adding iq points makes no difference.
And, of course, there is always reversion to the mean.
In my experience those beyond a certain high level of intelligence find it harder to make decisions because they are always seeking the perfect answer rather than implementing one that is good enough.
They surely cannot be that stupid , if they beggar the country just because they were absolute idiots last time, it will be carnage.
Hang on a second.
Public votes to leave EU.
Govt negotiates best orderly exit deal that they can plus a soft brexit direction of travel for the future relationship.
MPs ratify.
That is 'beggaring the country and unleashing carnage'?
How so?
Nobody voted to lose everything , Leave promised riches , 350M a week for the NHS, free unicorns , the vote was won on a bunch of lies, how is that for a start. It should be a police matter for those clowns.
If you believed that you'll believe anything. The remain campaign are desperate with the clock running down, I think most leavers expected nothing less of them.
"The report shows the imbalance in admissions: 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools 18% of those taking A-levels are at private school 34% of Oxbridge applications are from private school 42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils"
You're making a very compelling case for abolitioning the Department for Education & LEAs and privatising the school system.
Instead of spending so much money on schools and wages we give the parents of every child school vouchers and they can choose where they send their kids.
Equal opportunities not really high on your list is it TSE?
It is, is why I'm an egalitarian, is why I'm favour of abolishing the monarchy.
.
That would be unjust. People who perform well at A Level would be penalised because of their social background. People who perform badly would get in regardless.
Which do you think it the greater achievement: getting an 'A*' A-level at Eton or a 'B' at an inner-city comprehensive?
That would depend on the school. Some inner city comprehensives are very good.
If we take the view that because 30% of the population are middle class, then middle class children only get 30% of the places at good universities, regardless of performance, that would be very unjust. Children would be penalised for performing well, and would likely have to go abroad to get a good university education.
g.
... in your opinion.
But, it is an awful idea. Allocating university places on the basis of a quota system is just massively unfair both to academically gifted children, who are deemed to be too middle class to be given places in good universities, and less academically gifted children who are being set up to fail, by being given places on courses that are too academically rigorous for them.
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
A betting post? Na, that’s as off topic as it gets.
Does anyone even use the off topic button? Is this the modern manifestation of the nonexistent ignore button that some PB snowflakes used to claim to use in days of yore?
Mainly fat finger stndrome. As for ignore, it wasn’t a button, rather a browser extension.
Oh dear – that some people would go to such lengths on an anonymous internet forum is depressing!
At the moment, my bet on the 11 December vote passing is looking heroically optimistic. The bet on a second referendum before the end of 2019 is looking a bit more promising.
At the moment, my bet on the 11 December vote passing is looking heroically optimistic. The bet on a second referendum before the end of 2019 is looking a bit more promising.
Me too, Morris. I took the 4/1 when the market first went up, thinking that sense would be bound to prevail in due course. Like you I am consoled by a rather shrewder referendum bet, but all the same, one's reputation is boud to suffer.....as indeed does one's bak balance. :-(
Comments
Mildly amused a post in which I flagged up a potential hedge for anyone who had backed under 200 MPs supporting May's deal in the vote has been considered off-topic by someone. Assume that's fat finger syndrome.
A spot of Twitter chuntering I saw earlier today suggested that Mercedes may have made an initial misstep with the 2019 engine, but might just be silly season nonsense.
It is all down to the numbers.
I think there are about 200 hardline brexiteers who reject Mrs May's deal and would be happy with WTO with transition or even a crash out. .
There are about 400 remainers of whom half want to "honour" the referendum and half want a second referendum in order to justify remaining. (I simplify).
The 200 brexiteers will vote against a second referendum. If they lose, they'll want "No deal" on the ballot but they will be outvoted on that by the other 400.
The 200 who support Mrs May's deal (but lose the vote on it next Tuesday) will see a second referendum with "The Deal" on it as a way to rescue Mrs May's deal and so will vote for a referendum as long as "Deal" is on the ballot. The 200 remainers will be happy to oblige. The brexiteers can't defeat that. It doesn't matter that "Deal" has been defeated in the Commons. What right do MPs have to pervert "the will of the people"?
So that's what will happen. A second referendum with Deal and Remain on the ballot. Deal might well win in that situation but who knows?
There's no point in chuntering about not it honouring "the people" or perverting democracy. That will have no effect. It is the numbers that count. Bet accordingly.
Though, I am not sure addressing that will change the world tbh.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/north-carolina-congress-absentee-ballot-fraud-mccready-harris.html
On phone or tablet screen, it's very easy to mark you as off topic.
The most 'biased against' group, in my experience of the situation, was always foreign students applying as UG, they make up a surprisingly large % of the applications and only a small number get through. Can't see any mention of that in the Sutton Trust report.
In the Independent coverage of the story, you start to see a hint of what, and where, the problem is.
"Just 25 per cent of state school students who achieve A*, A*, A grades apply for Oxford, compared to 37 per cent of such students from private schools."
So, if you are good enough but go to a state school, you are less likely to apply. Of course this has implications elsewhere.
There is an imbalance. There is even, possibly, a problem. But it is very much at (State) school level.
For example David Miliband got in with a D and 3 Bs.
Cambridge let in Prince Charles with a B & C.
My only disagreement with you is that I think the number of extreme Brexiteers who would be happy with a crash-out is much smaller than you say, probably 50-80. It really is an extreme position, involving heroic assumptions about how we get through the immediate chaos. (A lot more MPs might be happy with or actively welcome an orderly transition to WTO, but that's not really available because of the Irish border issue).
They were entirely consistent in saying the Constitution means exactly what they said it does. Subject to their changing their minds.
Perhaps some helpful journalists should ask them the question straight out and see whether they get an evasive response as opposed to a categorical denial.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/dec/07/trump-mueller-kelly-live-latest-news-updates-russia-investigation-us-politics-today
It is true though that the UK Goverment, or at least the PM, has given every impression of interpreting the the vote in the way you say, which is why we have got well and truly shafted."
****
The sentence "on the best terms possible" was so obviously on the ballot paper in brackets after Leave that it did not need to be printed. Furthermore such was repeatedly stressed by all the major figures who made the case for Leave. Shafted by the EU? Did the optimum achievable deal and quite a decent one given the hard realities of relative bargaining power? Delete to taste. Matter of personal opinion and not relevant to the choice now faced. Which is that parliament either ratifies and we commence an orderly exit of the EU or it continues to frustrate and we do not leave at all, meaning that the 2016 referendum is trashed. I voted remain myself but I do not wish to see that.
Also, 'all sectors fairly' is so vague as to be useless. What do you mean by that? What happens if the certain sectors are underperforming at A-level stage (and, indeed, they are).
I do not think your approach would solve anything by itself but might accept it a diluted form as one of a possible set of measures that start at ca. 14 years old and go from there.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic
I think good value bets are "referendum before 2020"
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132100845
and "no Brexit before 2022".
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098
This is not based on wishful thinking but cold analysis of the numbers.
If not, then forcing Oxbridge and others to accept only 7% of their intake from the private sector would be fair.
Does anyone even use the off topic button? Is this the modern manifestation of the nonexistent ignore button that some PB snowflakes used to claim to use in days of yore?
There was no class, religious, or colour bar for me, I'm a minority on so many levels.
Given their spy record, do Cambridge give preference to Marxists?
Nations that approve of Trump over Obama: Israel.
Clubbing is, sadly, dominated by shitty cheese nights but it also has enough bright sparks doing their own thing to have many, many niche nights.
Other thing is that classical and jazz are a much bigger *thing* than at the other UK universities I've any experience of.
Now Oxford, that's a den of traitors.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/dreaming-spies-the-inside-story-of-the-kgb-at-oxford
The cover up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5434139/Oxford-traitor-spied-Russia-revealed.html
1. Why do certain groups in society - white, working class, some ethnic groups - massively underperform in attainment at A-level.
2. Why do the students that do attain an appropriate standard then not apply.
Fix them two questions, and the rest will fix itself.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/world-university-rankings-2019-results-announced
(Look away for a moment TSE)
1. Oxford
2. Cambridge
3. Stanford
4. MIT
5. Caltec
There is evidence that the academic results of private schools when adjusted for the socio-economic advantage of their intake are not materially better than the state sector.
Uhhh, how did Milliband pull that off? You can understand with the heir to the throne.
And, of course, there is always reversion to the mean.
Anyone any knowledge of this?
May still PM ?
"Have we left yet?"
"No deal it is then."
"You lost, get over it."
Do you want to get something in about the five stages of grief, where the scores can really change?
The point is that you are trying to deal with the issue by getting universities to pick less academically suitable students rather than dealing with the issue of lack of mobility in the general education system. It is one reason why I prefer the grammar school system.
By the time Oxbridge are looking at which students to pick it is already too late. You need to address this problem much earlier.
Plus the biggest gap in the Stutton trust stats is in able state school kids deciding not to apply. Oxford can do something about this - maybe they've moved on from Access Events being soundtracked only by Drum and Bass -_-.
Force a potato famine in Ireland?
Could work.
What an idiot.
At the moment, my bet on the 11 December vote passing is looking heroically optimistic. The bet on a second referendum before the end of 2019 is looking a bit more promising.
And she's the MP I have to contact if I have a problem!