politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was fo

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

Ans: not much – which is of course where the comparison falls down.

Labour’s leadership challengers are, at best, a weak field, competing to distinguish themselves from each other. Jeremy Corbin is probably the only one who is what is actually written on the tin, imho.

2/4 have been in the Cabinet, in 2005 only Clarke of the Tory leadership contendors had been a Cabinet Minister

I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.

The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.

The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

She challenges her party by making references to the real world, the one in which the Tories got a majority. Stretching a point Clarke was the founding member of TSE's fiscally dry, socially liberal, lets not spend all our time banging on about the EU party which challenged the sad creatures in the Tories who thought being right about the EU was somehow more important than being in power and able to do anything about it (while Tony handed away half our rebate for no good reason).

But to describe her as a Labour Clarke just shows how bare the cupboard is for Labour.

OGH was actually making the point that in ideological terms Kendall, like Clarke, are/were both seen as having policies to close to the governing party's for many of their party members to take. Personality and experience wise Clarke would be closer to Healey, who again had similar problems being seen as too 'moderate'

Healey is someone who I would fully accept is in the same bracket as Clarke. But there is more to being a "big beast" than a few vaguely provocative sound bites that make some of the narrow minded in the party wince. If Kendall holds a dozen serious positions over the next 20 years we can reconsider Mike's point.

True, but if Kendall fails to win the Labour leadership it will be for the same reason Clarke failed to win the Tory leadership ie party members wanted 'a choice, not an echo'

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Murray takes second set, also 6-2.

What do you think Camilla did with Andy's wrist band. Sadly she could wring out the sweat into little bottles and sell them for a fortune on ebay !!

calum said:

I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.

The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.

The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.

When you look at the choices that the Tories have when Cameron decides to call it a day, Osborne, Hunt, Javid, May, let alone Boris and the choices currently available to Labour it is very hard to see 2020 being a contest but a lot can happen in government and governments more often lose elections than oppositions win them. Labour need to hang in and hope. Its all they can do.

calum said:

I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.

The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.

The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.

I think the comparison Mike is making, principally between the 2001 Tory leadership race and the 2015 Labour leadership race, holds good. In both cases both parties suffered bad defeats and made virtually no progress from terrible defeats they suffered 4/5 years earlier to be thrown out of office. In both cases though the most electable leadership candidate was offering an ideology too close to their opponents for the membership to stomach. However, one crumb of comfort for Labour is that Cameron will not be running again at the next election as Blair was in 2005, so Burnham or Cooper have perhaps more of a chance than IDS/Howard did. The election will also take place in the equivalent of 2007 rather than 2005 because of the Fixed Parliaments Act, giving people longer to be tired of the government. Also, even though Howard lost don't forget he cut the government's majority by 100 seats

No one has heard of Kendall. Clarke was an established senior minister and had already forgotten more than Kendall has learned by the time he stood for leader.
She is entitled to argue her case and mark out a position for herself and her views for the future, but she is in no position to lead the Labour Party because the Labour Party does not want to listen.

DavidL said:

calum said:

I think at times we spend a bit to much time studying the political past to determine the future.

The Labour leadership line up is depressing, increasingly looking like 2020 will be the Tories to lose as opposed Labour's to win. The LibDems are at risk of becoming an irrelevance. UKIP already seem to be fading into the background, with the EU referendum now a certainty, they're a bit superfluous.

The Tories seem to have most of the big political personalities at the moment. Only real concern is can they keep it together post - EU ref, irrespective of the result.

When you look at the choices that the Tories have when Cameron decides to call it a day, Osborne, Hunt, Javid, May, let alone Boris and the choices currently available to Labour it is very hard to see 2020 being a contest but a lot can happen in government and governments more often lose elections than oppositions win them. Labour need to hang in and hope. Its all they can do.

Much the same could have been said about the Labour leadership contest in 1976, the Tories won the 1979 election. Out of those only really Boris comes close to matching Cameron's electoral appeal

TheWhiteRabbit said:

A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.

Indeed but you have to have got top grade A Levels to get in in the first place

TheWhiteRabbit said:

A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.

Indeed and put so succinctly !!

I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.

Jonathan said:

The premise of the thread is wrong.

Clarke was a proven big beast, Kendall's biggest problem is that she has no top flight political experience in opposition or govt.

The premise that party members want 'a choice not an echo' is correct

justin124 said:

Back to Greece - Two new polls

Metron 4Jul Yes 43 No 49

Pamak 3/4 Jul Yes 40.5 No 46

Shy Nai Voters?

It is a horrible referendum - death by a thousand cuts or having the head severed completely by one stroke of the sword.

justin124 said:

I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.

Oxford normally requires 3 As with occasional exceptions (and almost of all of those with 2 E grade offers get 3 As). Cambridge A*AA, with some courses requiring a Merit or distinction in the STEP exam

weejonnie said:

justin124 said:

Back to Greece - Two new polls

Metron 4Jul Yes 43 No 49

Pamak 3/4 Jul Yes 40.5 No 46

Shy Nai Voters?

It is a horrible referendum - death by a thousand cuts or having the head severed completely by one stroke of the sword.

More like they are committing seppuku perhaps - IIRC the initial stroke was by the person themselves, but someone else needed to be on hand to sever the head after that self wounding.

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty

Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from

That's not actually correct.

Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.

There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.

And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.

That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.

So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162

Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty

Well, it's an opinion I suppose.

Appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, let alone the sidebar of shame, is not a measure of class at all.

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

I do recall that until the 1980s if an applicant had satisfied Oxbridge as a result of the entrance exam and interview , he or she only had to obtain 2 E grade A level passes to confirm a place.

Oxford normally requires 3 As with occasional exceptions (and almost of all of those with 2 E grade offers get 3 As). Cambridge A*AA, with some courses requiring a Merit or distinction in the STEP exam

I accept that is the present position - the formal entrance exam no longer exists.

Correct

foxinsoxuk said:

calum said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

A levels count for little once you've got to interview at Oxford. Fellows have far too high opinion of themselves to trust anything other than their own impression.

Indeed and put so succinctly !!

I think very few young people from Scottish comprehensives even bother applying to Oxbridge. This year we have 3 of my daughter's peer group going to Harvard, one of whom also got an offer from Cambridge.

It very much depends on the College. My brother got an Exhibition at Churchill College from a Comprehensive. He says that most of his fellow students there were also from state schools, mainly Comps, and fairly often from fairly mundane backgrounds.

This is how the British Establishment survives; always open to new blood in ways that the more rigid aristocracies of Continental Europe were not. After all what are Aristocrats but the descendents of previously upwardly mobile people?

A Farewell to Alms shows English history has been one of downward social mobility.

Whilst on the subject of Universities...

Captain Blackadder: And then the final, irrefutable proof. Remember, you mentioned a clever boyfriend...
Nurse Mary: Yes.
Captain Blackadder: I then leapt on the opportunity to test you. I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull.
Nurse Mary: Well?
Captain Blackadder: You failed to spot that only two of those are great Universities.
Nurse Mary: Swine!
General Melchett: That's right! Oxford's a complete dump!

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty

Aristocrats yes; the otherwise super rich not always, and many celebs are distinctly downmarket!

Many aristocrats now struggle to maintain the upkeep of their piles if they have not handed them over to the likes of English Heritage and the National Trust and they no longer have an automatic place in the House of Lords. The Super rich now control the real power in the financial and business worlds, while celebrities include the likes of Cameron and Osborne as well as Hollywood stars and top sports stars. Those royals who are still relevant eg the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are A+ list celebrities anyway, and the shrewder aristocrats have entered the celebrity market too eg the Duke of Wellington's granddaughter has married James Blunt

I still love the fact that Apsley House, the Duke of Wellington's residence has the address No1 London.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from

That's not actually correct.

Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.

There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.

And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.

That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.

So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162

Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)

In essence correct, though a few of the plate glass universities have now overtaken some of the old red bricks eg Warwick and York

The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.

Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.

I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.

At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.

Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.

I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.

There is no such thing as the "upper class" any more.

There was a great survey about 15 years ago no which did a detailed study of something like 20,000 people. Precisely *none* said they were upper class - around 4% IIRC felt they were upper middle class

There is, it is just now made up largely of the super rich and celebrities rather than the aristocracy and royalty

Well, it's an opinion I suppose.

Appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail, let alone the sidebar of shame, is not a measure of class at all.

You are as likely to find pictures of the Queen and Princes William and Harry in the sidebar as a Hollywood actor or actress or a pop star, both are upper class in my opinion (I include B list and above, Z list big brother stars do not count as real 'celebrities' as their fame is almost always too fleeting). Of course in centuries past many aristocrats and royals could be just as debauched as many modern celebrities

Fun fact #1

England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.

Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).

Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.

I think we can all agree that folks who get a good degree from Oxbridge would no doubt do very well at any of the Russell Group of unis:

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/

There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.

calum said:

I think we can all agree that folks who get a good degree from Oxbridge would no doubt do very well at any of the Russell Group of unis:

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/

There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.

There is too much concentration on degrees. We need more vocational ways for young people to succeed in many industries. I am not saying that degrees are pointless, especially in some industries: just that there should be alternative routes.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from

That's not actually correct.

Pre WW2 there were the 6 ancient Universities: Oxford and Cambridge in England and St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in Scotland.

There were then the 19th century Universities: Cardiff, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Swansea and Lampeter in Wales along with London, Durham and Newcastle in England.

And the Red Brick Universities of the late 19th and early 20th century: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Reading, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Hull and Bristol.

That is a total of 24 independent universities pre WW2.

So I could have added a few more from the university of Wales, but other than that there was Oxbridge, the ancient Scottish universities a few red bricks, exactly as I said. Even if there were then 24 universities there are now 162

Oh agreed but since I am a graduate of one of the 19th century Unis and a snob to boot I am going to say that the rest of them don't deserve to be called universities. Glorified polys. :-)

In essence correct, though a few of the plate glass universities have now overtaken some of the old red bricks eg Warwick and York

Warwick celebrates its 50th anniversary this year!

(however, Imperial was my alma mater)

Indeed, was my alma mater (with an MSc at Aberystwyth)

Morris_Dancer said:

Some of us don't need dancing degrees. We're born wiffle stick in hand.

Aristo.

Mr. kle4, I didn't want to mention I was the Lord of House Dancer...

notme said:

Omnium said:

The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.

Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.

I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.

At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.

Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.

I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).

This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.

University of Greenwich was the one I had in mind.

notme said:

Omnium said:

notme said:

Omnium said:

The 2x E grade offer was by no means restricted to Oxbridge post entrance exam. (For those that don't know you could do an exam to get into either Oxford or Cambridge at the 4th or the 7th term - staying on for an extra period - of your Sixth form.

Some very good universities made the 2E offer to good candidates that had that university low on the list. Manchester gave me a 2E offer when I had them 5th (and last) on my list. I my case clearly it was a clerical error, but you get the idea.

I will say that I have had a lifelong fond spot for Manchester Uni since then. As such I'm sure there was wisdom in their madness.

At the time (1982) it was pretty hard to get 4xA grades (I didn't), but there was also an additional paper called the S level that could let you shine. You were allowed to take only two S level papers.

Oxbridge college admissions can also just be whimsical - I know of two or three cases where people were just let in on a hunch.

I'm pretty sure that the 1980s system was better than the system today. I believe I'm right in saying that the top universities admitted a larger percentage of state educated people, but I'm sure I'm right in saying that a degree meant something then. I have frequently interviewed graduates (in scientific and mathematically connected subjects) that are frankly hopeless in the very subject they have a degree in (One of the new London universities deserves special mention, as their graduates seem to be particularly hopeless).

This wouldnt be the "new london university" that operated like a people smuggling ring, in which in return for payment of tuition fees, you get a visa to work (to assist you in your studies, wink wink) in the UK. Dont worry though as they wont take any attendance, and if everyone did attend they couldnt hold the classes.

University of Greenwich was the one I had in mind.

i was thinking of london met, im sure the MO is the same.

No - I think Greenwich is a proper institution with proper standards. Just in my experience those standards seem to be pitched rather low.

MyBurningEars said:

Fun fact #1

England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.

Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).

Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.

A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge

Omnium said:

No - I think Greenwich is a proper institution with proper standards. Just in my experience those standards seem to be pitched rather low.

...which triggers in my memory the old chestnut on an Army officer's annual appraisal review:
"This officer sets himself extremely low standards - which he consistently fails to achieve."

The bottom bottom end of the London Higher Ed market are the private colleges, mostly doing University of London external ("international") exams but sometimes taking franchised degrees from other unis (the University of Wales, when it existed, was a popular choice.)

They're the "London College of Business and Computing Technology" you see above fast food restaurants. Entirely filled with students from Asia, Africa and to some extent South America, there for the visa and the right to work a few hours a week. Even East European students don't bother now they have their EU rights. Sunil will know the type I mean, he's surrounded by them in his corner of Redbridge. Quality of education there is very very very low.

They also have the capacity to collapse suddenly leaving students in limbo, one of the biggest examples in recent years was was the London TASMAC School of Business.

calum said:

I think we can all agree that folks who get a good degree from Oxbridge would no doubt do very well at any of the Russell Group of unis:

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/

There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.

Not my experience - particularly in the sciences, where Oxford particularly can be ruthless after poor performance in prelims. Both cases I know of (students who were advised to leave my college) proved to be entirely correct, they both went on to get 1sts or 2:1s elsewhere.

In the arts Law, in particular, seemed to be a very different beasts at Oxbridge and elsewhere. 1-2 essays per week at Ox, 1 per term elsewhere. With independent reading expected at Oxford.

I can't really comment about myself, though, because I studied history and so on summer terms spent more time playing cricket and croquet than working...

MyBurningEars said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MyBurningEars said:

Fun fact #1

England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.

Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).

Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.

A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge

Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?

I first heard the story when investigating the background to some mediaval buildings I was excavating at Hawton near Newark. The local vicar had done a load of research and come up with the story. I had not thought much of it until I came across some more official references at Oxford regarding the Stamford college. I am still unsure about the Newark angle as information on that is more patchy and not helped by the fact that a number of families involved ended up on the wrong side of the Lambert Simnel rebellion in 1487.

The Wiki page of Oxford Uni mentions the Stamford college attempt and I will see if I can dig out more details.

I think the Charter was refused by Edward III after representations from Oxford and Cambridge.

Mortimer said:

calum said:

I think we can all agree that folks who get a good degree from Oxbridge would no doubt do very well at any of the Russell Group of unis:

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/

There are a minority of folks, mainly those with 2:2 or 3rd who love to spout forth about their degrees being just as good as 1st from non-Oxbridge. Fair to say many of these folks do not succeed, I trained as a Chartered Accountant and I can remember these folks ( and even some of the 1st/2:1) falling at the first fence of the basic graduate conversion exam, for many it was the first time they had failed anything.

Not my experience - particularly in the sciences, where Oxford particularly can be ruthless after poor performance in prelims. Both cases I know of (students who were advised to leave my college) proved to be entirely correct, they both went on to get 1sts or 2:1s elsewhere.

In the arts Law, in particular, seemed to be a very different beasts at Oxbridge and elsewhere. 1-2 essays per week at Ox, 1 per term elsewhere. With independent reading expected at Oxford.

I can't really comment about myself, though, because I studied history and so on summer terms spent more time playing cricket and croquet than working...

I did my one-and-a-half essays a week, eight weeks a term, for my nine terms!

Plus extra when required. ("Perhaps you'd like another go, White Rabbit")

I didn't know anyone who was on for a 2:2 (or third) who left, but they were read the Riot Act.

As for the view across to other unis, one degree classification is the norm. I don't know 2:2ers who think they'd get firsts at Sheffield.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Mortimer said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MyBurningEars said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MyBurningEars said:

Fun fact #1

England almost ended up with three ancient universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton.

Many scholars from Cambridge had fled during one of the "town and gown" clashes (these were vicious: I read an excellent book about the history of Cambridge, as a town and university, in the middle ages, but unfortunately I can't recommend it to you all because I can't remember its name!) and there was an established school at Northampton, allegedly previously patronised by royalty such as Richard I. Henry III granted that the Cambridge refugees could found a fresh university in Northampton in 1261, making it the third university in England, and one of the earliest in Europe (number 22 according to Wikipedia, it would appear).

Northampton then became the first English university to be abolished: allegedly the scholars at Oxford felt it represented a threat, and persuaded Henry III to revoke its licence in 1265.

A similar attempt was made in the 1330s by disaffected Oxford scholars who tried to found a new college at Stamford (and apparently a second at Newark) but it was blocked by Edward III after a petition from Oxford and Cambridge

Did they ever get a charter or licence? That's interesting. Did you have a reference or link for it?

As an alumnus of Brasenose, and my father at Stamford School, I'll give you the wiki version:

"In 1333-4, a group of students and tutors from Merton and Brasenose Colleges, dissatisfied with conditions at their university, left Oxford to establish a rival college at Stamford. Oxford and Cambridge universities petitioned Edward III, and the King ordered the closure of the college and the return of the students to Oxford. Oxford MA students were obliged to swear the following: "You shall also swear that you will not read lectures, or hear them read, at Stamford, as in a University study, or college general", an oath which remained in place until 1827.[39] The site, and limited remains, of the former 'Brazenose College, Stamford' where the Oxford secessionists lived and studied, now forms part of the Stamford School premises."

I understand they were forcibly arrested in Stamford.

Snap!

Bit confused by the story though, given BNC was surely founded in 1509 (the 500 year Anniv. was the year after I came down)....

It was more of a hall before 1509, occupying the part of the site which is now the lodge.

Cripes, that would have been a bit of a squeeze. The plodge wasn't exact spacious, even including the tower and the principal's lodgings.

Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

Life_ina_market_town said:

@MyBurningEars
For a dated discussion, see Salter, 'The Stamford Schism', EHR 37(146), 249-253.

Good old EHR; the saviour of many an historian's evening plans. 'Have you read such and such?', ' 'Nah, but I've read the review'

justin124 said:

The impression has been given that prior to World War 2 Oxbridge often acted as a Finishing School for the Brideshead Revisited set. Is the option no longer there for people from such backgrounds to simply turn up and have a good time for thee years whilst also being content to leave with a 3rd or 2.2?

Nope.

valleyboy said:

Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united

HYUFD said:

valleyboy said:

Just back from the Andy Burnham hustings down here in West Wales.
Interesting, fluent speaker but I am still not convinced. Labour does need a fresh face, fresh ideas which I not sure that Andy brings to the table. I think he would make a good no 2.
ps is Andrea about. I have a titbit that might be of interest.

Burnham is probably the most electable choice Labour have who can keep the party united

United in defeat?
United in opposition?
United against aspiration?

The party is the most important thing, after all.