And another thing...a_llusiveNovember 4 2009, 22:36:25 UTC
Another issue is the dangerous propagation of the idea that only Oxbridge/Russell group courses 'count' - it very much depends on the subject and on what the individual student puts in. There are various things taught at Oxbridge where the premier institution in the UK for that field isn't Russell Group - research universities aren't always the leaders of teaching in a given subject. Going to an 'elite' university (with shorter, more intense terms and a less modular course structure) doesn't make the student better and may be too intimidating or the wrong framework for them to really flourish. (Many students from privileged backgrounds feel intimidates by getting into an elite university and it can lengthen their university adjustment period - throughout the course sometimes; even academic and research staff I've met admit to sharing such feelings. For those capable of high achieving in those very academic subjects or specialised sciences genuinely dominated by Oxbridge may succeed better from a weak early education position by pursuing existing part-time study routes better supported at less intensive institutions or doing undergrad courses elsewhere before coming to Oxbridge etc, as so many do now. Elite institutions stay so by being intensive - if a student needs supplementary study to catch up or wants space to resolve non-academic issues, diving into the highest pressure environment may hamper not help the individual. The implication that a student will be crippled by not getting into an elite university is a dangerous idea to reinforce and unfairly devalues the efforts of both students and academics elsewhere.
Over the next thirty years we'll see how far other universities have to date managed to produce alumni who can winnow the % of government, business etc places occupied by 'establishment' alumni but that takes a long while to feed through, because careers and social shifts take a while, no matter how young our politicians are getting.
Re: And another thing...cardinalsinNovember 6 2009, 20:28:18 UTC
Who says that not getting in will cripple you? The point is that these are acknowledged as (on a general rather than specialised prospectus) the top of the league table, and have been every year for as long as people have been measuring these things. Whether that's fair or not, it certainly puts an onus on them to get a balanced student body. They have certainly tried to do this, but progress has been very slow and it's quite reasonable to want to speed it up.
The fact that Oxbridge isn't for everybody does not change this at all.
Re your final point, I'm not sure why you pick the thirty year period - already its transparent to me that the best graduate jobs go preferentially to Oxbridge grads ad public school kids. Sure, other graduates have a chance to get into the top jobs eventually, but it's obvious that if you give the educational elite an open door to the best jobs at the start, you will see very slow movement indeed, without even taking account of the generally glacial pace of social change.
Re: And another thing...a_llusiveNovember 9 2009, 12:50:18 UTC
Who says that not getting in will cripple you? If not getting into an elite university handicaps your subsequent job opportunities and career progress, as you strongly aver, then in that sense it cripples you.
The onus to get a balanced student body is on the entire education system - the identification of desireability must be by clear measurements, however contextual, that universities can rate applicants against and the most desireable (intellecutally) applicants for universities must also be at least somewhat balanced. At least one state-school educated friend of mine was encouraged by teachers to apply to Oxbridge but decided it would be too much pressure for him. That's not uncommon. Combating both refusal to consider elite bodies and problems with measuring applicants are both key to widening the intake on the best courses nationally. However the disproportionate focus on Russell group as elite means that employers are likely to continue to prefer candidates from those institutions - the self-reinforcing cycle should be mitigated by better schooling and support for academic ambitions, improving the intake at all universities and the application-rate from disadvantaged students, and greater recognition for subject-specific strengths at universities elsewhere.
'Speeding it up' within universities while not providing the vital linked support to schools and FE colleges, and vital funding for their studies (so they don't have to try to hold down several jobs while playing catch-up, having already been identified as needing additional support) won't provide enough support to prevent increased drop-out rates negating all efforts. Its not that I think the effort is unnecessary, just that I don't want to see it wasted. Four months looking primarily at the university end doesn't seem enough to produce the comprehensive, effective acceleration plan required to do the job. It is not clear what the proposals will involve but anything expecting universities to pick up all the pieces, especially without the funding to cover that, just won't work.
The thirty year period I picked was the time for a career to fully mature after leaving university - to hold really major political or industrial roles. An entirely different measure from the graduate entry-level jobs you refer to, particularly as the latter discounts any post-graduate study, young or mature, affecting career paths significantly, as is so often the case.
Overall, whatever the entry shuffling engaged in by government or universities, it remains invevitable that, barring major intervention, those from the most privileged backgrounds, whether in future educated at Oxford, Sheffield or Harvard, will predominantly enter careers with the cumulative advantages of connections, financial support including the ability to fund extra-curricular pursuits that support their academic or personal development and the ability to wait until they get into the job they want, and wider knowledge of the careers and career-paths that will lead them up the ladder quickly. Giving a leg-up to those without such advantages can only mitigate the situation to an extent very much dependent on a well-though out, comprehensive approach where relevant initiatives are adequately supported through regulation and funding over the medium to long term.
Over the next thirty years we'll see how far other universities have to date managed to produce alumni who can winnow the % of government, business etc places occupied by 'establishment' alumni but that takes a long while to feed through, because careers and social shifts take a while, no matter how young our politicians are getting.
Reply
The fact that Oxbridge isn't for everybody does not change this at all.
Re your final point, I'm not sure why you pick the thirty year period - already its transparent to me that the best graduate jobs go preferentially to Oxbridge grads ad public school kids. Sure, other graduates have a chance to get into the top jobs eventually, but it's obvious that if you give the educational elite an open door to the best jobs at the start, you will see very slow movement indeed, without even taking account of the generally glacial pace of social change.
Reply
If not getting into an elite university handicaps your subsequent job opportunities and career progress, as you strongly aver, then in that sense it cripples you.
The onus to get a balanced student body is on the entire education system - the identification of desireability must be by clear measurements, however contextual, that universities can rate applicants against and the most desireable (intellecutally) applicants for universities must also be at least somewhat balanced. At least one state-school educated friend of mine was encouraged by teachers to apply to Oxbridge but decided it would be too much pressure for him. That's not uncommon. Combating both refusal to consider elite bodies and problems with measuring applicants are both key to widening the intake on the best courses nationally.
However the disproportionate focus on Russell group as elite means that employers are likely to continue to prefer candidates from those institutions - the self-reinforcing cycle should be mitigated by better schooling and support for academic ambitions, improving the intake at all universities and the application-rate from disadvantaged students, and greater recognition for subject-specific strengths at universities elsewhere.
'Speeding it up' within universities while not providing the vital linked support to schools and FE colleges, and vital funding for their studies (so they don't have to try to hold down several jobs while playing catch-up, having already been identified as needing additional support) won't provide enough support to prevent increased drop-out rates negating all efforts. Its not that I think the effort is unnecessary, just that I don't want to see it wasted. Four months looking primarily at the university end doesn't seem enough to produce the comprehensive, effective acceleration plan required to do the job. It is not clear what the proposals will involve but anything expecting universities to pick up all the pieces, especially without the funding to cover that, just won't work.
The thirty year period I picked was the time for a career to fully mature after leaving university - to hold really major political or industrial roles. An entirely different measure from the graduate entry-level jobs you refer to, particularly as the latter discounts any post-graduate study, young or mature, affecting career paths significantly, as is so often the case.
Overall, whatever the entry shuffling engaged in by government or universities, it remains invevitable that, barring major intervention, those from the most privileged backgrounds, whether in future educated at Oxford, Sheffield or Harvard, will predominantly enter careers with the cumulative advantages of connections, financial support including the ability to fund extra-curricular pursuits that support their academic or personal development and the ability to wait until they get into the job they want, and wider knowledge of the careers and career-paths that will lead them up the ladder quickly. Giving a leg-up to those without such advantages can only mitigate the situation to an extent very much dependent on a well-though out, comprehensive approach where relevant initiatives are adequately supported through regulation and funding over the medium to long term.
Reply
Leave a comment