This House would reform Oxbridge

The current Oxbridge system is, by its very nature, unequal and elitist. The entrance exam and lengthy system of interviews are far more suited to schools that have the resources to prepare their children for them.

Passing the interviews requires a staggering degree of innate talent or years of training in productive academic techniques such as debate, critical thought and the ability to read and research independently. This is an approach to education which schools in deprived areas, trying to motivate kids from sometimes very difficult backgrounds, do not have the time or money to take up. This was shown recently by a report from the Office of Fair Access, which stated that the proportion of students from low-income families (defined by OFFA as those from families with an income of less than £15, 200 per annum), admitted by the universities has dropped since 1996.[1]

The brightest individuals are therefore kept out of the best institutions – a situation which dampens aspirations among the majority of Britain’s school-children and maintains a harm, in that those with the greatest potential and the strongest work ethic do not have an equal chance of being admitted to Oxford or Cambridge.

[1] Lee Elliot Major, ‘The simplistic solution to Oxbridge elitism won’t work,’ The Guardian, 28 May 2010 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/28/fair-access-oxbridge-social-elite (accessed 4 January 2012)

It is the education system that is at fault. It is a fallacy to assert that Oxbridge is nothing but a gateway to membership of the ruling classes. The universities simply offer excellence in teaching and research, shown by the fact that they consistently top all the major league tables in Britain, and indeed across the world.[1]

If they cater more towards privately-educated students it is largely because of faults in the state school system, not the university. Therefore it’s arguably state schools that need to be reformed, not Oxbridge. Furthermore, the maligned entrance interviews can work to iron out biases in A-Level grades by allowing tutors to let candidates demonstrate skills and potential in other ways more suited to their personalities.[2] Abolishing interviews could therefore risk scuppering the chances of bright children who went to under-performing schools gaining access to an Oxbridge education.[3]

[1] University Guide 2012, The Guardian, 17 May 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012 (accessed  9 January 2012)

[2] ‘In Defence of Oxbridge,’ Latte Labour, 4 June 2011 - http://lattelabour.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 6 January 2012)

[3] Richard Lowe, ‘Why we shouldn’t abolish Oxbridge,’ Independent Thought, 1 June 2011 - http://www.independentthought.co.uk/?p=1453 (accessed 4 January 2012)

The high number of students at Oxbridge who went to public school has meant that what is colloquially known as ‘the Old Boy network’ has prevailed. Oxford and Cambridge for example have always held a grip on the highest offices with 41 of 54 British PMs having attended Oxford or Cambridge.[1] As in turn those who attend Oxbridge are nearly all privileged this ensures the most influential circles of society remain the preserve of the wealthiest, yet not necessarily the most intelligent or able. This is harmful to society at large, as it means industries are not absorbing the best that the country has to offer from all levels of society – only those who are rich enough to get in.[2]

The negative effects that a lack of diversity in key industries can have include the discouraging image given to young people from poorer economic backgrounds, dampening the aspirations of those whose families are not rich.

Furthermore, industries such as the media, banking and the civil service are not profiting from recruiting talent from every level, hampering the potential of these sectors to be as productive as they can be.

[1] Richard Lofthouse, ‘First among equals’, Oxford Today, Vol. 23, No.1, Michaelmas 2010, https://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=619

[2] Owen Jones, ‘Abolish Oxbridge,’ Labour List, 1 June 2011 - http://labourlist.org/2011/06/abolish-oxbridge/ (accessed 3 January 2012)

It is wrong to argue that Oxbridge is anti-meritocratic simply because it takes in pupils largely from private schools. Both Oxford and Cambridge are very difficult to get into requiring three A grades – the top grade - at A level.[1] Oxford and Cambridge are therefore taking in the best from the UK school system. That Oxford and Cambridge maintain their dominance of the top industries shows just how good these too universities are at educating their students.

[1] ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, University of Oxford, http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/faq.shtml

The current Oxbridge system is, by its very nature, unequal and elitist. The entrance exam and lengthy system of interviews are far more suited to schools that have the resources to prepare their children for them.

Passing the interviews requires a staggering degree of innate talent or years of training in productive academic techniques such as debate, critical thought and the ability to read and research independently. This is an approach to education which schools in deprived areas, trying to motivate kids from sometimes very difficult backgrounds, do not have the time or money to take up. This was shown recently by a report from the Office of Fair Access, which stated that the proportion of students from low-income families (defined by OFFA as those from families with an income of less than £15, 200 per annum), admitted by the universities has dropped since 1996.[1]

The brightest individuals are therefore kept out of the best institutions – a situation which dampens aspirations among the majority of Britain’s school-children and maintains a harm, in that those with the greatest potential and the strongest work ethic do not have an equal chance of being admitted to Oxford or Cambridge.

[1] Lee Elliot Major, ‘The simplistic solution to Oxbridge elitism won’t work,’ The Guardian, 28 May 2010 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/28/fair-access-oxbridge-social-elite (accessed 4 January 2012)

It is the education system that is at fault. It is a fallacy to assert that Oxbridge is nothing but a gateway to membership of the ruling classes. The universities simply offer excellence in teaching and research, shown by the fact that they consistently top all the major league tables in Britain, and indeed across the world.[1]

If they cater more towards privately-educated students it is largely because of faults in the state school system, not the university. Therefore it’s arguably state schools that need to be reformed, not Oxbridge. Furthermore, the maligned entrance interviews can work to iron out biases in A-Level grades by allowing tutors to let candidates demonstrate skills and potential in other ways more suited to their personalities.[2] Abolishing interviews could therefore risk scuppering the chances of bright children who went to under-performing schools gaining access to an Oxbridge education.[3]

[1] University Guide 2012, The Guardian, 17 May 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012 (accessed  9 January 2012)

[2] ‘In Defence of Oxbridge,’ Latte Labour, 4 June 2011 - http://lattelabour.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 6 January 2012)

[3] Richard Lowe, ‘Why we shouldn’t abolish Oxbridge,’ Independent Thought, 1 June 2011 - http://www.independentthought.co.uk/?p=1453 (accessed 4 January 2012)

The high number of students at Oxbridge who went to public school has meant that what is colloquially known as ‘the Old Boy network’ has prevailed. Oxford and Cambridge for example have always held a grip on the highest offices with 41 of 54 British PMs having attended Oxford or Cambridge.[1] As in turn those who attend Oxbridge are nearly all privileged this ensures the most influential circles of society remain the preserve of the wealthiest, yet not necessarily the most intelligent or able. This is harmful to society at large, as it means industries are not absorbing the best that the country has to offer from all levels of society – only those who are rich enough to get in.[2]

The negative effects that a lack of diversity in key industries can have include the discouraging image given to young people from poorer economic backgrounds, dampening the aspirations of those whose families are not rich.

Furthermore, industries such as the media, banking and the civil service are not profiting from recruiting talent from every level, hampering the potential of these sectors to be as productive as they can be.

[1] Richard Lofthouse, ‘First among equals’, Oxford Today, Vol. 23, No.1, Michaelmas 2010, https://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/page.aspx?pid=619

[2] Owen Jones, ‘Abolish Oxbridge,’ Labour List, 1 June 2011 - http://labourlist.org/2011/06/abolish-oxbridge/ (accessed 3 January 2012)

It is wrong to argue that Oxbridge is anti-meritocratic simply because it takes in pupils largely from private schools. Both Oxford and Cambridge are very difficult to get into requiring three A grades – the top grade - at A level.[1] Oxford and Cambridge are therefore taking in the best from the UK school system. That Oxford and Cambridge maintain their dominance of the top industries shows just how good these too universities are at educating their students.

[1] ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, University of Oxford, http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/faq.shtml

Far from being swaddled in privilege, Oxbridge students are forced to work extremely hard. Making the universities more like mainstream institutions or former polytechnics would reduce the workload, relax the pressure and ensure some of the country’s top students are not pushed hard enough. This could lead, in turn to a flight of the best students overseas to places like Harvard. This has been the case in France, where universities in recent years experienced an exodus of the country’s best scientific academics to the USA.[1]

Similarly, South Africa’s universities have suffered from many potential students and academics going overseas – leading to an increasing skills deficit.[2]

The unique, driven approach offered by Oxford and Cambridge’s curricular and tutors has previously served to draw many overseas students to England; if the resolution were to pass, the reverse would become the status quo. Cost and national borders are rarely a deterrent to sufficiently talented pupils.

This will then have a knock on effect as talented UK students who chose to study at Harvard, McGill, Monash or Utrecht might also be drawn away from the UK economy. The social and academic networks that students form during their time in university, along with the internship schemes they participate in often direct them toward employment with particular companies and in certain jurisdictions. A student who graduates from an American law school will be much more likely to seek employment with an American law firm.

Love it or loath it, a place at Oxford is an achievement that many people at home and abroad aspire to and see as the pinnacle of success. It is conceivable that Britain would thus suffer a ‘brain-drain’ and reduced dynamism in its industries if Oxbridge was streamlined, potentially affecting long term economic growth, innovations in academic research and the development of new businesses.[3]

[1] Maia de la Baume, ‘French Fear ‘Brain Drain’ to the US,’ The New York Times, 21 November 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/europe/22france.html (accessed on 25 July 2012)

[2] ‘Brain Drain: How our thirst for academic talent hurts the rest of the world,’ Good Education, 21 June 2011 - http://www.good.is/post/brain-drain-how-our-thirst-for-academic-talent-hurts-the-rest-of-the-world/ (accessed on 25 July 2012)

[3] Daniel Knowles, ‘Abolish Oxbridge? You stupid boy,’ The Daily Telegraph, 2 June 2011 - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100090395/abolish-oxbridge-you-stupid-boy/ (accessed on 5 January 2012)

The great conceit of those who support Oxbridge is that the students that go there matter more than the institutions and their respective “brands” do. Students from Oxbridge are simply too few in numbers to have any great impact on the UK’s economy if they decided to go overseas to be educated. Forcing Oxbridge to adopt a reformed and updated model of learning would reverse the regressive and dated idea that Oxbridge students are more intelligent and valuable to the nation’s future than they really are. Such an attitude needs to change if the vast majority of the country’s graduates have a chance at success.

It is not because of some entrenched ‘Old Boys’ network that Oxbridge dominates – it is because of the undisputed[1] quality of the Oxbridge education.[2] Other universities should therefore work to keep up with and compete with Oxford and Cambridge, a mechanism which is far more likely to create excellence than forcing the Oxbridge institutions to adopt artificial handicaps.

The world of higher education at large is not served by downgrading its finest institutions so as not to offend everyone who did not get into them.[3]  The same concerns were raised in France, when attempts to make the country’s top universities more diverse through government schemes led to increased worries that it would cause a lowering of standards.[4] The innate weakness of affirmative action policies is that they aim to bring in more people based on class, gender or ethnicity rather than on pure talent. This damages the credentials of any institution aiming to sustain a reputation for excellence.

[1] UK University Rankings 20212, The Guardian, 17 May 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012 (accessed 25 July 2012)

[2] Philip Hensher, ‘Rejecting Oxbridge isn’t clever – it’s a mistake,’ The Independent, 20 January 2012 - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-rejecting-oxbridge-isnt-clever--its-a-mistake-6292041.html (accessed 25 July 2012)

[3] Ibid.,

[4] Richard Kaahlenberg, ‘The French Twist on Affirmative Action,’ The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 July 2010 -  http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-french-twist-on-affirmative-action/25340 (accessed 25 July 2012)

The belief that no-one can better Oxbridge is stifling to academic and social  dynamism. Oxbridge’s reputation is kept aloft by the cultural capital- by the collective valorisation of the Oxbridge “experience” and the social milieu that it represents- of the more conservative and privileged forces that dominate politics and industry in Britain, which arguably want to ensure networks of nepotism and patrimony among those that attended Oxbridge are kept alive and disproportionately influential.

Other institutions can provide a far more specialist and nuanced perspective, but students and academics suffer from never being able to overtake Oxbridge due to entrenched conservative and class-based biases. Such attitudes hamper dynamism and progress in higher education.