The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just had argument about this, not sure what I think really.Seems to me that it is another way in which the rich enable thier children to become rich.
POINT ONE: Elite universitys create an elite class who have great influence over how we are ruled.
My understanding is that a degree from Oxford or Cambridge is more likely to get you a job than one from Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol etc. Therefore, top jobs in positions of power (or positions from which you can progress to power) are going to go to Oxbridge graduates. Although there are obviously exceptions, it makes logical sense that there are going to be a significant amount of Oxbridgers in positions of power.
By positions of power, I suppose I mean things like polititians, but I also mean people in the buisness world. I admit that I'm ignorant about the workings of things like this, but I assume that they employ people who work up through the ranks to eventually be on boards, be major shareholders, executives and things like that. Top of the heierarchy of the company, people whose decisions affect things.
Let's take the Murdoch corporation as an example. A job there will have loads of applicants, so the company can pick and choose and, given that a 1st from Oxford in Buisness is better than a 1st from Sussex in Buisness, Oxbridge people will get the job. Hence Oxbridge people being in power. In power in the Murdoch corporation means having a degree of influence over what the British population think, since thinking is controlled in part at least by the media.
All these people will know each other. There will be a network of powerful people who know each other from Oxford / Cambridge university. You went to Cambridge, and now your son wants a job - you speak to an old friend who is powerful within the Murdoch corpoatation. You went to Bognor Regis Uni, and now your son wants a job - there is none waiting within such an organisation.
(Please bear with me)
OK, that doesn't sound so bad. The most intelligent/hard working are in positions of power. Here is my second attempt at a point.
POINT TWO: IT IS NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT WHO ARE ABLE TO GET IN TO OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
I'm fairly sure about this. I am not saying it is possible to be completely thick and get into these unis. It isn't. Getting AAA, or AAAA, or AAAAA at A-Level is bloody hard. However, your chances of doing so are relative to your wealth.
If you go to a rubbish, low achieving sixth form / college (which tend to be found in poorer areas, yes?) it will be harder to achieve excellent grades due to quality of teaching, resources, etc. Actually, scratch that. These will play a part, but it will be harder to achieve grades if your college is that which places the emphesis on educating you rather than training you for exams.
If you go to a private school, you will be exam trained to perfection. I know, I have a girlfreind at one. That is what these places are for.
Getting tired now, please poke holes in my argument, that is why I have bothered to type it out. It needs clarification, I know, but this is the jist of it.
Ta for reading.
POINT ONE: Elite universitys create an elite class who have great influence over how we are ruled.
My understanding is that a degree from Oxford or Cambridge is more likely to get you a job than one from Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol etc. Therefore, top jobs in positions of power (or positions from which you can progress to power) are going to go to Oxbridge graduates. Although there are obviously exceptions, it makes logical sense that there are going to be a significant amount of Oxbridgers in positions of power.
By positions of power, I suppose I mean things like polititians, but I also mean people in the buisness world. I admit that I'm ignorant about the workings of things like this, but I assume that they employ people who work up through the ranks to eventually be on boards, be major shareholders, executives and things like that. Top of the heierarchy of the company, people whose decisions affect things.
Let's take the Murdoch corporation as an example. A job there will have loads of applicants, so the company can pick and choose and, given that a 1st from Oxford in Buisness is better than a 1st from Sussex in Buisness, Oxbridge people will get the job. Hence Oxbridge people being in power. In power in the Murdoch corporation means having a degree of influence over what the British population think, since thinking is controlled in part at least by the media.
All these people will know each other. There will be a network of powerful people who know each other from Oxford / Cambridge university. You went to Cambridge, and now your son wants a job - you speak to an old friend who is powerful within the Murdoch corpoatation. You went to Bognor Regis Uni, and now your son wants a job - there is none waiting within such an organisation.
(Please bear with me)
OK, that doesn't sound so bad. The most intelligent/hard working are in positions of power. Here is my second attempt at a point.
POINT TWO: IT IS NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT WHO ARE ABLE TO GET IN TO OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
I'm fairly sure about this. I am not saying it is possible to be completely thick and get into these unis. It isn't. Getting AAA, or AAAA, or AAAAA at A-Level is bloody hard. However, your chances of doing so are relative to your wealth.
If you go to a rubbish, low achieving sixth form / college (which tend to be found in poorer areas, yes?) it will be harder to achieve excellent grades due to quality of teaching, resources, etc. Actually, scratch that. These will play a part, but it will be harder to achieve grades if your college is that which places the emphesis on educating you rather than training you for exams.
If you go to a private school, you will be exam trained to perfection. I know, I have a girlfreind at one. That is what these places are for.
Getting tired now, please poke holes in my argument, that is why I have bothered to type it out. It needs clarification, I know, but this is the jist of it.
Ta for reading.
Page:
allardini wrote:
> Still, uni system = moderately messed up.
I had a friend who had 5 A's at AS and was predicted 5 A's for A level (which he eventually got). He couldn't POSSIBLY have gotten a better teacher reference anywhere (one of his physics courseworks won a national award, I think...) and he was very well spoken and witty so I doubt he'd mess up on something like person statement or interview.
But both Oxford and Nottingham (where I now study) rejected him for Medicine. I'm not sure if they even gave him an interview.
I asked my teachers how that could possibly happen, and they said that it was most likely that because he'd not done GCSE's, but the French equivilant (one of his 5 A levels was French). He was one of those people who'd be brought up speaking both languages, so you wouldn't ever have hinted any "Frenchness" from his accent.
So basically, despite 5 AS' and 5 predicted A's at A level, they rejected him because he had a different "version" of GCSE.
He got in on his third choice at Leicester, which he was happy with.
As far as I'm concerned, Nottingham and Oxford were backward, but I think that THEY were the ones who missed out this time round.
Serves them right for being so petty!
> Still, uni system = moderately messed up.
I had a friend who had 5 A's at AS and was predicted 5 A's for A level (which he eventually got). He couldn't POSSIBLY have gotten a better teacher reference anywhere (one of his physics courseworks won a national award, I think...) and he was very well spoken and witty so I doubt he'd mess up on something like person statement or interview.
But both Oxford and Nottingham (where I now study) rejected him for Medicine. I'm not sure if they even gave him an interview.
I asked my teachers how that could possibly happen, and they said that it was most likely that because he'd not done GCSE's, but the French equivilant (one of his 5 A levels was French). He was one of those people who'd be brought up speaking both languages, so you wouldn't ever have hinted any "Frenchness" from his accent.
So basically, despite 5 AS' and 5 predicted A's at A level, they rejected him because he had a different "version" of GCSE.
He got in on his third choice at Leicester, which he was happy with.
As far as I'm concerned, Nottingham and Oxford were backward, but I think that THEY were the ones who missed out this time round.
Serves them right for being so petty!
Lot's of universities use positive discrimination against white, middle class, privately educated students. Bristol is notorious for it, as are some others such as Nottingham.
It's fair enough to give everyone an opportunity, but it does alienate people who have actually worked very hard and done well, and whose living situation is nothing to do with them.
As for Private Schools teaching more towards passing exams, that is wholly untrue. State schools tend to stick strictly to the curriculum and just teach the exam syllabus, which is teaching to pass exams. Private Schools offer a lot more in the way of teaching around a subject, mainly because they have the time and the resources to do so.
The reason that Private Schools tend to have the best candidates is because they only take the best candidates in the first place, so they're naturally only going to have the best students, who do better.
The best teachers also tend to gravitate towards private schools, as they offer the best wages and working environment. The fact that your parents are paying for your education and the high standards of Private Schools also offer more encouragement for students to work harder.
I know there are many exceptions, but the truth it, state schools can be just as good and a lot of the time better than Private Schools, but only if they're run well and funded adequately, which a lot of them aren't.
It's fair enough to give everyone an opportunity, but it does alienate people who have actually worked very hard and done well, and whose living situation is nothing to do with them.
As for Private Schools teaching more towards passing exams, that is wholly untrue. State schools tend to stick strictly to the curriculum and just teach the exam syllabus, which is teaching to pass exams. Private Schools offer a lot more in the way of teaching around a subject, mainly because they have the time and the resources to do so.
The reason that Private Schools tend to have the best candidates is because they only take the best candidates in the first place, so they're naturally only going to have the best students, who do better.
The best teachers also tend to gravitate towards private schools, as they offer the best wages and working environment. The fact that your parents are paying for your education and the high standards of Private Schools also offer more encouragement for students to work harder.
I know there are many exceptions, but the truth it, state schools can be just as good and a lot of the time better than Private Schools, but only if they're run well and funded adequately, which a lot of them aren't.
It's a shame that employers favour an Oxford/Cambridge applicant.
Surely a degree is a degree, regardless of where you get it from, correct?
Surely a degree is a degree, regardless of where you get it from, correct?
Some degrees, it's thought, are better than others. It's not just like As at level or whatever, University is about how much you learn. So you learn more about a subject and have a better knowledge if you do certain courses at scertain places.
I heard from someone that these "elite" university students can actually be less prepared for the 'real world' then say, a student from a more modern institution.
By real world I mean work experience/communication skills etc.
By real world I mean work experience/communication skills etc.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> POINT ONE: Elite universitys create an elite class who have great
> influence over how we are ruled.
>
> My understanding is that a degree from Oxford or Cambridge is more
> likely to get you a job than one from Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol
> etc.
Not quite right. The majority of general/common subjects such as sciences, english, languages will mean that the best is Oxbridge.
However, for Economics it's University College London. English, it's Warwick, Maths it's Bath. All rival Oxbridge easily enough for it to not be a deciding factor for a job.
Therefore, top jobs in positions of power (or positions from
> which you can progress to power) are going to go to Oxbridge
> graduates. Although there are obviously exceptions, it makes logical
> sense that there are going to be a significant amount of Oxbridgers
> in positions of power.
Well, they are great universities.
> By positions of power, I suppose I mean things like polititians, but
> I also mean people in the buisness world.
Brunel uni for politics would surely provide better polititians. However, it is practically irrelevant. As long as you have a degree and are a good strategist and public speaker, you don't have to be a genius or anything.
> Let's take the Murdoch corporation as an example. A job there will
> have loads of applicants, so the company can pick and choose and,
> given that a 1st from Oxford in Buisness is better than a 1st from
> Sussex in Buisness, Oxbridge people will get the job.
Well, business is an over-rated degree, but it's not like a first from Oxford is easy to get.
> All these people will know each other. There will be a network of
> powerful people who know each other from Oxford / Cambridge
> university. You went to Cambridge, and now your son wants a job - you
> speak to an old friend who is powerful within the Murdoch
> corpoatation. You went to Bognor Regis Uni, and now your son wants a
> job - there is none waiting within such an organisation.
Ha. Nepotism is alive and working, but somehow I think people in high places are a little smarter than you give them credit for here.
> POINT TWO: IT IS NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT WHO ARE ABLE TO GET IN TO
> OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
I can assure that 90% of entries were brighter than any other entries who were wanting to go to Oxbridge.
> Ta for reading.
No problem. My dad was a Tab, so I guess I have to defend the old duo, but he was by no means wealthy. His dad was a coach driver, he got a scholarship to his secondary school and a scholarship to Cambridge. He was clearly bright however, and has since been the top man of a computer company and has retired. He was the one that has paid for my education. So in a sense you should moan at me, but then again it was his pure hard work that got him to a wealthy position to help his offspring. Setting up your families future is a common thing ya know.
In general I disagree from my own view of your arguement though.
> POINT ONE: Elite universitys create an elite class who have great
> influence over how we are ruled.
>
> My understanding is that a degree from Oxford or Cambridge is more
> likely to get you a job than one from Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol
> etc.
Not quite right. The majority of general/common subjects such as sciences, english, languages will mean that the best is Oxbridge.
However, for Economics it's University College London. English, it's Warwick, Maths it's Bath. All rival Oxbridge easily enough for it to not be a deciding factor for a job.
Therefore, top jobs in positions of power (or positions from
> which you can progress to power) are going to go to Oxbridge
> graduates. Although there are obviously exceptions, it makes logical
> sense that there are going to be a significant amount of Oxbridgers
> in positions of power.
Well, they are great universities.
> By positions of power, I suppose I mean things like polititians, but
> I also mean people in the buisness world.
Brunel uni for politics would surely provide better polititians. However, it is practically irrelevant. As long as you have a degree and are a good strategist and public speaker, you don't have to be a genius or anything.
> Let's take the Murdoch corporation as an example. A job there will
> have loads of applicants, so the company can pick and choose and,
> given that a 1st from Oxford in Buisness is better than a 1st from
> Sussex in Buisness, Oxbridge people will get the job.
Well, business is an over-rated degree, but it's not like a first from Oxford is easy to get.
> All these people will know each other. There will be a network of
> powerful people who know each other from Oxford / Cambridge
> university. You went to Cambridge, and now your son wants a job - you
> speak to an old friend who is powerful within the Murdoch
> corpoatation. You went to Bognor Regis Uni, and now your son wants a
> job - there is none waiting within such an organisation.
Ha. Nepotism is alive and working, but somehow I think people in high places are a little smarter than you give them credit for here.
> POINT TWO: IT IS NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT WHO ARE ABLE TO GET IN TO
> OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
I can assure that 90% of entries were brighter than any other entries who were wanting to go to Oxbridge.
> Ta for reading.
No problem. My dad was a Tab, so I guess I have to defend the old duo, but he was by no means wealthy. His dad was a coach driver, he got a scholarship to his secondary school and a scholarship to Cambridge. He was clearly bright however, and has since been the top man of a computer company and has retired. He was the one that has paid for my education. So in a sense you should moan at me, but then again it was his pure hard work that got him to a wealthy position to help his offspring. Setting up your families future is a common thing ya know.
In general I disagree from my own view of your arguement though.
gerrid wrote:
> Some degrees, it's thought, are better than others. It's not just like
> As at level or whatever, University is about how much you learn. So
> you learn more about a subject and have a better knowledge if you do
> certain courses at scertain places.
Yeah, the standard of your degree is reliant on where you get it from. They aren't all sent off to the same external moderator like GCSE and A level papers, the university handles it all. The lecturers set and mark the paper. So there's a lot more variation. That's why a Cambridge degree is better than one from a former polytechnic.
> Some degrees, it's thought, are better than others. It's not just like
> As at level or whatever, University is about how much you learn. So
> you learn more about a subject and have a better knowledge if you do
> certain courses at scertain places.
Yeah, the standard of your degree is reliant on where you get it from. They aren't all sent off to the same external moderator like GCSE and A level papers, the university handles it all. The lecturers set and mark the paper. So there's a lot more variation. That's why a Cambridge degree is better than one from a former polytechnic.
gerrid wrote:
> As for Private Schools teaching more towards passing exams, that is
> wholly untrue. State schools tend to stick strictly to the curriculum
> and just teach the exam syllabus, which is teaching to pass exams.
> Private Schools offer a lot more in the way of teaching around a
> subject, mainly because they have the time and the resources to do
> so.
Speaking from my experiance: I'm at Henley College, and because it is such a wealthy area there are a fair few from private schools. Of the few I know, they seem better exam trained. Sorry I can't be more definate than that, but I havn't exactly researched it or anything.
What I do know quite well is my girlfriends experiance. She's been state educated since primary school, but she screwed up her AS-Levels, so her parents paid for her to go to a bloody expensive private school. She says they're much more exam trained there.
> The reason that Private Schools tend to have the best candidates is
> because they only take the best candidates in the first place, so
> they're naturally only going to have the best students, who do
> better.
They have the best cantidates that can afford it. I think that's a pretty important distinction to make. Again, refering to my girlfriend and the others I know, I know people who are cleverer than them who would have absolutely no chance of ever going to a private school.
> I know there are many exceptions, but the truth it, state schools can
> be just as good and a lot of the time better than Private Schools,
> but only if they're run well and funded adequately, which a lot of
> them aren't.
I'm guessing that, on average, they arn't though? Going by exam results, and the fact that people do pay ridiculous amounts to go to private schools?
> As for Private Schools teaching more towards passing exams, that is
> wholly untrue. State schools tend to stick strictly to the curriculum
> and just teach the exam syllabus, which is teaching to pass exams.
> Private Schools offer a lot more in the way of teaching around a
> subject, mainly because they have the time and the resources to do
> so.
Speaking from my experiance: I'm at Henley College, and because it is such a wealthy area there are a fair few from private schools. Of the few I know, they seem better exam trained. Sorry I can't be more definate than that, but I havn't exactly researched it or anything.
What I do know quite well is my girlfriends experiance. She's been state educated since primary school, but she screwed up her AS-Levels, so her parents paid for her to go to a bloody expensive private school. She says they're much more exam trained there.
> The reason that Private Schools tend to have the best candidates is
> because they only take the best candidates in the first place, so
> they're naturally only going to have the best students, who do
> better.
They have the best cantidates that can afford it. I think that's a pretty important distinction to make. Again, refering to my girlfriend and the others I know, I know people who are cleverer than them who would have absolutely no chance of ever going to a private school.
> I know there are many exceptions, but the truth it, state schools can
> be just as good and a lot of the time better than Private Schools,
> but only if they're run well and funded adequately, which a lot of
> them aren't.
I'm guessing that, on average, they arn't though? Going by exam results, and the fact that people do pay ridiculous amounts to go to private schools?
Clazon wrote:
> Well, business is an over-rated degree, but it's not like a first
> from Oxford is easy to get.
Nor is a first from Sussex (I suppose).
Clazon: I've been thinking about this a lot, and I don't think there's much problem with Oxbridge, but a serious one with private schools. That's pretty much my conclusion for the moment.
> Well, business is an over-rated degree, but it's not like a first
> from Oxford is easy to get.
Nor is a first from Sussex (I suppose).
Clazon: I've been thinking about this a lot, and I don't think there's much problem with Oxbridge, but a serious one with private schools. That's pretty much my conclusion for the moment.
Problem with private schools?!??!?!
*runs*
*runs*
Page: