Oxbridge here we come!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

andyg york 19 Jan 19 4.23pm
Originally posted by andyg The BBC article on this explained that the school has 5 members of staff who focus on helping students to get into university. (source: [Link] ) Many schools that puts this time, effort and money into getting kids into Oxbridge will do so - its about learning to 'play the game'. Private schools do this far better than state schools because they have the resources and experience. Its also a snowball effect where when you learn how to get kids in, that experience helps you with the next year etc. I think some people are looking for controversy here when the solution is pretty simple Edit: sorry the close brackets in my text attached itself to the link!
Alert a moderator to this post

andyg

york 19 Jan 19 4.23pm

Originally posted by andyg

The BBC article on this explained that the school has 5 members of staff who focus on helping students to get into university. (source: [Link] )

Many schools that puts this time, effort and money into getting kids into Oxbridge will do so - its about learning to 'play the game'. Private schools do this far better than state schools because they have the resources and experience. Its also a snowball effect where when you learn how to get kids in, that experience helps you with the next year etc.

I think some people are looking for controversy here when the solution is pretty simple

Edit: sorry the close brackets in my text attached itself to the link!

Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 19 Jan 19 9.56pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well, we are kind of back to where we were at the beginning. I have sympathy for your intent but I think that once you accept the premises that you have....then essentially you have opened Pandora's box and the loonies won't let you close it again.....and that's what indeed what essentially already happened with affirmative action. Indeed, I feel that I can criticise you for supporting this as it's this enabling at all levels which leads to lesser performing institutions and companies. I'm fully behind social mobility for talented people at the bottom. However, that isn't what is happening......Instead of words like meritocracy I see the word equity. Equity is the next step from the philosophy of equality. It leads to the very destruction of meritocracy. That is what has been enabled. it's a Pandora's box regardless. somebody who grows up in extreme poverty with a dire education yet matches the achievements of somebody whose education costs hundreds of thousands of pounds... meritocratically speaking, I'm just rooting for the pauper out of these two people and thinking 'I hope he gets his place at Oxbridge'. let's be realistic rather than idealistic for one second...hand on heartwho's likely to be more intelligent of the two, given their opportunities? who has achieved more? we both know the answer. there's this ex public schoolboy at my work. idiot. genuine idiot. no initiative. yet he's got his nice degree and somehow is climbing the greasy pole and building a nice life for himself to repeat the life he grew up into. there's another lad, east London geezer type. but smart and quick witted. proactive. talented. but not an operator in a large corporation... In a meritocratic world, the posh boy gets overtaken. I'm not convinced it'll play out that way. partly that's down to their upbringing. meritocracy surely needs to reward genuine achievement. there's some crossover between equity and meritocracy. If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ginger Pubic Wig

Wickham de L'Ouest 19 Jan 19 9.56pm

Send a Private Message to Ginger Pubic Wig

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well, we are kind of back to where we were at the beginning.

I have sympathy for your intent but I think that once you accept the premises that you have....then essentially you have opened Pandora's box and the loonies won't let you close it again.....and that's what indeed what essentially already happened with affirmative action.

Indeed, I feel that I can criticise you for supporting this as it's this enabling at all levels which leads to lesser performing institutions and companies.

I'm fully behind social mobility for talented people at the bottom. However, that isn't what is happening......Instead of words like meritocracy I see the word equity.

Equity is the next step from the philosophy of equality. It leads to the very destruction of meritocracy.

That is what has been enabled.

it's a Pandora's box regardless.

somebody who grows up in extreme poverty with a dire education yet matches the achievements of somebody whose education costs hundreds of thousands of pounds...

meritocratically speaking, I'm just rooting for the pauper out of these two people and thinking 'I hope he gets his place at Oxbridge'.

let's be realistic rather than idealistic for one second...hand on heartwho's likely to be more intelligent of the two, given their opportunities? who has achieved more?

we both know the answer.

there's this ex public schoolboy at my work. idiot. genuine idiot. no initiative. yet he's got his nice degree and somehow is climbing the greasy pole and building a nice life for himself to repeat the life he grew up into. there's another lad, east London geezer type. but smart and quick witted. proactive. talented. but not an operator in a large corporation...

In a meritocratic world, the posh boy gets overtaken. I'm not convinced it'll play out that way. partly that's down to their upbringing.

meritocracy surely needs to reward genuine achievement.

there's some crossover between equity and meritocracy.

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Jan 19 11.10pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Affirmative action is real racism. Anything that accepts a lower standard to address some kind of social justice is the beginning of the end of true meritocracy. This cancer infects the STEM field now. Far left politics is dominant in both the IT tech field and in the world of physics. It isn't about being the best.....It's about being the best from what is politically correct. The East Asians are laughing at us.....and in respect of affirmative action they are also suing....and I back them. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jan 2019 8.24am) I agree that assessing people solely on merit is always what should be done. However affirmative action can sometimes help to achieve that. Why? Because when making the assessment you need to not only consider what someone has already achieved but what they could have achieved if there was a level playing field of opportunity for everyone up to the point of the assessment. So finding hidden bright nuggets within areas of deprivation who can then benefit from an Oxbridge opportunity is ultimately to all our benefit. There is nothing remotely "left wing" involved. It's just common sense and good practice. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 19 Jan 19 11.10pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Affirmative action is real racism.

Anything that accepts a lower standard to address some kind of social justice is the beginning of the end of true meritocracy.

This cancer infects the STEM field now. Far left politics is dominant in both the IT tech field and in the world of physics.

It isn't about being the best.....It's about being the best from what is politically correct.

The East Asians are laughing at us.....and in respect of affirmative action they are also suing....and I back them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jan 2019 8.24am)

I agree that assessing people solely on merit is always what should be done.

However affirmative action can sometimes help to achieve that. Why? Because when making the assessment you need to not only consider what someone has already achieved but what they could have achieved if there was a level playing field of opportunity for everyone up to the point of the assessment.

So finding hidden bright nuggets within areas of deprivation who can then benefit from an Oxbridge opportunity is ultimately to all our benefit.

There is nothing remotely "left wing" involved. It's just common sense and good practice.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 19 Jan 19 11.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I agree that assessing people solely on merit is always what should be done. However affirmative action can sometimes help to achieve that. Why? Because when making the assessment you need to not only consider what someone has already achieved but what they could have achieved if there was a level playing field of opportunity for everyone up to the point of the assessment. So finding hidden bright nuggets within areas of deprivation who can then benefit from an Oxbridge opportunity is ultimately to all our benefit. There is nothing remotely "left wing" involved. It's just common sense and good practice. But surely anyone can apply to Oxford or Cambridge providing they have the grades. Why are these people being highlighted if it is not because they are being given a wild card? The problem with the wider issue of equal opportunities is that it doesn't work both ways. For example. A man from pakistan can come here and open a business in which he employs his family. That means no local people can apply for the jobs. How is that fair in a country where larger employers have to conform to an equal opportunities policy? In this case, why should someone with better grades be overlooked so Oxford can accept some poor kids? If these kids have the necessary grades then why are we talking about them?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

19 Jan 19 11.47pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I agree that assessing people solely on merit is always what should be done.

So finding hidden bright nuggets within areas of deprivation who can then benefit from an Oxbridge opportunity is ultimately to all our benefit.

There is nothing remotely "left wing" involved. It's just common sense and good practice.

But surely anyone can apply to Oxford or Cambridge providing they have the grades.
Why are these people being highlighted if it is not because they are being given a wild card?

The problem with the wider issue of equal opportunities is that it doesn't work both ways.

For example. A man from pakistan can come here and open a business in which he employs his family. That means no local people can apply for the jobs. How is that fair in a country where larger employers have to conform to an equal opportunities policy?

In this case, why should someone with better grades be overlooked so Oxford can accept some poor kids?
If these kids have the necessary grades then why are we talking about them?

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 20 Jan 19 8.12am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger But surely anyone can apply to Oxford or Cambridge providing they have the grades. Why are these people being highlighted if it is not because they are being given a wild card? The problem with the wider issue of equal opportunities is that it doesn't work both ways. For example. A man from pakistan can come here and open a business in which he employs his family. That means no local people can apply for the jobs. How is that fair in a country where larger employers have to conform to an equal opportunities policy? In this case, why should someone with better grades be overlooked so Oxford can accept some poor kids? If these kids have the necessary grades then why are we talking about them? It�s easy. The answer is to provide better opportunities for everyone and not to try and level the playing field after the fact. Kids from privaledged backgrounds do well at least partly because private schools have a higher focus on individualism, discipline and traditional values. That would be a good place to start in state schools.
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 20 Jan 19 8.12am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But surely anyone can apply to Oxford or Cambridge providing they have the grades.
Why are these people being highlighted if it is not because they are being given a wild card?

The problem with the wider issue of equal opportunities is that it doesn't work both ways.

In this case, why should someone with better grades be overlooked so Oxford can accept some poor kids?
If these kids have the necessary grades then why are we talking about them?

It�s easy. The answer is to provide better opportunities for everyone and not to try and level the playing field after the fact. Kids from privaledged backgrounds do well at least partly because private schools have a higher focus on individualism, discipline and traditional values. That would be a good place to start in state schools.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Jan 19 8.27am
Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig it's a Pandora's box regardless. somebody who grows up in extreme poverty with a dire education yet matches the achievements of somebody whose education costs hundreds of thousands of pounds... In my view this is hyperbolic language that doesn't accurately reflect the British state school system nor the average economic experience of working class children in the UK. Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig meritocratically speaking, I'm just rooting for the pauper out of these two people and thinking 'I hope he gets his place at Oxbridge'. When you introduce class into it as part of the decision making process then you no longer are operating purely on meritocracy. What you are supporting is tokenism. Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig let's be realistic rather than idealistic for one second...hand on heartwho's likely to be more intelligent of the two, given their opportunities? who has achieved more? we both know the answer. So what....I don't hate someone because of their class.....what I hate is cronyism and other anti meritocratic practices. I recognise your objections and I hold some of them however I will never deny the brighter child an education because of class.....that's pure dumbing down for ideological purposes. I've seen what affirmative action has and is doing in America and it isn't good nor helpful. Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig there's this ex public schoolboy at my work. idiot. genuine idiot. no initiative. yet he's got his nice degree and somehow is climbing the greasy pole and building a nice life for himself to repeat the life he grew up into. there's another lad, east London geezer type. but smart and quick witted. proactive. talented. but not an operator in a large corporation... In a meritocratic world, the posh boy gets overtaken. I'm not convinced it'll play out that way. partly that's down to their upbringing. There will always be families with more wealth than others, just as there will differences between people with innate intelligence as with any other ability. I think you are in danger here of romanticizing the working class and of demonising the middle and higher. Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig meritocracy surely needs to reward genuine achievement. Western society already does this better than any other society in the history of humanity. I think you are guilty here of drawing extreme caricatures of situations to justify a policy that in reality is more unjust. You don't correct the problems with the class system by implementing your own systems of injustice. Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig there's some crossover between equity and meritocracy. No there isn't, they are near opposites.....Explain what you mean by this. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Jan 19 8.27am