TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » The Principle of the Thing

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 11:08 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default At last, an Oxbridge for those who can’t get into Oxbridge

Quote:
A few years ago, I met a man who was almost in tears of rage at the injustice that had been done to his son. I was trying to sneak out of some drinks party when he started telling me about this prodigy. His A-level scorecard was perfect; he held colours for rugby; he had been captain of the school debating team, keeper of the philately club, editor of the magazine – and yet he had been turned down by the dons of virtually every top university in the country.

What was going on, wailed my friend. This kind of thing never happened in his day, he said; and he went on to speculate that there was some kind of secret Pol Pot-style persecution of the children of the bourgeoisie. Since then I have heard many similar complaints about university admissions procedures (and I bet you have, too), and after one particularly harrowing conversation with a disappointed mum I had an idea for a brilliant business venture – a new institution that would be both socially responsible and immensely financially lucrative. I would found Reject’s College, Oxbridge. That is to say, I would find investors for a new elite academic institution, aimed squarely at the wrathful parents – many of them Oxbridge graduates – who simply could not understand how their own offspring could rack up three A-stars and grade 8 bassoon, and yet find themselves turned down.

In my mind’s eye I could see exactly how it would work: we’d get some dusty old goods yard at the back of Oxford or Cambridge. We’d turn it into a gorgeous neo-classical quadrangle, designed by Robert Adam or someone like that. We would have a prospectus full of the Reject’s College arms (Floreant Rejecti) and the lawns with snaggle-toothed lecturers leering at their pupils over a bottle of chilled white wine.

We would vindicate the principles of academic freedom, as famously outlined by Justice Felix Frankfurter, of the US Supreme Court, in 1957. That is to say, we – and I saw myself as provost or master – would decide what should be taught, how it should be taught, and whom to admit for study, and we would decide all these things on academic grounds and academic grounds alone.

Apart from that, I am afraid I was a bit vague about how exactly Reject’s College would work. So you can imagine my joy yesterday when I saw that someone had not only had my idea, but had gone one better: he had found the cash and the backing to make it happen. “Top dons to create new Oxbridge” was a headline to gladden the heart of many a grieving parent and frustrated academic. In fact, the whole thing is such unambiguously good news that I scarcely know where to begin. It is the brainchild of Prof A C Grayling, who certainly looks and writes like a philosopher (I seem to remember some good stuff on Russell and Wittgenstein), but who turns out to have a Bransonesque practical flair. Together with Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, Sir Christopher Ricks and various other academic superstars, he is setting up a New College of the Humanities, based in Bloomsbury. They have found the premises, they will start taking applications from next month, and the first one-on-one Oxbridge-style tutorials will take place in autumn 2012. They will ultimately have 1,000 undergraduates, all of whom will be expected to achieve a minimum three As at A level to get in; and since this will mean a whole new higher education institution for London, so lengthening our lead as the university capital of the world, I thought it would not be too pompous if I rang up Prof Grayling to congratulate him.

He explained that the idea had first occurred to him years ago, when he was tutor for admissions at an Oxbridge college. “For every person we admitted, we turned away 12, each of whom could have done outstandingly well at the university,” he said. The trouble with Britain today, he said, was that we simply didn’t have enough elite university provision – and especially not in the humanities subjects, where teaching budgets are under such pressure.

It was absurd, he argued, that so many of our young people are going off to America to do their degrees, and he is surely right. The shortage of places in top universities is now so acute that we have 10,000 UK school leavers a year who are spending $60,000 a year on Animal House-style frat parties on the Podunk Liberal Arts Campus or other American colleges. That cash could be going into the hard-pressed British system.

Which brings us to the key question. Prof Grayling’s New College for the Humanities is going to charge a staggering £18,000 for tuition alone, and that is before we have come to the accommodation costs. How on earth are people going to afford it? He has a ready answer, in that he and his colleagues want to see 30 per cent of undergraduates receive some help with their fees, and a large proportion will have full scholarships, funded either charitably or from the fees of those who can afford to pay. It is this strong commitment to attracting students from disadvantaged families that has earned the project the support of such famous lefties as Prof Linda Colley and Sir David Cannadine.

This is not an attempt to replace the existing taxpayer-funded system or to “privatise” the universities. It is about getting more cash into the teaching of the humanities, and about additional elite provision. It is about creating a new and different model for university education, side by side with the existing system. If well handled, it could be just as successful in widening “access” as any of the current outreach programmes being pursued by other universities. It is the boldest experiment in higher education since the University of Buckingham was founded in 1983, and it fully deserves to succeed and to be imitated.

If academics are fed up with the tyranny of the Research Assessment Exercise; if they are demoralised by endless government attacks on their admissions procedures; if they feel they are being scapegoated for the weaknesses of the schools, then the New College for the Humanities shows the way. Three cheers for A C Grayling.
At last, an Oxbridge for those who can’t get into Oxbridge - Telegraph

Of course, Bojo's being terribly sarky and mean here, as well he may, seeing that he got in himself.

I've tried to hate this initiative but I just can't. No doubt there'll be dozens of Oxbridge grads muttering "quis paget entrat" and so forth (like they're not all public schoolboys), but come on, they're using the rich guys fees to let poor people in, that's got to be good right? Sure you can't take away from the fact that there's a huge amount of randomness in Oxbridge selection and loads of people who deserve to get in don't, but attempting to close the gap between Oxbridge and other universities seems like a good start.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 11:36 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default



We already have a perfectly viable system for using the wealth of the rich to fund the education of the poor: progressive taxation.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 12:47 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

The poor thingy is only 30%. The other 70% is 'bourgeois kids who couldn't get into Oxbridge due to lack of space'...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 12:54 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Still better than 0%.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 02:13 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

It was free to the student only a few decades ago.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 02:25 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

That's hardly A. C. Grayling's fault.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-11, 04:08 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

My point was that helping the poor wasn't his business plan, that was just some window dressing to get some endorsement from luminaries.

But, sure, charities aren't a social program per se but no one is going to piss on them... unless they pretend to be a substitute to social programs.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-11, 01:14 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Welcome to the fight, Professor Grayling – Telegraph Blogs

Quote:
Dear Professor Grayling,

I was sorry to hear about your spot of bother at Foyles last night, but can’t say I’m surprised. Being shouted down in public by left-wing zealots is the fate of anyone who challenges the educational establishment I’m afraid. Their allegiance to the status quo isn’t based on reason, but on tribal loyalty. Public education is the last redoubt of the hard left and their student praetorian guard will stop at nothing to defend their turf. Their aim is not to persuade you of the errors of your ways, but to terrorise you into renouncing your heretical ideas. They are the secular equivalent of the Taliban’s goon squads. They see their role as the prevention of vice and the promotion of virtue.

Your proposal for a new, elite, private university is particularly infuriating for these knee-jerk tribalists because they thought of you as one of them – a “pinko”, in your words. You’re now an apostate, the lowest of the low. To make matters worse, you’ve recruited dozens of other lefties to join you in this venture – Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Steve Jones, Sir Christopher Ricks, Sir David Cannadine … it’s a pinkos hall of fame! Then your dazzling coup de grâce: you’re going to charge students £18,000 a year, double the maximum allowable at public universities. That’s like pulling up in your Bentley in front of a group of anti-cuts protestors, rolling down the window and flipping them the bird.

Naturally, you had no idea your proposal would provoke such a reaction. You naively imagined that because 25% of the places at the New College of the Humanities will be reserved for students on bursaries – with the rich subsidising the poor – you would escape the left’s censure. You probably thought that the Witchfinder Generals of the liberal intelligentsia – men like Terry Eagleton – would welcome your new venture as a way of preserving academic freedom and solving the funding crisis in the Humanities.

As Prospero says to Miranda in The Tempest, “Poor worm, thou art infected.” I say this as someone who suffered from exactly the same illusions when I persuaded a group of well-meaning professionals to help me set up the West London Free School. “How could anyone object?” I thought. “We want to make a classical liberal education available to children who aren’t eligible for places at England’s 164 remaining grammar schools, can’t get into faith schools and who can’t afford to go private.” What’s more, we were going to save the taxpayer money by doing all the grunt work ourselves. Wasn’t this precisely the kind of communitarian project – giving up our time for the good of the common weal – that the left approved of? We were putting something back into the community, creating an academically rigorous school that all children in the neighbourhood would have access to, no matter what their background. We would be universally loved.

Fast-forward two years and the blinkers have fallen away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But I have put away childish things and now I see through a glass darkly. The armies of the left – the public sector unions, the university lecturers, the Socialist Workers Party – don’t care a jot about the fate of the underprivileged. All they care about is clinging on to power. You want to help poor children gain access to a first class education? Doesn’t matter. If you’re proposing to remove the state from the equation then you are the enemy and you must be crushed.

Terry Eagleton, writing in the Guardian on Monday, issued the cri de guerre:

British universities, plundered of resources by the bankers and financiers they educated, are not best served by a bunch of prima donnas jumping ship and creaming off the bright and loaded. It is as though a group of medics in a hard-pressed public hospital were to down scalpels and slink off to start a lucrative private clinic. Grayling and his friends are taking advantage of a crumbling university system to rake off money from the rich. As such, they are betraying all those academics who have been fighting the cuts for the sake of their students.

Let me tell you how this is going to pan out, Professor. The attacks will be unrelenting. Your private life will raked over and anything embarrassing you’ve ever done will be re-hashed in the public prints. Private Eye will reprint silly letters you wrote as a schoolboy. Women with crazy hair will shout “for shame” at you as you walk down the street. Fair weather friends will drop away. Some of the academics who boldly announced they’d join you in this venture will suddenly discover pressing commitments which, regrettably, mean they can’t teach at the New College for the Humanities after all. Some backers will pull out. You may even begin to lose some of your sinecures as your opponents work behind the scenes to isolate and ostracise you.

Here’s how you should respond: Don’t give an inch. No compromise, no surrender. If Terry Eagleton or any other member of the left-wing Brahmin attacks you in public, smack them back. Match them punch for punch. Better yet, hit first, hit hard and keep hitting. That’s their philosophy. It should be yours. When some wretched little Trot creeps out from under a bush and accuses me of sleeping with prostitutes or being in the pay of a private consortium or of being a racist, sexist, homophobic snob, I bring to mind the words of Sean Connery in The Untouchables: “You wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone!”

Remember this, Professor: We will win. Why? Because we’re right and they’re wrong. They are the prisoners of a bankrupt ideology whereas we are free thinkers. You may not have wanted to join this battle but you’re in it now and it’s a battle to the death.

Welcome to the fight, Professor Grayling.

Kind Regards,

Toby Young, Chair of Governors, the West London Free School
Wow. This is a pretty big dilemma. Obviously Young and Eagleton are both cunts of the first water; with one on either side of the issue how on earth am I supposed to choose my position? I think I'm going to stick on the pro side. Anything that's causing students to let off smoke bombs must be a good idea.

And if Private Eye cares to reprint the stupid schoolboy letter - it's hilarious.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-11, 06:00 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I don't know Eagleton and he might very well be a cunt of the first water.

But this "British universities, plundered of resources by the bankers and financiers they educated, are not best served by a bunch of prima donnas jumping ship and creaming off the bright and loaded. It is as though a group of medics in a hard-pressed public hospital were to down scalpels and slink off to start a lucrative private clinic. Grayling and his friends are taking advantage of a crumbling university system to rake off money from the rich. As such, they are betraying all those academics who have been fighting the cuts for the sake of their students" make sense, in substance if not form.

I mean I don't give a fig leaf about the moralistic tone and the 'betraying' and stuff. But he got the business plan perfectly right. Overcharge rich kids who somehow failed to get into Oxbridge, despite decent grades/CVs.

Fair enough. But let's not pretend it's anything else.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-06-11, 07:26 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
I don't know Eagleton and he might very well be a cunt of the first water.

But this "British universities, plundered of resources by the bankers and financiers they educated, are not best served by a bunch of prima donnas jumping ship and creaming off the bright and loaded. It is as though a group of medics in a hard-pressed public hospital were to down scalpels and slink off to start a lucrative private clinic. Grayling and his friends are taking advantage of a crumbling university system to rake off money from the rich. As such, they are betraying all those academics who have been fighting the cuts for the sake of their students" make sense, in substance if not form.

I mean I don't give a fig leaf about the moralistic tone and the 'betraying' and stuff. But he got the business plan perfectly right. Overcharge rich kids who somehow failed to get into Oxbridge, despite decent grades/CVs.

Fair enough. But let's not pretend it's anything else.
It's a rare grande école that has 25% bursary kids. I wonder what the rate is for Oxbridge.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, LiberalNation, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0