David Lammy MP has kicked-off one hell of a debate today around the lack of black British students at Oxbridge. Apparently last year just one British black Caribbean student was admitted to Oxford. His contention is that the Oxbridge recruitment process reinforces the dividing lines in our society, thus discriminates against you unless you happen to be upper-middle class, white – and to a lesser extent – male. Some in the blogespher – such as Virtual Economics and Josh Spero – have rightly attacked Lammy for bending the statistics to fit his narrative BUT it would be wrong to ignore the wider point Lammy is making.
The best blog I have read on this subject is by Katharine Birbalsingh as she considers the bigger picture.
“I have said it before, and say it again: the dumbing-down of exams and our schools hurts our poorest and most disadvantaged. The racial and class make-up not only of our elite universities but also of our political and professional bodies proves it is so.”
Unequal opportunities
The debate reminds me of an experience I had the other week. I attended an event where I knew no-one else. After doing a circuit of the room, picking up a glass of the free wine in the process, I did what I normally do and pounced on someone else who obviously had no friends. My new friend and I were having a nice chat when a well-spoken old man interrupted us. He wanted to know if Charles had applied to go to a specific Oxford college. Charles said he hadn’t and that it was to late to apply now. The old man’s response was that it didn’t matter, he could have a word with someone thus guarantee Charles’ admission.
The whole incident was quiet surreal, partly because Charles had just been telling me why he was a passionate believer in liberalism. With a slight smile I asked him how he could reconcile what had happened with his liberal ambitions for the world. Charles doesn’t need any help as he goes to a top top public school, has done internships at top top merchant banks, and has secured through family connections an Easter job in a US senator’s office.
I certainly don’t hold anything against Charles. He is courteous, intelligent and is grabbing with both hands the opportunities life has given him. Neither do I hold anything against his family for giving him the best possible upbringing as I would very much do the same for my kids. But it must be acknowledge that what I witnessed a couple of weeks ago happens, is an impediment to those who weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and in an ideal meritocratic world wouldn’t happen.
Alan Milburn’s report into social mobility was a fine piece of work and I hope the Coalition builds on it.
Related posts:
I’m sorry, but your evidence of iniquity is less convincing than Lammy’s contentious use of statistics. An old man, who you seemingly have no acquaintance with, gossips with someone you have marginally less acquaintance with that he can speak to an unnamed other and access a supposed fast track to an Oxford college irrespective of the applications procedure- it’s flimsy evidence on which to allege corruption. The problem is with the state school system that is hopeless at channelling applicants to all Russell Group universities, not just Oxford and Cambridge. Apocryphal stories like this don’t help to encourage anyone to apply to an equally apocryphal “Oxbridge”.
At any rate, I look forward to Mr Lammy’s next breakthrough study into the scandal of how endless generations of the Benn family have managed to get selected for seats in Parliament, or of how the Miliband brothers used their father’s connections with a generation of Labour politicians to ease their way into public office.
Paul – Are you saying that the ‘old boys network’ does not exist? Or that it only exists in the Labour party? My evidence is exactly as I presented it, my telling of something that happened in my presence.
The general conclusion on the Lammy article is that while he chose to use the statistics to embellish his point there is a real problem that needs looking at. This problem cannot be easily categorised institutional racism at Oxbridge, there are wider issues that need considering. Milburn talked about the importance of the network you are in – the opportunities you have access to – when becoming qualified to take professional jobs. The Coalition needs to take what he found seriously if it is serious about creating a meritocracy.
This story doesn’t hang together. It seems to say that Charles had not applied to a specific college (which is called an “open application”, and the computer allocates you to the college with fewest applicants per place in your subject) but that someone had influence to make sure that they were offered a place anyway. It doesn’t work like that: the decision would be devolved to the tutors in the particular subject at whatever college Charles was allocated. Short of somehow having influence over every set of tutors at every single college (impossible) this mysterious old man would have no way of influencing the outcome of Charles’ application.
I simply don’t believe that it is true that the old man had the influence he seemed to be indicating. Charles’ application will be determined on its merits. The problem with stories like these is that they are so vague that they cannot properly be refuted, and there’s no actual evidence of anything.
Drake – I just reported back what I saw. I don’t know the outcome of this event and neither do I think it is relevant to the wider point. Networks are of key importance in helping to ensure that a person has the right experience and qualifications. The old adage “Its not what you know but who you know” is still very relevant today. Lammy stumbled on something of great importance in his article, which I believe the Coalition must consider. The Milburn report is a great place to start.
You continue to insinuate that there is something corrupt in Oxbridge admissions, by telling this story in the context of Lammy’s remarks. I find that distasteful.
In respect of admission to Oxbridge, it’s what you know, not who you know. Sadly, the students with the best qualifications and potential is not necessarily balanced across ethnic and social backgrounds.
This seems a bit confused…
On the one hand you seem to be criticising the nepotism of the old boy’s network where the old chap offered to pull some strings for Charles.
On the other you say that “Charles doesn’t need any help as he…has secured through family connections an Easter job in a US senator’s office.”
If the latter isn’t “help” I’m not sure what is. There’s not really any difference between the two examples is there?
(I’m not criticising “help” per se, just pointing out what I see as a contradiction)
Sam – I am happy to clarify. I meant that Charles doesn’t need any help to get into Oxbridge. You are right to point-out that being sent to public school and gaining experience through family connections is help. Creating a meritocracy is a political ideal of mine but before we can do that we need to understand what happens now.
Drake – You are taking this too personally. I do not believe the Oxbridge entry system is ‘corrupt’ but I also do not believe it is beyond corruption. If you know the right people and have access to enough resources you can make systems work to your advantage. The man who interrupted our conversation may have been a fantasist but he seemed confident that he could ‘help’ Charles. Solving the issues you raise in your second paragraph is what I am really interested in.
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » The damning Oxbridge entrances stats, and Britain’s closed society
Can anything be done about it without positive discrimination ? What was Charles’ response to your very pertinent question ? I wonder what the statistics are for entrants to Oxbridge from an Indian or Pakistani background ?It would be interesting, though perhaps not very politically correct, to compare. Of course the grammar schools did provide a route to Oxbridge for boys ( and a very few girls ) who were not from the upper middle classes. In France it is forbidden to publish statistics relating to ethnic minorities, presumably because they could be used as an incitement to racial discrimination . So it’s impossible to know how many inhabitants of French prisons come from an ethnic background or even what proportion of the total population would come under this definition.
Richard: Quick point of info – it’s forbidden to even TRACK such stats on your background etc in France, because once you’re French, you’re French. That’s the theory anyway. Whether it works or not…
The riots in – and conditions of- the suburbs around Paris would seem to suggest not. Also there have been high profile studies showing employers rejecting applications from those with non-french names.
Fiona, if you think that there is no such thing as nepotism in France, then you need to wake up from your daydream. They even have a word for it: le pantouflage. I suggest you take a long hard look at the Mitterand family if you want an example, not to mention Sarkozy’s attempts to shoehorn his son into a very senior job.
Michael, you’re grumpy tonight!
I didn’t say there was no nepotism – I added to Richard’s point of info and said that it is illegal to track such things in France because in theory as far as the state is concerned, once you’re French, you’re French.
I don’t think that it’s working. But I didn’t say it was – I simply gave a fact.