Jan 15, 2007 3:17:42 PM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
- Reply to: jamesaug
Re: How about these....
jamesaug,
I entirely appreciate the sentiments behind your post but I wasn't actually trying to 'prove' anything nor was I actually replying to JimFlat6 or nberry. I have said before to each of them that I have ceased discussing legal issues with them so I certainly am not bickering. Turbo Al gave the names of a few famous/infamous alumni. I just expanded upon that factual list. No ulterior motive at work behind my actions.
Obviously you're right - discussing Oxbridge isn't relevant at all to the subject of Porsche930S's difficulties but digressions do happen on many threads and since you made some interesting comments, I'll reply to those points only.
IMO saying that having current/former members of a university who have achieved great things means nothing is simply misguided. Students benefit enormously from the academic tradition of excellence cultivated in a College/Faculty. To dismiss that as worthless is myopic in my view.
Equally it is absurd IMO to suggest that attending Oxbridge is a mere social rite of passage. That's a typical anti-elitist argument made by many an egalitarian. If that's your view, I respect that, but I respectfully disagree. Contrary to public perception, family wealth and social background only account for a very small part of getting into Oxbridge. (This is a much, much lesser factor than the media would have you believe). It usually takes ability backed up by years of unglamorous hard work. At Cambridge, over 55% of students come from comprehensive schools. I am glad to see this trend rising each decade. So many Cambridge students are the first students from their school to be successful at getting into Oxbridge and sometimes they are the first people in their family to go to university. Cambridge has a very active Open Access policy. They are actively trying to get the brightest students to attend no matter what their family wealth or social background. I am most definitely not a 'social elitist' but I am unashamedly a believer in academic excellence. You can call it 'academic elitism' if you wish.
You talk of family wealth as if a person gets into Oxbridge by magic. I went to a boys' public school where nearly a quarter of the spoilt, rich kids couldn't even get into university. Having parents who can afford private schooling achieves absolutely nothing unless the student himself/herself studies extremely hard. Good teaching can certainly help but individual hard graft is the single most essential ingredient.
You refer to my ego as if it were a sin to be pleased with one's own academic/professional success. It's a prime example of the 'British disease'. We (collectively) aren't hungry to succeed in the UK anymore and we (collectively) can't bear to see others becoming rich and/or successful. We even say IMO defeatist things like "It's not the winning that counts. It's the taking part". It's drummed into people in the UK from childhood. IMO it's utter nonsense. Trying to win brings out the best performance in us. As a sporting nation, we make up the numbers in most sports but, even if we can scale the heights of glory on occasion, we don't stay there for long. It goes to our heads and our well fed/paid players get too cushy (e.g. the Rugby World Champions have lost most of their matches in the past 18 months, the Cricket Ashes win in 2005 followed by the recent humiliating reversal by the Aussies 5-0 etc). It takes ruthlessness which we (collectively) lack. But striving to be the best is dismissed in this country as vanity when the rest of the world is pushing itself to excel. Striving to be on an elite level of success is now a dirty word in the UK. I find this saddening.
Saying that undergraduates are a mere 'blip' on an academic's radar is very far from the reality. For instance in law, at other universities, the main form of tuition are faculty lectures where the whole year group attends (say 100 people) with a tutorial in each subject each fortnight with a faculty member where the tutor might spend an hour with a group of around 12-15 people. It's easier to get away with doing less work in such a set up. At Oxbridge, the whole year group (over 250 people) attends lectures in the law faculty but the main form of learning are actually tutorials which often last more than an hour within the student's own college in groups of 2-4 people. There is nowhere to hide when you are being grilled by a college fellow for 60-90 minutes in a group with 2 or at most 3 other people. So my point is that, as an Oxbridge student, one gets far more attention from the academic staff. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. Academics do a great deal of their research during end of term holidays (particularly the long Summer vacation) or if they go on sabbatical.
Actually, the majority of university funding does not come from research. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. The majority of university and faculty funding comes, in the case of 'home' students, from funding from central government and top-up tuition fees paid by the students themselves whereas, in the case of 'overseas' students, they pay their own fees so these go directly to the university and faculty. Research income/grants go to the university and to the faculties not to the semi-autonomous Colleges that make up Oxbridge. Research income is seen as a way to supplement the shortfall in income. It is not the mainstay. The Colleges themselves charge their own fees (which other universities don't charge) which pays for college tuition. (How else could those intensive tutorials be paid for?). Note that only about half of academic staff hold both university and college teaching posts. Some give tutorials in College only while others are Fellows of Colleges and also hold University Lectureships. The Colleges pay their way by collecting college fees, rent from students staying in college accommodation, receiving endowment income, hosting conferences on the side when student rooms are empty during the holidays and alumni donations.
I entirely appreciate the sentiments behind your post but I wasn't actually trying to 'prove' anything nor was I actually replying to JimFlat6 or nberry. I have said before to each of them that I have ceased discussing legal issues with them so I certainly am not bickering. Turbo Al gave the names of a few famous/infamous alumni. I just expanded upon that factual list. No ulterior motive at work behind my actions.
Obviously you're right - discussing Oxbridge isn't relevant at all to the subject of Porsche930S's difficulties but digressions do happen on many threads and since you made some interesting comments, I'll reply to those points only.
IMO saying that having current/former members of a university who have achieved great things means nothing is simply misguided. Students benefit enormously from the academic tradition of excellence cultivated in a College/Faculty. To dismiss that as worthless is myopic in my view.
Equally it is absurd IMO to suggest that attending Oxbridge is a mere social rite of passage. That's a typical anti-elitist argument made by many an egalitarian. If that's your view, I respect that, but I respectfully disagree. Contrary to public perception, family wealth and social background only account for a very small part of getting into Oxbridge. (This is a much, much lesser factor than the media would have you believe). It usually takes ability backed up by years of unglamorous hard work. At Cambridge, over 55% of students come from comprehensive schools. I am glad to see this trend rising each decade. So many Cambridge students are the first students from their school to be successful at getting into Oxbridge and sometimes they are the first people in their family to go to university. Cambridge has a very active Open Access policy. They are actively trying to get the brightest students to attend no matter what their family wealth or social background. I am most definitely not a 'social elitist' but I am unashamedly a believer in academic excellence. You can call it 'academic elitism' if you wish.
You talk of family wealth as if a person gets into Oxbridge by magic. I went to a boys' public school where nearly a quarter of the spoilt, rich kids couldn't even get into university. Having parents who can afford private schooling achieves absolutely nothing unless the student himself/herself studies extremely hard. Good teaching can certainly help but individual hard graft is the single most essential ingredient.
You refer to my ego as if it were a sin to be pleased with one's own academic/professional success. It's a prime example of the 'British disease'. We (collectively) aren't hungry to succeed in the UK anymore and we (collectively) can't bear to see others becoming rich and/or successful. We even say IMO defeatist things like "It's not the winning that counts. It's the taking part". It's drummed into people in the UK from childhood. IMO it's utter nonsense. Trying to win brings out the best performance in us. As a sporting nation, we make up the numbers in most sports but, even if we can scale the heights of glory on occasion, we don't stay there for long. It goes to our heads and our well fed/paid players get too cushy (e.g. the Rugby World Champions have lost most of their matches in the past 18 months, the Cricket Ashes win in 2005 followed by the recent humiliating reversal by the Aussies 5-0 etc). It takes ruthlessness which we (collectively) lack. But striving to be the best is dismissed in this country as vanity when the rest of the world is pushing itself to excel. Striving to be on an elite level of success is now a dirty word in the UK. I find this saddening.
Saying that undergraduates are a mere 'blip' on an academic's radar is very far from the reality. For instance in law, at other universities, the main form of tuition are faculty lectures where the whole year group attends (say 100 people) with a tutorial in each subject each fortnight with a faculty member where the tutor might spend an hour with a group of around 12-15 people. It's easier to get away with doing less work in such a set up. At Oxbridge, the whole year group (over 250 people) attends lectures in the law faculty but the main form of learning are actually tutorials which often last more than an hour within the student's own college in groups of 2-4 people. There is nowhere to hide when you are being grilled by a college fellow for 60-90 minutes in a group with 2 or at most 3 other people. So my point is that, as an Oxbridge student, one gets far more attention from the academic staff. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. Academics do a great deal of their research during end of term holidays (particularly the long Summer vacation) or if they go on sabbatical.
Actually, the majority of university funding does not come from research. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. The majority of university and faculty funding comes, in the case of 'home' students, from funding from central government and top-up tuition fees paid by the students themselves whereas, in the case of 'overseas' students, they pay their own fees so these go directly to the university and faculty. Research income/grants go to the university and to the faculties not to the semi-autonomous Colleges that make up Oxbridge. Research income is seen as a way to supplement the shortfall in income. It is not the mainstay. The Colleges themselves charge their own fees (which other universities don't charge) which pays for college tuition. (How else could those intensive tutorials be paid for?). Note that only about half of academic staff hold both university and college teaching posts. Some give tutorials in College only while others are Fellows of Colleges and also hold University Lectureships. The Colleges pay their way by collecting college fees, rent from students staying in college accommodation, receiving endowment income, hosting conferences on the side when student rooms are empty during the holidays and alumni donations.
...Nice bunch..
,, where's the quality ?....
