COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DAVID LAMMY IN THE GUARDIAN
Seven years has
changed nothing at Oxbridge. In fact, diversity is even worse
"But for too long
they have been allowed to be elitist as well, drawing up the ladder to success
underneath them and reinforcing centuries of entrenched privilege."
While I am sure there is some of this owing to the
expectations that members of the royal family and aristocracy be given
admissions, I seriously doubt that that description covers the situation at
Oxbridge.
Why? Were admissions to truly ignore merit, the schools
would quickly sink into mediocrity.
The definitive measure of a university’s world standing is
the quality of the student applicants it attracts, not its buildings, not its
traditions or age, and not even how distinguished the faculty are.
Oxbridge obviously now still draws a world-class cut of
applicants.
Writers on this kind of social issue invariably take the
view the numbers are prima facie evidence of some unfairness or prejudice.
But that just is not necessarily correct, and indeed when
you begin arguing that a top-notch university should make diversity rather than
sheer proven academic excellence a significant criterion, it does seem to me
you are arguing the case for a definite kind of reverse-prejudice.
Universities like Yale or Harvard do make provision for a
limited number of under-qualified students, but they can afford to do this
owing to the great size of their institutions, the generally extremely high
level of applicants, and the huge size of their private endowments providing
effectively subsidies.
Even in the United States, you get the “aristocracy effect”
at the best universities. Harvard and Yale, for example, take under-qualified
applicants if they come from very wealthy families who can be counted on to
give generously to the school’s endowment. Ergo, alumni like George Bush at
Yale, but, remember, these are privately-funded institutions who must always be
looking to their endowments.
