Having gone to Oxford, I find when I get into discussion with people they often want to ask the same question: whether Oxford lives up to its reputation of being full of hoity-toity Eton-ites, with not a coloured person or state-school educated student in sight. There's certainly enough stories in the press about the crazy high percentage of privately educated versus the grammar school/state school, about the lack of coloured and ethnic students and the stories of 'Oxford lessons' in certain private schools, coaching 17 and 18 year olds on how to get into Oxford.
I came from a grammar school, and my 'Oxford lesson' consisted of my slightly misled headteacher giving me a mock interview and asking 'what's your favourite hobby' and 'how would your friends describe you.' Whilst it was a lovely catch up session with him, it certainly didn't prepare me very well for the 2 days of interviews that lay in store for me. I cringe whenever I think about some of my answers I gave to questions in those interviews - all I can say is they definitely saw the 'raw' talent (with raw being the operative word there).
When I went to Oxford, I was scared I wouldn't fit in. However, it was nothing like I expected, and certainly nothing like those headlines in the newspapers. Let's take my housemates in second year. My best friend, Nikita, is Hindu and went to a state school. My best guy friend Rabby is Bangladeshi and Muslim and lives in East London and went to a state school. My friends Graham and Tom B both went to state schools. It was only our friend Tom P who went to St Pauls. 1 out of 6...hardly everyone is it?
Now I'm not saying that that is necessarily the norm; I know that at certain other colleges the proportion of private school students is much higher, and even at Exeter College the percentage was probably higher. But there you have it; it's not all upper class, privately educated youngsters who make it to Oxbridge. So is that the conclusion of my blog post?
Oh no. Because when people ask me about the above, I obviously tell them all the above, and then I ask them why they want to know. Some want to know because there seems to be a little 'mystery' surrounding Oxford and they're genuinely curious about the 'real' Oxford as opposed to the headline 'myths'. Others want to know because they then ask me whether I think it's right that, statistically, it is mostly white middle-class students at Oxford, and wouldn't it be better if we put procedures in place so that coloured/ethnic/students from state schools or poorer backgrounds were positively discriminated against?
No is my answer. You'd probably assume my Oxford experience would make me hugely in favour of such initiatives; to allow more people 'like my friends' to attend the University. However, I am very much from the school of thought that in life we should be given opportunities and rewards based on merit. If we are good, good things should happen to us. If we work hard, we should reap the rewards. If we are naturally intelligent, we should go to the top Universities. (It is important for my argument here to point out that by natural intelligence I don't just mean doing well in exams that you've slaved over books for for months; I mean that raw ability to look at a situation, unprepared, and provide a correct or thought-provoking answer/conclusion without any prior knowledge/teaching.)
Why should any person be discriminated against, either positively or negatively? Isn't positively discriminating in favour of coloured people the same thing as negatively discriminating against Anglo-Saxon people? At the end of the day, there is a fixed number of University places to fill, and discrimination in favour of one 'type' of person necessarily leaves less room for others, regardless of how intelligent or capable they are. By positively discriminating we are placing certain people ahead of others based on factors which, I would suggest, usually have very little to do with how intelligent a person is.
Maybe that's an idealistic view. I know that there is usually a huge disparity in preparation between those students that are taught to pass the Oxford process, and those that are the only ones to apply from their school, let alone get in, to Oxford. I understand that some people will have a huge advantage in terms of preparation and 'coaching'. However, I truly believe (perhaps because of my own experience) that what Oxford sources, and invites to study there, is 'raw' talent. The kind that no amount of teaching can create or nurture. My opponents would argue that actually by positively discriminating, we'd be placing everyone on an equal playing field, to counteract this disparity between private/state education and upbringing. However, I suggest that in order to create 'equality' we shouldn't be elevating peoples' chances based on their background. We need to analyse the way in which students are accepted, to ensure that the criteria can't be 'bought'.
Therefore whilst it is probably true to say now that one can 'buy' good A-Levels, I truly believe you can't 'buy' Oxford. My Oxford tutor told us at our final third year dinner that all he wants to see is a true love and passion for both learning and specifically for that degree subject. He wants to know that they will appreciate and utilise the tutorial system, and come out a more well-rounded, thoughtful and inspired individual as a result of their University time. Could money or any number of lessons ever instill that in an 18 year old? I think it unlikely.
Therefore, who cares where you came from? Who cares what the colour of your skin is? What's really important is what is going on in your head. We live in a world where 'equality' is something which is so heavily coveted; so why introduce measures which go against that, whether it be positive or negative discrimination?
No comments:
Post a Comment