• Europe

• Business

• Economy

• Culture

• Technology

• Education

• Travel

• Lifestyle

• Just Curious

The Old Boy Society

Do prestigious universities such as Oxford and Cambridge discriminate in their selection process?

White, male, and upper-middle class. This is the cliché of the typical Oxford student which has recently come under criticism from leading politicians in England. Prime Minister David Cameron started the ball rolling when he branded “disgraceful” the allegation that only one black student was admitted into the prestigious university in the last year, while his ever faithful Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg soon followed suit by criticising Oxford for discriminating against applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. This latter even threatened a cut in public funding to the university if the situation does not improve.

Aside from the various paradoxes that are floating around this story – Cameron and Clegg, both the epitome of upper-middle class white males, are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, and this criticism also comes at a time when the British government is hiking up university fees. This denies many disadvantaged students the chance to study in the first place. The adage that there is always a half truth in a cliché may be a cliché in itself, but figures detailing the ethnicity and social backgrounds of Oxbridge students do tell us that the government’s criticisms have not been pulled out of the air. But does the blame indeed lie with institutionalised discrimination in Britain’s top universities or are there more deep-rooted social and educational factors to examine?

Although Cameron actually botched his statistics when he claimed that only one black student had been accepted to Oxford in the past year (it was in fact one black student of Caribbean origin, the total number of black students admitted was 27) it is a fact that minority ethnic groups and youths from disadvantaged areas are under-represented. However it is far more likely that this has less to do with discrimination during the interview process and more to do with social factors and secondary education standards. For example, one of Oxford’s defences last week was to claim that most black students apply for overly-enrolled courses such as medicine, and thus have a smaller chance of being accepted. Furthermore, many ethnic minority students may be dissuaded from even applying to Oxford in the first place because of the white and middle-class stereotype of Oxford which has been built up over the years. Thus, David Cameron’s public criticism may ironically do more to harm the chances of minority students applying to Oxford by reinforcing the cliché.

What the British government has to do is take a long look at the man in the mirror before making cheap shots at the selection processes of universities. Oxford suggested (diplomatically of course) that low standards in state schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, mean that it is the high-flyers from the educationally rigorous private second-level institutions which end up achieving the necessary A-level results. Oxford and Cambridge are two of the most prestigious and renowned universities in the world. Top results are required simply to get as far as the pre-selection interview stage. Once this stage is reached, private-school candidates often have the advantage of being rigorously prepared for the questions that they will have to face, whereas students from state-schools often face the interview board with nothing but a “good luck and don’t be nervous”. And it’s not discrimination to give the position to the most suitable candidate; it’s logic.

So what can actually be done to improve the situation? Neither Cameron nor Clegg actually said what they thought should be changed, they simply insinuated that that universities such as Oxford and Cambridge should do more to improve social mobility. Are they advocating positive discrimination? Surely blaming the universities for this issue (provided no discrimination actually takes place during the interview and selection process) is like criticising a jeweller for selling too many of his €20,000 watches to rich people. Oxford and Cambridge naturally choose the most able candidates; demanding a certain quota of ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘minority’ students would simply be social engineering, and it is difficult to say whether or not this could even exacerbate integration problems within the university itself. Students accepted for reasons other than educational may feel ostracised by their more ‘worthy’ classmates, and may even encounter difficulties in keeping up with the academic pace.

Thus, it is up to the government to examine the more deep-rooted educational and social issues which shape the entrants to Oxbridge, and prestigious universities in general. It is not a generalisation to say that a more expensive education is usually a better education (at least in terms of academic preparation for third-level institutions), and the coalition in Britain will have to think hard about what can be done to overhaul not only teaching standards but also the general mentality which reigns in state schools. They will also have to consider the implications of the current rise in university fees; education in Oxford or Cambridge does not come cheap, and any rise in prices is first and foremost going to affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Ultimately, centuries of the supremacy of the old boy society will not be reversed by a quick click of the fingers.

by Domhnall O'Sullivan