I'm telling my kids to go to the UK for undergrad

[Anonymous]

You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

If you believe so, the solution is easy. Just give vouchers so that everyone can afford those bastion-of-privilege schools.

But somehow I suspect you oppose doing so.

[Anonymous]

I'd be happy to take money out of the mix as much as possible, starting with primary schools. But you'd have to change admissions as well. The challenge is to provide equal access to educational resources as early as possible.

[Anonymous]

BTW, if you go to a UK uni, there's a lot less chance of your child getting mowed down by a gunman.

[Anonymous]

There's that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be happy to take money out of the mix as much as possible, starting with primary schools. But you'd have to change admissions as well. The challenge is to provide equal access to educational resources as early as possible.

No, you need to change culture. Many ethnic groups arrive in the US with nothing and work their way to the top, using public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Based on what I know, this is very important and very true.

(Neither American nor British here)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

What you say seems to make sense, but the poster above is building on decades of research by Nobel Laureate Gary Becker. Go back to your cave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if you go to a UK uni, there's a lot less chance of your child getting mowed down by a gunman.

But there is a lot more drinking, legally, without the fear of getting caught. Huge drinking culture in the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if you go to a UK uni, there's a lot less chance of your child getting mowed down by a gunman.

But there is a lot more drinking, legally, without the fear of getting caught. Huge drinking culture in the UK.

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/13

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're starting from a pretty racist POV if you *assume* that a process that routinely produces outcomes that favor white men from affluent families is both meritocratic and equitably administered.

Two other possibilities (not mutually exclusive) immediately spring to mind and there's evidence in support of both. The first is that the system itself is rigged. (Cf "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges..."). A second possibility is that there's discretion throughout the system and it is used, consciously or not, in ways that favor affluent white men from the right schools. The Guardian has pointed out how kids who have the same A-level results have very different odds of admission depending on where they went to school. There have also been analyses of how much more likely men were to be given firsts than women in the co-ed colleges. And if you look at the role of the interview in the admissions process, you'll see plenty of room for discretion.

Basically, the UK faces many of the same problems that the U.S. continues to confront wrt elite college admissions -- e.g. a primary/secondary educational system where there are extreme differences in educational resources available to children prior to college admissions, spiraling costs of university education, a history of serving as bastions of hereditary privilege.

1. the male/female ratio in oxbridge is close to 50:50 (it is 54:46), so the process is not favoring men over women, or barely.

2. It is disproportionately accepting people from affluent backgrounds, so it must be racist and rigged? Do you have any idea of the massive disparities in education attainment between middle class and lower class children in the UK, and in pretty much every other country in the world? And this is not about money - DC spends far more per pupil than Montgomery County, for example. So what is it about? More affluent families value education more, their children are exposed to books and richer language, learn better educational strategies, they have less stressors and distractions, and so on. So if you want a system based on merit, you are going to have groups that value and emphasize education over-represented. This is not a british thing - there is not a country in the world where a child of a professor or a CEO is not more likely to go to a good university than the son of a drug dealer or brick layer. How can Universities not face this same reality?

furthermore, you have to understand how uk admissinos work - you have to declare your course of study (major) when you apply and you are competing for slots within majors.

most elite schools in the US don't do this and even the ones that have restrictions are more like upenn, where you apply to colleges (and not specific majors).

What the race study showed with oxbridge is that minorities many times would apply at a much higher percentage to the most popular courses (majors) whereas white kids would apply to a broader range of majors/subjects.

That definitely skews admissions rates. Look at the end of the day, no matter how you spin it, the British application system is much fairer (even with the inequities that are present) than the US system.

Given that Oxbridge has interviews, and given that the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker finds that interviewers tend to gravitate toward those that are like themselves, I'm not sure I buy this lack of bias. Perhaps it is true for universities that are making offers on the basis of UCAS forms and predicted A-levels alone.

I didn't say that oxbridge was bias-free - what I said was I feel oxbridge (and most certainly UCAS/A-levels only institutions) practice less bias than t25 privates with 'holistic' admissions.

Actually you, or the PP I was responding to, referred to these schools as a "university heaven" where admissions were meritocratic and applicants were judged on the content of their character and, presumably, the quality of their intellect. I pointed out that (you or) PP "assumed" this about the system despite the fact that it appeared to routinely favor affluent white men from elite prep schools.

And no, it isn't clear that the Oxbridge system involves less bias when women and people who attended state schools are less likely to be admitted than men with the same A-levels who attended elite schools or when the admissions interview plays such a crucial role in the process. That's before we get to how women and people of color are treated once admitted (e.g. awarding of firsts, composition of faculty). Interestingly, your claim that gender bias is a non-issue assumes that the relevant standard is representation roughly proportionate to the general population, but the failure to meet such a standard in the context of race seems to be something you find reassuring. You also seem oblivious to the fact that the historic (and in Cambridge's case contemporary) presence of women's colleges within the Oxbridge universities played a crucial role in achieving this gender balance.