I blame the fetish that the UK has for Oxbridge graduates. The evidence shows they are not very good, perhaps even worse than the Russell Group average. We need to find better indicators of ability; this cannot go on.
I've been interviewing graduates in the UK for many years now from a very broad range of universities, all focused on CS or stem degrees.
In my experience, I've yet to interview an oxbridge graduate who wasn't at least great academically, and this is speaking as someone who went to a lesser university. Clearly whatever standards they have for teaching and entry selection criteria really work.
That said, graduates from other universities are easily on par with oxbridge, just that there were some total morons amongst their peers as well.
In my opinion, the problem is not that the UK fetishes oxbridge candidates, the problem is politics is dominated by arts and ppe graduates which does not offer the problem solving skills stem degrees do. I genuinely think we'd be in a much better place if our leaders weren't trained just in communication, but instead on actually logically thinking through problems and resolving them.
The other half of the problem is that the archaic UK parliament needs to change, its not fit for the 21st century.
For example ...
MP's perks and expenses - why do MPs get HEAVILY subsidised food and drink ? why do they get such generous expenses ? why do they get Friday's off ? why do they get so many recess holidays ? why does the whole place shut down for party conference silly season ?
Prime Minister's Questions - Its a disgrace. The clue is in the word "Questions". Instead it's a farcical theatrical display where someone asks a question and then the Prime Minister doesn't answer it and/or the Prime Minister's backbenches ensure the answer gets drowned out in noise.
Planted Questons - All the planted questions from the Prime Minister's back benches. What's all that about ? Do they really think people are that stupid ?
Too many "gentleman's agreements" - For example, what's with the whole "you can 'unknowingly' lie, but you can't accuse others of lying" thing ?
Lack of independent scrutiny - Enquiries and investigations are all based on the "gentleman's agreement" that the Prime Minister can be trusted to be a "good man" and will therefore, of course, launch any necessary investigations into alleged acts of wrong doing. However as we saw with Johnson, well ....
Ministerial Code - The ultimate joke. A code with no teeth. Again, Johnson demonstrated how circles could be run round it.
Archaic "parliamentary protocol" - So many examples here, perhaps one of the most infamous is Christopher Chope MP shouting "object" and blocking progress of the Up-skirting bill. The perogueing of parliament by the Johnson government in relation to Brexit is another.
Because the bulk of the work of an MP is in being at home spending time talking to the bosses (i.e. the constituents) to ensure that the correct message is brought back to the central meeting place (i.e. parliament). After all, you, the constituent, are hiring the representative to carry your message to the central meeting place so you don't have to make the trip yourself. But you still have to make your message known. MPs are most definitely not mind readers who can simply be elected and then never spoken to again. It is a time consuming process to sit down with each and every constituent to hear their voice.
And, well, I guess if an MP really is a mind reader and doing such a great job that his bosses don't feel the need to talk during these recess periods, why not allow a nice vacation? An MP figuring out how to be more efficient than other MPs shouldn't be penalized. The recess will still be necessary for the poorly performing MPs to go home and get tuned in by their bosses.
Its awfully cute when people think that's an acceptable answer, it goes awfully well with that other well known phrase "write to your MP about it".
I know sufficient people across the length and breadth of the UK to know that the reality is that MPs (perhaps especially those who fly the Conservative flag) will do their utmost to avoid and fob off their constituents.
If I had a penny for every person who told me they wrote to their MP and either received no reply or received two-pages of pre-prepared boilerplate that didn't answer the question ... I'd be rich.
As for MPs who have extraordinarily well-paid "advisor" jobs on the side, what's your reasoning for that ?
If you want to ignore your constituents and not bother (and are in a safe seat) you might do less than half of that. But MPs, as a group, are very hard working. I also think that the way we select MPs, incentivise them, and manage them is awful and that's one of the many reasons why the institution of parliament is fairly crap. Unjustified cynicism about individuals is unlikely to fix that.
I do apologise for the form letters, though. That's almost always staff work, with the MP signing the result after a brief skim. We got a lot of mail and much of it was repetitive or crankish so the replies weren't always artisanal...
It’s never fun being the boss, but given that you’ve accepted the role you can be a good boss and stand up to your workers, even as much as they try hard to avoid you, or accept your failings and let your organization fall apart. Your choice.
Aah yes, another favourite old-chestnut, the old "well, you can vote differently next time".
Trouble is that one falls apart when you are reminded that the UK has FPTP (First Past The Post) and not PR (Proportion Representation).
As a result, most people's votes don't really count for much, and you end up with safe seats and all sorts of other problems.
But it favours the big-two parties and hence, like many other problems with UK politics and parliament, it will (likely) never change.
FPTP absolutely fails hard when parties get thrown into the mix. But that is when you should stop to ask yourself why are you hiring party members in the first place? You want to hire someone who is there to represent you, not some other allegiance. The Westminster system really isn't well suited to having parties in the first place, even if it has grown to accept them.
I think my point still stands, the whole system could be transformed if some real problem solvers involved. Alas, I don't see it happening any time soon.
The unfortunate thing is that we have been governed by a party which takes that unhealthy attitude towards senior party members, they have always been more about who you know than what you know. You don't see the same proportion of Oxbridge grads in the current opposition.
Slightly anecdotal, my first job after graduating (from former polytechnic Loughborough) was in Cambridge for a company formed by a couple of Cambridge grads. There was a higher proportion of non Oxbridge grads at the company, I think we tended to have more practical experience.
David Cameron - Eton, Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, went straight into politics.
Theresa May studied Geography at Oxford, worked at Bank of England and a few other institutions for a while.
Boris Johnson - Eton, study of the Classics, ancient literature and classical philosophy. Worked as a journalist, was fired for lying, then became a politician.
How many politicians are hired or promoted by prime ministers not because of quality or background but social debts between families? Nobody really tracks those relationships.
Eton isn't regarded as a particularly good school. It is relatively expensive, and preferred by people outside the UK. Their academic results aren't that strong.
And social connections are an aspect of almost every political party. Blair hired almost everyone in Derry Irvine's chambers. Most of the SNP are not only friends, they are actually related to each other. The Tories are possibly the least incestuous because Cameron made a concerted effort to widen the reach of the party in the mid-2000s (this is why the current Cabinet is so diverse).
The reason why there is a concentration of Oxbridge is because, when most of these people went to uni, they were far and away the best. In Scotland, you see the exact same thing with Edinburgh (and strangely, no-one talks about the fact that almost of Sturgeon's clique went to Glasgow...which is, generally, an inferior university). And what you are actually seeing now is that more and more politicians are going to other universities reflecting the fact that non-Oxbridge unis caught up in the 90/00s (and recently, they have dropped off far more...Imperial is ahead in sciences, Oxford PPE is still very good though).
Looking at Instagram there are undeniably many physically fit Americans. In reality their physical fitness is notable because it is relatively rare.
Elite universities are sustainable in an industrial society where scarcity of resources means there are only so many high positions.
In a post-industrial society knowledge is the resource. Elite universities then instead mean you have a lack of resources.
Err, no.
Don't get me wrong, the Oxbridge system accepts, fosters and matriculates some very bright, very smart people.
But that is not at all what the core of the "Elite University" system is about, it's about connections and maintaining a single degree of freedom between the families that collectively hold > 90% of the wealth, resources, and influence within UK society.
In a post-industrial society, or beyond that, you aren't tied to physical resource in the same way. Instead you are limited by the amount of people with relevant knowledge. The existence of elite universities in such a society is really more saying that you can't produce enough people and opportunities.
Arriving at a village finding there is only one person with a car you don't say "wow, this guy is successful" you say "ouch, this is a poor village" even if that is the most successful person in the village. Because these days we expect cars and if everyone had cars he wouldn't stand out as successful.
Pretty much any male politician whose official actions could be described as inhuman or sociopathic has been through boarding school trauma.
How does it select leaders? By finding the most talented, or by finding those who are controllable?
Seems like the institutions are dual use.
Yup. As the old joke goes ...
How do you know someone went to Oxford ? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Who is "We" here?
I think it would be reasonable to claim the two main parties come from very similar backgrounds. Both seem to be happy continuing with maintaining their status quo.
Without their consent, is it likely or possible to see a third option rise?