Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

Oxford and Cambridge are undeniably very good universities, I think "fetish" for their grads is going too far. I think it's that there is an expectation in some sectors that an Oxbridge grad is capable of working in wider areas than they are necessarily qualified. To much weight is place on the oxbridge "brand".

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.

View on HN

The British political system isn't hiring Scientists, Engineers or MBA graduates out of Cambridge. It's also about Eton. Look at the last 3 that won elections:

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.

Eton is more important. Children go to Eton. They dont chose to go. Their wealthy parents send them. Eton is where elite families form the bonds that are the backbone of the UK elite. Oxbridge is just the finishing school.

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.

No, it isn't. People outside the UK have this fascination with Eton. And don't seem to realise that there are hundreds of other independent schools, grammar schools (which are often as good or better than many independent schools), and (if we are talking about history) grant-maintained schools.

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).

"Eton" stands for that class of schools, just as "oxbridge" really covers a cluster of elite institutions.

The person isn't referring to the Eton group. You know this.

Nonsense. Which?

> Oxford and Cambridge are undeniably very good universities

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.

> In a post-industrial society knowledge is the resource.

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.

It makes more sense to call it the Eton system. Oxbridge is accessible for many smart young people, but in itself that does not invite you to the political elite. It's Eton and a couple of other schools.

Pretty much any male politician whose official actions could be described as inhuman or sociopathic has been through boarding school trauma.

I think we are mostly on the same page. Elite universities are fine in an industrial society because you are more limited by physical resources. South Korea does relatively well being run by relatively few rich families. Because it only takes so many executive, managers or engineers to run factories refining natural resource. An elite university can produce the people necessary to fill those slots.

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.

NB, in current UK English "matriculation" describes the process whereby the student is formally enrolled by the university. It is a formality and happens after they arrive at the university but before they are taught anything. A matriculation photo is taken by the college at the beginning of the first term. That is all there is to it.

As long as there are people much smarter than other people, there will be universities much more prestigious than other universities.

Universities aren't just places of learning, but designed to select leaders through the state.

How does it select leaders? By finding the most talented, or by finding those who are controllable?

Seems like the institutions are dual use.

Oxbridge selects for upper / upper-middle class polish and above average - but probably not exceptional and definitely not neurodivergent - intelligence.

Having been to both institutions, I can assure you that the comp sci and STEM programmes are dominated by neurodivergent types. Those aren't the people going into politics though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com