Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Oxford taught me about posh people

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 383 posts

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#271

Post by raynr »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #209
raynr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the poster you were asking, but I did appreciate the stress you put on trying to ask a non judgmental question and I thought I'd add a personal observation, which is: disillusioned progressives also think that way. You try and you try to make society a fairer place to live in, but realise the system is so far gone that nothing you ever do will ever make a difference. So the morally correct and efficient thing to…

> Not only is it silly to try to create a fairer society, life has extensively proved that it is silly. Seems rather defeatist. Wouldn't you agree that different societies across the world vary in their levels of fairness? For that matter, how about different societies across time?

I wasn't suggesting to give up, rather it was a response to the poster above, who was trying to build some kind of mental model of how progressives viewed the world in contrast to conservatives. I was trying to highlight that there are progressives out there who are simply tired and just want their lives and the lives of their families to be OK.

And I think that's OK. Personally I tend to look at things negatively and push onwards anyway, but I also understand when people say they don't want too much negativity in their lives. So I get it.

That's all!

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#272

Post by LandR »

varispeed wrote: post #14
gyulai wrote: post #10

I've studied in Cambridge myself, and feel like some context needs to be added here for American readers not to misunderstand something here: Admission to Cambridge & Oxford isn't related to family wealth in the same way as admission to "elite" universities in the U.S. For example: Tuition fees are in line with government-set rates and are no different for these institutions than other British universities (at least…

Do you think universities still offer knowledge otherwise not accessible anywhere else? I mean, there are courses that require "hands on" experience and guidance, but for things like IT, how uni is any better than e.g. Udemy, free lectures from around the world and meetups?

Goign self taught, you have 2 risks.

1) The teacher is shit. 2) The curriculum is shit.

University, if you choose well, can remove these 2 risks.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#273

Post by breakfastduck »

agent008t wrote: post #270
thorin wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the stuff you mention, the drinking/clubbing is just true of teenagers / young people in the UK and you probably missed out the drugs and sex. When I went to a "top tier" uni in the 90s after watching the young ones and reading adrian mole I expected students to be going to rallies and being "intellectual". I spent more time reading about other subjects than my own and underperformed in my degree. Students w…

I can't help but think that for every student more into drugs/sex/drinking/clubbing, there is a kid out there who was genuinely interested in studying from the top academics that probably didn't even bother applying because they thought they wouldn't be able to get in (or won't be able to afford it). I am also surprised that the culture you describe seems to be tolerated at best and even encouraged at worst. Sure, it…

I think you grossly underestimate how heavily ingrained the things you're complaining about are into UK culture.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#274

Post by gjvnq »

WalterBright wrote: post #192
mulvya wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them. The US nationalized many industries during WWII. From 'U.S. not always averse to nationalization, despite its free-market image'[1] "In times of war and national emergency, Washington has not hesitated. In…

> continent-wide natural resources The USSR and China also had this access, and it didn't seem to do the trick for them. The US supplied the USSR. Airplanes, tanks, food, etc. were not nationalized.

Both had a lot of internal rebellions and wars that took massive hits at the country.

Not to mention that both started way worse than the US at their respective times.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#275

Post by breakfastduck »

WalterBright wrote: post #246
etripe wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under freedom You're confusing freedom with capitalism. Understandable, since we need to spend 40+ hours a week to earn our "right" to shelter, survival and general health. In other words: the right to exist and participate. That doesn't make us free - it makes us beholden to an employer if on the payroll, the market if self employed and the greater economic system in both cases. If we were truly free, we would onl…

> it makes us beholden to an employer Oh phooey. I've been an employer and employee many times. At no time was I "beholden" to my employer, and at no time were my employees "beholden" to me. It was a simple transaction - trading labor for money. Either party could (and sometimes did) walk away at any time for any reason they pleased. I've even been fired more than once. Didn't matter, I just got another job. No emplo…

No one is suggesting that you are physically trapped in the job with shackles, but to insinuate everyone is in a position where they can just 'walk away' from their job is disingenuous at best, downright ignorant of the world at worst.

It's about the same level as 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#276

Post by twobitshifter »

geomark wrote: post #98
gyulai wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not only a side effect, but a stated principle: After you gain admission, you have to prove that you have the money you need to sustain yourself either through a scholarship, or you have to literally show a bank statement that shows that you have a lump sum in your account that will sustain you for the normal amount of time it takes to finish the degree. Living expenses are factored into this at a set rate. Yo…

"You wouldn't start building a house when it's uncertain that you have enough money to be able to complete the project." Sorry for the completely OT reply, but this triggered me because it is exactly how banks in Thailand do lending to build a house. Once all the details and total cost are known, the bank lends about half of the needed amount and then checks on your progress. If you didn't get about half the house bu…

I think that’s common elsewhere as well. A construction loan in the US will work the same way and have a draw schedule that must be followed.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#277

Post by sgt101 »

erwan577 wrote: post #252

So if you are a self motivated CS type of person considering what kind of education is available to you and that "socializing" is not your panacea, is there any alternative to the traditional college? Would Bill Gates still drop out of Harvard these days?

Try MIT.

In the UK Imperial is probably the closest to what you are looking for I guess.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#278

Post by kannanvijayan »

WalterBright wrote: post #192
mulvya wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them. The US nationalized many industries during WWII. From 'U.S. not always averse to nationalization, despite its free-market image'[1] "In times of war and national emergency, Washington has not hesitated. In…

> continent-wide natural resources The USSR and China also had this access, and it didn't seem to do the trick for them. The US supplied the USSR. Airplanes, tanks, food, etc. were not nationalized.

Which strongly suggests that the real problem is ideological polemics, which makes sense when you think about it.

The USA didn't stick to ideological capitalism, and implemented many "socialist" policies: welfare systems, public works projects, labour protections, public infrastructure, etc. etc.

The USSR did stick to ideological communism as they defined it. Markets weren't utilized at all. Freedom of thought was suppressed. Political purges were executed.

In the USA, something similar was tried with the "red scare", but thankfully plurality won out, and some of those "abhorrent" socialist policies became mainstays in "great capitalist America" as part of the New Deal, which is what saved the USA from its domestic communist movement.

Over the last few decades though, the USA seems to have forgotten this. Forgotten that what saved the USA was not rigid adherence to some pre-existing quasi-religious ideological/spiritual polemic (which both capitalism and communism are), but the willingness to implement and incorporate a wide basket of ideas as they were appropriate.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#279

Post by WalterBright »

gjvnq wrote: post #274
WalterBright wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continent-wide natural resources The USSR and China also had this access, and it didn't seem to do the trick for them. The US supplied the USSR. Airplanes, tanks, food, etc. were not nationalized.

Both had a lot of internal rebellions and wars that took massive hits at the country. Not to mention that both started way worse than the US at their respective times.

Don't forget the US Civil War, which was a catastrophe.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#280

Post by ynfnehf »

jseban wrote: post #253
djrobstep wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Familiarize yourself with the basics of welfare state economics before engaging further. Norway isn't the only Nordic. All of the Nordics fund their welfare state with generally high levels of redistributive taxation, it's not oil-specific. Limited withdrawals are made from Norway's large SWF and it funds very little of their welfare state. And of course, there is nothing unique about oil as a form of capital. Many f…

Yes but norway do fund their welfare state with oil, which is why they didn't have to make as many budget cuts in the 90s as Sweden did. And Sweden financed its welfare state by being neutral in WWII which meant they had intact industry while all the competitors were wiped out, so they could just export for 4 decades. Much like the US also did after WWII for example with the car industry which were profitable until t…

What is your explanation for Denmark and Finland then?
Post reply on HN