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

151–160 of 383 posts

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#151

Post by anoncake »

WalterBright wrote: post #144
coffeecat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intri…

You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions…

That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#152

Post by Maven911 »

vletal wrote: post #4

My life goal was to attend one of these elite universities. I desired to work at companies such as Google or Apple. After graduating from the Czech Technical University I realized that 1. I am much less special then I thought 2. There is much more hard working focused average people then the few talented superstars, both usually achieving the same 3. Surprisingly many of the exceptionally smart people in my social bu…

I went to a country top school and I learnt the exact same lessons but with a jaded view of the world that comes with it :)

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#153

Post by pm90 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #140
pm90 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know why credentialism will arise. Just because it “will exist” doesn’t mean that we accept it.

Why not accept it (and try to improve it)? It seems futile given the basic fact that it is impossible to have perfect information about the decisions you make. Therefore the options are to make decisions completely randomly, or use some Bayesian probability to try to make better bets.

The assertion here is that the effect of these signals on the chances of success are not very large and in fact the systemic prejudices they create against otherwise qualified pool of candidates, and the pressure they create for people to obtain these (arguably meaningless) credentials has a worse overall effect on the labor pool.

So these signals wouldn’t really help you make better bets, and they have bad side effects, which is why we need to bin them.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#154

Post by madaxe_again »

AlexSW wrote: post #52

I went to a state school and state sixth form, and my experience definitely deviates from that presented in the article and some other comments here. I think the part of the article which focuses on more personalised teaching rings the most true for me. There may be differences due to the subject, level, or college. I did a one-year masters in STEM in a very international graduate Oxford college. But the vast majorit…

In U.K. collegiate universities, like Oxbridge and Durham, there is a huge cultural divide between colleges and courses.

I went to Durham. I was - I am - a posh kid - albeit one who’s acutely and painfully aware of his advantage. The college I was in was stacked to the rafters with posh kids. Everything orbited the social life - the balls, the ents, who was where in the pecking order of committees and executives. I mean, the college was in a literal castle. If you were reading arts, it was easy enough to stay entirely within that world. Economics, politics, classics, history, philosophy, etc., were all filled with pashminas and brogues. I spent time in those lectures as I was running a miniature essay mill to boost my social standing, as that was just what you did.

I read physics - and the crowd couldn’t have been more different. The majority of science students were in the hill colleges, nearer the science campus, and came from state schools, rather than the mess of public school alumna you found in the Bailey colleges. I was a lone wool blazer in a lecture theatre full of t-shirts, rope-knit jumpers, pink hair and leather jackets.

For me, it was an illuminating experience, and it made me realise that I didn’t really fit in either tribe - although 20 years on, the few people I’m still in touch with are from my course, not my college.

The U.K. is a peculiar place when it comes to class. I realised over the years that how I said what I said, how I spoke, how I dressed, were all far more important to our business (because of course I started a business, with a posh friend from school) success than what we said, what we did. To other posh people, it says you’re one of the club, you can be trusted, nice school tie - to people from outside that world, it induces either a hat-clutching deferent reverence, or outright hostility.

I liked the people who were outright hostile, because by that point I absolutely hated the same thing that they did - even though I benefited from it.

Anyway. Experiences vary, and which college you’re in has a huge impact.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#155

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

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…

>One thing that I found noteworthy when applying was also the fact that, for Cambridge, the admissions process had two phases: The first was academic acceptance. Those application forms made absolutely no mention of money. After a student has been academically accepted, there is a second phase in the application process that involves application to scholarships and ends with the applicant having to provide proof that they have the required funds to sustain themselves through the study period.

As far as I can tell this only applies to graduate students, and possibly those from overseas (and other weird edge cases like people studying for a second undergraduate degree). If you apply as an 18-year-old from a British high school, you automatically get a loan from the government for tuition fees, can choose to borrow more to cover some of your living expenses, and will be given money by the university or your college if you come from a low-income family. You never have to show proof of funds, because the university will make sure you can afford to go.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#156

Post by WalterBright »

anoncake wrote: post #149
WalterBright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)

No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.

> since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum

Neither claim has foundation.

> And freedom is not a system

Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#157

Post by WalterBright »

anoncake wrote: post #151
WalterBright wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions…

That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.

> No one's claiming we can achieve total equality

I haven't seen any end to raising the bar. Where do you think it should end?

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#158

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

WalterBright wrote: post #142
mrpopo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when faci…

The US could do all that because they removed the free market from the economy. Everything was turned into a planned economy to feed the war effort. Free markets would have completely failed in this case.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#159

Post by [deleted] »

dogma1138 wrote: post #60
ratorx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge at the very least provides reasonably affordable accommodation for all years of your undergraduate degree. And some colleges provide accommodation for Masters and PhD students as well. The UK student loan is not perfect, but it does include a living stipend (which is family income based). Obviously it sucks to have to take a loan, but working is not a necessity (until after graduation). I’m not sure how rea…

The loans aren’t great if you are a student not living with their parents and studying outside of London if your parents have a household has a combined income of £45,000 you will be eligible for only £6000 p/a grant. If we take a £80,000 combined household income which won’t go that far in London especially if the family has more than one child and still paying for a mortgage or what is becoming more and more common…

[deleted]

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#160

Post by zorpner »

anoncake wrote: post #149
WalterBright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)

No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.

> No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum.

This is extraordinarily well-put. Thank you.

Post reply on HN