Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

Post by programjames » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:28 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #211

programjames wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're being purposefully dense here. I get it, and probably do the same sometimes, but the connection is pretty obvious: someone gets in (allegedly) due to ideological fit instead of merit, and then becomes one of the most prominent voices for that ideology at the campus. It shows "wokism" has finally solved the reproduction crisis, and for people opposed to certain aspects (like affirmative action), that'…

But that isn’t a connection. It’s a coincidence. Where is the evidence that an Oxford with only 4 A* students would not have any such language on its campus? There is none. If I argued that his comments were an obvious sign that Oxford needs to stop admitting people whose last name starts with A you’d rightly say I was being absurd. But basing the argument around his grades is no more valid. “allegedly due to ideolog…

Post by afavour » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

programjames wrote: post #241

afavour wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that isn’t a connection. It’s a coincidence. Where is the evidence that an Oxford with only 4 A* students would not have any such language on its campus? There is none. If I argued that his comments were an obvious sign that Oxford needs to stop admitting people whose last name starts with A you’d rightly say I was being absurd. But basing the argument around his grades is no more valid. “allegedly due to ideolog…

If you already believe he got in on merits, then obviously this is all a coincidence. But obviously the other guy you're arguing with believes he got in due to ideological fit, so it's no coincidence he espouses the ideology. You're dismissing your antagonist's cruxes as if they never existed. That's so rude.

Post by asib » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

concernedParty wrote: post #209

asib wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's so much easier to get into Oxbridge from a state school, why do you think people with the means send their kids to private school? They'd save so much money not doing so.

There is a growing number of parents who, because of this exact overt and known discrimination against applicants from private schools, will first send their kids to elite private primary schools and then they switch them to the best secondary state schools they can find, using the money to supplement their education with private one-to-one tutors. This is an entirely expected outcome. Water will find a way to ground…

Post by programjames » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #243

programjames wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you already believe he got in on merits, then obviously this is all a coincidence. But obviously the other guy you're arguing with believes he got in due to ideological fit, so it's no coincidence he espouses the ideology. You're dismissing your antagonist's cruxes as if they never existed. That's so rude.

> You're dismissing your antagonist's cruxes as if they never existed Because there’s no evidence for them! They themselves used the word “allegedly”. Asking for evidence to back up an assertion is not rude, it’s table stakes for any kind of debate.

Post by patanegra » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:41 PM UTC

lwhi wrote: post #221

patanegra wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might come over as appalling, given the whole culture has shifted towards: "Nobody is dumber! Every child deserves a medal." Which isn't true, and never was. I get why we do that with kids in Reception and Year 1. With young adults, like University students, the fact of inequality of potentials of individuals, is just a fact anyone has to live with. I am clever, but I am a fat, average looking guy. So that's what…

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're making a false equivalence between socio-economic disparity and innate talent. Imagine the same person, cloned. Clone A is born into an economically challenged household; while clone B is born into an upper-middle class household. Now consider whether both clones would achieve the same results at A level. One could expect the child born into the poorer househ…