Message Board

Members' Opinion Polls

Message board > Members' Opinion Polls > Members' poll: What should Smiley Mark wear on University Challenge?

What should Smiley Mark wear on University Challenge?

Our Sec is captaining the Trinity side in the challenge of challenges... how should he make his allegiances known?

Boatclub Tie		46%

Boatclub bow tie		15%

Boatclub boxers		37%

Boatclub boxers (only)		12%

Boatclub Blazer		22%

All-in-One		17%

Zephyr		7%

Stripeys		22%

Stripey antipodean kit		2%

Gold Socks		71%

Other (please specify!)		12%

Total: 41 members' votes

by gold is definately the new blue - Sun 29th May 2005, 10:47pm

It's got to be the new "golden grad" top...

by Simon - Mon 30th May 2005, 6:28am

gold is definately the new blue said: It's got to be the new "golden grad" top...

Absolutely - they're very cool and I want one of those! Are that crew following the tradition that the 3rd VIII wear gold - e.g. here. Although we always had zephyrs as well so I can't find any other photos. Was it 1997 who wore child sized gold t-shirts with "beat me" written across them?

The 30 most recent of the 64 remaining posts in this thread are shown below
Expand to show all 67 posts


by Erica - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:28am
Curious said: fact that (slightly) less than half of Cambridge students come from private school OK, you asked for it... Firstly, only 7% of school pupils in the UK are at private schools. However, we must take into account that many of these have entrance requirements; 23% of independent school pupils get 3+ As at A level whereas the corresponding figure for maintained schools is 6%. Hence we may expect that if entrance were based on A levels alone that there would be a split 78:22 in favour of state schools. The HEFC "target" for Cambridge is 65% state, which seems low even given the high proportion of overseas sudents that Cambridge admits. Why does this happen? Main reasons: 1. State school students DO NOT APPLY to Cambridge - see Table 1, ref below - only 48% of applicants to Cambridge are from state schools. As we have seen this is not due to underqualification. It's because state school pupils in general are not pushed into applying to Cambridge by their teachers, parents or peers. I get the impression that this is different at many private schools where there is a tradition of having many Oxbridge applicants every year; in fact I have heard of people even having special "Oxbridge classes" or "STEP classes" in the case of maths, which is of course bound to put them at an advantage in the interview/exam as well. 2. Families with the money (and interest in their kids' education) to send them to private school are more likely to (be able to) provide an encouraging home environment. I think this is probably a much greater factor than "quality of schooling", whatever that means. 3. Admissions bias. I'd like to point out that Table 1 has an interesting skew: there are exactly the same percentage of applications and acceptances from state schools, but there are more independent school pupils accepted and more overseas students rejected. This smacks slightly of an attempt to meet targets and say "we accept as many as apply" while still being slanted in favour of the private school applicant. I don't suggest a conspiracy here, only an inherent bias in the admissions process which favours the better-prepared, more confident (often coached, although they say this isn't an advantage) students who can answer questions fluently at interview. In practice I believe statistics show that students from state schools are more likely to get better degrees for the same A level results as a privately schooled applicant - in essence, you've got to be really good to survive the state system and a biased admissions procedure. 4. Grammars/Comps. A point which is usually overlooked is that the statistics class state grammar schools together with non-selective state comprehensives, which I think makes a gross distortion of the figures. I'd like to know how many of the 48% admitted were from non-selective, non-fee-paying, state maintained comprehensives. Given the number of people I know who went to state grammars I think this would be a more revealing statistic and one that would suggest slightly more accurately where the problem is. Grammar schools are similar to private schools with respect to point 1 (expectations) in that they tend to have more of an Oxbridge tradition and are more likely to encourage applications here. My general conclusion is that "Access" isn't really a problem with universities, it's a problem with the segregation of kids at an early age into one class who are expected to go to university, get a degree, work for a decent wage and send their own kids to similar schools and another class who will be lucky to get to the first step on that ladder. I saw figures in a newspaper last year (have been trying to find an online ref, will post it later if I find it) giving the percentage of pupils from schools in my area going to university - the main private school had exactly 100%, another 99%; my own pretty good state comp had about 50%; one school in one of the sink estates had "n/a" and another had 0%. I do not believe that there is a large difference in the abilities of pupils at these schools, simply that one set are expected to do well and go to university whereas another set are expected to misbehave, play truant, leave school early and follow their parents' footsteps into a sink estate. And in each case they have little choice other than to do so. I'm very lucky to have had supportive parents and to have been to a school which did encourage me to do what I wanted; otherwise I am exactly 100% certain that I wouldn't be here. Main source: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2003-04/special/12/

by RTT - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:40am
Isn't the whole point of an admissions system to be biased? Otherwise everyone would stand an equal chance of getting in.....

by Erica - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:46am
Curious said: as someone who is now on the Oxbridge committee at my (private) school, where we are investigating why we get _fewer_ places at Oxbridge relative to our exam results than the UK average, I am genuine interested in this topic. Most schools are never likely to have an "Oxbridge Committee" - I am sure you get significantly more places at Oxbridge relative to your exam results than the average state comprehensive (in terms of numbers getting 3+ As, not percentages). If you get fewer relative to other private schools, I would imagine the reason is a lack of confidence on the part of the pupils; make sure the teachers reiterate many times that any of them expecting 3+As are (theoretically) capable of getting into Cambridge. You can see that the (over-?) confident attitude is a winner; look at the Cambridge reputation (and Trinity in particular). I wish the pupils good luck, but I think your efforts would be better placed on an Access committee for a different school. You will only be making things worse for people who already have many many more problems to deal with. Also if your pupils are not applying to Oxbridge it may simply be that the courses at other universities are more attractive; I think there are quite a few people who end up on completely the wrong course because someone told them that they really ought to apply to X university and having to go to Y would be a bit of a failure. Then of course they consequently do worse with the degree.

by Anna Mc - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:50am
Is this really the place for a discussion on this subject? This is a public message board after all and some of the comments made here in jest (or otherwise) would make the day of certain journalists looking for a bit of material to prove what a bunch of elitist, background obsessed bunch Cambridge students are. Can we not make this a 'sign in' type thread if people want to continue it?

by You're quite right; I take it all back. - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:52am
RTT said: Isn't the whole point of an admissions system to be biased? Otherwise everyone would stand an equal chance of getting in..... Oh, God Forbid that a pleb with 4 As should stand the same chance as a noble Old Harrovian with the same grades! What a shocking indictment of the system that will be! Whatever is this place coming to that someone could even suggest it?

by Amelia - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 10:59am
I think what Tom might have been trying to say was that an admissions system has to have some criteria on which to base their decisions, otherwise it really would just be totally random, and you might as well throw dice to decide who got the places. I don't think he was saying that the admissions system should be inherently biased towards private/public school applicants. However, I do think that a confident chatty private school interviewee with 4As who answers questions fluently should be admitted over a less confident, unsure of him/herself comprehensive school applicant with 4As who performs less well at interview. I'm all for access and equality, but I don't think it's fair to reject a private school applicant just because there's a comprehensive school applicant with the same predicted grades.

by Tom C - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 11:04am
Erica's argument seems to based on the premise that going to university is a good thing to do. In fact a lot of people just see it as a waste of time and would rather get on with their lives, get a job, and not have to live in crap accommodation with very little money. University is basically designed for bums, and it makes sense that people with rich parents would tend to be lazier.

by I'm talking about academics, not bankers - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 11:35am
Tom C said: Erica's argument seems to based on the premise that going to university is a good thing to do. In fact a lot of people just see it as a waste of time and would rather get on with their lives, get a job, and not have to live in crap accommodation with very little money. University is basically designed for bums, and it makes sense that people with rich parents would tend to be lazier. OK, but I'm not talking about the well-off middle classes who have the option to do either and do well with either; there are people who have to "get on with their lives and get a job" because university is not an option and STILL have to live in crap accommodation with very little money. University ought to be for people who want to work hard and learn about their subject; you are right however in the sense that there are a very large number of people here who do appear to think of it only as a finishing school. Perhaps this is an impression fostered by the private schools, because at my state school I was told that coming to Cambridge would involve working hard.

by Erica - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 11:53am
Amelia said: I do think that a confident chatty private school interviewee with 4As who answers questions fluently should be admitted over a less confident, unsure of him/herself comprehensive school applicant with 4As who performs less well at interview. I'm all for access and equality, but I don't think it's fair to reject a private school applicant just because there's a comprehensive school applicant with the same predicted grades. Well, I'm not sure really. Yes, it's difficult to say that one candidate should be rejected and another accepted in any circumstances if they have the same grades. In the instance you mention I should think that I would look at the league tables to see what kind of comprehensive school the kid was from, because although a good state school will be comparable to a private school in terms of output from given input, there are many schools where it would just be impossible to get 4As without a huge amount of effort. A kid at an inner city comp where noone goes on to do A levels CANNOT get any As even if they wanted to unless there is someone around to acknowledge that they are bright and encourage them to keep going. A kid whose parents don't give them pencils to do homework with CANNOT do homework. A kid in a class that is constantly disrupted and has a weak teacher CANNOT learn. If you were sitting your exams this term and there were builders outside making loud noise all the way through (or whatever) you would complain and you would expect some action to be taken. If you have severe dyslexia, you get special arrangements made in exams for you here. If you suffer a bereavement etc, you get special considerations. If you have a relapse of an illness or you have an operation or you just spent too much time rowing, you might degrade and get to repeat a year - you get special considerations. Now are any of these remotely comparable to the disadvantage of being prevented from learning because your parents, your teachers and your friends are just not willing or not able to help you? No. That kind of disadvantage also deserves special consideration. If someone from that kind of environment even manages to get as far as applying to Cambridge they have got through multiple obstacles which most of us are very glad never to have faced, and I think that really really ought to be taken into account. OK, it's not all about the private/comprehensive divide, but that's the start of it.

by jmg (OW) - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 11:54am
Erica said: 4. Grammars/Comps.... I'm not sure what you mean here - I always thought the point of Grammar schools was to get more gifted pupils into a faster academic stream and so give them the preparation they need to (e.g.) get into Cambridge. I'm not sure what difference it makes that someone earned a grammar school place on merit at 11+, when discussing whether they should 'count' towards access statistics, other than perhaps that there should be more grammar schools....

by jmg - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:02pm
Tom C said: Erica's argument seems to based on the premise that going to university is a good thing to do. Having been to a public school well known for its 'relaxed' academic standards, I've seen a lot of people go off to do worthless degrees which are never going to make them any money, simply because that's what 'you do'. These kids know that mummy and daddy will look after them if it all goes wrong, and they certainly won't leave university in debt, so of course they're more likely to go. So, you should always expect more rich kids to go to university than poor kids - just that at the margins they would only be more successful in life because their parents are loaded, not because their degree in sports science from UWE has set them up for life.

by jmg - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:12pm
Erica said: there are many schools where it would just be impossible to get 4As without a huge amount of effort. Quite apart from this hypothetical applicant with four A grades (who sounds to me like they probably deserve a place), think of how many others at this school might have reached the standard had they been taught well. The _only_ solution to this is improve state secondary education - otherwise we'd have admissions tutors wandering round Aldi looking for kids stacking shelves who might have made it had they been sent to a decent school. It's very easy for politicians to blame Cambridge for its admissions policy, since it costs them nothing and is a cheap political win to be seen fighting against 'elitism', but positive discrimination on access grounds amounts to nothing less than penalising private schools (and perhaps Grammar schools too, Erica?) for doing a good job of teaching, and parents for creating a home environment conducive to learning.

by Phil - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:16pm
jmg (OW) said: I'm not sure what you mean here - I always thought the point of Grammar schools was to get more gifted pupils.... Many Counties (eg Hampshire) don't have a grammar school system. This means that students of all abilities go to the same school, and for the first few years at least are taught in the same classes. Although many subjects have sets determined by ability, the class sizes are still in the mid 30s. Infact, in one year my maths class had one too many pupils for tables, so if you were last in you had to work on the floor. At least it encouraged punctuality.....

by Mike - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:19pm
Erica said: it's difficult to say that one candidate should be rejected and another accepted in any circumstances if they have the same grades. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the admissions system has to do. There are way too many applicants predicted to get three As at A-level for Cambridge to be able to take all of them. The admissions procedure has to be discriminating (not discriminatory) because A-level results are not.

by jmg - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:24pm
Phil said: Many Counties (eg Hampshire) don't have a grammar school system. This means that students of all abilities go to the same school, and for the first few years at least are taught in the same classes. Although many subjects have sets determined by ability, the class sizes are still in the mid 30s. Infact, in one year my maths class had one too many pupils for tables, so if you were last in you had to work on the floor. At least it encouraged punctuality..... Absolutely agree that isn't ideal - my point is that if a disproportionate number of Cambridge's state pupils come from grammar schools (and assuming the non-grammar counties aren't especially thick!) then grammar schools (and implicitly selection at entry to secondary school) should be regarded as improving access to Cambridge rather than hindering it

by Dynamical systems analysis anyone?? - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 12:50pm
jmg (OW) said: I'm not sure what you mean here - I always thought the point of Grammar schools was to get more gifted pupils into a faster academic stream and so give them the preparation they need to (e.g.) get into Cambridge. Well, I think in principle they are a good idea. In practice though, doesn't it seem that well-off middle class parents buy their way into the catchment area and then tutor their kids to pass the 11+, thus effectively creating exactly the same "entrance requirements" as a private school without making the payment directly to the school? I live in an area where there are no grammar schools, which I think is generally a good thing for the other local schools. On the other hand I'll admit that the selection process above does happen, as most of the schools in the area do pretty well in league tables and hence house prices rise. Clearly whenever league tables are published there is an unstable equilibrium for all schools being equally good and a stable but massively unfair one with a few good ones where you pay through the nose to live in the catchment and bad ones where everyone else ends up.

by Is positive or negative discrimination the worse? - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 1:11pm
jmg said: The _only_ solution to this is improve state secondary education [...] It's very easy for politicians to blame Cambridge for its admissions policy, since it costs them nothing and is a cheap political win to be seen fighting against 'elitism', but positive discrimination on access grounds amounts to nothing less than penalising private schools (and perhaps Grammar schools too, Erica?) for doing a good job of teaching, and parents for creating a home environment conducive to learning. Yes, absolutely. As I said above, the problem is more with schools than with admissions. On the subject of positive discrimination... Either you believe a private education gives you an advantage or not; if it is not an advantage then you should not pay for it and if it is an advantage then surely there must be some way to compensate those children whose parents cannot afford that advantage? It's all just an example of the normal kind of negative discrimination otherwise. Clearly it isn't fair either way, and yes, I sympathise with any applicant from any background who gets the grades and is rejected - after all, it isn't generally up to them whether or not their parents pay for their education. But if all schools were equal we would have a better base to make it fairer from and a better standard to judge ability by. I don't see any positive aspects in allowing some people to pay for a different education. And yes, the govt has a repsonsibility but I don't think it takes it seriously enough exactly because of the existence of private schools - if the people who have the power to change state secondary schools were obliged to send their kids to them, they might have more incentive to do something really worthwhile.

by jmg - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 1:50pm
Dynamical systems analysis anyone?? said: Well, I think in principle they are a good idea. In practice though, doesn't it seem that well-off middle class parents buy their way into the catchment area and then tutor their kids to pass the 11+ Coaching is going to happen at any age, but I'd have thought it's easier to engineer an ability-based selection at 11 than at 18 (after another five years' good/bad education have had the chance to confuse the issue). Also, not sure if I remember this right, but don't grammar schools take a certain proportion of their pupils unselected from their local catchment area, and the rest selected from the whole county?

by bribed the admissions tutor - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 2:27pm
i thought these days you weren't suppose to know which school someone went to. its no longer on the bit of the ucas form that the admissions people see. hence how can it be bias? i think lots of people from the same school come because they like to meet each other in the street. i was very excited to meet someone from my school in the street the other day. at last, someone other than me went to university!

by Simon - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 3:23pm
jmg said: Also, not sure if I remember this right, but don't grammar schools take a certain proportion of their pupils unselected from their local catchment area, and the rest selected from the whole county? Yes, I think that could be right in some counties. I'm sure I also read that the other schools in Grammar areas achieve better results than should be expected based on those they get to take in at 11. I've been told by experienced teachers that streaming pupils, within a comprehensive, on ability benefits all of the pupils - the best ones can shine and even the disruptive ones apparently do better than expected. My experience of going around schools is that, regardless of the intake/area (and I cover the full remit - leafy grammar in Maidstone through to sink estates in Dover and East London), the real difference is the teachers and the management from the senior teachers. Better teachers are like those in the adverts, they inspire their kids and make them aim for things they might not otherwise get. Poor teachers are generally from abroad and can't wait to finish their teaching - which is just paying their bills during a gap year here - and go home. I think the point I'm making is that both the intangable suport (inspiration) and the tangable support (interview practice, etc.), can happen at any school and it depends on the teachers. But I acknowledge that this is more common in the private sector (where teachers are inspired by money among other things).

by Independent Candidate - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 4:23pm
Erica said: Also if your pupils are not applying to Oxbridge it may simply be that the courses at other universities are more attractive; I think there are quite a few people who end up on completely the wrong course because someone told them that they really ought to apply to X university and having to go to Y would be a bit of a failure. Then of course they consequently do worse with the degree. Might there be a bias toward public/private/independent/whatever-you-want-to-call-them schools, in that their students are more likely to be pushed towards a more traditional subject for their degree rather than, say (giving a stereotypical example), Media Studies or other more "modern" subjects which aren't on offer at Oxbridge, as well as the more general bias towards actually using one of your six choices up on Oxbridge in the first place ?

by I seem to have started quite a debate... - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 5:06pm
Amelia said: I think what Tom might have been trying to say was that an admissions system has to have some criteria on which to base their decisions, otherwise it really would just be totally random, and you might as well throw dice to decide who got the places. I don't think he was saying that the admissions system should be inherently biased towards private/public school applicants. However, I do think that a confident chatty private school interviewee with 4As who answers questions fluently should be admitted over a less confident, unsure of him/herself comprehensive school applicant with 4As who performs less well at interview. I'm all for access and equality, but I don't think it's fair to reject a private school applicant just because there's a comprehensive school applicant with the same predicted grades. Going back to Amelia's point, there are so many accusations flying around of bias in towards private/public schools, race etc. that as usual, the government seem to have totally over-reacted and introduced these stupid targets. Whilst they may be good-meaning, they actually reinforce the prejudice that is already there. If the university has to accept a certain percentage of state school/black/female/bisexual... students each year, they are immediately suggesting that blacks, females, bisexuals etc. are different from everyone else. Yet the whole point was to create a system of equality. I admit that the case for state vs. public schools is slightly different, but the principle remains that the university should be able to accept the best people, irrespective of background, race, colour, sex, sexuality... If this means that one year a huge proportion of the best candidates are black, or from a public school, then so be it. By setting these targets, we are indirectly descriminating against suitable candidates who fall outside of these 'discriminated groups'. The problem obviously comes with assessing whether they deserve a place or not and with a higher proportion of people receiving 3 or 4 As at A-level, it's no surprise the university's finding it hard. The reason why Cambridge is one of the best is because it picks the best students (or at least that's the idea). Whether the students coming from public schools or state schools are more prepared for Oxbridge applications is a matter for the schools. There will always be some schools that help to prepare students for university entrance and in this sense, yes there is a bias towards richer public/private schools. This of course goes into the whole issue of rich/poor etc. which is another issue. My main point is that the university should be able to select the best students irrespective of gender, race etc. and that i think the current 'target' system is seriously flawed.

by AHLF - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 5:06pm
On the subject of positive discrimination... Either you believe a private education gives you an advantage or not; if it is not an advantage then you should not pay for it. On a slightly tangential note, I totally disagree with Erica's implication that the value of a school is determined by the help it gives towards University admission. I have been told many times, "well I saved £000's and still got here". I think a school is MUCH more than a stepping stone to University (much as a University is more than a path to a job.)

by Tom C - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 5:19pm
But if all schools were equal we would have a better base to make it fairer from and a better standard to judge ability by. I don't see any positive aspects in allowing some people to pay for a different education. That's tantamount to authoritarianism. Why make some people have worse educations just because some others do? Might as well put everyone in prison just cos some people happen to be unfortunate in that way.

by Sam - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 6:23pm
is it possible that, heaven forbid, some people don't actually want to come to oxbridge? private school kids get a lot of pressure from teachers/parents and are bought up aspiring to come to oxbridge, but most other people aren't for example, i know at least half a dozen people who got the four A grades and didn't even think of applying to oxbridge purely because there isn't a bar or a club every two and a half metres. it's their choice, at the end of the day they'll get good grades, good jobs, so why does it even matter?

by Posh? - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 8:08pm
On a slight tangent, I got called "posh" today by an old friend who lives near me, and went to exactly the same secondary school etc., because.... I told her I was staying in Cambridge and working in a small room in the Cav with a laser all summer, for a small amount of money rather than coming home. Which just proves that nothing makes any sense, and you can't win anyway.

by Erica - Mon 6th Jun 2005, 8:32pm
Tom C said: That's tantamount to authoritarianism. Why make some people have worse educations just because some others do? No, the point is that this way everyone will get a better education because it will be in everyone's interests to make the state education system better.

by in the know - Tue 7th Jun 2005, 8:45am
I kind of agree with the idea that 'more traditional' schools will encorage more applicants. even if our teachers could be inspiring they spent their whole time crowd controlling and teaching my fellow classmates to tie their shoelaces and had no time to 'inspire'. I was in the remedial group at school and by the time a sat my GCSEs there were only abot 10 of us in the class because the others had either had babies or couldn't work out how to get out of bed. at least i can't complain about class sizes but i don't ever think i was 'inspired'. there are still MASSEEEF predudices in my school (they aren;t interested in having me back through the access scheme), as the teachers think cambridge and oxford are posh and elitist. In this case how the hell can cambridge expect to recruit such people if no one is encorage them to apply. I despair. Its no wonder state schools are underrepresented if this is the attitude. How to fix it? Go and chat to people at home and tell them how great cambridge is and that there are as many people who are up their own arses as anywhere. Really, i think this is the only way. Even better, go to your local rowing club and get the good rowers to come!

by Still curious - Tue 7th Jun 2005, 9:18am
I really didn't mean to open up such a debate right here but I have a reasonable amount of knowledge having worked within 2 very different schools (one private, one comprehensive) in the last 18 months. As this is a public thread I have to be careful what I say but I think there are a lot of good points being made here. It is clear that there were kids at the comprehensive school I was at who have the same ability as many kids at the place I'm at now but who do far less well. Clearly this is not their fault and so it seems to me to be totally reasonable for Cambridge to expect a different level of achievement from these pupils, but my point is that Cambridge already do! We have specifically been told this! I would whole-heartedly agree that the govt needs to do more to improve comps and in a more constructive way just than throwing wheelbarrows of tax money at it like their efforts with the NHS, but the teaching and expectations at my comp. school were actually pretty good. I would agree with Erica that it is the home life of the kids that is often the issue and I just don't know what one could do about that. However, it seems to me that if one part of a group is underperforming, it is rather illogical to penalise the part of the group that is doing well. Another problem is that A-levels are not very discriminating (I think that's the right one, never was much good at English) and so it is very hard to tell who is really good as opposed to fairly good, which I think is a problem. When 90% of your pupils get A's then it is harder to tell who the top ones really are and no wonder the universities sometimes get this wrong. Two of the brightest guys in the school I went to got turned down by Cambridge yet were far more capable than many people I shared supervisions with. The admissions process will never be perfect! I also agree that this thread needs to be taken off the public area asap. Can we do this, Cath / Martin?

by Rising to the debate... - Fri 10th Jun 2005, 11:04am
Good luck at the weekend, Mark. Try not to get too many wrong... :-)