Class Warfare in the Classroom

O.k. That's it, I can bottle it up no longer. Steam has to be released, anger reduced, and general frustration at the incompetence of the British government worked off. I am referring to the current froo-hah over the Oxbridge administration policy by the Labour government (though depending on the day, it could also have been the state of the NHS or the decent into positive discrimination against criminals (Looks shifty, carrying crowbar and hold-all, but black so leave them alone.).

For those of you not in the know, I'll set the scene a little. Laura Spence, an obviously intelligent girl (all A*'S at GCSE, predicted A's for A-level's) applied to read Medicine at Oxford, and was rejected after interview. The Head of her state-run comprehensive school was "incensed" at this "obvious" discrimination against state education on the part Oxford, and immediately (as you do) ran to the press. Seconds later, Gordon Brown, looking for an opportunity to start increasing his popularity, especially among the old grass-root Labour supporters, suddenly hit upon an idea. "I know," he thought to himself with glee, "let's try and revive the whole class war again. This'll be an instant vote into the Premier's chair, I just know it." And with that, he toddled off to the TUC's conference, and, as his advisors stared on in shock, proceeded to very firmly place his foot in his mouth.

You see, Laura Spence is no ordinary Oxford reject. No. She's an Oxford reject who has won a £65,000 bursary to study Biochemistry at Harvard. She is, officially, part of the UK's "Brain Drain" to America. "Why" screamed Gordon, "is a perfectly good candidate for a top University been rejected by Oxford, causing her to be nabbed by Harvard? She has top grades and so should therefore be guaranteed a place. Oxford just don't like anyone who isn't privately educated. And that is my final word on the matter, despite any evidence that might be turn up for the contrary. I am right, please vote for me." And pleased at a job well done, Gordon toddled off to find more ways of making sure that pensioners stayed below the poverty line.

But let's look at these facts shall we. Oxford accepts approximately 54% of their undergraduate intake from state-run schools. "Aha!" but I hear you cry, "90% of the population is educated in state-run schools. Those numbers are nowhere near the same. Gordon (bless his cotton socks) is obviously onto something." And if you only looked at that figure, yes he would. But statistics are amazingly flexible, and unfortunately can be picked and chosen to prove any argument. The actual proportion of applications received by Oxford from state-run schools is 56%. I think that this little nugget of truth would prove quite happily that Oxford are in no-way biased, just simply looking for the best and most talented candidates available. In fact, if anything, it is the state school pupils who are prejudiced against Oxford. Now, let's look at some other facts.

1. Laura applied to study medicine. Medicine is notoriously hard to get into, only 2/3 applicants get a place. And yet she received 3 other offers, one for Nottingham which has an exemplary med school, so it's not as if she didn't have the option of staying in Britain to study. One wonders if, having been offered a place at Oxford, she would have accepted it over Harvard. I don't think so. (Incidentally, she is the second pupil from her school to go to Harvard to study. I doubt many private schools have that record.)
2. Everyone who applies to Oxbridge has exactly the same grades, i.e.. a straight set of A's. The university have to whittle down the number not by looking at grade averages, but at performance during interview. And unfortunately, on the day, Laura didn't make the grade, or atleast, wasn't as good as the others. Which is a fact of life and happens to us all at some stage or other.
3. The college which Laura applied to only accepts five candidates for medicine. Of those five this year, 3 are from state schools, and three are female. Nuf said.

1. The current education system is a shamble. Class sizes are too big, teachers morale at an all time low. More and more students are leaving school without reaching their full potential. And whose fault is this? Need I answer. What parent, when faced with the choice of sending their child to the local comprehensive where they'll be part of a 30 strong group lead by one weak teacher, and the local fee paying school with class sizes of 15 and a 95% pass rate for exams, wouldn't dig their hands in their pockets and send their little darling to be educated privately? O.K quite a lot, but often these families don't even have pockets in which to dig their hands. They have to rely on the government to educate their child to a suitable standard, and unfortunately they are being let down.
2. Back in the days of yore, England had a system going whereby those children who showed intellectual promise were sent to Grammar schools to be educated as well as, if not better than, the private schools. In those days, the percentage of state-run pupils at Oxford was 68%. But then Labour came along and said "But what of those poor bastards who didn't get into the Grammar schools? You can not decide on someone's future by a test done at the age of 11. Which is a fair and just point. However, Labour solved this problem by closing down the grammar schools. Way hay problem solved, and Oxford state school admittance falls. You have to admit, Labour is a great leveller. Instead of half the population living the life of Riley and half living in slums, we are all meant to be in the crap. Woo hoo Labour for at least having a clear policy on social status. Just remember that none of this applies to Tony. He is great and good. Worship Tony. And of course vote Labour! At least we will have a level playing field with which to fail our children!
3. As much as Gordon would dearly love Laura Spence to be from a typical working class family, I'm afraid it just isn't going to work. She comes from a pleasant middle class family, who occupy a pleasant middle class home, on a pleasant middle class estate. Of course the real joke is is that Labour really cannot abide the middle class. They are the ones that have to struggle to pay for the children to go to University (working class families get subsidised and upper classes can easily afford to send junior to University). They are the ones worse affected by Labours barmy taxing policy. Unfortunately, Labour hasn't realised that they are the only way that they are going to be voted in next election. But no-one tell them, please.
4. Labour themselves have set up a major obstacle for many people wanting to go to university by introducing tuition fees. This combined with the replacement of student grants with loans has put many people off the idea of university. Who wants to work (reasonably) hard for three years, become £15,000 in debt, and still have no guarantee of a decent job at the end of it all. Of all the people I know with degrees, 75% are in a job that they didn't need their degree to get. That's a waste of three years for both them and the employment sector. In those three years they could have been earning a wage rather than starting off life with a debt, and no increased hope of a suitable job. I don't know about you, but I can think of several ways to end up £15,000 in debt without working your socks off for the privilege.

Followup

Classroom Warfare (American Version)

First, a bow to Ms. Meacher for her intelligent dissection of the school system in Britain. *bows*

Many of the problems she has described, such as obscenely-sized (30+ students) class and teacher morale are also big problems over here in the US of A. Dropping out is common, as is a prevalent discipline problem in some schools. For instance, I had a class this year with 35+ people in it, but it had nicely dropped to about 26 by the end of the semester. Discipline is an important issue in some schools, as can be seen from tapes of classrooms; my mother is a teacher and a tape of her 4th-grade classroom one day could be (generously) termed "A day in the primate house." (As a further note, she left the place rather than put up with the circus-like atmosphere there.) This kind of problem, when voiced repeatedly by angry parents, would usually draw the vote-hungry politicians in hordes to rectify the situation. However, because the problem has been killed by TV overexposure, it no longer draws as much attention. This may also be due, to some extent, to the highly-publicized massacre at Columbine High School last year. (I imagine everybody who reads this will know about the incident.) To link the two together, the politicians need something involving schools (concern for children, future generations, ad nauseam) to show on TV and create propaganda for themselves and to rake in the campaign-fund dollars. Mundane classroom problems like teacher morale no longer spawn the needed uproar.

Enter the butchery.

Incidents like that, whose media-fallout is very public, very loud, and therefore perfect for political exploitation, make all the politicians look good. The Democrats look good for being anti-gun and therefore protective, while the Republicans scream that any other "at-risk youths" must be reined in by their parents, and accordingly win votes from so many parents. So, to sum up this hodgepodge of facts, the politicians in Washington, as usual, waste time worrying about the flashier problems with schools (i.e. massacres perpetrated by idiotic students) and ignore the actual issues, like having one depressed teacher overseeing the rough education of 30 students, many of whom have a provisional "soon-to-be-incarcerated" sign stamped on their foreheads.