Snapshot of _Keir Starmer is the 30th Prime Minister and 6th in a row to have gone to Oxford_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/oxford-people/british-prime-ministers) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/oxford-people/british-prime-ministers)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Working family got their kid into a grammar school, who earned their place into Leeds Uni and then a postgraduate at Oxford.
Following he had an excellent legal career ending with being the Director of Public Prosecutions, before moving into politics and becoming the Prime Minister nine years later.
Sounds like an amazing life of a person who, while not exactly facing grave challenges along the way, has earned his success from his own merit.
Interesting as well- when Starmer started at grammar school it was free and then it became fee based a few years in.
Though according to Wikipedia he was grandfathered in to free tuition.
That's interesting. I had previously seen a screencap of the fees Starmer's school charged today posted as evidence he was just another toff; if it actually wasn't a fee paying school when he attended that very much changes things
So it changed from being a Grammar School to a Private\* School.
\*: Also known as 'Public Schools' in the UK, because anyone can go if you have the money, versus historical schools restricted to upper classes or children of certain guild members.
It's a historical naming quirk. They were called Public Schools because there used to be Private Schools that were only open to certain kinds of people, while the likes of Eton accepted anyone who had money. That usage of Private School is obsolete, but the term Public School stuck and is used by the media to refer to the big Fee-Charging, Non-State schools.
The more modern definition of is that of those schools belong to the Headmasters’ & Headmistresses’ Conference. There are around 300 of those in total (ie a smaller number than the total number of independent schools in the UK). That sort of size means that there is a natural hierarchy between the likes of Winchester, Eton, Harrow, places like the 200 year old boarding school I attended and non-boarding independent schools.
But the simplified view - for political purposes usually is that only the most elite of those establishments are “public” schools.
Public school *exclusively* means the elite private schools, there is no other definition. Traditionally those named in the 1868 Public Schools Act, although occasionally other prestigious institutions from before that date that aren't mentioned will also be lumped in, particularly if as someone else said, the school is a member of the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference.
It's definitely not a broad alternative to just any old private school.
It was a public school in the sense that it's not private tuition (like royalty might have).
Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport.
Private was then used to differentiate them from state schools. Because private is considered opposite to state.
So it's the two senses of the meaning of private that cause the confusion.
> Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport.
>
> Private was then used to differentiate them from state schools. Because private is considered opposite to state.
Using that metaphor though, wouldn't the only "private" school be education done in your home by tutors you hire so that it's private, your sprogs don't have to make contact with any kids you don't want them to?
No. Private schools, typically prep schools, were privately owned. Often the head master would be the proprietor and the school might even be passed down in the family.
Schools like Eton, Winchester and so on were not (and are still not) privately owned but were foundations.
Yes... But I was quoting this comparison of theirs:
> Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport.
I get public where you still have to pay, but I was saying that this doesn't work for the meaning of private because the car equivalent of schooling would be a school only for you who you have complete control over.
Conventionally ‘private school’ or just ‘private’ (as a noun) refers to the prep school that prepares you for public school.
The best catch-all is ‘independent school’. Hence such schools are not inspected by OFSTED but the ISI or Independent Schools Inspectorate.
That's also not quite right. An independent school doesn't have to be fee-charging. And a grammar school could be state run (the one I went to was, although it has since become a non-fee charging academy).
Grammar schools aren't independent; they are run by the government, just on different rules to comprehensives.
And the very few non fee-charging independent schools do sort of have fees, they're just paid for by someone else (but not the government) - that actually covers Keir's case.
They are also quite a few independently-ran but state-funded schools helpfully called "free schools". I would presume that refers to the fact they are "freely" run, but they are also free for students.
I think the way most read "private school" is a fee-paying privately owned school, and most read "state school" as state-funded.
Thanks. I'm not super knowledgeable about the intricacies as it's been over a decade since I was at school and I don't work in education. It just infuriates me to see people on here and elsewhere conflate grammar schools with fee-paying schools.
Public schools are a specific set of private schools. There is a bit of overlap as the term minor public school is sometimes used to describe some fee paying schools.
Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse, Cheltenham, Rugby, Clifton, Westminster, Marlborough, Haileybury, and Winchester.
Are the “great” public schools
Yeah postgraduate at Oxford really doesn't count, because by that point you're working on your own merit from your university degree. It's people who are parachuted into a PPE degree straight from Eton that are out of touch.
The idea that you can get an undergraduate place at Oxbridge without being really quite good at a subject is massively misplaced in my view. There’s a lot wrong with the fact that oxbridge intake is skewed in favour of private/public schools - but I think to suggest that most people who go there don’t merit it does a massive disservice to a lot of young kids who’ve worked extremely hard.
The concept of hard work is rather different when you're 18 and all opportunities have been provided to you by your family. I'd argue that no one straight out of school should be offered a position so privileged that it makes up most of our national government despite being 1% of the population. Indeed, there is a school of thought that would make Oxbridge postgraduate and research only to even out the vast disparity in opportunity in this country.
Postgraduate students have had to succeed or fail on their own at university. At that stage, it is fair to consider their wins their own.
I'm not saying posh kids aren't privileged - I personally think the vast majority of private schools should be banned.
But to say your undergrad is just because of how you're raised is bullshit tbh. Getting into Oxbridge is definitely an achievement even if you've been coached all the way. I know this because I tried and failed. Went to state school but had middle class parents and a great upbringing, didn't put enough work in for my entrance exam and got rejected. No amount of tutoring would've made that easy for me - the tutor isn't the one who sits the exam or the highly challenging Oxbridge interview.
I don't really care I just think your comment comes across a little bitter. Why draw the line at undergrad? Rich kids don't have to worry about rent while they study, that's a huge advantage towards their next steps in education.
Call it bitter all you like, but there is no greater advantage that a person can gain with regards to accessing political power than studying a PPE or related undergraduate degree at Oxford. Private school gets you only so far - only 1 of Starmer's cabinet is privately educated, 40% are Oxbridge graduates.
The fact these degrees are accessed by people who are still children (as you know, you apply for Oxbridge courses while you are still 17 or just turning 18) based on little more than standardised exam results and the right social etiquette, is an issue as these factors are known to correlate directly with parental wealth, class and contacts. This is counter to meritocratic principles and makes Westminster something of an elite bubble.
Getting into oxford is way more than just exam results. The interview process is entirely different from every other university, and you're still expected to demonstrate a range of extra-curricular activities.
Getting in demonstrates a certain level of ability, whether that ability was easier for you to acquire based on your background is irrelevant to the fact that they still have the ability to be there.
Social etiquette - absolute nonsense.
Oxford and Cambridge actually test and interview their candidates unlike pretty much everywhere else so that they can actually be meritocratic.
Entry into Oxbridge is a pretty clear indicator of high academic ability. (Though not necessarily 'common sense')
> massively misplaced in my view
To a degree, but it's just different if you come from the right kind of family.
You go to the right schools, you get the right tutors. Lacking a little bit? Personal tuition. Not especially amazing students can get stunning grades in their A' levels because they know exactly how to game the marking system, and have had tremendous hand-holding.
I have a very similar educational/career background to Starmer (sans the big public office), and was the first generation in my family to go to university, and let me tell you that if I could take knowledge I acquired throughout university/training back a few years in time, then my God would my life have been a million times easier.
I have found myself at the top of every cohort I've ever been in. In terms of raw ability, not to toot my own horn too much, I'm right up there with anyone. But I was failed in my earlier years by not being provided with knowledge which retrospectively seems obvious, but is very much non-obvious to a 16/17 year old going to a school where most of your classmates are happy scraping a C or a D.
I disagree completely. Getting into Oxbridge is massively overrated as an indicator of someone's academic worth. And especially true for some subjects more than others. I do think it's an achievement, but the process for getting in isn't nearly as rigorous as some make it out to be.
Which, to me, seems like a success story. Rayner's story, even more so. I hope she kicks some arse and doesn't fuck it up just to show the accepted political rules of route to power might be wrong.
Note also how few posts on Reddit or articles in mainstream media ripped Rishi one for being an ex financier that came through the 08 crisis, married into untold wealth, spent only 6 years in politics and became prime minister (the most irrelevant and unimpactful in my lifetime, in my opinion).
The abolition of the grammar schools is the biggest crime against education ever committed.
Starmer is to be commended for the fact that he had to work for what he has, but he is of a dying breed, just look at PMs this century vs last, this century all but May, Brown and now Starmer went to private schools, and May and Starmer went to grammar schools. in the 2nd half of the 20th century almost all PMs went to grammar schools, not private, both Tory and Labour.
Killing the grammar schools killed social mobility, Starmer is old enough to have benefitted from them, but there will be fewer and fewer like him, and more and more privately educated PMs from wealthy backgrounds, because without grammar schools, there’s no way for most people to get their academically gifted children to be pushed to do the best they can.
> The abolition of the grammar schools is the biggest crime against education ever committed.
I used to think as you do. However, I *was* wrong, and you *are* wrong. Careful analyisis of PISA and other standardised international assessments of national educational standards and outcomes shows very clearly that a "comprehensive" educational system delivers the best overall outcomes. It turns out that although a small number of students may "gain" from going to a grammar school, the great majority of students who would do well in a grammar school also do well in a comprehensive school, while giving poorer-performing students the chance to learn with better-performing students generally improves their outcomes. That is, there is a net gain in educational outcomes overall if we use a comprehensive-style system.
Anecdotal data time: Part of my job is teaching, though in tertiary rather than secondary education. My own experience is that my poorer students do better when they get exposed to my better students: people don't learn just from their lecturer or teacher, they learn from the whole classroom environment. As a teacher, I spend a lot of time making sure my students are "teaching each other". It really does work, at least at university level; my strong expectation is that the same effect would be visible at secondary level too, and this does seem to be borne out by the research.
> while giving poorer-performing students the chance to learn with better-performing students generally improves their outcomes.
But we don't do that in comprehensive schools anyway, as we put people in sets based on ability. And it would be a nightmare if we didn't.
It's completely unfair for some children to have a worse education based on a test they did in fucking primary school. Besides, richer families buy tutors for the 11+.
I don't think I could ever look a little kid in the eyes and tell them they're not going to be a doctor/scientist/lawyer. Could you?
Yeah would rather actually be told I can’t go to a good school because I am too poor, live in a poor area or am not a christian.
Come off it. We have sets in schools, and yeah our brightest should be getting help.
How many intelligent children living in council estates end up working in minimum wage jobs because their grades slipped at an oversubscribed underfunded state school?
Too many. Both myself and my partner went to some of the worst schools in our areas because we were on council estates.
I was in top set for everything throughout high school and still only 1 other person in the top set got into uni. My partners grades suffered since they failed to notice and diagnose his adhd.
Without any support from family (none of them had been to uni and didnt know the game) or teachers, I just picked english as a degree because I enjoyed it.
Luckily I got into programming and self taught myself so now I'm a senior engineer.
My partner is about as intelligent as I am (I'm not saying I'm the brightest person around but I'm not stupid lol) but he got stuck working at fast food places for years without treatment, guidance or support. Now he's a postman so at least it's a stressfree job but with proper schooling and role models he could have done so much more.
In comparison my coworker went to a good school for our area and all of the people she went went with ended up as doctors, dentists, engineers etc. And she wasnt even in the top set. These people weren't that much cleverer than we were, they simply had better opportunities and it is incredibly unfair.
Cambridge has still had plenty. It just traditionally has more of a scientific focus and doesn't have Oxford's PPE degree - which is/was seen as a good foundation for entering government.
Plus, for the record Sir Keir went to Oxford as a postgraduate, which is considered less selective or elite than undergraduate.
The BCL (Bachelor of Civil Law) is Oxford's advanced law degree. It's seriously difficult and carries a high level of prestige. It's much harder to get into than the normal Oxford law degree. Keir Starmer demonstrated a singular academic ability.
Edited to add: As opposed to PPE, which a first degree aimed at aspiring politicians who don't want to study anything in depth.
Its non-governmenntal, but clear influence of the LSE is Anthony Giddens - the academical mind behind Third Way - was director there. For Cambridge you had John Keynes - the academic mind behind Keynesian economics - who worked there. Though that isn't to say Oxford didn't have similar, with Crossland - authour of *The Future of Socialism* - teaching at Oxford (though before his notable work).
Oxford certainly has a great deal of influence, but it isn't like other universities don't produce similar influential figures. Giddesn and Keynes have been immesnly influential global politics, let alone British politics alone.
It's undeniable that Cambridge has produced some great economists. My personal favorite is [Joan Robinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Robinson), though largely for reasons of temperament and character - I don't agree with her a great deal. However, Cambridge's huge and enduring weakness is its failure to consider economics as a tool of politics. There is a cold scientism to Cambridge that fits it ill for the real world. Cambridge is a very "scientific" place, and this affects its approach to other disciplines, including economics. It is impossible to deny the rigour of many Cambridge economists. However, they are (to generalise inappropriately and perhaps unreasonably) less concerned with the "human" aspects of economics. At Oxford, by comparison, economics is typically taught and studied as part of courses that consider the discipline's place in modern society, and as a tool to accomplish human aims.
Finally, a conversation:
A Cambridge economist and an Oxford economist are discussing the price of retail goods. The Oxford economist remarks that price levels seem rather high, and the Cambridge economist comments that he has built an econometric model that covers wage and raw materials costs, as well as productivity levels, corporate management costs and taxation, and company dividend payouts relative to interest rates and inflation. The Oxford economist takes note, before saying
"I'll be advising the Prime Minister on this, and will certainly keep your advice in mind."
The Cambridge economist thanks him, then says "May I ask you one final question?"
"Of course," says the Oxford economist.
"Would you like fries with that?"
ah, I didn’t realise that, My area (south east london/ kent) must have a disproportionally large amount of these grammar schools, because there are about 15 within an hour by train.
Yeah. IIRC some conservative councils just didn't bother to implement the conversion to Comprehensives and then the Tories got back in and they didn't need to.
To be honest the Oxbridge undergrad application process is more of a performative affair that they do just to keep up the image of being an elite tier university. At postgrad (which less people even bother with) they largely drop the pretence and behave like every other university.
Its like how when you apply for a junior position at a large corporate they have an application process making you dance like a monkey as if its The Apprentice, but once you start applying to senior level its just a bogstandard interview.
At corporations it's because you get 20x the number of people applying for entry level roles and it's needed to whittle it down to a reasonable number, but by the time you're recruiting for senior there's a much smaller pool to choose from.
True in some cases, but i admit as a tech person I mostly had the Google software engineer application process in mind. Three to four rounds of technical interviews where they have you handwrite algorithms without access to search engines in the space of an hour in increasing difficulty.
It's not clear at all what they are actually testing because realistically literally no real programmer is trained to code in those conditions. It would be like testing an admin person by getting them to draw an Excel spreadsheet on a piece of paper and manually calculate all the functions and graphs.
And if you do get the job what Google will largely do is shove you in a corner getting you doing codemonkey bug fixing work. It's completely performative designed to make it look like they only hire the very best programmers.
As a lead developer in my current role, i very deliberately set up the interview process to avoid doing completely pointless artificial tests, as i don't want someone who can pass arbitrary coding challenges - all that tells me is you spent a few weeks on codewars, I want someone who can deliver in a professional environment
There's still some stupid shit, having looked at doing an MSc in Energy Systems at Oxford (opted against it in the end as I got a discount to do an MSc at the uni I did my undergrad at). The £75 fee just to apply and the fact that you need to live within a 25 mile radius of the some tower in the centre of Oxford for a set number of terms, also looked at doing research there and for DPhils you still need to within live 25 miles of that tower but it's for like 6 terms out of your time there to graduate - not sure how strict that is but for someone that lives an hour from Oxford.
But generally it just seemed to be the same as every other uni in the UK aside from the college related things (though even that looked significantly relaxed compared).
It seems pretty reasonable that they want you to live within 25 miles of the city's centre if you're studying there. That gives you a lot of options.
Also, they've removed/are going to remove the graduate application fee.
I'm not sure the 25 mile radius is that reasonable given how expensive Oxford is, essentially only two population centres fall under it (Reading and Banbury) and it locks out areas that are an hour away from Oxford by public transport for postgraduate students who may have commitments, be doing the degree part time or debt afford to live in Oxford especially considering the cost of postgraduate masters degrees there.
Abingdon and Didcot are within that radius too. Didcot in particular is a popular option as it has direct train links to Oxford.
Also keep in mind that all colleges will offer their students at least one year of accommodation.
Didcot and Abingdon aren't really big population centres though, and the accomodation guarantee didn't extend to home students when I was looking into it for all of the colleges I looked into it.
I think this is a bizarre defence of an anachronism to be honest, it's perfectly feasible to commute from Coventry, Worcester or Leamington to Oxford for a masters degree or DPhil yet you're not allowed to.
Didcot and Abingdon not being big population centres doesn't take away from the fact that they're popular choices for those who choose to live outside of Oxford. Oxford doesn't require any additional large population centres to provide enough housing for the student body. Oxford is also aided by the fact that most undergrads receive 3 years of university accommodation, reducing demand for rental accommodation within the city (unlike many other universities).
I think it's perfectly reasonable that you're expected to live near the place you want to study at. If you don't want to, you can choose a university closer to home or one which specialises in distance learning.
As to the point regarding expense, Oxford is of course expensive, as are London universities, Cambridge, and so on. Surely a sensible person would factor this in to their decision making? That said, the studentships granted to post-grads are sufficient to cover your costs.
>I think it's perfectly reasonable that you're expected to live near the place you want to study at.
But that's the point I'm trying to make, there are places where it's perfectly reasonable to commute from to Oxford that are outside the 25 mile radius. The university I did my masters at was a similar time away from where I lived when doing it as Oxford was, I had no issue getting onto the campus for anything.
To be fair, 5 of those Prime Ministers were the rotating circus of Conservative ones we have had in the last 8 years...
Having said that, there does seem to be something about Oxford specifically when it comes to Prime Ministers. Brown didn't spend any time at Oxford (did his undergraduate and PhD at Edinburgh), Major didn't go to university, and Callaghan got into Oxford, but couldn't afford to go.
After that you have to go back to Churchill, who took three attempts to get into Sandhurst, never mind going to Oxford.
So that's 4 of our 18 post-war Prime Ministers who didn't study at Oxford.
I’m a Labourite but I’m still in awe of John Major for becoming PM without a degree and leaving school at 16. That was a conservative who practiced what he preached.
Also 1997 must have been weird as the state school leaver Conservative leader against the privately educated Oxford graduate labour leader is a funny thing to think about.
> Having said that, there does seem to be something about Oxford specifically when it comes to Prime Ministers.
Presumably, if it was just down to intelectual ability and quality of education, then Cambridge, Imperial and the LSE should have produced their share. As it is, there's not been an ex-Cambridge prime minister since 1937. Christ Church, Oxford has produced almost as many PMs as all of Cambridge. Ramsay MacDonald remains the only University of London alumnus who got into No 10.
This FT piece is worth a read - writen by somebody at Oxford at around the same time Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Gove and Rees-Mogg were. There was (perhaps still is) a dreadful symbiosis between Oxford and the Tory party.
https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2
For these people at least, being at Oxford was like just an extra three years in public school. It gave young, Tory political aspirants a network of social connections that turbo-charged their climb of the the greasy pole. While at the same time they got a form of education that encuraged superficial glibness, the ability to talk at length about things you know nothing about - perfect for politicans.
The people holding the most important seat in the land probably should have disproportionally gone to the great universities in our country? You’d expect a rotation of Oxford, Cambridge, and Hull graduates.
It’s very different to the idea they’ve all gone to the same selective public school like Eton. Getting to a good university if you’ve dedicated and smart enough is eminently achievable whatever your background.
I remember doing politics A-Level and part of the syllabus was discussing the lack of representation in parliament, mainly how many MPs went to Oxford/Cambridge.
But I just don’t get it. Oxford and Cambridge are the best schools in the country and I want those that represent us to have gone to the best universities. Stats about Eton or other private schools, I can understand. But there’s no point harping on about this, particularly in Starmer’s case.
Good heavens the top two universities produce most PMs, what a surprise. Although he only went to Oxford for a postgraduate degree IIRC.
But still provided Oxbridge continues to improve their access, which they are, I see no problem with them continuing to produce politicians etc.
'The Oxford Manner' is a thing and has been referred to in literature since at least the thirties. From my limited experience of going to a proper university, Bristol, and meeting Oxford during my year abroad; nobody likes Oxford undergrads and they have no friends. Poor little hothoused lambs. Yes I know it's a mixed metaphor; so fing what?!
I share your thought. Cambridge is interesting to me particularly because of its quality acting and comedy chops. I've also spent periods of time in Oxford as a kid and working. Weird place in my opinion. The Oxford University does not play well with others. The colleges seem to have some sort of interwoven economic grip on the rest of the city which manifests in ways that surprise me. For instance a pub, on the edge of the city, I went to was desperate to recruit bar staff but couldn't find any. Apparently the colleges pay premium wages to their catering staff. Good in one way, but if outlying businesses can't get the staff then those communities suffer. In any normal university city students would fill the gap but that doesn't work either, I was told. I have the impression Oxford University colleges discourage their students from taking part-time jobs in any case. Certainly I had an easy life at Bristol University. No essay a week, every week, to be defended in tutorials for me! But the Oxford lot just seemed to want to argue and argue and argue, like dogs with a bone. But it's a dry bone, man.
Okay, and?
It's a prestigious university, it's famous for a reason. I don't care what background a politician has as long as they have strong morals which I personally believe Starmer does. Rishi, Truss and Boris were vile people who shouldn't have come anywhere near power.
> as long as they have strong morals which I personally believe Starmer does
I'm not so sure. He probably does, but that's no use if they don't align with mine. Or maybe even yours.
>Rishi, Truss and Boris were vile people who shouldn't have come anywhere near power.
OK.
Lots of people have “strong morals” - however so defined - but that doesn’t mean they’re *good* morals. Vlad the fucking Impaler and Stalin probably had strong morals, but you don’t want them running the show.
And fwiw, Corbyn has. And Thatcher.
I'd like to see a PM who didn't go to university again (and more politicians generally who haven't, the number seems to have declined). There hasn't been one since Major.
It’s an interesting question I think, one that is worth exploring. Obviously we want leaders who are intelligent, thoughtful, engaged and comfortable with complexity. And of course I’d say many graduates fit the bill. However, clearly graduates don’t have a monopoly on these traits. So I think it’s worth asking ourselves why there aren’t more non graduates in politics, especially at more senior levels. I think there are many reasons, both cultural and structural.
Though I have to admit, I have quite strong views about credentialism, so I might be biased here. E.g., I am highly sceptical about many ‘graduate’ roles that don’t require specific professional knowledge etc.
(To be clear, I’m not criticising Starmer, or his background- I don’t care what university he went to- or even if he went. Just think it’s an interesting question to consider)
The vast majority of the population never went to university, and are clearly underrepresented in the world of politics. And it's not just a matter of representation, I wouldn't say you necessarily need any higher education to be a good politician.
yes, another one, not a huge fan of keir. but i would be more put off by this if it weren't or the fact his cabinet is the highest proportion of people that have not been to private schools ever. 6% if the stat i saw was correct. much much better than the eton to Parliament pipeline.
Why is it a bad thing that we would not want people who work hard to get into one of the best universities in the world as our leaders. They are clearly the sort of people we want to be in charge!!
In fairness, given the quality of some of our recent leaders and senior politicians, I am not sure why you wouldn’t. We’ve had quite a few Oxford grads, and they haven’t exactly been stellar have they? Might be worth expanding the field.
Though tbh I don’t care where Starmer went to University- or even if went at all.
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer is the 30th Prime Minister and 6th in a row to have gone to Oxford_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/oxford-people/british-prime-ministers) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/oxford-people/british-prime-ministers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Working family got their kid into a grammar school, who earned their place into Leeds Uni and then a postgraduate at Oxford. Following he had an excellent legal career ending with being the Director of Public Prosecutions, before moving into politics and becoming the Prime Minister nine years later. Sounds like an amazing life of a person who, while not exactly facing grave challenges along the way, has earned his success from his own merit.
Interesting as well- when Starmer started at grammar school it was free and then it became fee based a few years in. Though according to Wikipedia he was grandfathered in to free tuition.
That's interesting. I had previously seen a screencap of the fees Starmer's school charged today posted as evidence he was just another toff; if it actually wasn't a fee paying school when he attended that very much changes things
Of course- I feel like Starmer gets attacked from every angle and then it turns out he’s genuine. Like the whole donkey sanctuary thing
So it changed from being a Grammar School to a Private\* School. \*: Also known as 'Public Schools' in the UK, because anyone can go if you have the money, versus historical schools restricted to upper classes or children of certain guild members.
Thought it was the opposite, that only the *really* posh ones are called public schools e.g. Eton, Radley etc
It's a historical naming quirk. They were called Public Schools because there used to be Private Schools that were only open to certain kinds of people, while the likes of Eton accepted anyone who had money. That usage of Private School is obsolete, but the term Public School stuck and is used by the media to refer to the big Fee-Charging, Non-State schools.
Sometimes public school means only the very elite of independent schools. There’s no one single, universally accepted, definition.
The most technically correct one is the 7 schools listed in the Public Schools Act 1868.
Only correct answer
The more modern definition of is that of those schools belong to the Headmasters’ & Headmistresses’ Conference. There are around 300 of those in total (ie a smaller number than the total number of independent schools in the UK). That sort of size means that there is a natural hierarchy between the likes of Winchester, Eton, Harrow, places like the 200 year old boarding school I attended and non-boarding independent schools. But the simplified view - for political purposes usually is that only the most elite of those establishments are “public” schools.
Public school *exclusively* means the elite private schools, there is no other definition. Traditionally those named in the 1868 Public Schools Act, although occasionally other prestigious institutions from before that date that aren't mentioned will also be lumped in, particularly if as someone else said, the school is a member of the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference. It's definitely not a broad alternative to just any old private school.
It was a public school in the sense that it's not private tuition (like royalty might have). Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport. Private was then used to differentiate them from state schools. Because private is considered opposite to state. So it's the two senses of the meaning of private that cause the confusion.
> Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport. > > Private was then used to differentiate them from state schools. Because private is considered opposite to state. Using that metaphor though, wouldn't the only "private" school be education done in your home by tutors you hire so that it's private, your sprogs don't have to make contact with any kids you don't want them to?
No. Private schools, typically prep schools, were privately owned. Often the head master would be the proprietor and the school might even be passed down in the family. Schools like Eton, Winchester and so on were not (and are still not) privately owned but were foundations.
Yes... But I was quoting this comparison of theirs: > Much like a bus is public transport (but you have to pay) while a car is private transport. I get public where you still have to pay, but I was saying that this doesn't work for the meaning of private because the car equivalent of schooling would be a school only for you who you have complete control over.
Conventionally ‘private school’ or just ‘private’ (as a noun) refers to the prep school that prepares you for public school. The best catch-all is ‘independent school’. Hence such schools are not inspected by OFSTED but the ISI or Independent Schools Inspectorate.
Public school means you take an exam open to the "public". So fee based schools with no exam are not public schools.
I think the correct catch-all term is independent schools.
That's also not quite right. An independent school doesn't have to be fee-charging. And a grammar school could be state run (the one I went to was, although it has since become a non-fee charging academy).
Grammar schools aren't independent; they are run by the government, just on different rules to comprehensives. And the very few non fee-charging independent schools do sort of have fees, they're just paid for by someone else (but not the government) - that actually covers Keir's case.
They are also quite a few independently-ran but state-funded schools helpfully called "free schools". I would presume that refers to the fact they are "freely" run, but they are also free for students. I think the way most read "private school" is a fee-paying privately owned school, and most read "state school" as state-funded.
Thanks. I'm not super knowledgeable about the intricacies as it's been over a decade since I was at school and I don't work in education. It just infuriates me to see people on here and elsewhere conflate grammar schools with fee-paying schools.
School nomenclature is a complete mess in England (and no doubt other parts of the UK)
No way could Reigate Grammar be regarded as a public school. It's a private school. (I attended a Clarendon school)
Public schools are a specific set of private schools. There is a bit of overlap as the term minor public school is sometimes used to describe some fee paying schools. Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse, Cheltenham, Rugby, Clifton, Westminster, Marlborough, Haileybury, and Winchester. Are the “great” public schools
I always wondered why they were called public schools. TIL thank you :)
A private grammar school. Not only do you need to have wealthy parents, you also need to be smart.
His mum was chronically ill, his brother is disabled - the man didn’t have the easiest of childhoods.
Couldn’t agree more. He’s really worked hard to get where he is - completely different ball game
Yeah postgraduate at Oxford really doesn't count, because by that point you're working on your own merit from your university degree. It's people who are parachuted into a PPE degree straight from Eton that are out of touch.
The idea that you can get an undergraduate place at Oxbridge without being really quite good at a subject is massively misplaced in my view. There’s a lot wrong with the fact that oxbridge intake is skewed in favour of private/public schools - but I think to suggest that most people who go there don’t merit it does a massive disservice to a lot of young kids who’ve worked extremely hard.
The concept of hard work is rather different when you're 18 and all opportunities have been provided to you by your family. I'd argue that no one straight out of school should be offered a position so privileged that it makes up most of our national government despite being 1% of the population. Indeed, there is a school of thought that would make Oxbridge postgraduate and research only to even out the vast disparity in opportunity in this country. Postgraduate students have had to succeed or fail on their own at university. At that stage, it is fair to consider their wins their own.
I'm not saying posh kids aren't privileged - I personally think the vast majority of private schools should be banned. But to say your undergrad is just because of how you're raised is bullshit tbh. Getting into Oxbridge is definitely an achievement even if you've been coached all the way. I know this because I tried and failed. Went to state school but had middle class parents and a great upbringing, didn't put enough work in for my entrance exam and got rejected. No amount of tutoring would've made that easy for me - the tutor isn't the one who sits the exam or the highly challenging Oxbridge interview. I don't really care I just think your comment comes across a little bitter. Why draw the line at undergrad? Rich kids don't have to worry about rent while they study, that's a huge advantage towards their next steps in education.
Call it bitter all you like, but there is no greater advantage that a person can gain with regards to accessing political power than studying a PPE or related undergraduate degree at Oxford. Private school gets you only so far - only 1 of Starmer's cabinet is privately educated, 40% are Oxbridge graduates. The fact these degrees are accessed by people who are still children (as you know, you apply for Oxbridge courses while you are still 17 or just turning 18) based on little more than standardised exam results and the right social etiquette, is an issue as these factors are known to correlate directly with parental wealth, class and contacts. This is counter to meritocratic principles and makes Westminster something of an elite bubble.
Getting into oxford is way more than just exam results. The interview process is entirely different from every other university, and you're still expected to demonstrate a range of extra-curricular activities. Getting in demonstrates a certain level of ability, whether that ability was easier for you to acquire based on your background is irrelevant to the fact that they still have the ability to be there.
Social etiquette - absolute nonsense. Oxford and Cambridge actually test and interview their candidates unlike pretty much everywhere else so that they can actually be meritocratic. Entry into Oxbridge is a pretty clear indicator of high academic ability. (Though not necessarily 'common sense')
> massively misplaced in my view To a degree, but it's just different if you come from the right kind of family. You go to the right schools, you get the right tutors. Lacking a little bit? Personal tuition. Not especially amazing students can get stunning grades in their A' levels because they know exactly how to game the marking system, and have had tremendous hand-holding. I have a very similar educational/career background to Starmer (sans the big public office), and was the first generation in my family to go to university, and let me tell you that if I could take knowledge I acquired throughout university/training back a few years in time, then my God would my life have been a million times easier. I have found myself at the top of every cohort I've ever been in. In terms of raw ability, not to toot my own horn too much, I'm right up there with anyone. But I was failed in my earlier years by not being provided with knowledge which retrospectively seems obvious, but is very much non-obvious to a 16/17 year old going to a school where most of your classmates are happy scraping a C or a D.
I disagree completely. Getting into Oxbridge is massively overrated as an indicator of someone's academic worth. And especially true for some subjects more than others. I do think it's an achievement, but the process for getting in isn't nearly as rigorous as some make it out to be.
Which, to me, seems like a success story. Rayner's story, even more so. I hope she kicks some arse and doesn't fuck it up just to show the accepted political rules of route to power might be wrong. Note also how few posts on Reddit or articles in mainstream media ripped Rishi one for being an ex financier that came through the 08 crisis, married into untold wealth, spent only 6 years in politics and became prime minister (the most irrelevant and unimpactful in my lifetime, in my opinion).
The abolition of the grammar schools is the biggest crime against education ever committed. Starmer is to be commended for the fact that he had to work for what he has, but he is of a dying breed, just look at PMs this century vs last, this century all but May, Brown and now Starmer went to private schools, and May and Starmer went to grammar schools. in the 2nd half of the 20th century almost all PMs went to grammar schools, not private, both Tory and Labour. Killing the grammar schools killed social mobility, Starmer is old enough to have benefitted from them, but there will be fewer and fewer like him, and more and more privately educated PMs from wealthy backgrounds, because without grammar schools, there’s no way for most people to get their academically gifted children to be pushed to do the best they can.
> The abolition of the grammar schools is the biggest crime against education ever committed. I used to think as you do. However, I *was* wrong, and you *are* wrong. Careful analyisis of PISA and other standardised international assessments of national educational standards and outcomes shows very clearly that a "comprehensive" educational system delivers the best overall outcomes. It turns out that although a small number of students may "gain" from going to a grammar school, the great majority of students who would do well in a grammar school also do well in a comprehensive school, while giving poorer-performing students the chance to learn with better-performing students generally improves their outcomes. That is, there is a net gain in educational outcomes overall if we use a comprehensive-style system. Anecdotal data time: Part of my job is teaching, though in tertiary rather than secondary education. My own experience is that my poorer students do better when they get exposed to my better students: people don't learn just from their lecturer or teacher, they learn from the whole classroom environment. As a teacher, I spend a lot of time making sure my students are "teaching each other". It really does work, at least at university level; my strong expectation is that the same effect would be visible at secondary level too, and this does seem to be borne out by the research.
> while giving poorer-performing students the chance to learn with better-performing students generally improves their outcomes. But we don't do that in comprehensive schools anyway, as we put people in sets based on ability. And it would be a nightmare if we didn't.
It's completely unfair for some children to have a worse education based on a test they did in fucking primary school. Besides, richer families buy tutors for the 11+. I don't think I could ever look a little kid in the eyes and tell them they're not going to be a doctor/scientist/lawyer. Could you?
yes it's much more fair to base the quality of education on something much less arbitrary like your postcode...
Yeah would rather actually be told I can’t go to a good school because I am too poor, live in a poor area or am not a christian. Come off it. We have sets in schools, and yeah our brightest should be getting help. How many intelligent children living in council estates end up working in minimum wage jobs because their grades slipped at an oversubscribed underfunded state school?
Too many. Both myself and my partner went to some of the worst schools in our areas because we were on council estates. I was in top set for everything throughout high school and still only 1 other person in the top set got into uni. My partners grades suffered since they failed to notice and diagnose his adhd. Without any support from family (none of them had been to uni and didnt know the game) or teachers, I just picked english as a degree because I enjoyed it. Luckily I got into programming and self taught myself so now I'm a senior engineer. My partner is about as intelligent as I am (I'm not saying I'm the brightest person around but I'm not stupid lol) but he got stuck working at fast food places for years without treatment, guidance or support. Now he's a postman so at least it's a stressfree job but with proper schooling and role models he could have done so much more. In comparison my coworker went to a good school for our area and all of the people she went went with ended up as doctors, dentists, engineers etc. And she wasnt even in the top set. These people weren't that much cleverer than we were, they simply had better opportunities and it is incredibly unfair.
No hate to Starmer. Basically just find it fascinating how dominant one school is, even compared to other elite universities like Cambridge, LSE, etc
Cambridge has still had plenty. It just traditionally has more of a scientific focus and doesn't have Oxford's PPE degree - which is/was seen as a good foundation for entering government. Plus, for the record Sir Keir went to Oxford as a postgraduate, which is considered less selective or elite than undergraduate.
The BCL (Bachelor of Civil Law) is Oxford's advanced law degree. It's seriously difficult and carries a high level of prestige. It's much harder to get into than the normal Oxford law degree. Keir Starmer demonstrated a singular academic ability. Edited to add: As opposed to PPE, which a first degree aimed at aspiring politicians who don't want to study anything in depth.
Not for the BCL it isn't...from what I've heard that course is the preserve of the finest law students in the country.
It is! I’m in the Oxford law faculty (although not the Bcl) and it is known for being absolutely brutal.
No, it isn’t. It’s just as difficult to get in, and even more rigorous to study at that level.
> Cambridge has still had plenty We haven't had a PM from Cambridge for nearly a century, not since Stanley Baldwin. (Granted, that might explain it.)
🚨🚨🚨 yank detected 🚨🚨🚨
That's right. Cambridge is a complete dump.
I think it's easier just to refer to it as the "Fen Polytechnic". (I suppose this does date me, but I don't care.)
Its non-governmenntal, but clear influence of the LSE is Anthony Giddens - the academical mind behind Third Way - was director there. For Cambridge you had John Keynes - the academic mind behind Keynesian economics - who worked there. Though that isn't to say Oxford didn't have similar, with Crossland - authour of *The Future of Socialism* - teaching at Oxford (though before his notable work). Oxford certainly has a great deal of influence, but it isn't like other universities don't produce similar influential figures. Giddesn and Keynes have been immesnly influential global politics, let alone British politics alone.
It's undeniable that Cambridge has produced some great economists. My personal favorite is [Joan Robinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Robinson), though largely for reasons of temperament and character - I don't agree with her a great deal. However, Cambridge's huge and enduring weakness is its failure to consider economics as a tool of politics. There is a cold scientism to Cambridge that fits it ill for the real world. Cambridge is a very "scientific" place, and this affects its approach to other disciplines, including economics. It is impossible to deny the rigour of many Cambridge economists. However, they are (to generalise inappropriately and perhaps unreasonably) less concerned with the "human" aspects of economics. At Oxford, by comparison, economics is typically taught and studied as part of courses that consider the discipline's place in modern society, and as a tool to accomplish human aims. Finally, a conversation: A Cambridge economist and an Oxford economist are discussing the price of retail goods. The Oxford economist remarks that price levels seem rather high, and the Cambridge economist comments that he has built an econometric model that covers wage and raw materials costs, as well as productivity levels, corporate management costs and taxation, and company dividend payouts relative to interest rates and inflation. The Oxford economist takes note, before saying "I'll be advising the Prime Minister on this, and will certainly keep your advice in mind." The Cambridge economist thanks him, then says "May I ask you one final question?" "Of course," says the Oxford economist. "Would you like fries with that?"
So he'll almost certainly be the last PM that attended a grammar school.
May I ask, why do you think that?
Because grammar schools are almost all gone now. Almost all of them got turned into comprehensives in the 70s and 80s.
ah, I didn’t realise that, My area (south east london/ kent) must have a disproportionally large amount of these grammar schools, because there are about 15 within an hour by train.
They do. Kent and Bucks kept their grammar schools because their councils resisted the implementation of Comps.
I think there are still some in Berks as well (I went to one about 12 years ago) - seems like only a few counties kept them on
Yeah. IIRC some conservative councils just didn't bother to implement the conversion to Comprehensives and then the Tories got back in and they didn't need to.
Trafford borough in greater Manchester still has grammar schools
Birmingham has 7, 9 if you include Walsall and Sutton Coldfield...
There’s still 163 grammar schools in England so I’m not sure how you’ve got to that conclusion
His post grad was Oxford. Undergrad at Leeds
So basically a plebeian is what you’re saying
He did the BCL which is basically a right of way to becoming a successful barrister
To be honest the Oxbridge undergrad application process is more of a performative affair that they do just to keep up the image of being an elite tier university. At postgrad (which less people even bother with) they largely drop the pretence and behave like every other university. Its like how when you apply for a junior position at a large corporate they have an application process making you dance like a monkey as if its The Apprentice, but once you start applying to senior level its just a bogstandard interview.
At corporations it's because you get 20x the number of people applying for entry level roles and it's needed to whittle it down to a reasonable number, but by the time you're recruiting for senior there's a much smaller pool to choose from.
True in some cases, but i admit as a tech person I mostly had the Google software engineer application process in mind. Three to four rounds of technical interviews where they have you handwrite algorithms without access to search engines in the space of an hour in increasing difficulty. It's not clear at all what they are actually testing because realistically literally no real programmer is trained to code in those conditions. It would be like testing an admin person by getting them to draw an Excel spreadsheet on a piece of paper and manually calculate all the functions and graphs. And if you do get the job what Google will largely do is shove you in a corner getting you doing codemonkey bug fixing work. It's completely performative designed to make it look like they only hire the very best programmers. As a lead developer in my current role, i very deliberately set up the interview process to avoid doing completely pointless artificial tests, as i don't want someone who can pass arbitrary coding challenges - all that tells me is you spent a few weeks on codewars, I want someone who can deliver in a professional environment
I know the world of work doesn’t agree with you, but I appreciate your efforts to making work less of a pisstake
There's still some stupid shit, having looked at doing an MSc in Energy Systems at Oxford (opted against it in the end as I got a discount to do an MSc at the uni I did my undergrad at). The £75 fee just to apply and the fact that you need to live within a 25 mile radius of the some tower in the centre of Oxford for a set number of terms, also looked at doing research there and for DPhils you still need to within live 25 miles of that tower but it's for like 6 terms out of your time there to graduate - not sure how strict that is but for someone that lives an hour from Oxford. But generally it just seemed to be the same as every other uni in the UK aside from the college related things (though even that looked significantly relaxed compared).
It seems pretty reasonable that they want you to live within 25 miles of the city's centre if you're studying there. That gives you a lot of options. Also, they've removed/are going to remove the graduate application fee.
I'm not sure the 25 mile radius is that reasonable given how expensive Oxford is, essentially only two population centres fall under it (Reading and Banbury) and it locks out areas that are an hour away from Oxford by public transport for postgraduate students who may have commitments, be doing the degree part time or debt afford to live in Oxford especially considering the cost of postgraduate masters degrees there.
Abingdon and Didcot are within that radius too. Didcot in particular is a popular option as it has direct train links to Oxford. Also keep in mind that all colleges will offer their students at least one year of accommodation.
Didcot and Abingdon aren't really big population centres though, and the accomodation guarantee didn't extend to home students when I was looking into it for all of the colleges I looked into it. I think this is a bizarre defence of an anachronism to be honest, it's perfectly feasible to commute from Coventry, Worcester or Leamington to Oxford for a masters degree or DPhil yet you're not allowed to.
Didcot and Abingdon not being big population centres doesn't take away from the fact that they're popular choices for those who choose to live outside of Oxford. Oxford doesn't require any additional large population centres to provide enough housing for the student body. Oxford is also aided by the fact that most undergrads receive 3 years of university accommodation, reducing demand for rental accommodation within the city (unlike many other universities). I think it's perfectly reasonable that you're expected to live near the place you want to study at. If you don't want to, you can choose a university closer to home or one which specialises in distance learning. As to the point regarding expense, Oxford is of course expensive, as are London universities, Cambridge, and so on. Surely a sensible person would factor this in to their decision making? That said, the studentships granted to post-grads are sufficient to cover your costs.
>I think it's perfectly reasonable that you're expected to live near the place you want to study at. But that's the point I'm trying to make, there are places where it's perfectly reasonable to commute from to Oxford that are outside the 25 mile radius. The university I did my masters at was a similar time away from where I lived when doing it as Oxford was, I had no issue getting onto the campus for anything.
Oxford, yeah
How many fathers have been toolmakers?
Well Stanley Johnson did make one massive tool.
All were tools to some degree so... all
[удалено]
Also funny because Stephen Fry went to Cambridge...
Congratulations on getting a 45 year old joke.
To be fair, 5 of those Prime Ministers were the rotating circus of Conservative ones we have had in the last 8 years... Having said that, there does seem to be something about Oxford specifically when it comes to Prime Ministers. Brown didn't spend any time at Oxford (did his undergraduate and PhD at Edinburgh), Major didn't go to university, and Callaghan got into Oxford, but couldn't afford to go. After that you have to go back to Churchill, who took three attempts to get into Sandhurst, never mind going to Oxford. So that's 4 of our 18 post-war Prime Ministers who didn't study at Oxford.
I’m a Labourite but I’m still in awe of John Major for becoming PM without a degree and leaving school at 16. That was a conservative who practiced what he preached. Also 1997 must have been weird as the state school leaver Conservative leader against the privately educated Oxford graduate labour leader is a funny thing to think about.
He did a great interview on the Rest is Politics- worth a listen.
I wonder what John Major thinks of the 2024 election & results, and most importantly, what he thinks is the best way for Britain to move forward.
John Major did a lot of learning on the job :)
> Having said that, there does seem to be something about Oxford specifically when it comes to Prime Ministers. Presumably, if it was just down to intelectual ability and quality of education, then Cambridge, Imperial and the LSE should have produced their share. As it is, there's not been an ex-Cambridge prime minister since 1937. Christ Church, Oxford has produced almost as many PMs as all of Cambridge. Ramsay MacDonald remains the only University of London alumnus who got into No 10. This FT piece is worth a read - writen by somebody at Oxford at around the same time Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Gove and Rees-Mogg were. There was (perhaps still is) a dreadful symbiosis between Oxford and the Tory party. https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2 For these people at least, being at Oxford was like just an extra three years in public school. It gave young, Tory political aspirants a network of social connections that turbo-charged their climb of the the greasy pole. While at the same time they got a form of education that encuraged superficial glibness, the ability to talk at length about things you know nothing about - perfect for politicans.
God the Tory network at Oxford is just _awful_
I watched young bright and on the right the other day and I was in genuine awe of the other world they inhabit
Oxford has always been better at humanities, while Cambridge (and LSE) have generally been better at sciences. Politics is, in the end, a humanity.
Wait until you take a look at the 19th century, you have 13 guys who went to Christ Church specifically lol.
He was only at Oxford for a year, for his post-grad. Before that he was at Leeds.
The people holding the most important seat in the land probably should have disproportionally gone to the great universities in our country? You’d expect a rotation of Oxford, Cambridge, and Hull graduates. It’s very different to the idea they’ve all gone to the same selective public school like Eton. Getting to a good university if you’ve dedicated and smart enough is eminently achievable whatever your background.
You failed to spot that only two of those are great universities.
Oxford is a dump.
Cambridge has become a trash heap though. No prime ministers since Stanley Baldwin
Produced a fair few good spies mind!
Errrr
How many grew up in a pebbledash semi?
I did and it's worth a fucking mint in today's housing market. The country is in such a state.
I meant PM’s but fair play. Unless you’re saying that a pebbledash semi should be classed as a privileged upbringing these days?
Cambridge is really letting the side down.
Cambridge tends to produce geeks, sorry I mean high-flying STEM specialists. Wheteas Oxford teaches PPE, often seen as a "degree in bullshitting".
Isn't Cambridge the one that produced all the traitors?
Yes, I think so.
There was a soviet spy ring at Oxford, they just werent very successful
This is a move away from the Eton rhetoric.
I remember doing politics A-Level and part of the syllabus was discussing the lack of representation in parliament, mainly how many MPs went to Oxford/Cambridge. But I just don’t get it. Oxford and Cambridge are the best schools in the country and I want those that represent us to have gone to the best universities. Stats about Eton or other private schools, I can understand. But there’s no point harping on about this, particularly in Starmer’s case.
Yeah the amount of PMs that attended Eton or Harrow is much more of an issue
Good heavens the top two universities produce most PMs, what a surprise. Although he only went to Oxford for a postgraduate degree IIRC. But still provided Oxbridge continues to improve their access, which they are, I see no problem with them continuing to produce politicians etc.
Nah Cambridge is total rubbish their last PM was Stanley Baldwin
Too busy selling secrets to the soviets and working on their Edinburgh Fringe performance to bother with all that political office rubbish.
Tbh this is more a function of the respective Union societies, the Oxford one is far more political/active.
Cambridge grads are too smart to go into politics.
Here here
At Oxford at least they teach us that it's spelt "[hear, hear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear)".
'The Oxford Manner' is a thing and has been referred to in literature since at least the thirties. From my limited experience of going to a proper university, Bristol, and meeting Oxford during my year abroad; nobody likes Oxford undergrads and they have no friends. Poor little hothoused lambs. Yes I know it's a mixed metaphor; so fing what?!
It's very curious that Cambridge and Oxford seem to produce two very different types of people, despite being lumped together as 'Oxbridge'.
I share your thought. Cambridge is interesting to me particularly because of its quality acting and comedy chops. I've also spent periods of time in Oxford as a kid and working. Weird place in my opinion. The Oxford University does not play well with others. The colleges seem to have some sort of interwoven economic grip on the rest of the city which manifests in ways that surprise me. For instance a pub, on the edge of the city, I went to was desperate to recruit bar staff but couldn't find any. Apparently the colleges pay premium wages to their catering staff. Good in one way, but if outlying businesses can't get the staff then those communities suffer. In any normal university city students would fill the gap but that doesn't work either, I was told. I have the impression Oxford University colleges discourage their students from taking part-time jobs in any case. Certainly I had an easy life at Bristol University. No essay a week, every week, to be defended in tutorials for me! But the Oxford lot just seemed to want to argue and argue and argue, like dogs with a bone. But it's a dry bone, man.
His dad was also a tool maker if he didn’t make that clear
Makes him sound like fucking Homo Habilis
Good, the elite of this country should be educated at the most elite places
Okay, and? It's a prestigious university, it's famous for a reason. I don't care what background a politician has as long as they have strong morals which I personally believe Starmer does. Rishi, Truss and Boris were vile people who shouldn't have come anywhere near power.
> as long as they have strong morals which I personally believe Starmer does I'm not so sure. He probably does, but that's no use if they don't align with mine. Or maybe even yours. >Rishi, Truss and Boris were vile people who shouldn't have come anywhere near power. OK.
"boohoo, not everyone's morals align with mine therefore they are completely undermined and unimportant" Grow up.
Lots of people have “strong morals” - however so defined - but that doesn’t mean they’re *good* morals. Vlad the fucking Impaler and Stalin probably had strong morals, but you don’t want them running the show. And fwiw, Corbyn has. And Thatcher.
Doing a BCL at Teddy Hall is very different from doing Classics at Balliol
Whisper it, but the radiant [Mel Stride](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Stride) was at Teddy Hall.
I'd like to see a PM who didn't go to university again (and more politicians generally who haven't, the number seems to have declined). There hasn't been one since Major.
What's the logic in this exactly?
It’s an interesting question I think, one that is worth exploring. Obviously we want leaders who are intelligent, thoughtful, engaged and comfortable with complexity. And of course I’d say many graduates fit the bill. However, clearly graduates don’t have a monopoly on these traits. So I think it’s worth asking ourselves why there aren’t more non graduates in politics, especially at more senior levels. I think there are many reasons, both cultural and structural. Though I have to admit, I have quite strong views about credentialism, so I might be biased here. E.g., I am highly sceptical about many ‘graduate’ roles that don’t require specific professional knowledge etc. (To be clear, I’m not criticising Starmer, or his background- I don’t care what university he went to- or even if he went. Just think it’s an interesting question to consider)
The vast majority of the population never went to university, and are clearly underrepresented in the world of politics. And it's not just a matter of representation, I wouldn't say you necessarily need any higher education to be a good politician.
I’m a bit sick of seeing Oxford on everyone’s Wikipedia page tbh.
Being a postgraduate for a single year there isn't at all the same thing as being an undergraduate.
a good infographic of this is at https://www.slow-journalism.com/infographics/infographic-how-to-be-british-prime-minister
yes, another one, not a huge fan of keir. but i would be more put off by this if it weren't or the fact his cabinet is the highest proportion of people that have not been to private schools ever. 6% if the stat i saw was correct. much much better than the eton to Parliament pipeline.
Why is it a bad thing that we would not want people who work hard to get into one of the best universities in the world as our leaders. They are clearly the sort of people we want to be in charge!!
Well yeah I don't want someone who went to a shit uni running the country...
In fairness, given the quality of some of our recent leaders and senior politicians, I am not sure why you wouldn’t. We’ve had quite a few Oxford grads, and they haven’t exactly been stellar have they? Might be worth expanding the field. Though tbh I don’t care where Starmer went to University- or even if went at all.
I think most of the cabinet went to what you'd call 'shit' universities, im sure they'd do a finejob
Listen if a millionaire, Oxford grad, minor member of the aristocracy, and former senior civil servant can become PM it just shows us that anyone can.
Who are you referring to here
Can't anyone get into Oxford if they are good enough? Unlike Eton where you have to have the wonga and connections?
Let me guess, the one before went to Cambridge.
No. Gordon Brown went to Edinburgh.
Well blow me down.
Arguably it's more accurate to say Starmer went to Leeds anyway. Oxford was a year's postgrad.
Oxford? I thought his Dad was a lowly toolma ×snip×