There's a lot of news around today about a government claim that the professions are increasingly 'reserved for (the children of) the rich
( Read more... )
I am sure erosion of A level standards is part of it. But a significant part of why the better universities are taking posher students is about people self-selecting away from them; today's student lifestyle requires a great deal more money than the grants-and-endless-cups-of-tea version that we had.
If two candidates are presented with equal A-level grades, and one comes from a private school with a good reputation and the other comes from a sink comprehensive, the sink comprehensive person will get the place. This is a fact; I think it is even written policy for Oxbridge entrance. This is in recognition of the fact that the student from the sink comprehensive will have overcome more hurdles to get that A.
So the 'good school' thing actually works in the opposite way to the way that you have speculated. Recieved pronunciation is another thing that anecdatally works against a candidate. Extra curricular activities do work in the way that you suggest, and that is what private schools do to give their students the 'edge' - provide access to all sorts of extra curricular stuff in a way that state schools can't afford to.
Obviously the civil service recruits all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. But I suspect you are talking about the fast stream, and my view is that fast-streamers are a great deal more homogenous than they used to be; from culturally diverse backgrounds, but all very nicely spoken and socially competent. This is partially because there was an awareness that we were not paying enough attention to soft skills; while that's certainly true, I worry that it's much easier for rich kids to get a good grounding in those soft skills, in just the way that others have described.
That may be true of university places. It most certainly is not true for many employers, especially in more conservative areas such as law. The right university and the right accent still go a long way in such areas.
What I was listening to on Radio 4 this morning was suggesting that they're not talking about differentiating between swathes of people with 3 As but about people from "good" schools with As and people from worse schools with *lower* grades
( ... )
Yeah, this is the most dispiriting thing about such purportedly bohemian fields such as the arts and the media - they're essentially all based on starry-eyed youngesters working for free or for a pittance for years until they get their break. It's not even a matter of just adding shine to a CV; for many jobs I gather a fairly hefty chunk of experience is now entirely essential, and there's no way to gain it other than through unpaid experience.
Anectodally, the assistant theatre directors that I have met are almost all Oxbridge bright young things who can be supported by mummy and daddy. This is partly perhaps due to the old boys network (which coincidentally was perhaps just starting to weaken, and is presumably now regressing again,) but finance must have an effect.
I don't actually think the unpaid internships thing has much to do with the fields you mention. It's more an issue in arts and media. Doctors and civil servants don't tend to have interns at all, and lawyers tend to pay them pretty well.
The issue with both doctors and lawyers is the long period of training required. For lawyers this is also very expensive. Given that students are already graduating with substantial debts, the unwillingness to take on more debt is understandable, even if a suitable lender can be found.
I'm not sure why it should be a problem with the civil service: the fast stream selection is very careful to avoid such biases and is considered by some actually to be biased against Oxbridge. If it applies to the "senior echelons" I can only speculate that it must be an informal selection process going on within the Service, based on who knows whom.
The last time I looked at the competencies for a job in the Senior Civil Service, creating and maintaining a network of contacts was an actual listed requirement.
The continued failure of the Bar Council to do anything about this makes me really cross. The BVC is unjustifiably expensive: what other one year postgraduate course would charge £15,000? BVC-providers admit far too many students, including a few who have no real prospect of ever practising at the bar.
It's been my observation that while BVC students are diverse in many ways, they are invariably from moneyed backgrounds. And I think this has got worse over the past few decades: Cherie Booth QC has indicated that she would not have gone to the bar if the now existing arrangements were in place then.
I think by the way that the head of pupillage selection you quote was unusual in placing a premium on orphanage building. Anecdotally, what's important to getting interviews is having a good degree from a good university. In the case of top commercial sets, the BCL.
what other one year postgraduate course would charge £15,000?
Most of them range from £8,000 - £22,000. It mostly depends on where you go. The exception is probably teaching, and the rare courses that have subsidy.
I stand corrected, although I'd still be interested to know how the BVC compares with other courses for student:staff ratios and contact time. Compared to other courses I've done, it seems like spectacularly bad value for money, but maybe I'm spoiled.
Comments 30
Reply
So the 'good school' thing actually works in the opposite way to the way that you have speculated. Recieved pronunciation is another thing that anecdatally works against a candidate. Extra curricular activities do work in the way that you suggest, and that is what private schools do to give their students the 'edge' - provide access to all sorts of extra curricular stuff in a way that state schools can't afford to.
Reply
I'm not so sure about employers though - even the civil service - and that's part of the issue highlighted today...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Anectodally, the assistant theatre directors that I have met are almost all Oxbridge bright young things who can be supported by mummy and daddy. This is partly perhaps due to the old boys network (which coincidentally was perhaps just starting to weaken, and is presumably now regressing again,) but finance must have an effect.
Reply
The issue with both doctors and lawyers is the long period of training required. For lawyers this is also very expensive. Given that students are already graduating with substantial debts, the unwillingness to take on more debt is understandable, even if a suitable lender can be found.
I'm not sure why it should be a problem with the civil service: the fast stream selection is very careful to avoid such biases and is considered by some actually to be biased against Oxbridge. If it applies to the "senior echelons" I can only speculate that it must be an informal selection process going on within the Service, based on who knows whom.
Reply
Reply
Reply
It's been my observation that while BVC students are diverse in many ways, they are invariably from moneyed backgrounds. And I think this has got worse over the past few decades: Cherie Booth QC has indicated that she would not have gone to the bar if the now existing arrangements were in place then.
I think by the way that the head of pupillage selection you quote was unusual in placing a premium on orphanage building. Anecdotally, what's important to getting interviews is having a good degree from a good university. In the case of top commercial sets, the BCL.
Reply
Most of them range from £8,000 - £22,000. It mostly depends on where you go. The exception is probably teaching, and the rare courses that have subsidy.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment