I agree. I go to a state (albeit grammar) school, which has 20 odd with Oxbridge offers. When I was up there for interviews, all the applicants seemed very competent; there didn't appear to be anyone there because of their school. I agree with CD that private schools will often be far better at prepping their students for interviews, and be encouraging with the whole application process, but they are still getting in on their own merit.

I'll take you out drinking one of these days Maizie, we'll have a ball you and I.

It's funny really because actually despite their prestigious reputation there are actually my second choice because I have commited myself to music far too late to get too the standard needed to enter a music conservatoire.

I think the system has probably changed radically. When I was in the sixth form, over twenty years ago, my comprehensive school talked me into applying. At that stage there was an entrance exam (which CD mentions) that you could do in your 4th term (ie winter term of the Upper Sixth) or the 7th term (winter term after your A levels). Only independent schools offered the possibility of 7th term. Doing it 7th term meant you were doing nothing but that, doing it 4th term meant you were also studying for your A levels at the same time. Add to that the fact that my comprehensive school had never prepared anyone for the exam before and I think I am justified in saying that the exam was biased towards independent schools. I sat the exam in English even though I really wanted to study French because Oxbridge (and a lot of other universities) required you to have "O" level Latin. Not one of the 10 comprehensive schools in the town in which I lived taught Latin (there were no private schools, even supposing my parents could have afforded school fees).

I didn't pass the exam but in the end was glad since it meant I could go and study French at East Anglia - one of the few universities which didn't require you to have done Latin - and I now have a PhD from a French university.

My school was a state school and wanted me to do 7th term not 4th......and they wanted me to apply for one of the smaller colleges, not St. John's, but, being me, I rebelled - I like a challenge!!!

Yes... and look what happened to him...

If you had to have Latin O-level to get into Oxford, and most comprehensives didn't offer Latin, then kids from comprehesive kids didn't stand much chance, did they? I have no doubt it's a more level playing field these days.

Anyway the class system is alive and well whether we like it or not - apparently the papers have been full these last few days of talk about how Kate Middleton's mother wasn't considered the 'right stuff' because she'd once been an air hostess and used words like 'toilet' and 'pardon'. Even though Kate was perfectly lovely and been to the right school etc etc...that's Britain for you, even in 2007.

The trouble is, it's a very subtle thing, this class bias. The interviewing panel at Oxford are still probably still subconsciously on the look-out for clues that a prospective student is the 'right stuff', when confronted with an excssive number of hopefuls with all predicted A's at A-level. These things take a long time to die out completely. And if they still take 45% privately educated pupils, and only 10% of kids across the country go to private schools, then however you look at it, your parents' money is buying you privilege, and this is plain wrong. Not that parents are wrong for doing it - every parent wants the best for their child and some aren't prepared to take what they see as a risk for their child. But the two-tier education system we have here is just plain wrong. They don't need it in most of mainland Europe or in Scandinavia so why should we?

I wasn't going to re-enter this thread. But there is still a load of nonsense being posted.

Latin was abolished as an entrance requirement at either Oxford or Cambridge even before I took Latin "O" level in 1983.

And the claim that seventh termers were only public school pupils is just not true. But the biased people on here won't let facts get in the way of a good story.

As it happens I know more 7th termers from comprehensive schools than from public schools.

Oxford (and Cambridge) select on ability, not background. And haven't done otherwise for at least the last quarter-century.

But the "right stuff" as you seem to imagine it is not necessarily class - it's personality and character, and if someone from public school has more of that, then they're more likely to get in.....but it doesn't always get found there - it can be found anywhere.......

Public schools also take pupils without the means to pay - there are scholarships and entrance exams......a fair few pupils are there because of their abilities and not because of daddy's money, and my guess is that even ffrom these there will be a fair few who go up to Oxbridge.......

Edit: and BTW I did Latin at A level - not because I had to, because in any case, when I made my choices I hadn't even thought about universities much - but because I wanted to........


Someone's got a massive chip on their shoulder..........

My mother was in the last year that required Latin to read Natural Scineces. She entered Cambridge in 1958! She also went to a Grammar School, her mother was a housewife and father a garage foreman... hardly the image of some one from a priviledged backgound. She also won a State Scholarship. It is possible to get into Oxbridge from a state school.

However there are lots of other good universities out there and lots of excellent music courses.

Hubby was a Cambridge Reject, but his first from Nottingham and subsequent PhD from its excellent Physics department seems to have set him up all right. He even worked at Cambridge as a Post Doc.

My sixth form college did give the option of 7th term Oxbridge entrance exams, this was until they were abolished. Oh and I was educated in the state education system.

Didn't kerioboe already acknowledge that (hence the 'a more level playing field' comment)?

chocolatedog, I think that what most analysts suggest about the 'personality' and 'style' thing is that the style and personality that recruiters are looking for is one that you're more likely to find in the middle and upper middle classes. It's that ability to play a middle class game that's selected. Which is why recruitment for urban working class kids remains pretty low.

However, my concerns about these institutions has less to do with how they recruit, and a lot more to do with how qualifications from these institutions are viewed. It bothers me that kids will choose a second rate oxbridge course (and I'm sorry, but some of them really are cruddy and old fashioned, honest they are - particularly oxford) over a course much better suited to their interests and abilities, just because it's oxford or cambridge. It also bothers me that people will just assume that an oxford or cambridge graduate has the 'right stuff' - it bothers me that it's become a kind of way of shortlisting people post graduation that has everything to do with name and nothing to do with actual ability. It troubles me a lot that if you look at the shadow cabinet, these two universities are so heavily overrepresented. It is in this sense of the perception of what this kind of degree 'buys' you that I have problems. It's here that I see the elitism of these institutions as particularly pernicious.

(Edited because I said 'violinia' and it should have read 'kerioboe'.)

People who notice and comment on class bias in this country are always being told they have a 'chip on their shoulder'. I have no reason for a chip - I come from an educated middle-class family myself as it happens, and have spent roughly equal amounts of time in an inner-city South London state primary, an exclusive private school and a state grammar so I've seen the education system from three different sides.

When I was in the private school (5 years) I distinctly remember the staff constantly telling us we were the elite and somehow uniquely special because of it. The classes were small and we called the teachers 'mistresses' and the classes 'forms'. Breaktime food was 'tuck' and homework was 'prep'. Oh and we played lacrosse!

And why were we the elite and uniquely special? Because our parents had the money to pay for it! Some were bank managers (investing in South Africa - nice!), some were academics (mine), some were in insurance and some had inherited money. Many of the girls had anti-Semitic attitudes which came out when they found out I was Jewish. Nice(again)! Not to worry, I met up with a bunch of them recently at a Friendsreunited do and they were lovely - and still very upper middle class! We got very drunk and had a hoot.

The grammar school was different - a better social mix but still mainly middle-class because the middle class parents were generally better at priming their kids for the 11+ exam.

The primary was a true reflection of the area we lived in - well-off families, middling families, people living in council estates and people living in what were then called 'slums' all mixed in together. It was fun.

So please - I don't have a chip - I just know that in this country money buys privilege and when it comes to children's education money shouldn't come into it at all because every child deserves an equal chance. England is still very funny about all this - it's a fact of life here.

Here's a little anecdote about class - when I was little I wanted to play in the street with the other kids who were playing hopscotch. My parents wouldn't let me - I was only allowed to play with two of the other kids there - handpicked by my mum. My partner, who comes from a working class background, tells me some of the other children in his class were prohibited from playing with him because they thought his background was too rough!

So presumably if he'd been playing on my street my mum wouldn't have let me play with him. She loves him now, so you've got to laugh.

Violinia

PS To get this in to an objective perspective, I have French and Belgian friends who say they're always staggered by the whole class thing when they come here - they think most of us are in complete denial about it. It's a tribe thing really - but that's a whole other subject.

I object to my post being called "a load of nonsense." I took my "O" levels in 1981. Latin "O" level had certainly been abolished as a general entrance requirement to Oxford and Cambridge (otherwise I wouldn't have been able to apply to do English) but it remained a requirement for a French degree at Oxford and Cambridge and at a very large number of other universities.

I think there are also comprehensives and comprehensives. My school (which, after the boys only school, had the best reputation in the town I lived in) had an intake of 180 in the first year. In the Upper Sixth there were only 16 pupils left. I was the only one who continued to university (a couple of others went to polytechnics and teacher training colleges). The figures were pretty much the same every year. The upper sixth was never above 20, sometimes they had three people go on to university, sometimes they had none. There was no way this sort of school was going to offer 7th term preparation.

It may well be that the kind of personality they are looking for comes from the middle and upper classes, but it's still not a class thing - in one of my previous posts, I mentioned that the very candidate you would have thought would get in to St. John's didn't..........

And another thing - I thinka two-tier education system is fine - if people want to go to the local school, that's fine, if parents want to pay to give their kids a different kind of education, that's fine too.....incidentally, if I had kids I would seriously consider sending them to independent schools, given the schools in our town.......

Depends what you want the degree for. Some people might see a degree purely as a stepping-stone to a particular job. In which case, quality (or at least perceived quality) of a degree might make you choose it over another one with a better course. Is there something inherently wrong with doing a degree for the sake of getting a qualification, rather than because you really enjoy a subject? Whether it's fair or not, people view Oxbridge degrees very highly, and people will factor that into their choice.

The reason that parents will pay for private schools is that they expect their child to get a better education from them. This you would expect given the greater amount of money the school has to spend on teachers and facilities. Therefore, why is it surprising that a large proportion of the entrants to Oxbridge are from private schools, if the education they are getting is supposedly better, and Oxbridge are looking for the top candidates?

When I dropped out of my biochem course, I really wanted to swap to biology...but my college at Oxford didn't offer biology so I didn't think it would be an option (I was thinking all this through on my own during the Xmas vac of my first year). But my college did do physiology, and that's sounded just as interesting so when I went back after the vac that's what I proposed switching to.
The physiology and medicine tutor at my college told me that if I really wanted to do physiology, then they would find me a place at a better univeristy - probably one in London. Oxford physiologists are treated as lower class medics - in fact, they are doing the undergrad part of the medicine degree, but without the human dissection. So while my college technically offered physiology, it didn't tend to actually have anyone studying it (occasionally people who 'downgraded' from medicine).
In the end arrangements were made so I could switch to the biology course starting the next year (I had to threaten to leave, entirely, they didn't want to lose the two terms of fees for me dropping out of the year and starting back the next October and were going to insist I did the whole first year of biochem before starting first year biology )

But yes, it made me wonder why anyone applied to / studied the physiology course in the first place, given that attitude (of course, other tutors at other colleges may have felt very differently).

Yes the French are particularly sensitive to inequality in their own society - which is why the underclasses in most of their citys rioted for about a fortnight last year in celebration of their equal opportunities in education

I'm finding it hard to believe that you seriously entertain either of these opinions, CD.

In relation to the first - come on! There are more subtle class dynamics in operation, here, certainly. But you can't seriously believe that outright exclusion is the only manner in which class operates to exclude. Or that encouraging a particular 'style' doesn't also operate to exclude on class grounds?

With regards to the second: you really are comfortable with the idea of living in a country where good education has to be bought? And anyone who can't afford to 'choose to pay' for their children should just make do?

And you really imagine that the only reason anyone might object to this is because they have a 'chip on their shoulder'???



How sure are you that private schools necessarily produce better outcomes?



Oh yeah, let's pepper the conversation with a bit of francophobic nonsense too, shall we?

Perhaps you could elaborate quite how French race riots are relevant to this discussion, earplugs?

Not sure if I should bother getting into this discussion.....

I went to a comp.which none of you would ever have heard of.
Neither of my parents went to Uni. (Dad left school at 14 with no qualifications at all, Mum did "senior certificate")
I did Latin O-Level in 1981 (a rare comp which offered Latin)
I went to Oxford and did a degree in Modern Languages.

The attitudes and prejudices voiced by so many posters here mean that (like Maizie and a few others) I'm almost ashamed to admit that I actually got a place at a top university.

In my current job, I never mention my university because so many of my colleagues would treat me as "odd" if they knew. In my previous post a colleague completely snubbed me, ignored me and refused to talk to me when he found out I was "Oxbridge".

I have to remind myself that it is other people who have the problem and not me!

The original poster needs to examine course content carefully, but also consider the extra-curricular opportunites which various unis offer.

I wish people who have not been to Oxbridge would not slate it and dismiss it.

Much truth here I fear. Yes, I convince myself that Oxbridge was not for me because my chosen subject (CompSci) was best served elsewhere and that my First from Southampton is far better 'currency' in the job market.

However, I'm darned sure that I would prefer my own kids, numerous tho they are, to go to Oxbridge purely for the kudos. Therefore I can assume that in fact I would have preferred myself to go to Oxbridge and my attempts at rationalising it away are rather false.

I therefore contend that much slating and dismissing (but not all) is due to a suppressed frustration on behalf of contributors that they didn't 'make it' in that regard, themselves...

*ducks*

IMHO having seen the opportunities available for Cambridge students and hear how much they enjoyed their courses to get into Oxbridge is really something.

And there are plenty of students there from the state sector. Maybe its just that the Public Schools are more geared up, in which case don't condemn Oxbridge.

I just wouldn't have chosen to read music there.

Hm. I'm not sure that going to Oxbridge is the only way form a reasoned opinion of it, is it?

Myself, I'm an experienced academic, and I encounter Oxbridge students and academics all the time. I also have a special interest (related to my work specialism) in higher education and identities.

I think I have SOME qualification to speak here. And I don't regard my opinions as 'prejudices', nor as evidence of a 'chip'.

I'm not saying that they always do, but you would expect somewhat better outcomes from private schools, otherwise why would parents pay so much money for no benefit? I'm pretty sure that in my area, the private schools do better than the state schools in the league tables, and this suggests better outcomes from private schools.

...Or why the views of French people on the level of equality in our society have any relevance

I went to Cambridge and worked b****y hard to get there, and I enjoyed it, yes I ENJOYED it, and I would still recommend it as a university to anyone who asked ......... I also loved walking round the streets and colleges so steeped in history knowing that it is one of the oldest universities in the country I loved the sense of history and atmosphere
- Peterhouse college was founded in 1183 or something I believe, knowing that thousands of other students through the centuries had trodden those same paths..........and having left I have come across the kind of comments cropping up here - so much so that I try to avoid mentioning that's where I studied.......

And yes, I would be quite happy to pay to have my children educated in a public school if we are still here in x years if, and when we ever have kids......... don't forget I also teach in a public school too - and it's a great place to teach........the kids there are great (for the most part - there are always exceptions, of course.....)

Ahem, far more parents would love their children to have a private school education but just can't afford it. A two-tier education system fine? Really? Doesn't it just help perpetuate the very class system some people are trying to deny exists?!?

If money can get your children a place in private school, then the best education will forever remain the preserve of the privileged few and that just can't be right.

Funnily enough I picked up last week's Education Guardian today and found an article pointing out that private schools and some choice state schools are far better equipped to prepare their pupils for Oxbridge entrance than others, and that this can't be right. He pointed out that the top graduate teachers recruited into these schools have skills in this department that other teachers just don't have, and he was trying to find a way to address this problem. He was underlining the fact that more and more Oxbridge undergraduates were coming from the same few schools, and that this was iniquitous. His solution was for some of these top schools to share their knowledge freely with students from other schools, to give those less fortunate students a better chance.

So here's a teacher from St Paul's School actually coming clean and admitting that the children from his own school were unfairly advantaged when it came to achieving a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Good on him.

As for whoever said why should we listen to the French - for heavens sake! France certainly has its share of problems (racism etc - but so do we) - but they don't have a monarchy so tend to have far less class-based snobbery than we have. Of course they have their divisions, but they don't have this almost tribal class culture we have. And it's not just the French who notice this - I have Swedish friends who have noticed the same thing. We're so steeped in it we just don't notice it half the time!

But this isn't a matter of class anymore, it's just capitalism. Money lets you buy stuff. If you are rich you can afford to send your kids to private school, get home tuition, get special lessons to prepare, etc. Assuming Oxbridge didn't know the background of the applicants and selected purely on talent, then you'd still expect a disproportionate number of privately-educated people to get in. Should they be deliberately discriminating against privately-educated people because they have an inherent advantage? What's your solution?

I'm sorry, trebor, but you think class is separate from capital? How does that work?

If they're the same, then how are other countries any different? Every country has rich and poor people.

Yessss. And every country has class?

I'm sorry trebor, but you've entirely lost me here. What are you trying to say?

I think there is a subtle difference, at least in this country. For instance, a middle-class person can work in a bookshop earning a pittance, but still be a nice middle-class person who I'd happily invite around for dinner. I think 'middle-class' is used too often as a euphemism for 'people who have more money than I do'. It's socially acceptable to pin blame a class system, but appearing jealous of those who have more money is not.

I dunno. What are you trying to say?

Get rid of private schools. Set up all sorts of schools - one type in each neighbourhood - arts-based schools, etc etc, and let parents pick the one best suited to their child. Generous vouchers for all, to be spent at the school of your choice, with no top-ups allowed. This is what they do in Sweden and I believe Holland. It sounds extreme but our education system is in such an unholy mess it needs extreme measures.

How to get rid of private schools? Strip them of their charitable status for a start. Forget things like assisted places schemes - they usually only benefit middle-class people who know how to play the system. I know people who hid funds so they could take advantage of the assisted places scheme and get a free private education for their kids. Working class people often just don't have the confidence or the wherewithal to play the system like middle class people do. I know one family who were using the assisted places scheme to get one kid into private school while granny paid for another; meanwhile the family jetted off to lovely holiday destinations whenever they could. This was not the purpose of the AP scheme but it was all too common.

So - whip away their charitable status and watch them flounder. Then stop investing in illegal wars and put money where it should be - into funding an equitable high-quality education system for all. Several small schools under one roof, perhaps? Plenty of ideas out there. International Baccalaureat for most if not all kids..... we've got to start using our imaginations for once.

Oh and get rid of those wretched Sats once and for all!

Violinia

Does that kind of silliness pass for reasoned discussion these days?

You've got a good point there - this is the 'tribal' thing I was talking about. You've got your 'nouveau riches' earning loadsa dosh and sending their kids to private school - and look what was said about Kate Middleton's mum by William's friends! And you've got your middle-class person earning a pittance in a bookshop - buit chances are that middle-class person will live in an area with a good comp, or he'll know just which is the right comp to get his kid into, even if he has to travel miles to get him there. Or granny's got a few quid stashed away...

In other words, middle class people, even if they're poor, tend to know how to play the system because they know the ropes. It's the kids of the remnants of the working classes who still tend to sink to the bottom because they don't have the information or the choices. They are the kids who need an equitable education system the most and they're the ones least likely to get it.

Look at over half of the celebs out there............

What do you mean, chocolatedog?

I work at one of those schools you'd lke to see flounder......so you want me to lose over half my income....thanks very much........




Take Jade Goody, for example.....

Would they flounder (serious question)? And even if you did get rid of private schools, richer people could still pay for private tuition for their kids. They could (and most likely would) still ensure that they get a better education that what is offered by the government. Money will always give you an advantage.

Yeah dude, like, totally and whatever I fail to see what point you're making. Oxbridge is elitist? Of course, it is oversubscribed and selects who gets in. Not everyone with an Oxbridge degree is a genius? Of course not, although it is a good indication. There are people who don't go to Oxbridge who are very good? Obviously. You don't like the fact that people view qualifications from Oxbridge too highly? Fair enough, not a lot anyone can do about that. You think people choosing Oxbridge courses ahead of other courses (that they are better suited to, or more interested in) is somehow wrong? It really depends on what you want the degree for. While it may be less enjoyable or harder work, some people would prefer to have a more highly-regarded degree at the end. University can just be a means to an end.

So what, exactly, is your point?

That's not really that compelling an argument for a two tier system, is it?




What about her?




trebor, if debating skill is a requirement for oxbridge entrance, you may want to brush up on technique a bit. You're all over the place here. I was SPECIFICALLY asking you to unpack your 'point' about class and capital. You have yet to do so.

As for the rest of your ramble - well, I disagree. I think there's plenty we can do about the ridiculous manner in which the value of an oxbridge degree is inflated. One is challenging the perception that its somehow special, better than any other degree, etc. Your comment about an oxbridge degree somehow involving harder work than other degrees - I'm sorry, but that's just nonsensical, and frankly demonstrates that you're still very much a schoolboy. When you've had a bit of time at uni, we'll have another chat. But trust me mate, my students work every bit as hard, if not harder than the oxbridge scholars I've met, and to suggest otherwise is both elitist and ignorant.

You appear to live in a world where individual choice trumps all else. That somebody has 'chosen' an oxbridge course ahead of others because of the privileges they think it will bestow on them is hardly a justification for the perpetuation of this practice, is it?

And for the record, I'm not a 'dude'. And I'll thank you not to roll your juvenile eyes at me.

Ok, fine. If class is the same as capital (as you say it is), then you're saying that more money gets you a better education. Well obviously. More money will get you a better anything. It's capitalism. If you want to spend your money on it, then someone will provide it. Oxbridge selecting a disproportionate number of people from private schools isn't due to "snobbery", it's because those people are better educated.


Haven't experienced this "ridiculous" inflation so can't really comment. But good reputations don't tend to be based on nothing.


Really? You've got an Oxbridge degree? You've compared? Or are you going on personal contact with these people (which I've also had). Everyone I've spoken to (at various Unis) have said that Oxbridge students tend to work harder. They are attempting to get the same degree in 2-4 shorter weeks per term. How else do they make up the difference? (Unless, of course, they are naturally more gifted and don't have to work so hard for the same gain in knowledge. But you seem very anti the idea that Oxbridge students are in any way better than any others, so I guess that can't be right.)

And I'll thank you not to bring age into this.

You're right about the short terms..........

Actually it isn't as simple as that, as there are plenty of other unis that have shorter-than-usual terms, and teaching isn't all of the work - ie just because someone is getting their lectures in shorter terms, doesn't mean that all of their workload is necessarily squeezed into those terms (my friend at Oxford has had all bar 10 days of her 6-or-so week holiday in Oxford doing all her work). How many hours of contact time is only part of the story, and then again, for example in Durham, we had I *think* 2 10 week terms and one 9 week - ish - 29 weeks - but actually only about 22 of them were teaching weeks. 1 was "study leave", 3 were exam weeks, and 3 were "keeping to term" at the end of the year. I don't know how other unis work, but I do know that "they have shorter terms" only tells part of the story. Shorter terms are more intense, longer terms require more stamina, is how I see it - I actually enjoyed the slightly shorter terms - I think too short a la Oxbridge wouldn't have suited me, not enough time to settle in and get into the groove, but I would have found living and working at that pace for any longer exhausting.

(And I'm neither dissing or endorsing Oxbridge - just pointing these things out)

Ok, fair points. I was only going on what others have told me. And workload seems to vary massively person to person, depending on how quickly they can pick things up...

Exactly, Sarah, thank you.



Trebor, I refer you back to a point I made earlier in this discussion. That I have an academic interest in higher education (i.e. it is the focus of a substantial proportion of my academic enquiry). So no, I'm not basing my opinions on what I've heard from one or two people. I've read more than your average person - in fact, more than your average academic - on this topic, so I think we can start from the assumption that I have some basic understanding of the issues here.

Also, while in your A level career, you may have encountered a few students, do you really imagine it compares to the number of students and graduates that a career academic with 12 years of experience will have encountered? I'm afraid your anecdotal evidence doesn't remotely match mine, so that's not going to play either.

Finally, your point about capital and class. Can I invite you to go back and look at what was actually said? Because once again, you appear confused. I didn't indicate that class and capital were 'the same thing'. You, however did claim that the existence of disparities between rich and poor in other countries somehow nullified the idea of class in operation in this country, and that capital was a better explanation. My query had been how you could possibly sustain such an argument. Capital and class are inextricably intertwined. And of course, other countries have class structures. I guess my question largely boiled down to 'huh'? And the 'huh?' remains. Your subsequent posturing hasn't really done much to clarify the 'huh?'.

As for the juvenile eye roll comment - well I won't raise the issue of your age if you don't behave in an ill mannered, adolescent manner. However, if you insist on behaving that way, why on earth would you expect not to be called on it?

Definitely - and I think different people will deal better or worse with different ways of doing things. ie my friend is reading Biology and it's amazing how much of her work and her exams are really strongly essay based, whereas if I remember anything like correctly friends who did Bio didn't do as much essay type work at Durham - I think she finds this quite tough though she's coping admirably, but I'm sure some people would sail through essays (and I'm sure she's coping better than some having done at least one reasonably essay-ish A Level). And again, she has finals, rather than a modular system - which for some would be far harder, but for others would work much better. (I was glad to have yearly modules at Durham, but have friends who had modules twice a year - which I would've hated! One set of exams per year was quite enough, thanks! & if my degree had been based solely on my final set of exams I would actually have got a better overall mark though it would not have changed the classification, and may have been more stressful - swings and roundabouts, as they say!)

Probably the only way to truly compare is to do both - but then whichever you did second, you'd already have experience of working at degree level, so even that wouldn't be a fair comparison!!

Okay. I remembered reading about this study. Students for biological sciences, maths, social studies, law, languages, history and philosophy work the most hours at either Oxford or Cambridge. That better than anecdotal evidence?

Okay, then I'm not following you either. What exactly do you mean by "class"? How does one determine what class one is in?


It was sarcasm. Not exactly the sole preserve of the young. You described a question of mine as "silliness"; I responded in a suitably silly way. And being an adolescent, it's very likely I will respond in an adolescent manner. Not much I can do about that.

Treebs - contact hours or actual hours of study? Sorry, too tired to read properly and couldn't figure it out by scanning. It's just that the two things are very different - English Lit at Durham had very few contact hours and yet a lass I knew, very intelligent and hardworking, did English Lit and put in more *actual* hours than some science students did. The number of contact hours only tells half the story - if that.