On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:46:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .

Most British uni's have been established since WW2. We have approx 100
of
them.

Being British, naturally petty snobbery comes in, and those unis who
are older say they are better in some way, with nothing to base this
absurd
claim on.

Of course ... as long as you regard things
like Nobel Prizes as being "nothing".

They are pretty meaningless you are right. BTW, Birmingham uni perfected
RADAR in WW2 and Manchester the computer after WW2,

Not sure about "perfected", but both institutions made vital
contributions to those technologies. Fine universities, then and now.

the snotties were too
interested in teaching Ancient Greek.

.... as well as the odd spot of research in fundamentals of nuclear
physics (Rutherford), molecular biololgy (Crick & Watson), amongst
many others.

The "ancient" uni's,

They may be ancient, but that are not "uni's".
The word is "university".

uni in the trade me dear boy.

.... and what "trade" would that be? Clearly one with a limited
command of the English language!

that pre-date redbricks, think they are superior in
perverse way way.

"Perverse"? As in "provide superlative facilities for undergraduate
education together with world-class research facilities"??

So do others.

I never said that they didn't. Doesn't change the fact that the most
recent (2001) independent assessment of research in UK universities
ranks Cambridge and Oxford #1 and #2 respectively (the Universities of
Manchester and Birmingham, which you cited above, are ranked at #4 and
#5).

Predominantly Oxbridge has become
a clique of privately educated people,
who later in life only give jobs to those
who go to certain private schools and
went to Oxbridge.

"Has become"?

You are right. It should have been "always was".

.... here we go ... I see a Paxman quote coming up ...

This might have been
a true statement about Oxford and
Cambridge 40-50 years ago, but
is really not the case any more.

How naive. Read Jeremy Paxman's book. Most top jobs in this country are
filled with public school/Oxbridge.

Has it ever occured to you that this (even though its only partially
true) might actually be a good thing? Would you rather that we went
down the US route such that having money is the *only* criterion for
success in public life, and that to be a member of a "liberal
intellectual elite" is to be denigrated by the popular media? Or,
that we continue the Thatcher-Blair tradition in which decisions are
made purely on the basis of tabloid headlines and focus groups?

He points all this out.

Paxman's book is interesting, although there's nothing new in what he
writes, and his writing style is certainly inferior to his
interviewing.

In any case, in today's job market the
importance of the source (and
subject, and grade) of degree diminishes
rapidly - outside of graduate recruitment,
employers look for practical and successful
experience, skills, and knowledge rather
than baseline academic qualifications.

As a general case yes you are right in the real world. At the top, where
power is, it is very different. In certain key jobs in the judiciary,
foreign office, Whitehall, top staff of the military, it is nearly all
public school/Oxbridge with the odd non public school kid thrown in, who are
usually far brighter than the rest, as to be accepted into thre clan you
have to be brilliant; they can all be public school buffoons as long as they
went to the right school and have a silly puff like arcccent.

Undoubtedly true of some public schools (those where an ability to pay
very high fees is the only entry qualificiation). Sorry to burst your
Oxbridge balloon, though - it is decades since those universities
chose to (or were able) to admit students on any criterion other than
academic excellence -- even though both have fallen into the trap of
bad PR over the methods that they use to select amongst
equally-qualified school leavers (given that A-levels no longer
distinguish the exceptional).

In the
military it may be certain public schools and then straight into a certain
snotty usless chocolate soldier regiment.

I'd like to you say that to the face of any current or former member
of the Army who has served in Iraq, or Bosnia, or N Ireland, or ...
Which "chocolate solder regiment(s)" were you specifically referring
to?

It appears to them that the rest of us are not really intelligent enough to
do these jobs.

Do tell us, then, what your qualifications are for a top position in
the civil service or the judiciary ...

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk