Laurie Penny

Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist

The rich buying places at university? They already do

David Willetts's proposal merely formalises the process of purchasing access that already exists.

By Laurie Penny Published 10 May 2011 18:57

Higher-education policy is where you can see the trick happening: the brazenness of Tory retrenchment policies in the field of social mobility being phrased as an inevitability, when they are surgically ideological. The creation of the funding deficit in British higher education was a calculated decision by this government, as the £4bn saving generated could have been recouped many times over by pursuing corporate tax avoidance, or imposing a small levy on financial transactions. Our flatlining economy has benefited not one jot from the government's determination to farm 80 per cent of university teaching costs out to the private sector and triple student fees.

Instead, vice chancellors and their industry partners are being encouraged to remodel our university system into a profit playground funded by the financial aristocracy for the quasi-exclusive enjoyment of its children.The strategy is Machiavellian in its opportunism, Trojan in its deafness to criticism. The academy is being rebuilt to reward enterprise rather than enquiry, offering its services at cost not to the most able, but to those most able to pay.

This week, the Universities Minister, David Willetts, has announced another twist. At the most competitive universities, wealthy failed applicants who would otherwise have been turned away will be given the chance to buy their way in with yearly fees of £28,000. By "the most competitive universities," Willetts means -- everyone means -- Oxford and Cambridge. Rich underacheivers will now be able to buy places at Oxford and Cambridge, along with a few other top Russell Group institutions that are a shoo-in for jobs in finance, research, business, science, politics, media and the creative industries. So much for meritocracy.

At the same time, at London Metropolitan University -- a college with more black students than the entire Russell Group put together (21 Oxbridge colleges admitted none in 2009) and an essential route out of poverty for thousands of inner London teenagers -- 70 per cent of courses are being cut. Last night, London Met students who occupied part of the university in protest at this funding decision were forcibly evicted by police and bailiffs. The writing is on the wall for social mobility in this country.

The move to let rich students buy their way into Oxbridge has been condemned across the board, including by senior Liberal Democrats charging madly at the last lifeboats off the sinking ship of centre-right equivocation. David Willetts doesn't give a damn. As I write, he is on the radio continuing to fabricate reasons why these changes are, in fact, "progressive". The move, many naysayers claim, is entirely against the spirit of education in Britain. But is it?

Let's face facts: the rich have been buying their children places at top universities for decades. They do this by buying into the private school system, paying thousands to send Leo and Jemima to feeder colleges that pride themselves on Oxbridge entrance, on making sure everyone passes the exams, on buffing even the dullest sixth-former to parade gloss for Oxbridge interviews.

In my final year at a British private school, over 30 kids were handheld through the application process for Oxford or Cambridge, whereas in most state schools a maximum of one or two begin the gruelling process, usually without the considerable staff support that we enjoyed.

Of those 30, about half were successful, and at least four or five of those were -- excuse my French -- thick as congealed slurry on the bridle path. They were dull, unimaginative posh kids who had no real interest in learning , who were just good at passing exams with the right training. What they had was the confidence to shine at interviews, and most importantly, the right kind of swagger to fit in. They had grown up being told they belonged at Oxford or Cambridge. As a consequence, they were deemed Oxbridge material, whereas thousands of state school pupils were not.

Of course, for every posh dunce who makes it into Oxford or Cambridge, there's a successful state school applicant who worked their butt off because they wanted to study the subject of their dreams at one of the world's top universities. Nonetheless, merit is already far from the only criterion for entry into Oxbridge.

In that sense, Willetts's "second bite of the cherry" strategy is not a new idea: it merely formalises the process of purchasing access to top institutions for the offspring of wealthy parents, many of whom might identify a saving: £84,000 for three years at Oxford is peanuts compared to £248,850 for five years at Eton. Like an unprofitable social-studies degree, social mobility in Britain has just been given formal notice of discontinuation, but the writing has been on the wall for many years.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Laurie Penny

226 comments

Mon, 2011-05-16 23:52 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

"So science is out. I mean real science."

Yeah...spot on...they just teach wierd ethnic pseudo-sciece. Last week, my youngest came home with one of those dream-catcher things. She had to record the number of paranoid fantasies it caught in a week and then give a presentation on her findings in a non-hegemonic pie-chart that validated minority creation myths...in Urdu.

"They teach a mish-mash of lefty propaganda instead."

hallelujah brother...at last a regular geezer who knows what's going down!!!...how many more fuckin times are our weekend family-bonding outings to sites of national 'importance' gonna be ruined by the little ideologues quoting smart-arsed Gramscian motifs from the back-seat while they moan about the carbon-footprint of a stop at a motorway BurgerKing??

I'd string up every fellow-travelling Geography teacher from the nearest lamppost with a copy of Rosa Luxembourg's collected letters up their arses. It's the only language the bastards understand.

"So science is out. I mean real science."

Of course you mean 'real science' my friend...real objective, falsifiable, empirical statements backed with evidence. Mind you, I don't know why you bother the mindless "BTEC in Doing Shit with Test-tubes" ignoramuses on here just don't appreciate where you're coming from.

"So mathematics is out, or at least all the hard bits."

What do expect? I think the writing's been on the wall ever since Barbara Castle deemed trigonometry a bourgeois conceit and Shirley Williams ruled that differential equations were an instrument of capitalist oppression.

Sat, 2011-05-28 12:39 — a student (not verified)

@Mr. Divine

You can buy a PhD from the web, however they're not exactly respected degrees. This is where the institution comes in. You cannot award yourself a PhD from a UK University, it takes several years of intense study culminating in a thesis and a viva, which you must pass, before you can be awarded a doctorate. All of this is of course after gaining a good first and possibly second degree.

As for the subjects (re music), reread my first post. Also, there are obvious exceptions for disabilities. Using blindness as a reason why music students don't need to read music is just plain stupid.

But then, looking at where you and your cohorts have led the conversation, I really shouldn't be surprised.

@ the people who have slammed Laurie Penny for writing this article (or rather for being too posh):

Are we only allowed to speak out about something if it will benefit ourselves and our own social class? I don't take this article as her trying to represent the working classes (ie me) but it is possible for her to represent others who have benefitted from this system and seen how unfair it is.

The fact is that to change a system we do need people fighting from both the inside and out. Why attack someone who is merely recognising the unfairness of a situation and speaking out about it? You're just ensuring that nobody else will do the same.

Wed, 2011-05-11 08:33 — seneca (not verified)

Nepotism and corruption isn't going anywhere, folks. It's like that fairground game where every time you whack the monster it pops back up somewhere else.

Thu, 2011-05-26 17:19 — Ricardo (not verified)

This article is one of the root causes of the problem.

The main issue with educational elitism is that we are all obsessed with Oxbridge. If people like Laurie weren't writing about how ace they are and about how you are nothing if you don't go there, we'd see more ambition from students of the other places.

Yes they are good universities, but we have a Russell Group and others who prepare a student just as well. Going to Oxford doesn't give you clever pills, it may however give you a sense of entitlement and a born to rule/write far left clap trap in the New Statesman mentality.

Oh, and I don't care if she went to private school. You can't blame Laurie for her parents' choices.

Wed, 2011-05-11 09:33 — rk (not verified)

As many commentators have pointed out, America apparently has an unfair system. So why is that America gets its, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Google, Facebook...every decade it produces a winner. What about us? Can you name 1 ---1-----1----1----1---1---1 winner

This moral thing is very profitable for those who love to sell poverty.

Wed, 2011-05-11 09:36 — rk (not verified)

And we only produce lawyers and bankers. Even bankers are being imported from India.

With the system we have, we can only produce lawyers and politicians and journalist; who can argue without end on useless topics.

Sun, 2011-05-15 18:39 — John (not verified)

"In my final year at a British private school, over 30 kids were handheld through the application process for Oxford or Cambridge, whereas in most state schools a maximum of one or two begin the gruelling process, usually without the considerable staff support that we enjoyed."

State grammar schools would offer their pupils the necessary support. Sadly Labour got rid of most of them

Wed, 2011-05-11 09:52 — rk (not verified)

The accident of birth creates the inequality. Between a starving African and a rich British brat. Do we say that this starving African had no opportunity in life so let us elect him the PM of UK to level the playing field? Then why University?

Or do we level the playing field by introducing some handicap to a tall basket ball player? or to a Black athlete?

Tue, 2011-05-17 01:25 — Daniele1

Comprehensive schools are crap because the rich kids and the intelligent kids are being educated somewhere else.
If those kids attended, their parents wouldn't have allowed the dumbing down of the curriculum.
Now we are caught in a vicious circle.Those schools are crap so the discerning parents (or the rich) don't want to send their kids there. But they are crap because those kids are not attending and the parents of the pupils remaining don't give a damn.
A (fully) comprehensive system is still the only way out though. The different types of ability can be catered for by using streaming and a choice of subjects and qualifications.

Wed, 2011-05-11 09:57 — rk (not verified)

I think it is better to leave it to the universities. It should be their judgement call as to whether they should spend time on money on a student who has good enough potential.

Also there are few points we miss from rich boys perspective. They have loads of money and therefore many more distractions to keep away from studies. Those who can overcome these distractions and can study are equal if not more in competence with poorer guys who may not have other options even to explore.

Thu, 2011-05-12 00:05 — Mary Tracy (not verified)

mc, I understand where you're coming from. And I agree. It is not only unfair but entirely detrimental to our cause if the only voices we hear from the Left are those coming from Oxford. After all, let's be honest here: Oxford is not precisely a bastion of progressive and revolutionary thought.

However, instead of tormenting Penny for daring to speak out, why don't we question sites like New Statesman or CiF for demanding that the people whose work they publish have an Oxbridge background?

Better still: why don't all the non-Oxbridge graduates from the Left get together and make their OWN site?

I am trying, but I can't do it on my own.

Wed, 2011-05-11 10:08 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

This is a tough one as I neither support Labour, Tories or Libdems for education. All have self serving ideologies that dont serve the national interest or my kids.

I went to one of the first Labour flag ship comprehensives which was brazenly about social engineering of the worst kind and educationally achieved an Ofsted 'Satisfactory' (i.e. an educationally awful school for its pupils - which I can say as I was there, experienced it and have seen the damage it has done to thousands of lives).

The Tories are equally terrible when it comes to social engineering given the chance.

What is needed is for the education system to be cut free from the political parties and run for the National Interest. It means schools and pupils have to compete more (like they do in most other countries).

Clever people who could do well at school and those who are pushy and want to get on should not be held down by the state as they are at present. Tories would then not have any justification if the state would let people get on with their lives.

e.g. a number of state secondary school headmasters, against the policy of the last governemnt's high command, ran secret experiments and found that they can completely eliminate the 2nd year (12/13 year olds) so children sit their exams 1 year early. It makes only 5% difference to grades overall and kids get an additional year to study gcses. The Chinese have been doing it for 2 decades.

The UK schools have had to do it covertly - try getting to know the insiders in the top 10 state schools to find at least 2 examples. They conceal it for fear of Labour sponsored retalliation.

Why did the Labour elite allow the party bureacrats become so strong and combatatively apposed to allowing secondary schools to innvoate if not because of ideological adherence social engineering objectives?

Sun, 2011-05-15 19:11 — mc (not verified)

Those who call for the reintroduction of grammar schools rarely bemoan the end of the secondary modern quite as loudly. Just as I detest the thought that your life chances are so determined on your parents paying for the private school to oxbridge route so I hate the thought of the future for the rest of us being set by how well we do in one exam at the age of 11.

Wed, 2011-05-11 10:20 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

@rk: "I think it is better to leave it to the universities"

Totally agree.

Also, state educational resources should be be focussed on delivering the best outcomes in the national interest and not on social engineering and class warfare as at present.

Labour needs to completely rethink its ideology on education - its not practical to level down above average pupils in state classrooms. Years of subversive social engineering has left the UK population unfit for purpose to compete in the global economy.

Thu, 2011-05-12 00:54 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Spud: The very best of us get banned .. I've been banned from about 6/7 sites .. usually when you start 'winning' the argument the blog owner starts wetting themselves.

You made some excellent points especially with regards to the self perpetuation of Oxbridge 'leaders'.

The problem lies in how people judge 'intelligence'. People regard academic success as the only indicator .. and Oxbridge is seen as the top of this success. Thus Oxbridge graduates are considered the most 'intelligent'. But 'intelligence' isn't just about passing exams which as Laurie points out is coached intensively by private schools.

To pass an academic exam is just one form of skill that a person possesses. There are many other skills that people do that are not seen as 'intelligent' such as fixing and making things. Yet such skills show a different form of 'intelligence'.

In short it is what people regard as being an indicator of 'intelligence'' as the source of the problem.

Wed, 2011-05-11 10:23 — Richard Morris (not verified)

I'm not even convinced this whole notion has been knocked on the head yet. Weasel words are in play here...http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-are-these-businesses-and-charities.html

Wed, 2011-05-11 10:36 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Am I losing the plot? Laurie Penny and everyone commenting on here are speaking about past and present circumstances. Then along comes "two brains" Willets yesterday with an ideal thats obviously been discussed at the highest levels in the Tory Party that would further widen the gap between the Westminster Village and the rest of us.

The ranting on these pages against each other is ridiculous. While everyone is arguing and loooking the other way something else will be pushed through.

I personally don't like Laurie Penny's one eyed articles, especially the one about Stokes Croft, where from what I've heard the closure of the squat would raise local spirits more than the closure of the Tesco Store, she should have visited the area in the cold light of day and have spoken to real "local" people before penning that stupid article.

She is however right to write this article, the fact that she got there through a similiar route should not distract from the core arguement that this system is corrupt.

Thu, 2011-05-19 21:14 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

Fergus

For someone who 'knows something', you ask an awful lot of questions...generally on subjects on which you've already recklessly pronounced. Can you see my problem in acceding to your claim? And can you understand why a reasonable and objective individual might, instead, veer towards the contention that, in all probability, you know jack shit?

Thu, 2011-05-12 18:57 — Lucked Out (not verified)

@ Laurie Penny

"if you've been to a private school and have had special coaching, it's not actually all that hard to get 3 As. That's the point. People pay for these schools because they are a gateway to top universities in any number of ways. The playing field is not level, it is skewed by wealth."

Absolutely correct. My parents couldn't afford to send me to a private school, so I just went to the local comprehensive. I was given zero supervision with applications or in regard to my studies. Regardless, I worded independently and got 3As - not that it matters. At the same time, many of the teachers at this institutions didn't give a damn about the kids: the moniker "comprehensive" debilitates both students and teachers, to some extent. Even though I have done well, I was unable to get into Oxford. I was given no help with the application and was incredibly nervous at the interview. This compared with the other incredibly confident kids. I guess the system is rigged. No one really seems to care.

I just want to thank Laurie for writing this and for sticking up for an underclass that is very rarely given any meaningful coverage at all by the mainstream media.

Wed, 2011-05-11 10:50 — John P Reid (not verified)

No ones saying that Laurie can't have her view because of her back ground, but Like the comparison to Tony benn, Been was going on about buying back council houses, high tax rates and teh closed shop making people join a union that could take you out on strike without you wanting too, resulting in no wage for months at a time, plus you were sacked if you refused to join that union (and give some of your wage to that union) those sort fo polciies put labour out of power for a generation, Not only was there poverty for working class people who had to be in unions or on strike when tehy didn't want too, Wedgie Benn was in his mansion not knowing the poverty those people suffered, plus the Fact teh tories kept winning election because of Benn it resulted in homelsessness in cardboard city ,something else Benn would'nt know about those who suffered the indignity of being homeless,

Tue, 2011-05-17 05:14 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Not all comprehensives are the same. Ones in middle class areas have excellent students in their top classes. even in lower socio-economic areas top classes can very good.

The main problem with the lower end is that students 'know' by the time they're 13 that they are not going to make it in academia. It's as if they know that this is the last time to bunk off the system before work sets in. Lower class french classes for instance are the biggest waste and the kids respond accordingly. Technical training is needed at an earlier age for children.

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:12 — Stuart (not verified)

So to sum up your point:

State schools are not as good as private schools and so kids that go to private schools do better. Well the question you should be asking is what is wrong with state schools? State school income is not far below that of the cheaper fee paying schools. The real difference comes due to competition in the private school sector. If private schools are no better than state schools no one will pay to go there so they will disappear, or improve. My state school (a pretty good one actually) didn't really care how people like me did as I got very good grades. I was never pushed, never challenged at all. The key for the school was to improve the grades around the C/D boundary. The best teachers were assigned the classes with the weaker students to push them into the C category. If private schools followed this route why would parents of clever kids pay all that money for them to go to the private school? So private schools have to actually cater to the ambitions of the parents of each child otherwise they will not pay to attend. In the private sector the school deals with the parents, so their aim is to satisfy the aims of the parent, which is usually for the best of the child. In the state sector the school has to satisfy the local education authority (LEA), the department of education (DoE). The main clients for the LEA and DoE are the teaching unions so the incentives of state schools are aligned with those of the teaching unions, not the parents. We need to get the incentives right so that state schools are aligned with parents rather. I predict if you get that right the increse in quality of state schools would be staggering.

Thu, 2011-05-12 02:20 — RevolutionaryRory (not verified)

good article as always Laurie, keep up the good work :) it's a shame people don't find it more obvious that elitism is prevalent within the entire education system in the UK. In regards to criticism of the fact that you yourself gained from this system, personally I do not think it is an issue, what matters is what your views are now, not where you went to school. I also find it sickening and hypocritical that it is always those on the Left who get flack when they arent models of meritocracy (which dosent exist within capitalism anyway, but this is another point)

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:20 — RK (not verified)

@Stuart, Absolutely.

In other words this is not as plain poor vs rich debate. The left is consumed it this one dimensional conflict oriented view. I guess what people miss is that and my apologies to Laurie if that is not the case; it is basically to further the interest of party politics. It is so much easier using this approach if you identify Labour with poor and get to show tories as some kind of evil.

Actually Labour privileged class such as Laurie serve themselves well because their job is to do a PR for Labour party. This article as are many of this one dimensional types are no friends of poor.

Tue, 2011-05-17 07:56 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Daniele

You are talking a load of rubbish, the gap on spending per pupil in private and state education is nearly the same. It's the awlful teahing thats failing generation after generation. Young black and white kids in the major cities leaving school at 16 unable to read or write.

It's people who think like you and Labour way back when closing the Grammer Schools that caused the problem and the cowardl Tories too frightened to do anything about it.

Your solution? More of the same, I bet you are a trendy Councillor in charge of education with a mission statement!!!!

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:21 — RK (not verified)

Sorry for typos. I do not proof read before posting.

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:35 — Daniele1

DC;
"What to do about inequality..? Abolish private education? no chance".
Why do you perceive the idea of the abolition of the private education sector as unthinkable?
Obviously it is unthinkable that a Tory government or this coalition would contemplate such a policy.
But decades ago, the Liberals, can you believe , were advocating just that! Shirley Williams had seriously campaigned for the abolition of private schools and many people were in favour. So what has changed? why is it that the LEFT, for Christ sake doesn't even raise the issue?
Private schools have no god given right to exist and they DO NOT exist in other European countries (most "private schools" there would be heavily subsidised religious schools, not schools for the rich). They DO NOT have to exist.I know,
it is a radical solution but the ONLY solution to stop the situation of educational apartheid which exists in this country.
To act at the level of universities is too late.The Universities can only choose their students according to what they have achieved at school. The kids' future is decided at school. By the time they reach 18, their lives are practically mapped out.
I wonder what Laurie think of that radical solution. Laurie?

Tue, 2011-05-17 08:01 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

I apologise for typos, it must be down to my terrible education or my bloody annoyance with people like Daniele and Laurie Penny who had it all and seek to deny it to others!

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:25 — RK (not verified)

Also bear in mind, University degree or Cambridge and Oxford are neither Guarantors nor necessary to succeed in life. Just do it, is.

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:38 — Lucked Out (not verified)

@ Daniele

All I can say in response is: Harriet Harman.

Tue, 2011-05-17 09:00 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Oh dear. There you go again. Let me try again on my side. Most Comprenensives do not offer Physics, Chemistry and Biology. They offer Science, which is easier and, according to the Indy is cool and won't make you seem a geek. A level maths has been dumbed down since 2004 when it was decided tou could do 4 modules at A/S and only 2 modules at A level, unlike other subjects where you need a 3?3 split. Thuis was designed to make it more 'accessible' i.e. easier. What6 has happened to Modern Languages at comprehensives? Well, people don't do them because they are hard, and you can easily do something like Drama instead. Incidentally, did you know you can get a grade 3 in French GCSE without knowing what the word 'je' means? I know you can. My daughter did.

Sun, 2011-05-15 20:31 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Grammar schools have never been away if you live in glorious Kent.

Thu, 2011-05-12 03:47 — gault (not verified)

There is a nationwide Oxbridge-neurosis in this country.

They just aren't that good. They don't magic you into a smarter, better person. All they're really good for is networking.

Thu, 2011-05-12 03:53 — gault (not verified)

As a side note, SO MANY PEOPLE ARE BITTERLY ENVIOUS OF LAURIE.

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:51 — Sean Hamill (not verified)

you should stop complaining about how unfair the system is and live yor lives. I was born on the estate and i have done shit in my GCSEs while people like Laurie get a private education and then complain about it.I would consider my self left wing but its got to a point where the poor cant speak for themselves any more and we are represented by champain socalists from oxbridge. By the way that does not mean i think that rich people should not be left wing i just think they should be less patronizing

Non are so clueless as the self-proclaimed intelligentsia's picture

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:46 — Non are so clueless as the self-proclaimed intelligentsia (not verified)

This is the hardest thing I will ever have to say but:

Well done Laurie. Great article!

and congratulations for lessening your own achievments in order to highlight an unfair system. Most refuse to even consider this system.

Another example of the manner in which the public schools march their pupils to easy achievement:

A colleague of mine went to a very exclusive private school. In quite the display of honesty, he candidly explained how his teachers were part of the team that wrote the exams that they would sit. He said that the teachers wouldn't outright tell them what was going to be on their exams, but would ask the pupils to shout out various subjects that potentially might be on a particular exam. If the subject wasn't on the exam the teacher would say "no, don't feel like revising that". If it was going to be on the exam he say "Yes, lets talk about that". All done with a knowing laugh from the teacher and students alike.

Tell me that is not cheating!

Sat, 2011-05-21 00:04 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Spud: We had a secret sash of crayon. You know jack shit.

Thu, 2011-05-12 20:03 — DC (not verified)

I like that you take it head-on: "Why do you perceive the idea of the abolition of the private education sector as unthinkable?"

It's thinkable, certainly; but should it happen, and could it?

Should it? Not sure.
Arguments in favour: it strongly intervenes in the natural meritocracy (precisely by intervening to improve the child's nature); the net removal of bright, well-motivated children from state education makes comprehensive education more difficult; it entrenches social and class divides.
Arguments against: parental freedom to educate one's child as one sees fit; the right of institutions in civil society to be free from state intrusion; the preservation of excellence; boarding is essential for some parents' lifestyles (eg if they travel a lot).

Could it?

--- the government would have to find set-up capital, and revenue costs to school the approximately 6% of children who are currently privately educated;
--- there isn't enough popular support;
--- it would face almighty opposition;
--- it may be incompatible with Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Maybe I am being too conservative; perhaps it should happen, and perhaps it could. I guess I think that we ought, in the first instance, to see what is successful and good about private schools, and see if state education could learn from them.

"Private schools ... DO NOT exist in other European countries"

Is this really true?

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:54 — Ellis (not verified)

I am a working class zero and I frankly care nothing about the size of peoples bank balances, what their education was and how wealthy their parents are.
What I do take issue with is when people take a great deal from life and prevent others from having the chances that they were blessed with. Congratulations on Oxbridge for it's great history of academia and achievement but do not select on the basis of affluence instead base access on achievement, ability and determination.
People who have been blessed in life should take what they do not need and help others who may otherwise never even get the chances they had a good education, money and opportunity are not bad things but when they are harvested by the selfish, greedy and self-serving they are corrupted and become the tools of a corrupt closed elite.

So nice to see Laurie using her good education and the chances she was given for the good of others, to root out and show inequality and unfairness wherever it may be and from the platform she has worked for to use her voice for good and not (as so many other do) for ill.

Thu, 2011-05-12 20:04 — DC (not verified)

PS that was @Daniele.

Thu, 2011-05-12 20:14 — Parasite (not verified)

"The rich buying places at university? They already do"

Indeed, Penny. After buying £9k a term education at Brighton College. Your whining left-wing hypocrisy makes me sick.

Parasite
East Cokesville Comprehensive 1995-2002
Baillie College, Oxford 2002-2005

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:02 — Marcus (not verified)

Britain would be so much better if it was a true meritocracy. This is one of the reasons we should look at having a written constitution. We could instill this principal into the very fabric of the nation.

Thu, 2011-05-12 20:29 — DC (not verified)

@Parasite

Since it is parents, and not the child, who choose the school, a tu quoque argument is invalid. Try again.

Thu, 2011-05-12 21:27 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

Sean Hamill

"I would consider my self left wing but its got to a point where the poor cant speak for themselves any more and we are represented by champain socalists from oxbridge. By the way that does not mean i think that rich people should not be left wing i just think they should be less patronizing"

..and I'm gonna apologise in advance if this sounds patronising but...

"champain socalists" should be either 'champagne' or...sham-pain in this case.

Although, I will state in Laurie's defence, she's probably the best of a bad bunch despite her occasional lapse into the liberal-journalistic "Respect my authoritah!" line of rebuttal; so beloved of the fucked-up middle-aged pontificariat on CIF amongst others. If the internet has brought us anything of value, surely it's the chance to inform those smug self-loving twats of exactly the kind of 'esteem' in which they're actually held. Or rather, it would have done, if it hadn't turned out that, where interactive discussion is concerned, the term 'liberal' actually reverts to its little-known, somewhat abstruse, sense...

adj: attitude producing a tendency to ban anyone daring to criticise relativist orthodoxy from a left-wing perspective.

Thu, 2011-05-12 21:52 — Daniele1

DC:
yes expensive private schools are a uniquely British phenomenon. I was brought up in France and I went to a state Lycee where all social classes sent their kids. I had 4 friends. One was the daughter of a cleaner, one the daughter of a doctor, one the daughter of a banker and me the daughter of a policeman.We thought nothing of it.
In Britain we would NEVER had met as a group. We would all have attended different schools. That is what I mean by apartheid.Of course there would be a lot of resistance but the State has the right to determine what kind of education it wants for its citizens. Parents haven't got complete right of choice over the education of their children.And freedom TO do what you want, like in the States, is only one kind of freedom. How about freedom FROM injustice and poverty?
Sean:
Stop being so pathetic! Laurie doesn't complain about having been sent to a private school. She complains about YOU not having had the same opportunity. Well go on then, shout, demonstrate, speak for yourself! Why are you so defeated that you feel there is nothing you can do about your life. For a start, you could express anger instead of moaning and hating the few privileged people who denounce social injustice.
And yes it is actually "champagne".

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:24 — Chris London (not verified)

Poverty!? Get a grip. Students at London Met are not privileged but certainly don't live in poverty.

I don't believe Laurie has ever visited London Met. I don't think she should comment on a world she knows nothing about.

In my honest opinion. If you disagree with Oxford/Cambridge elitism (paying for degrees) you shouldn't become part of the system. By studying there you endorse them and there questionable practices.

I disagree with Kraft's tax policy, therefore I don't buy Kraft. Simple.

There are many other institutions where you can't buy a degree but you can get a great degree e.g. Warwick.

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:31 — Anonymount (not verified)

This whole thread seem to be about Ms Penny's right to have an opinion. I think Tosh had it right about Haile Selassie when he said (paraphrased) He got to come from money to have the tools to fight the system. If it's good enough for the God Incarnate I reckon Ms Penny gets a punt too. What we need is more who are at the top looking down and dropping ladders. Raise inheritance tax now.

Thu, 2011-05-12 22:09 — Sean Hamill (not verified)

I am not saying that she does not have a right to say eveybody should have an equal opertunity. I am saying she should be gratefull for the chance she got

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:33 — mount1

That said, I do agree with someone who mentioned a little less focus on students and a bit more on real poverty. Raise inheritance tax now.

Thu, 2011-05-19 23:53 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

fergus: You know jack shit
spud: I don't, it's you that knows f all
fergus bullshit I know something
spud: you know nothing
fergus; I know something
spud: I know more things than you
fergus: you can't because you know jack shit
spud: no, it's you that knows jack shit
jack shit: Both of you know me well. You're both in denial.