Oxford and Cambridge drop out of top three in university rankings because of ‘misguided attempts at equality’: Experts blame social engineering as elite institutions lose prestige

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15114137/Oxford-Cambridge-outside-three-prestigious-university-rankings-time-London-School-Economics-first.html

Posted by dailymail

43 comments

  1. # The historic universities were ranked fourth equal, triggering concerns about political pressure to take on students from deprived backgrounds. It’s the first time neither has made the top 3 in the list. The London School of Economics top the rankings for the second year in a row.

  4. Almost like academia should always be merit based… fuck me right! 

  5. DEI overruling merit based academia? 

    Colour me shocked.

  9. It would be interesting to see if overall standards are dropping and O & C are dropping faster than the average or if they are disproportionately dropping in the marking criteria compared to comparable universities. It’s also important to note that the level achieved by students is not the only criteria, so it’s not based (at least not solely based) on achievement at the end of a degree course. There is also no evidence that the ‘social engineering’ is the reason for the drop, unless the same ‘social engineering’ is also responsible for the increase in standards at the other universities. Assuming they also have to abide by the same entry criteria as stated in the article. To know this, we need to be able to analyse the base level data, which it isn’t clear in the article whether this was done, so I’m going to assume not.

  10. Not surprising at all, I’m surprised they didn’t drop lower. Almost every uni is in a crisis of mismanagement

  12. Oh the Rupert Murdoch owned Times newspaper thinks trying to help poor people is bad.

    I’m shocked. *Shocked* I tell you.

    I wonder what Fox News rankings will say? Or Daily Mail?

    Oh they all say DEI is evil and we should just let poor non whites rot?

    *Shoooocked*

  13. Typical Daily Heil snot piece. Not worth the seconds it takes to read the headline, nevermind the article itself.

  14. Complete trash, as to be expected.

    Firstly, the article doesn’t actually explain what the Times’ league table measures its ratings on. Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to access the information on the Times’ website, but based on what I can find, the criteria for this rating are as follows: student satisfaction, teaching quality, entry standards, research quality, graduate prospects, and sustainability.

    Secondly, if you take some time to look at the ‘social engineering’ policy that Oxford have in their website, their policy suggests that students from disadvantaged backgrounds get additional support in their applications, and are more likely to be shortlisted for interviews, *provided* that they are expected to meet the conditional offer of their chosen course, and that they complete any admissions tests to the suitable standard.

    The Cambridge University website even says the following:

    *”It should be noted that we don’t use contextual data to systematically make conditional offers at lower grades, or to make allowances for a poor academic record. This information is simply intended to provide academic assessors with the fullest possible picture of an applicant, and the context in which their achievements occurred.”*

    Based on my research, it appears that both Universities’ policies are explained as ‘contextualising’, and their intention is to identify students coming from backgrounds where they are less likely to receive academic support during their applications from their schools (underperforming schools), or outside of their schools (care-leavers, poor socioeconomic areas). They do so, in order to offer those students additional support with the aspects of the application process that aren’t as academic, that they are unlikely to receive from elsewhere.

    For example, university personal statements expect children to be able to provide examples of experiences outside of education, that will help them prepare for University. A typical Oxbridge graduate from a privileged background might be able to talk about their Duke of Edinburgh award, or how they went to Namibia to build schools for blind orphans through World Challenge. Underprivileged children don’t have those same opportunities, so these ‘contextualisation’ policies, are designed to mark these applications, in order to ensure that they’re not discarded due to a lack of exuberant extra-curricular activities.

    So, the above information indicates that the schools aren’t lowering their academic standards to allow poorer performing students to attend, but rather, providing support to students that are flagged as being from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Now, onto the drivel from the Daily Mail above… The article completely ignores all of the information I’ve listed above, and makes baseless assumptions to blame the drop in rankings from 3 to 4, on ‘social engineering’. The article provides no data, no evidence, and no sources, only giving the opinion of one man, who is telling us that this is what happened. Again, there’s no data provided to back up what the man said, just his word.

    To further demonstrate the absolute nonsense being spouted in this article, we can look at other University league tables. The Guardian League Table has Cambridge at 3rd place, and Oxford at 1st. The Complete University Guide League Table has Cambridge at 1st, and Oxford at 2nd. (All three of these tables have the same universities in the top 5) These tables all use slightly different criteria, but ultimately, they demonstrate that the information being interpreted by the league tables is subjective, and that the methodology used by one, has determined a different outcome to the others.

    As such, this ‘expert’ being paraded by the Daily Mail, has merely made a blanket statement about social engineering, whilst providing no data or evidence to demonstrate *why* this has happened. In fact, based on the below quote from said ‘expert’, he appears to be more interested in keeping ‘the poor’ out of Oxbridge, than actually investigating any specific reasons as to why these schools have dropped a single point lower, on one league table.

    “What has to be understood is it’s not just a matter of intrinsic ability. It’s the quality of education that gives you the platform for higher education.”

    So, this expert who believes that only people who attend elite schools (the rich), deserve to be able to attend prestigious universities, blames people who come from underprivileged backgrounds (the poor), for the Universities falling in league tables. Shocker… It’s almost like he has an agenda.

    Perhaps instead of clutching their pearls and worrying about ‘the poor’, the Daily Mail and their ‘expert’, should do some research as to why other universities outperformed Oxbridge, and on what metric. Perhaps it was student satisfaction that lead to their drop in points, or maybe Oxford spent less money on their courses this year that attributed to it.

    Realistically we don’t know; until someone can demonstrate some data on what happens, we won’t know. But it is shameful for an organisation calling themselves ‘news’, to just parade around a baseless statement, whilst providing absolutely zero evidence to back it up. (And what a shock, GB News is parroting the same exact nonsense, with the same distinctive lack of any data to back it up)

  15. Almost like nothing should be based on equal outcome but instead equal opportunity… pretty sure lots of people died in a bigger experiment like that give or take 100 mil…

  16. People would be happy with this but BAME also benefit from this thus the nonchalance to this ragebait by the DailyFail!

  17. They moved into 4th place and the Daily Mail finds some way to blame Equality and the poors.

  19. Ahh yes, the thread where right wingers too thick for Oxbridge whine that Oxbridge isn’t good enough, despite still not having the chops to get in despite the supposed lowering of standards.

  20. Did no one read the fucking article? First of all fuck the daily mail, that rag should be banned from this sub Reddit. 2 the article is an opinion piece that suggests the ranking drop have occurred due to encouragememt from the government for increased diversity in students. It then fails to link these 2 things in any way.

    This is complete slop, and opinion piece designed for people who have a 1st year engagement with reading materials to feel good about their opinions.

    Lastly ban the fucking Daily Mail.

  24. Well you all saw what passes for the president of the Oxford union these days contribution to the Zeitgeist by spouting of like some 14 year old on x box live circa 2008, can’t say that your shocked now that the institutions are not what they once were.

  25. There is actually nothing in the article that gives actual evidence as to the reason for the drop in rankings, just talking heads from a private university and who has affiliations with Tufton St giving opinions.

  27. Eight centuries of reputation destroyed in a generation, due to myopic social engineering nostrums. *O tempora, o mores*.

  28. >This involved getting more universities to adopt ‘contextual offers’, meaning lowering entry grades for those who had faced ‘barriers’.

    Why don’t they just say they accepted less white people who were deserving of a place in favour of non-white people with worse grades. This constant beating around the bush is embarrassing.

  29. I thought this is a knock-on effect that funding in the UK generally has shit the bed and there are fewer PhDs and more academic leaving as there are fewer permanent positions. You cannot build projects and visions on a decadal basis when you have a 5-year Fellowship and no guarantee of renewal.

  31. Is it possible that LSE and Durham have just become better?

  32. So they would rather let a rich private school kid with BBC at A level come through instead of the triple A* A* A student from state school go. This happened to a person. He did math and two sciences and got the grades but since he was from a poor background he wasn’t allowed into Oxbridge.

  33. More daily mail rage bait. Ironic given that their readership probably can’t spell univercity.

  35. Maybe neither of those universities really give a toss what The Daily Mail has to say.

    Ironically the DM quotes a guy from Buckingham University, listed 128, third from bottom, who has in the past complained that “top universities“ were not doing enough to accept students from poorer backgrounds.

  36. NGL after seeing the Oxford student president I’m not shocked

  37. I work in heavy industry and there has been a huge push to get women involved, some do extremely well and others not so just as it is for males. Promotion should always be in favour of the best candidate not the sex of the candidate positive discrimination rarely ends well and now needs to consigned to the past.

  38. Why is this even a topic of discussion, they’re not official rankings at all they’re just someone’s opinion

  41. My wife was looking at doing a PHD and the type of grants and opportunities on offer are laughably biased.

  42. Like all university rankings, completely meaningless.

  43. DEI = didn’t earn it. When they let in people with ABB because they’re black like that idiot at oxford, it’s a slippery slope

Comments are closed.