Why do Oxford and Cambridge exist? Why does Oxbridge exist? To some, the second question may appear to be nothing more than a simple contraction of the first. However, to most Brits, Oxbridge means something very different to Oxford and Cambridge. For example, the sentence, “I’m playing a game of squash at the Oxbridge Club” would be one of supreme distaste in polite conversation. Instead the Pall Mall based members club (limited to those who have matriculated at either of the two institutions) is called “The Oxford and Cambridge Club” and often referred to as the O&C – much more palatable. This distinction has had a tangible effect on the way the world’s second and third oldest universities have been governed. Despite being a bit of an old fogey, I think the general direction of change over the past few decades has been a positive one. However, more recent reforms threaten to overshoot the mark.
Now to return to the first question: “Why do Oxford and Cambridge Exist?”. This is the easier of the two to answer since it is analogous to asking “Why do universities exist?”. They exist to educate their students, facilitate research and create an environment and community in which these two things can thrive. Over the last 816 years in which Oxford and Cambridge have shared the limelight, they have certainly achieved this. An Oxbridge education is often the common denominator amongst historical greats in politics, science and the arts. Think Nehru, Boyle and Byron. Today, this is no different; of 2024’s 11 Nobel laureates, 7 were associated with one of the two universities. Our television screens are littered with Oxbridge graduates such as Hugh Laurie, Eddie Redmayne and Tom Hiddleston.
Now to the more difficult of the two questions: “Why does Oxbridge exist?”. The portmanteau invokes images of gothic architecture, plummy voiced undergraduates in gowns and a head start to a (potentially rakish) career in British politics. Some at Oxbridge may struggle to empathise with this view. Really? Of the six names mentioned in the last paragraph, two were educated at Harrow, four at Eton. The distaste for Oxbridge is not formed on misinformation – it is an inevitable artefact of the British class system. It is, however, a little outdated.
Oxbridge today includes people from a much broader set of backgrounds. Women, state educated individuals and ethnic minorities are very well represented. This change has both been natural and manufactured. The outcomes, I believe, are broadly positive; although we may no longer be able to field as strong of an Eton Fives squad, Cambridge continues to thrive academically. Discrimination against “privileged” students in the (natural) sciences is limited. In the humanities it most certainly exists but here a diversity of backgrounds is valuable. An Old Harrovian will probably have a very different opinion on Churchill to an inner-city state-educated Indian pursuing a history degree; the two can (and should) talk it out and reach a realistic middle ground.1 The view of Oxbridge, with Boris Johnson as its archetypal student, is certainly no longer accurate.
It is this expired view that has meant that Oxford, Cambridge and the country continue to force policy changes that now go beyond what is reasonable. And unfortunately, these attempts at attenuating the less desirable features of Oxbridge now threaten to destroy what makes Oxford and Cambridge great. The most recent example of this, reported by the Telegraph, is that Oxford and Cambridge are moving away from “traditional” exams toward more “inclusive assessments” to boost the grades of minority groups and poorer students and close the “grades gap”.
As part of my BA degree I spent 37 hours in an exam hall. Countless hours at my desk were devoted to practicing solving problems under exam conditions. I did my best to replicate this once in the exam hall. In no way did being an ethnic minority limit my ability to do so. The notion that it would is frankly racist. Furthermore, this sort of policy threatens what makes Oxford and Cambridge great. Will we let less talented students get into masters and PhD programs? Will our research struggle as a result? Will lesser institutions like Imperial, free from these Oxbridge based pressures, benefit whilst we lag behind? Probably.
To me the solution is obvious: slow down. Without doing so, overshooting is inevitable. It takes time for the general view of Oxbridge to adjust to the policy changes of the last few years. Oxbridge now has more state-educated students than ever. Perhaps these state educated students will go on to take public facing jobs in media and politics, thereby altering the view of Oxbridge. The same could be applied to a range of stratum. But this doesn’t happen instantaneously; it will take years if not decades. Then we can reconsider whether Oxbridge needs any more reform. I expect the answer will be no.
- I appreciate that this requires balance; the tradeoff between diversity and meritocracy is tricky and many (rightly or wrongly) feel hard done by current efforts. This is a topic for another time… ↩︎
PS: I know I promised an article on Wisden Cricketers’ Almanacks – that is still in the pipeline. Possibly also a short post on 19th century squire, John Mytton. I’m saving these posts for when I am a little busier.
laisseth-faire 