On universities and the problems of being made to think!

Who would have thought that all these years on from when my classmates and I were applying to university the same discussions would still be going on about Oxford and Cambridge universities not accepting enough candidates from state schools? If fact, it might not just a state school thing; there is also that North-South divide thing going on. Apparently candidates from London comprehensives do better than those from North of England comprehensives. But still the major difference is between private schools candidates and state school candidates.

According to one of the speakers on Any Questions on the radio, it still comes down in part to a confidence issue and the fact that candidates from state schools aren’t as well prepared for the interview they will have to go through and to some extent they don’t really expect to get in. In some cases schools are discouraging pupils from applying for fear of being disappointed. Still? In the 21st century? (See lower down about protecting people’s feelings.)

One person who spoke on the Any Answers programme bemoaned the loss of the initiatives that I remember existing in state secondary schools, such as the Gifted and Talented programme, which selected pupils early in their secondary school career and kind of groomed they for greatness. Quite so!
N
The sixth form colleges (state institutions) where I worked had a specific member of staff assigned to encourage and oversee applications to Oxbridge. In both cases these were people who had actually studied there themselves and had experienced the system from within. Perhaps every school and particularly every sixth corm college should have an Oxbridge graduate on their staff for just that purpose. Of course, that would involve finding idealistic Oxbridge graduates prepared to work for a teacher’s salary!

Cambridge has been in the news as well for issuing what they call “trigger warnings” to students in advance of lectures to help prevent distress. Thus, students of English were given advance warning that a seminar on Titus Andronicus would contain discussion of sexual violence and sexual assault. Surely, since Cambridge expects students to have read the texts under discussion, you might think those bright and confident enough to get there might be able to work that out for themselves!

It’s all part of a process they refer to as making universities into “safe” spaces. I am not quite sure what they mean by this but it seems to involve removing stuff that might upset some people. And so there was a controversy about the Christian Union - I think that is who they were - not being allowed to have a stall at a freshers’ fair in case it caused offence!! And certain people have been banned from addressing students in prearranged meetings because of certain “disagreeable” opinions they have expressed.

Maybe films and books should also come with warning they might just possibly make you cry, make you angry, or, heaven forbid, make you think!

Now, I am all for keeping people safe but I like to think this means physically so. It should not mean that we don’t allow students to be confronted with ideas and opinions that they might disagree with or that might upset them. Isn’t studying at university supposed to be about learning to discuss things rationally and, from another angle, to prepare students for life beyond their studies?

Or am I just being old fashioned about it all?