Watching the special schools edition of Question Time the other night, my blood predictably approached boiling point a few times, but what really made me angry was a comment from Douglas Murray. Described variously as “Britain’s only neo-conservative”, and the “Right’s Michael Moore”, he suggested that a university education should be the preserve of the “gifted”. Hats off to Davina McCall for her response- “Well hang on, I’m not “gifted”, but I would still have liked the choice to go to university.”
Talking about educating the “gifted” and leaving everyone else out in the cold is elitist bollocks. If you want an education, if you want to work hard for qualifications, if you want to expand your mind, why the hell shouldn’t you be allowed to?
It’s like saying that only those who are already physically fit should be allowed to go to the gym, because everyone else might get out of breath. Grr.
Hats off to Douglas Murray. While the choice of some of his phrases may have grated some peoples teeth i’m glad that he used language that was decisive and clearly a sign of his belief, in contast to far too many people on Question Time who use such ambiguous language it’s understandable we don’t get anywhere. In fact i’m glad he annoyed people, i’d prefer to be annoyed by a politician who believed something contrary to me rather than being annoyed by a politician who just doesn’t believe in anything.
With regards to being gifted, I agree with him. Far too much power has been given to students while we need to remember the University is choosing us as much as we are choosing them. By all means Davina McCall can choose whether she’d like to go to Uni, but if she’s not good enough then she shouldn’t go.
The analogy with the gym is misplaced. Everyone should have the access to becoming as physically fit as they need. However only those who are extremely physically gifted should be given access to the elite coaches, sports funding and grants and specialist training centres.
Universities should be a place of academic elitism for the academically gifted (regardless of background or ability to pay), and then those who are vocationally gifted, physically gifted, or indeed gifted in any other way can go to another specialist establishment that can further their potential.
We’re all gifted in our own special ways, so let’s have specialist institutions rather than one big mixing pot that ultimately only somewhat satisfiies some people, some of the time.
Well done Douglas, not only are you correct but you’re one of the few people who isn’t afraid to use “politically incorrect” language that actually could get us somewhere and cause a real debate.
Have a go at what he says, not how he says it.
Wow, a comment longer than my original post!
Okay, so maybe the gym line wasn’t the best, but would those who are less good at sport benefit more from extra tuition? Random example, I went kayaking for the first time ever with a load of mates the other day, most picked it up instantly and needed no help, while I was bloody crap- but with some extra attention from the instructor and a few quick pointers, I was keeping up with no problems. By your argument I should have been left to struggle downstream alone, while the others surged ahead… neither progressive nor fun.
Clearly this cannot be applied to all things- you need to employ the best person for every job, and you can’t have incompetent people carrying out dangerous tasks- but what we’re talking about here is education. Why should somebody be denied the right to study something if that’s what interests them? Obviously not all of us can keep up with the demands of (say) a degree at Oxbridge, but that doesn’t mean we should be denied the chance to study for a degree in that subject- if other institutions want to offer a qualification at a more manageable pace, more suited to that person, and they want to take it, why shouldn’t they?
What Mr Murray was arguing, if I remember rightly, was that very few people should be allowed to take a degree. A degree is a education, learning is human instinct and something that a huge number of people take pleasure in. If you’re not as academically gifted as someone else you may just have to pick a less demanding course and work harder at it, and may not achieve as good a class, or a degree at all; but why should you be denied the right to try? This is particularly relevant in the current climate where we pay a huge amount towards our degrees ourselves. Few who have failed a degree will come out having learned absolutely nothing. Knowledge should be free.
Knowledge should be free, but alas the provision of it can’t be, what with salaries and overheads and so on.
If someone wants to study a subject then they should have the opportunity to. But why at a University, why for a degree?
What Murray was arguing was that fewer people should be allowed to study for a degree, but not study.
People should have the right to study whatever topic they want, but not everyone has the ability to study it to a degree level.
It would be more effective for the country if it made people realise that their strengths may lie somewhere different from their interests. If they are then given the specialist training and help to develop their ability in a particular profession, that person is much more likely to enjoy their profession much more if they have found something they can do well at rather than something they have an interest in but aren’t good at.
Everyone should have the right to study at University level but not everyone has the ability.
Lets hope that they don’t decide to lift the cap.
I agree with Yockenthwaite when he says everybody should have to opportunity to study, and study shouldn’t be confined to a university – after all we have the open university, good library provision and the internet.
Gordo has also recently been talking about talents: specialist training, vocational courses etc are just what many young people need. With plans to raise the school leaving age to 18 this will be vital.
Nonetheless I recoiled when Murray said ‘gifted’ because quite simply he is reverting to old, regressive and elitist attitudes, and I am conscious he would probably say elitism is a good thing. (!) We do though live in a globalised world and the talents we need are in the sciences and technology that are only taught on university campuses. For Britain to stay competitive, with the emerging challenges of China and India, we essentially have to increase the number of graduates in these key areas.
Now I know there has been a lot of talk about the 50% target and personally I think the target is bollocks. What if 51% of school leavers have both the ability and the desire to learn…? I do not think it is fair to deprive any willing and talented individual of the right to learn and develop themselves.
We have strong universities and we need to maintain them and we need to encourage all young people, irrespective of their background to develop their skills. If you use terms like elitist and gifted this will only be counter productive. Importantly you will deter those whose families have never been to uni, those who would usually get a job at that age and those who may be financially stretched if they took a degree. To make universities elitist is to make them the preserve of the rich.
Also I always understood someone to be gifted if they were doing their A Levels when they were 10 years old or had similar exceptional ability. Does this extreme example of a gifted individual still hold?
Its nice that he can be honest though, and we can clearly see his elitist views. I agree with Yockenwaite that obviously those who go to university have to have ability in that field, however dont think admissions are always fair, it is those from lower income groups who will be prevented from going to uni under Murray’s regressive views.