Do Oxford and Cambridge matter that much?

A perennial topic in British newspapers is whether or not the country’s two most prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge, operate a fair admissions policy.  Rather than enter that particular debate, I will list some of the more famous alumni of these august seats of learning: David Cameron, Ed Miliband, George Osborne, and Nick Clegg. 

In fact a list of leading British politicians who studied at Oxford and Cambridge would be very long indeed.  I cannot help but wonder why so many leading politicians should emerge from just two universities, and also why they are such an absolute shower.  Do Oxford and Cambridge offer their students tutorials on how to become atrociously bad politicians?

I find it hard to take academic results seriously.  One reason is that people who excel in one subject often struggle in other subjects.  For example, humanities graduates often have a very poor grasp of mathematics.  Another reason is that intelligence, however defined, is at best a poor substitute for judgment.  One of the many Oxford-educated cabinet ministers in my lifetime was Lord Kelvedon.  His daughter Olivia Channon was smart enough to get into St Hilda's College, but not smart enough to know that illegal drugs are illegal for a reason.  She died at a drug-fuelled party in 1986.

Consider this list of famous people: Diane Abbott and John Major (politicians), Hugh Grant and Jonathan Rhys Meyers (film stars), Max Hastings and Richard Littlejohn (journalists), Sarah-Jane Honeywell and Konnie Huq (television presenters).  Do you know, or can you guess, which of them are graduates of either Oxford or Cambridge?

Diane Abbott, Hugh Grant, Max Hastings, and Konnie Huq are.  The other four, so far as I am aware, did not even go to university.  Does anyone really think less of them for that reason?

People get into university on the basis of academic results achieved in most cases at the age of eighteen.  Therefore to judge someone on the basis of which university they went to is akin to judging them on their abilities as a teenager.  Add to this the fact that any university course is only as good as its teaching staff.  The teaching staff at my university varied in quality (to put it mildly), and I see no reason to assume that Oxford and Cambridge are any different in this respect.

Another important point to make is that people have a natural tendency towards self-interest.  Entering a career – whether it be politics or accountancy or the civil service or whatever else – can be like joining a club.  The club has rules, and it usually makes sense to obey them, whether or not you agree with them.  As a former public sector employee, I know that a lot of people in the public sector are motivated more by a belief in their own divine right to a job for life than by any concept of public service.  The unwritten rule of that particular club appears to be that you never admit publicly to being a parasite.

Being academically inclined does not make people less likely to be selfish.  That is a matter of character.  Sometimes the self-interest tendency can lead to astonishing results.  When the parliamentary expenses scandal broke a few years ago, it became obvious that almost all of our MPs had blithely assumed that they could help themselves to our money and that doing so would not come back to haunt them.

I sincerely believe that academic qualifications are at best only a roughly reliable measure of intellect, and very poor indicators of character.  Intellect needs to be nurtured, and this is not achieved through arrogance and complacency.  The truly intelligent person will always be receptive to new thinking, and will not settle into established patterns of thought.

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States 1801 - 1809