Obsessed with Oxbridge?

An article in today's TES, "Obsessed with Oxbridge", asks:

"Is the preoccupation with the dreaming spires damaging social mobility?"

"Why is this country obsessed with Oxbridge? And is this level of elitism actually damaging social mobility? Increasingly, there are voices that say yes."

The questions raised in the article have been reflected in a number of Voice Blog posts on higher education, where we have discussed issues such as:

• The status of different institutions and their degrees and where students study.

• The funding of degrees.

• How do you define 'best'?

• Shouldn't a qualification called a 'BA/BSC/LLB' be the same standard wherever you take it?

• Is a BA/BSc from 'Oxbridge' or a 'red brick' 'better' than one from a concrete university or a former polytechnic? Which is more important in that value judgement by student, parent, employer or politician intellectual rigour or age of institution? Is it really all about image and reputation?

• Do we have a self-perpetuating system of institutionalised institutionalism?

• Does it matter where you study for a degree?

What is the difference between studying for a degree (awarded by a university) at:

• the university itself
• a further education college, or
• at the New College of the Humanities?

• Should we bring back polys?

• Would having a central degree awarding/validating body for all higher education providers create a level playing field and end the Oxbridge v Redbrick v 'Plate Glass' v 'New' university debate?

Do let us know your thoughts