The death of Oxbridge

Unlearning the lessons of the Chinese civil service

Image via AI

---

Almost every day, I overcome my inherent social awkwardness and approach a random stranger in a supermarket or car park, introduce myself and let them know I studied at Cambridge University. ‘Who cares!’ they respond, ‘Go away!’ It is what we graduates of the ancient institutions of Oxford and Cambridge—or ‘Oxbridge’—are known for and who am I to flout such a celebrated tradition?

My daughter would love to study at Cambridge but, alas, as we are Australians now, the overseas student fees would be prohibitive. Maybe she can attend as a postgraduate and hang out in that most rarefied of environments, the middle combination room? And yet, I am beginning to wonder whether Oxbridge is at a turning point. Are we witnessing a slow decline? A corrosion? Does mediocrity beckon? As we may ask about so much of Britain in 2025, are the Visigoths at the gate, denying the Nicene Creed and brushing their long locks?

I have to wonder.

There have been hints. Perhaps the weirdest Cambridge episode in recent times was the cancellation of the Anglo-Saxons. Apparently, some far-right Americans use the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in racist ways and so the Germanic peoples of old Mercia and Wessex have to suffer. Is that cultural imperialism? I’m confused.

Cambridge’s department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC) is concerned:

“One concern has been to address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity….

In general, ASNC teaching seeks to dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism - that there ever was a ‘British’, ‘English’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘Irish’ people with a coherent and ancient ethnic identity - by showing students just how constructed and contingent these identities are and always have been.”

Which is true about virtually all ethnic identities, although I would advise you to make that point judiciously.

However, it’s one thing for a dusty corner of the Sidgwick to have a conniption over a boo word; it is quite another to destroy the integrity of the entire examination system.

And yet, this appears to be the plan.

According to Neil Johnston in The Telegraph:

“The elite British institutions could move towards more ‘inclusive assessments’ such as open-book tests or take-home papers instead of in-person, unseen exams in an effort to close the grades gap.”

The idea is that this will reduce the difference in outcomes between, ‘white, middle-class students compared with other groups’.

Apparently, there is some evidence to suggest such measures reduce ‘awarding gaps’. Unfortunately, this evidence is simply referred to by Johnston as ‘some research’ so it’s not possible to interrogate that further.

---

If you enjoy reading my posts, and particularly if you find yourself sharing them, you should become a paid subscriber. This will give you access to my entire archive, as well as my weekly Curios posts that will keep you informed about everything worth knowing in the world of education. It is insanely cheap at just $5 AUD per month or $50 AUD per year. If you don’t use Australian dollars you can see how much that is in your currency here.

---

When confronted with these ideas for groovier assessment practices, the first question we should ask is: By what mechanism is this supposed to work? What is the difference between white, middle-class students and others that this solution addresses? Is Poppy from Chippenham evolutionarily adapted to the exam hall in a way that Ryan from Dudley or Femi from London are not?

Of course, if students are going away and using the internet and AI to complete their take-home papers, they are likely to be less variable. Everyone will be able to produce something or, if not, get a little help. Students like Ollie, who we used to descend on when we were stuck on our physics practice problems, would be placed in a somewhat invidious position. He would face the choice between eroding the advantage given by his raw talent and superior work ethic by helping us complete the actual test, or refusing to help and dealing with the social consequences.

So, perhaps that’s what it is about—knocking the corners off the various pianos so that we have, well, more uniformly rounded pianos. But is that what we want? How will we know which students are more knowledgeable or have worked harder?

It is worth noting that exams were invented for a reason. When the Chinese imperial system introduced exams as a requirement for entry into the civil service, it had a number of aims in mind. Some of these were about spreading Confucian culture. However, the main effect was to take away the patronage power of the local aristocracy who had previously been able to appoint people to these plum positions as a transactional favour. Once exams were introduced, this power passed to the central government who appointed people on merit—a practice that increased social mobility.

Why would exams be a net benefit to social mobility? It doesn’t matter how many connections you have or how much money you can pay, when you are in the exam room, you are on your own. No, this does not wash out all the advantages and privileges that had accumulated up to that point, but any other system of assessment perpetuates them right up until the moment of submission.

We used to know this. The Chinese exam system influenced reform of the civil service in countries like Britain.

But lessons learned, it seems, may be lessons lost. And ironically, they may be lost at two of Britain’s most prestigious seats of learning.