On average, about ￡5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?

　　Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.

　　However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited.

　　Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together - the elite universities - are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite."

　　When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do."

　　However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil. This does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.

　　不公平的優勢

　　據《牛津劍橋陰謀幫派》一書作者沃爾特·埃利斯所說，英國如今仍然處于老同學關系網的控制下：你懂什么并不重要，重要的是認識誰。他聲稱在牛津大學和劍橋大學求學的少數精英一開始便平步青云，扶搖直上，幾年之內，就登上了特權和權力的頂峰。他的調查結果顯示，英國高級職能部門仍然由牛津和劍橋的畢業生控制著，如果沒有90%，至少也有60或者65%。

　　埃利斯指出，牛津、劍橋的畢業生只占英國大學畢業生總數的2%。其他的研究者似乎也證明了這一點，即牛津、劍橋的畢業生一開始就在勞動市場上占據著不公平的優勢。最近公布的一份調查結果顯示：在法律界，去年任命的26名高級法官都就讀過私立學校，其中21人曾就讀過牛津和劍橋。

　　但僅憑這些就能說是一個陰謀幫派嗎?根據英國一家有代表性的私立學校--威斯敏斯特的前任校長約翰·雷博士的看法，情況并不是這樣的："我承認過去英國的某些重要領域內存在著偏見，可如今這種偏見已經不存在了。一段時間以前--即60年工或更早的時候進牛津、劍橋并不完全是憑本事的。而現在，在任何能夠客觀看問題的人的眼里，毫無疑問，去牛津和劍橋讀書競爭理很激烈的。"

　　然而，很多人都不同意這種說法。盡管有3/4的英國畢業生就讀于公立學校，而上牛津劍橋的學生中有半數以上的人曾就讀于私立學校，即"公學"。難道這是因為英國私立學校的學生比公立學校的學生更聰明些?或者，僅僅因為他們準備得更加充分嗎?

　　私立學校平均每年在一個學生身上的花費是5000英鎊，是公立學校每個學生費用的兩倍還多。那么財源少得多的情況下，公立學校的學生怎么可能與私立學校的學生競爭呢?這些考試需要精心準備，為此許多公立學校的學生傳統上要住校，以便有額外的學習時間。

　　直到最近，仍有很多人就牛津大學的專門入學考試一事譴責牛津存在偏見。但牛津大學直到去年2月才決定取消入學考試，鼓勵更多的公立學校畢業生報考本校。從1996年秋天開始，申請上牛津大學的學生像其他大學的申請者一樣，將只根據他在中學學習期間的成績和面試的表現來決定是否錄取，盡管有些系仍可能需要專門考試。

掃描/長按二維碼即可幫助自考通關

獲取10月自考成績查詢

獲取最后6套預測卷

免費獲取8次直播課程

獲取歷年考試真題試卷

自考萬題庫下載丨微信搜索"萬題庫自考"

　　相關推薦：

　　考試吧整理：各地2018年自學考試報名時間匯總

　　2018年自學考試《大學語文》串講資料匯總

　　2018自考《馬克思主義基本原理》章節復習匯總

　　2018年自考法律基礎與思想道德修養單選習題匯總