Post-1992s' higher grade requirements show shift in balance of power

Well, some New Universities may be raising entry point tariffs, but then again, A levels are so dumbed down these days that not raising tariffs amounts to an actual lowering of entry standards.

Nice to see snobbery alive and well - it must be painful when facts contradict your preconceived world-view, dear Doctor.

Entry points going up everywhere due to dumbing down of A levels, more people with higher grades means that even poor institutions can ask for higher entry grades. At this rate everyone will soon get AAA or better at A level and Poppleton will be able to ask for AAA!

A large flaw in the HECSU report is the direct association of high entry grades with quality of graduates. It calls for employers to look beyond old universities because, shock horror, some new universities recruit students with high entry grades. it's as if the 3-4 years inbetween leaving school and graduating from university has no effect whatsoever.

@Re dumbing down -- I wear the moniker of "snobbery" as a badge of honor, kind sir/madam. And at the same time I note the criticism on anti-elitist grounds as it appears -- plain garden variety anti-intellectualism and anti-Semitism that is merely thinly disguised.

Is asking for the same as what they get via clearing?

As much as it may be tempting for a former Polytechnic to introduce higher grade expectations for aspiring students, that does not necessarily imply that the calibre of education is superior to that available within comparable Institutions such as the Hamburger University. But, if the Vice Chancellor of any Former Polytechnic wishes to delude themselves otherwise, that is their problem. Of course, if anything is contributing to the notion that education is being dumbed down, then this could be down to institutions wishing to gain Brownie Points by awarding "Honorary Doctorates" - such as in the case of Mr Alan Sugar who ended up with a faux-PhD from Brunel despite Sugar only acquiring a few O levels at school, and making no subsequent contribution to either secondary, college or University Education.

@Dr Fredrics - Not sure what you are on about re 'plain garden variety anti intellectualism and anti Semitism'. Can you explain?

@H -- Cries of "snobbery" and "elitism" are often used by those who are really just anti-intellectual and/or anti-Semitic in their views. In the US, for example, there is a common phrase -- the "Hollywood elite" that's used pejoratively as a code word meaning Jews. So this is what I mean when I respond as such to those suggesting that a desire to uphold academic standards amounts to snobbery.

What the hell is Frederics on about now!? 'Elite' doesn't mean 'Jew' you unspeakable idiot!

I heard that London Met were planning to introduce punting and straw boaters

The scottish Universities mentioned in this article only have high tariff scores because UCAS classifies Highers and other scottish quals in a different way - inflating their UCAS tariffs in comparison with traditional 3-4 A level english Universities. Glasgow Cal, Queen Margeret and RGU all have some competitive courses but it is the high proportion of Scottish or Scottish Highers students who skew it, as well as lots of Irish Highers students - who also bring high UCAS points with their 5-6 post 16 quals. Kate Purcell should realise that the UCAS tariff is not always an appropriate benchmark of entry quality - it is also skewed by how many tariff points Universities bother to enter onto their systems over and above those actually required for entry. Some enter British Horse Society or Clarinet Grade 8 onto their admissions screens, others do not bother as it is not relevant.

@Hero -- "Intellectual Elite" is a term used by the Nazis to mean "Jews." Please read up on your mid-20th century history and you'll understand the full context. I'm not going to give you a complete lesson on this, but instead, I'll just simply say that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Don't talk crap - it wasn't and isn't a general synonym for Jew you are trying, inexplicably in my view, to move all the people who disagree with you into some sort of anti-semetic camp - which is as equally abhorrent as it is laughable. please give up its not constructive for anyone - the poster was referring to a blind acceptance that all 'post-92s are worse than all pre-92s based not on facts but on snobbery - the leap to 'he is anti-semetic' is blindingly stupid.and you should bloody well grow up

Dear Doctor, sorry to bring facts into this, but you were the person who mentioned elitism in your second post, where you stated "at the same time I note the criticism on anti-elitist grounds as it appears ". Then you said in your third post "Cries of "snobbery" and "elitism" are often used by those who are really just anti-intellectual and/or anti-Semitic in their views". So, you raised the straw man of elitism, and and are now disparaging others who have never mentioned it.

@hero -- Actually, I was responding to a clearly intended insult -- an accusation of snobbery -- not simply a disagreement. If someone wants to disagree on the facts with my assertion that A-levels are dumbed, down, that's fair enough. But when an assertion that A-levels are dumbed down is met with accusations of snobbery, then that brings to mind the classic thinly veiled anti-intellectual and anti-Semitic slur. I've heard this sort of comment countless times in my life, and so I'm keenly aware of when it rears its ugly head. @re dumbing down -- snobbery is one accusation used in such slurs, and elitism is simply another closely-related accusation. I cited this to illustrate another alternative term that is used with similar intent and effect. All of this points to the classic anti-Semitic myth of Jews seeing themselves as somehow above others.

It's very entertaining to see how Dr Fredrics is trying to claw his way out of a hole that is now far too deep for him even to see daylight. Rhetorically, it wasn't a clever move to introduce - bizarrely, to be honest - anti-Semitism into the discussion. Frankly, I reckon a quiet apology for the silliness of it is in order. Dr Fredriks actually has a point, though, A-Levels do appear to have become 'easier'. I work at a new university and we've put up our entry requirements every year for the last three years in response to this. Five years ago, as little as two Ds was required to get in; we are now in the region of 240 points (two As, or, more realistically for us, BCD). We've put the grades up more than we strictly needed to, and it has made a difference. On the whole, the work submitted by students this year is better than anything we've ever had, in terms of critical thinking and writing skills. My experience is not that we are a lesser version of an old university. Our teaching is generally pretty good, perhaps occasionally even better than that at an older institution, because we have to 'add more value'. Some excellent research is produced in my area, the Humanities. It shouldn't be a surprise that the lower-ranked old unis and the top new institutions have moved closer together in the tables. But let's be honest, a handful of universities swapping places in the tables is hardly 'a shift in the balance of power'. The old universities are safe, I think. For now.

@New Uni Academic -- I don't think we're going to agree on the anti-Semitism issue, but I do appreciate your input on the New University/A-level issue, which is what I started out talking about, till I was insulted by another poster. I'm heartened to hear about your university's raising of entry requirements and most of all to hear that it really has made a difference. Kudos to you and your university's management for being willing to take the risk to enrollment numbers that raising entry requirements brings with it. I'm glad to see it's paid off. Basic market economic theory says that if you make something scarce, it tends to become more desirable. So I do think that in the long run, such an approach does pay off.

@ Howard. I don't think any of us will agree with you about the anti- semitism jibe. Stupid and narrow minded and perhaps anti-semtic itself - the notion that snobbery, elitism and jewishenss are forever intwined is truly offensive.

@jj -- you really don't seem to understand what I've said. It is an anti-Semitic stereotype to associate Jews with snobbery/intellectual elitism. These terms are very often used by anti-Semites as pejorative code words to mean Jews. When a Jewish person (or any person, for that matter) advocates for high academic standards, and someone responds by either suggesting that such a view reflects either snobbery or elitism, the connection is unavoidable, as a matter of fact. I'm sorry, JJ, but you're reflecting a significant degree of historical myopia to not understand and realize that this is indeed the case. I respectfully submit that current and historical white supremacist ideology centres around the labeling of Jews as "intellectual elite", "cultural elite" and other similar euphemisms. I suggest that doubters read this little piece of white supremacist propaganda and perhaps you'll either change your view (if you're not an anti-Semite) or maybe you won't, and you'll just agree with the views espoused in this vile article:- http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-KaufmannII.html

I would add to my last reference, the following even more disgusting reference that further buttresses the view that classic anti-Semitic rhetoric centres around accusations of elitism, particularly intellectual elitism: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/16supe.htm. I have hesitated to post these links only because I did not want to give yet more ammunition to budding anti-Semites among THES readers. But the responses I've thus far received have, alas, compelled me to do so.

I fully agree with new uni academic - I also teach a humanities subject at a new uni and our own requirements have gone up and our research is rated higher than at many old unis. An appealing new location is one very practical factor which can help new uni overtake some old unis. @ Dr Fredrics - when I comment on this forum it's quite often to grumble at people at old unis having a go at post 92s. I might sometimes happen to use the words snobbish or elitist. Just because accusations of elitism are sometimes associated with antisemitic discourse doesn't mean every time elitism is invoked antisemitsm is a factor. For example, I had no idea from your name that you were Jewish and I suspect 're dumbing down' didn't either. Please note that I agree that antisemitism can be a problem in UK academia, often coming out within the context of antizionism, I agree that antisemitic tropes can be difficult to spot and may be picked up and used unintentionally. But I really don't follow your logic here!

meant to say 'appealing location' not 'appealing new location'. @Howard - I looked you up out of curiosity and realized that you might not unreasonably expect people(at least people commenting on this site) to perhaps know who you are - and know you are Jewish. I apologise if that was indeed your understanding of the situation. But although your name was vaguely familiar (maybe just from this forum) I didn't know anything about you before.

@Sarah -- Whether or not someone knows I'm Jewish doesn't have any bearing on the potentially anti-Semitic meaning of certain comments. But 'tis true that being Jewish, I may be more conscious of such potential meanings, simply out of necessity and bitter experience. I suppose all I'm saying is that one ought to be conscious of such things, and not simply attribute a desire to maintain high standards as snobbish or elitist. I fully believe equal opportunity and high standards are not mutually exclusive. For the record, I don't tend to simply trash new universities, only those that commit fraud. I commend and applaud those that don't.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but may I have some please?

Oh well - it seems that nobody can ever accuse anybody of being elitist again - as it is apparently a terrible anti-semitic jibe !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Howard, you are wrong factually and morally in your idea that anti-snobbery is the same as anti-elitism, and in the idea that anti-elitism is the same as anti-semitism. For this to be true the 'elite' would need to be exclusively compiled of Jews, and snobbery would also need to be entirely pro-jew, none of which are true. You are certainly falling into the trap of assuming that anyone who is anti-you is anti-jew. Many jews think that this affords protection from criticism. In reality it performs a similar effect to a person claiming that everyone else is lying - people realise that this is a tactic to hide the fact that that person is lying. ONe could easily argue that the jewish model to gain power is to accuse all of anti-semitism, then to flood in whilst embarrasment over being seen as prejudiced holds back a tide of legitmate criticism, but this view only has weight when anti-semite accusations are thrown around without any sense or reason. Being anti-success, anti-intellectual, anti-middleclass, etc etc cannot be ascribed to anti-semitism because the majority of people those positions attack are not jewish, and also because there are unsuccessful, unintellectual, working class, poverty stricken disease-ridden jews as much as there are protected and priviledged jews, just as there are christians, muslims, seikhs, buddhists, hare krishnas, sikhs, suffis, free christians, scientologists, Amway reps, car workers, racists, working class people, whites, blacks ... You are foolish here. Give it up.

@Hero -- Thank you, you've made my point perfectly. The point is that the stereotypes of elitism and snobbery are exactly that -- stereotypes, which are not universally true for Jews, just as they are not universally true for other groups/cultures. But the fact remains, that it is Jews who are labeled as such to the point where the terms have historically come to become synonymous in certain circles. I would, however, say that your characterization of Jews in relation to charges of anti-Semitism is both offensive and false. "One could easily argue that the Jewish model to gain power is to accuse all of anti-semitism..." Such a statement falls into the classic anti-Semitic trap of suggesting that Jews express concerns about anti-Semitism in order to gain power and not out of a genuine belief (right or wrong) that that is what underlies a particular set of circumstances. This could not be farther from the truth. Most Jews I know, especially in Britain, do not want to bring forth such charges, and usually do everything possible to avoid drawing such conclusions until it becomes blatantly obvious. But I, for one, will not sit idly by while anti-Semitic tropes of elitism and/or snobbery are bandied about, especially in connection with academic standards and/or valuing intellectual pursuits/approaches. It is in these particular areas of pursuit that Jews have found themselves the object of anti-Semitic bias. Including in Nazi Germany, but also in, for example, contemporary American "culture war" debates. Again, as I said in a previous post, I'm happy to debate the veracity of the original point I made about dumbing down of A-levels on its own merits, as either factually true or false, but not on the basis of whether my view is a symptom of "snobbery" or "elitism."

You idiot.

Some of the comments above cross the line into bold faced cyberbullying. I really do think it's time for THES moderators to step in and enforce their policies on abusive posts. Or is it perfectly OK for such bullying to take place when it's done against a Jewish academic?

Jesus christ it is worse than my toys bigger than your toys fight amongst a bunch of 10 year olds who has the bigger toys. If some supposedly academics actually did their job and I dunno read around before commenting they would realise that Dr Howard Fredrics worked at Kingston University which in the opening line of its wikipedia article says; "Formerly a polytechnic, it was granted university status in 1992 under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992." Now if Dr Howard Fredrics says that the reason behind these universities accepting higher A level grades is because the A level is dumbed down then Im inclined to believe them I was a student at Kingston and the quality of my education was so poor that I think if it was a high school it would have been closed down. Now is that snobbery me saying that. It cannot be as im saying it about my own degree. However, By claiming anti-semitisim incomments and criticism of himself Howard Fredrics is not helping his beliefs and cause.

Hey Hero, did it feel good to be able to put the words " poverty stricken disease-ridden jews" ? You wear your pseudonym "Hero" like the KKK wear their hoods.

I actually agree with much of what HF says in the middle of his last but one post - the long one beginning @hero. Usually when someone is saying a text or article is antisemitic and someone else is saying 'you're being oversensitive' I agree with the *first* person. Sometimes I need to think/read a bit more to understand fully why something is antisemitic. I was teaching a text recently which, it has been argued, uses antisemitc tropes and some of the students said their view of the text changed once they had learnt something about, eg, the blood libel. It's actually these more *subtly* antisemitc texts/articles etc which are the most damaging as they can become vectors for more vicious opinions, normalising them insidiously. But having said all that I still don't see why someone accusing someone else of elitism within a discussion about different university sectors in the UK is antisemitic.

Howard, the more you behave like this, the more I know that your 'knowledge' of bullying is weak. One facet of bullying behaviour is to claim that a legitimately held view is 'evidence' of deep seated and universally unpopular views, or of mental ill-health, or of a blanket hatred. The action of doing so is to marginalise the person expressing those views from a fake 'majority'. What many bullies do when their tactics (usually directed at a psychologically weakened target - in this case you have failed to pick your target well) are revealed, and address head on such that they can't be hidden anymore (in this case your tactic to subtely accuse posters challenging your snobbery as anti-semetic (and I would presume therefore cowardly weak and ill-informed), the bully will then display what is called 'feigning victimhood' 'It's not me who's bullying, everyone who is accusing me of bullying is just anti me (or anti 'people like me'). What you are experiencing here, Howard, is people criticising your views, and your idiotic stance in maintaining them, when they are evidently weak. Being anti-elitism or anti-intellectual is not being anti-jew. Many jews reasonably convincingly argue that many things said by people with no anti-semite views are in 'reality' anti-semetic 'its just that the person doesn't know they are anti-semetic' the classic example being the persistent illegal actions by the state of Israel against Palestine. I am in full disagreement with the idea that Israeli policy is effective or legal. I am not anti-semetic yet many jewish authors will claim that I 'must' be to disagree with Israel - they are wrong. I can disagree with my local shopkeeper's decision to put his beer prices up without somehow being psychotically anti white male, or anti black hair or anti-people who are shorter than me, or anti-shopkeeper. If he later tells me he's gay it doesn't somehow flip me to a homophobe - the issue is that his beer prices are high and in the case above, Howard, your views were snobbery expressed tongue in cheek, and I thought that snobbery was challengable. IF you now tell me you have a goatee, don't try to convince me I'm anti-jazzmen you fool

Ok , THES it is well into the day after " The George Board of Governors" wrote " You idiot" in response to my husband's posts. Please note that a person would have to be extremely familiar with what is going on in Howard's life in order to choose that pseudonym in an attempt to goad him. Hero writes again and interestingly refers to his idiotic stance. He further brings Israel into the discussion when Howard has previously publicly spoken out against the boycott against Israeli Academics Hero closes by making reference to my husband's goatee beard. I make the case that these statements are escalating so far into the personal realm that THES should not under ANY circumstances leave these attacks on their website . Why do they remain when there is a webmaster who can take them down?

Well the goatee was actually just an illustration - I didn't think for a minute he would have one!! |'m afraid the stance is idiotic, and that is why the word idiot has been used (in the context 'being an idiot over this' rather than 'I have clinically assessed your learning ability to be below normal') Israel is an illustration, and would you be happy to accept that Howard is an anti-gentile because he disagrees with a boycott on israeli academics? We are all attacking Howards view and poor attempts to fling anti-semite mud. You (both) seem desparate to try to move this into the personal and racist. We are resisting your pull.

Flapping and blustering when you are losing Lori doesn't make you right, neither does shouting loudly to the gallery in the hope they haven't heard the real interchange - its published above!!

Hahaha this thread is amusing - Fredrics gets a good blasting for a ridiculous statement, and he throws his hands (his wife's hands?) up saying 'its not my fault the statement was ridiculous, its yours for feeling its ridiculous! Accept that sometimes the signals you get from many people might sometimes mean 'you are wrong' instead of 'they all hate me'.,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Howard is saying both that Jews are snobbish AND that people who accuse them of being snobbish are wrong?

And on the subject of euphemisms and the UK population's blind spot to them... Not long ago I was talking to a barrister who said that one of her clients, a black man, was recently convicted in Kingston Magistrates court and they actually listed an aggravating factor in his crime as" being from south London". In 2009! How thinly veiled was that? I can not imagine a court in mid-town Manhattan citing a defendant's address in Harlem as being an aggravating factor, even many decades ago. Also everyone in America knows that "Welfare Mothers" means African American single parent families. Cowardly and underhanded racists use "wink, wink, nod, nod" terms all the time. Fair minded individuals know that minorities are sensitive to this and viciously tearing into someone who honestly believes he is picking up on such a thing is acting like a school of sharks.

Idiot again. 'Welfare Moms' applies in the majority of cases to white working class single parents. There are more white 'welfare moms' by some 2 million than there are black welfare moms - I suggest you take off your 'racism everywhere' spectacles before you walk into an evil woman-hating, jew bashing lamppost

I have to concur - Welfare Moms are what Jerry Springer is based on - there are a hell of a lot more whites on there than blacks.

Reading comprehension problems James? Yes, I believe you are wrong and you are confusing mischaracterizations of what people wrote with Howard's actual posts. And conveniently, you added one of your very own!

Yes, exactly there are more white welfare moms than blacks. Although your reference to Jerry Springer as your source of information is worrisome. My point is that the reality of who constitute the actual families on welfare does not change the fact that in America, "welfare mom" is a racist stereotype. No matter how many UK blinders you put on yourselves it remains as such. But of course, White Supremacist Nazis would be happy to know that British readers of The Times stand with them on this against the word of a Jewish American.

Yes, exactly there are more white welfare moms than blacks. Although your reference to Jerry Springer as your source of information is worrisome. My point is that the reality of who constitute the actual families on welfare does not change the fact that in America, "welfare mom" is a racist stereotype. No matter how many UK blinders you put on yourselves it remains as such. But of course, White Supremacist Nazis would be happy to know that British readers of The Times stand with them on this against the word of a Jewish American.

Oh for pete's sake, no wonder you can't see the wood, you're banging your head off the trees (NO NOT a reference to 'Defiance'). You are saying that White Supremacist Nazis think that the term 'welfare mom' refers only to black women and equating this to what the general understanding of the term is. You really need to stay out of the marginalised self-perpetuating areas of the web and use more nous. FYI this is the THES not the times, you are not a Jewish American, you are Lori Frederics

@James -- No, I'm not saying that Jews are snobbish. I'm saying that there is an anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews being snobbish, a stereotype that I find both offensive and inaccurate.

I am Lori Joachim Fredrics and I am a Jewish American. Your response to me is nothing less than vitriolic. If anyone is actually interested, why not contact an actual African American and ask them whether right wing racists in before their all white audiences unfairly use the term 'welfare moms' to generate hate against the black minority? Do it and you will have your answer. Hero, I don't think that " White Supremacist Nazis think that the term 'welfare mom' refers only to black women" I know they use that term to stir up hate. They don't actually think that African Americans are the only ones on welfare any more than you actually don't think that anti-semitism exists. I don't get my perspective and my insight into American culture from "marginalised self-perpetuating areas of the web" I get it from having lived in many different regions of the US and interacting with people who have diverse backgrounds and views. If I want to go to any part of the web to see what people are writing I will do that as well. You don't tell me what to do or where to go or who I am. And you will not intimidate me or my husband I am sure, we will continue to voice our views here and anywhere else we please. And EXCUSE me for not using the usual term THES, as if that makes any difference. .

Good, so we know that you won't be intimidated, and that you hear a different voice and emotion behind most communications that ascribes aggression and vitriol. Try some little experiments a) google 'welfare mom' as either a word search or picture search and see all the 'white trash' examples, the JK Rowling examples, and Web Definitions - none that I look at defines welfare mom as black - and the pictures are overwhelmingly white women. As can be shown above, your view is pretty much that everyone is racist and anti-semite, and you believe that when someone uses the term 'welfare mom' they 'secretly' mean black welfare moms only, so you will have already defined 'white racist' to mean 'anyone using the coded words 'Welfare Mom' and already agreed (with yourself) that they mean it in a racist way so your sentence 'right wing racists before their all white audience.. use the term welfare mom' to generate hate' is meaningless. AS for going mental and saying 'you don't tell me what to do' you sound like the women who scream and fight each other in my neighbourhood when they are losing the argument.

Experiement b) smile and read all the posts back as if they are all said with a smiling voice and as gentle humour. - then reflect on how your view of the world colours how you read views expressed by others (yes I know, no one tells you what to do yada yada yada.).. Experiment c) read all the posts out saying 'short person' or 'michael' instead of 'jew' or 'semite' and just get how ridiculous you and your husband sound.

Ok Hero, so you value two minutes of googling over a native's perspective of their own culture. I really, really hope that you are neither a researcher nor someone who teaches in a classroom. It is surprising that you compare my written indications that I object to you denying my nationality and religion and assertions that I will not be intimidated by you to "women who scream and fight each other in the streets" . Why are you repeatedly bringing gender into this discussion? Outside my window people argue, occasionally, Their gender is not material. You continue to mis-state what I have written. I never said that everyone is racist, I just said that sometimes racists use euphemisms. Oppressed minorities within a society pick up on those more than the majority society. Certainly no outsider can understand the finer points of a foreign society by doing a little google search. If you think you can you need to go to a good university and learn how to gather information.

Hero... gentle humour? There is nothing skewed about my perception of what you wrote.You did not write short, you wrote jew. But I do note that your use of the phrase "your view of the world" is similar to "your view of the world" as written by Re dumbing down just as your use of the word idiotic and idiot, is identical to The George Board of Governors " You idiot". I think it is much more likely that the three of you are one person, puffing himself up and hiding behind false names than the possibility that normal readership of THES has such a limited vocabulary. I will continue to believe this until proved wrong. Identify yourselves.

If you need anymore evidence that education is being dumbed down. When you have academics arguing like a bunch of 10 year olds

No argument with what you have said Mathew.

@Matthew -- I agree completely, though I'd like to think that, whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of my points, I've, at least, made a fair attempt at keeping the discourse within the realm of civility and outside of the realm of personal insults. I do, however, wonder, whether or not some of the participants in this discussion are or have ever been academics in the sense of having taught at the university or further education level.

Howard, you have claimed that a comment about you being snobbish reflects a hidden and unintentional anti-semitism, and then have gone on to say that all anti-intellectualism isn't anti-intellectualism at all but a code word for anti-semitism. It isn't and you are still incorrect no matter how much you attempt to move the argument around (in your last attempt to a debate about who is making personal insults and who isn't, or perhaps a debate about who is a 'real' academic and who isn't. My 'poke the troll' side is itching to accuse you of 'making a thinly veiled attempt to accuse me of being a gentile' (by accusing me of not being 'truly intellectual') but you can see where I am going here - being called a gentile isn't an insult in the same way that being a jew isn;t an insult unless the person making it AND the person hearing it agree. You have assumed that because you hear an insult the person making it must mean it, but in the same way that a girl hears a 'you are beautiful' as sarcasm when she feels down, but 'you are beautiful AND wonderful as a person' when she is secure, you are hearing 'you are jewish' as an insult - what is worse is that 'you are jewish' hasn't been said, what has been said is 'you are an intellectual snob' and because you have read some jewish statements about intellectualism being a jewish trait and some other condemnation about the idea that 'all jews are more intelligent than all gentiles' you have assumed that when someone says 'you are an intellectual snob' you hear this as 'you are a jew' and then add on your additional negative prejudices about what 'being a jew' is. Worringly this suggests that you are anti-semetic, and we shouldn't ignoire the idea that this might be the case (many gay men are homophobic for example). This trawl through the expression of your psychology though is not clear factual debate, yet it is, I',m sure, fascinating for the lay person to understand the sensitivituy and misguidedness of the 'average' accusation of anti-semitism.

@Hero -- calling someone an "idiot" is a personal insult. That is an example of what I'm referring to. Obviously, you've ignored the substantial references I've provided to historical anti-Semitic tropes in relation to intellectual elitism and/or snobbery, else you could not possibly reasonably suggest that such anti-Semitic stereotypes don't exist -- "It isn't and you are still incorrect no matter how much you attempt to move the argument around." Furthermore, you have completely mischaracterized virtually everything I have said in my posts. I have never said that making a statement that could readily be seen as anti-Semitic means that the author of that statement indeed intends it as such. It is a simple historical fact that such phrases have been used as such, and all I have asserted is that one ought to be conscious of that fact when using such terms as "snobbery" in the context of a discussion about the desirability of upholding high academic standards. I do, however, take great exception with your suggestion that I might be anti-Semitic simply because I am aware of the historical way that Jews have been stereotyped and because I urge others to consider carefully their use of stereotypes or terms that are well known to be applied in the service of perpetuating such stereotypes. As far as my comments concerning whether or not some posters may not be academics, I made those comments out of a genuine concern, though not necessarily a firm belief, that the insulting nature of some of the discourse (i.e. use of such terms as "you unspeakable idiot.") might mean that the author of such insults might lack the experience in proper academic discourse that one would expect of a THES reader, thereby suggesting that such an individual might be an imposter, someone posing as an academic, with an agenda of causing distress through personal insults.

Oh Dear HERO broke Howards rules....disagreeing AND not 'discoursing' in the 'right' way .. presumably a way that means Howard loses?! Don't think calling statements that clearly aren't anti-semetic anti-semetic is 'proper academic discourse' that tactic is out of a book of 'shit tactics to use in an argument'. If HEro is using your flip to 'that statement is anti-semetic' to mean you are anti-semetic he might have a point - hearing 'you are a snob' as 'I hate jews' is a chip on the shoulder par excellence

Oh and Lori/Howard I would guess that if several people are calling your silly links idiotic and/or you beiung idiots for expressing them then perhaps this is a concensus against your argument?

Interesting that Hero never responded to my assertion that he was also both "re dumbing down' and 'The George Board of Governors'. Interesting that someone who calls himself Hero is afraid to identify himself and needs to puff himself up in this way. Also interesting that THES stands by and permits insults and abuse to stand on their pages. Very shameful indeed.

This grade inflation issue is a bit ridiculous - Warwick was the equivalent of a 'post 92' when it started as a new uni, and its now top 3 to top 5 in the UK, so there is no artificial grade inflation there - what is amazing is that people think that all old unis are better than all new unis and all those are better than the post 92 unis.. and that this situation should stay like that!! some are obviously going to improve and move up the ranks... and that is how a mix will happen like there is between the 'old' unis and the newer ones already. I don't know what the exchange above is about but if all the pre-92 unis were jewish only (actually overwhelmingly christian if anything!) then the above would make some sort of weird sense, but other than that its a little off topic no? I would throw my hat into the ring. To me the idea that all semites are intellectual and therefore that all anti-intellectual statements are anti-semetic is just not logical - this would also imply that all intellectuals are semites and indeed that accusing frederics of snobbery (which he clearly displays and admits to) is the same as being anti-intellectual, which again isn't logical since snobbery is not exclusively aimed (in this case or any other) at intellectualism only. Perhaps Frederics makes snobbish claims as an expression of his semetic identity and as such views follow-up as a direct attack on his personal or general semeticity, but I don't think most semites view snobbery and intellectual elitism as a characteristic or inherent trait of judaism. If they do then more fool them - there is nothing more aggravating than one race or sect claiming automatic or genetic superiority over another.

i must admit - the weird focus by employers on 'top' unis means that they are not selecting from the best graduates, but instead from the slightly better but not the best a-levels. someone can easily get top grades and go to a lower ranking university and develop a1 skills and employability. i know this is true because i recruited one who left my company and did a MBA at oxford business school and got a distinction. employers are missing out if they select out the best in this way.

@Lori, I can definitely state that Hero was not the author of the second and fifteenth posts - I was. I can also categorically state that I did not know your husband was Jewish or had a goatee - I do not make a practice of undertaking a full investigation of any poster I am replying to on a forum thread (fairly pointless, as most posters use a "nom de internet").

come on lori, play the white man

I was posting earlier as Sarah but a new Sarah (with whose point about grades I agree) has arrived. I also agree with Johnno's points about the university sectors - there's bound to be lots of shuffling around and this is particularly apparent in my own field (humanities). This is partly, perhaps, because it's so difficult to find a job that a good aspiring lecturer in say English will readily take the first permanent job that's offered whether it's an old uni or a post 92. Going back to Sarah's point - I fully agree. Anyone who overlooks someone with a strong 2.1 or a first simply because they didn't go to an old uni is being pretty irrational. Such a student is statistically more likely to have come from a non traditional background and thus may (though not in every case) have had to show more determination in order to come to university - and, as they are more likely to have entered uni with lower grades, they are probably on an upwards curve. I used to teach at Oxbridge and obviously many of the students were exceptional but others had just been well taught and plodded unexcitingly to a lowish 2.1.

I made an earlier comment which I think was naive. At the time, I had no idea who Howard Frederics was - like many I have no particular idea who the contributors are and the contributions from Frederics seemed overblown and extraordinary. Having looked at things, and undertsood a little more background, I can undertand that reaction. The use of language is seldom wholly neutral and involves an exchange of meaning. What is intended may not be what is understood. Given the background, is it really that amazing that Frederics interpreted things as he did ?

Yes it is amazing - since there is no evidence whatsoever that someone being anti-snobbery is generally held to be anti-semetic - it just makes the cry of anti-semetism seem ridiculous - as it is often criticised for being - there is no gain in Frederics makikng these ridiculous statements and no amount of 'well he would say that wouldn't he' should prevent me or others from pointing out again and again how ridiculous the knee-jerk (and in this case manufactured) anti-semitism charge is touted. It feeds in so dangerously to the charge that it tries to refute as to make me wonder if in fact the sterotype of jews as being blind to criticism, arrogant and self-appointing as intellectual elite (as Howard believes is the case) is actually a truism. If I am wondering that, its easy to see how jews could be digging themseleves into their own grave (and NO that is NOT a reference to 'mass graves' it is a turn of phrase!!

Hero, your comments are totally unacceptable, to put it mildly. I hope even those who are perhaps puzzled by Howard's specific initial objection (which may possibly relate to an aspect of US culture I am unaware of) will see that his concerns about antisemitism more generally are far from unfounded.

That response seems particularly obtuse Sarah AB when you say 'far from unfounded' do you mean a long way into ridiculousness or is this a very english and indirect (dishonest) way of saying 'founded'. I'm very disappointed that you find my comments unnaccepable and (though I hope not) seem to be also reading anti-semitism into them. This thread could be seen as a great case-study in how throwing about false and idiotic accusations leads to a paranoia about those accusations being true - we have had everything from the idea that people are unintentionally using anti-semite code words to the idea that the world is inadvertantly anti-semite when it uses words that some jews can think might just maybe apply kind of to them - the whole argument is a bit like someone at the bustop hearing the word 'bus' and then punching someone out for saying 'nice bust' - its just utterly utterly ridiculous to then blame the person who said 'bus' for all the trouble!

rather than the paranoid nut who kicked off

HEY!

I think that Howard is right - if someone says any of the code word it is a sign that their brain is diseased. What's that? what are the code words? I can't tell you that!! that would stop me from using them whenever someone I am targeting says anyth..... I mean they are sacred and not for the likes of you. Oh are you challenging me? that is just what a WITCH would do BURN THE WITCH BURN THE WITCH. What do you mean 'I am not a witch' that is code for I LOVE THE DEVIL oh it doesn't matter whether you meant it missy that is what your heart kicked out and it knows better thanyou what is in your heart and that is that you are a WITCH. Whhat do you mean 'Ok i AM a witch' that too is code for 'ALL WITCH HUNTERS ARE CORRUPT' which is just what a witch WOULD say.. BURN THE WITCH

Are you seriously saying that jews are all witches?

No - but very funny thanks for the misread I am saying that ALL WITCHES ARE WITCHES and ANYONE WHO IS NOT A WITCH IS A WITCH JUST WON'T ADMIT IT

Hero - my own initial response to HF was bewilderment and I saw nothing wrong in people robustly (though not rudely) challenging him. I felt particularly sorry for 're dumbing down' who must have found HF's response reallly bizarre. I *still* don't think HF has backed up his case although I am willing to concede that it is just possible that the elitism/antisemitism link resonates more in a US context. Hero - I sometimes find it difficult to know exactly what you actually mean/think because you invoke ideas but don't always make it clear, to me, whether you agree with them. Here is the part of your post I thought seemed most offensive: "It feeds in so dangerously to the charge that it tries to refute as to make me wonder if in fact the sterotype of jews as being blind to criticism, arrogant and self-appointing as intellectual elite (as Howard believes is the case) is actually a truism." You seem to be saying that you are now minded to think that all Jews fit this unpleasant stereotype. I don't actually think this *is* what you really think - I think you are just irritated by Howard probably. And then you said " If I am wondering that, its easy to see how jews could be digging themseleves into their own grave (and NO that is NOT a reference to 'mass graves' it is a turn of phrase!!" The first bit clearly has the potential to invoke memories of the Holocaust and (just in case we hadn't noticed that) you then emphasise the point by denying that is the intention. Even if it could be argued that the initial point about mass graves doesn't, or doesn't deliberately, invoke the Holocaust (and I'd be perfectly willing to accept that someone might just use an unfortunate turn of phrase innocently) your 'denial' of a Holocaust reference seems, to me, designed to bait HF. You could have just used some other idiom - not sure if 'hoist with their own petard' is quite right but there must some an alternative which works.

Well! I am surprised that you don't see the danger - I currently don't think the sterotype of jews as being blind to criticism, arrogant and self-appointing as intellectual elite (as Howard believes is the case) is a truism, but I (as anyone would be) is more likely to lean that way the more evidence he/she sees of that behaviour. If all my interactions with Jewish people consist of being accused of being an anti-semite, being accused of being 'not really able to have academic discourse', then I am told by all those Jewish people that Jews are seen to be the same as the academic elite, then I am told that I can't criticise that because I am too stupid to understand history, then it would start to become a truism. Assuming that anyone who debates anti-semitism and is not jewish must 'secretly' be an anti-semite is a deep-seated prejudice that many jews seem to hold and not challenge in themselves even though the same jews seem to advocate the reduction of prejudice. THis is a problem that Howard seems admirably to demonstrate

I think I understand where Hero is coming from, but I think he misinterprets his frustration - I think what he might be feeling is that Howard seems (in this case) to have found someone disagreeing with him, and in order to deal with it (perhaps in order to protect himself from feeling wrong) has not said 'I am wrong' or 'you disagree with my opinion' but instead is saying 'no-one could possibly misunderstand my point of view, it must be because i am Jewish that they are saying that' and then has sought to prove this view instead of arguing on the point of disagreement itself. Its no wonder Hero is frustrated because mentioning anything after that 'seems' to make him seem more anti-semetic. My worry too is that this is what a lot of 'minorities' who percieve themselves to be victimised do - women who don't have qualifications or the right personality for a job blaming sexism, working class black men blaming being racism rather than similarly applied structural factors for poverty and crime rates. It is frustrating to someone who is clearly an egalitarian and a pragmatist to meet someone who blusters so readily with 'you are predjudiced' and then says 'see!' at everything said after that. As for your suggestion, Sarah AB, of 'Hoist.. petard' that phrase drives me insane -its the Phrase de jour at the moment and its just awful!!

I'm sorry but if we can't use 'dig your own grave' any more incase we offend people who might have buried someone, or perhaps the decendents of the Diggers, or perhaps the concept of 'ownership' is too suggestive of successful jewish businessmen then we are all going to go a bit loopy. Could we get this discussion back on topic here - its clear that mentioning 'anti-semitism' is a great Nuclear bomb Howard, but constructive? I think not. (sorry to all the Japanese people reading this and the descendents of the American and British soldiers used in the original tests and all those people in chernobyl, but I am not anti buddhism, or christian or baptist or atheism)

To come back to the original discussion topic: are entry requirements raising above (grade) inflation? Note this question is relevant regardless of the source of grade inflation (may be that "students are getting better and better and better" or "plain dumbing down"). A shift in the balance of power would require that students now come from a higher PERCENTILE of the distribution. Any data on that?

Good Point Random - lets look at the real stats behind this - are good students above say the 80th percentile spreading across more institutions now?

I wonder what percentiles of people who say 'Hollywood Elite' think they are referring to the people with the power and the money in Hollywood, rather than 'the jews in Hollywood' I thought the scientologists had more of the (religeous) cake?!?

Without a shadow of a doubt this is the most bonkers set of posts I've yet come across on THES. It puts the recent savagery about Mark Brake at Glamorgan in the shade for bonkersness. Perhaps what's lovely (and very British) about it is the way that some people try to rise above the bonkersness of the whole thing by posting very sensible comments. But generally, it's just bonkers.

Without a shadow of a doubt this is the most bonkers set of posts I've yet come across on THES. It puts the recent savagery about Mark Brake at Glamorgan in the shade for bonkersness. Perhaps what's lovely (and very British) about it is the way that some people try to rise above the bonkersness of the whole thing by posting very sensible comments. But generally, it's just bonkers.

Without a shadow of a doubt this is the most bonkers set of posts I've yet come across on THES. It puts the recent savagery about Mark Brake at Glamorgan in the shade for bonkersness. Perhaps what's lovely (and very British) about it is the way that some people try to rise above the bonkersness of the whole thing by posting very sensible comments. But generally, it's just bonkers.

Without a shadow of a doubt this is the most bonkers set of posts I've yet come across on THES. It puts the recent savagery about Mark Brake at Glamorgan in the shade for bonkersness. Perhaps what's lovely (and very British) about it is the way that some people try to rise above the bonkersness of the whole thing by posting very sensible comments. But generally, it's just bonkers.

Without a shadow of a doubt this is the most bonkers set of posts I've yet come across on THES. It puts the recent savagery about Mark Brake at Glamorgan in the shade for bonkersness. Perhaps what's lovely (and very British) about it is the way that some people try to rise above the bonkersness of the whole thing by posting very sensible comments. But generally, it's just bonkers.

@Sandy Lane & Shelley Williams Talking about 'bonkers', you have posted 5 copies of the same message! I wonder who is bonkers!

Apologies. No idea how that happened - but we only posted once. Promise!

Apologies. No idea how that happened - but we only posted once. Promise!

Remind US ALL why we should pay YOU for this BOLLOCKS.

To Sandy Lane & Shelley Williams: how is the investigation into Mark Brake going? Any news from the Brake Camp?