Billy Rees-Mogg asks a good question: "Why is Oxford always top in politics?" It certainly is. 40 of the 53 Prime Ministers we've had have been to my alma mater.
The Mogg's explanation for this is:
Oxford beats Cambridge at politics, as it clearly does, because Oxford is primarily a school of humanities and Cambridge of natural sciences. Politics, like the study of history, is more of an art than a science.
But this won't do. Of our post-war Oxonian PM's, not one actually read history. Attlee and Blair did law - a mere vocational subject which doesn't really count. Thatcher - our most dominant PM - did stinks. Macmillan read classics. Arguably the three most ineffectual PMs of the post-war era (excluding Major and Callaghan who went to the University of Life) all read humanities: Eden (oriental languages), Heath and Wilson (PPE).
Maybe, then, there's another explanation for Oxford's dominance. It's not that the cleverest people go to Oxford. True as this probably is, it's irrelevant because cleverness is neither necessary not sufficient for success in politics.
Instead, Arnold Kling hints at one explanation in this fine essay. Politicians, he says, are selected for their dogmatism: "Anyone with humility seems to be selected against in the world of politics."
This is where an Oxford education prepares one for success in politics. The tutorial system kills humility. It teaches people how to appear to be smarter than they are - which is great preparation for politics. And it fosters in its students an exaggerated confidence in their own ability; after all, if you can match your tutor in intellectual combat for an hour, you must be really clever, mustn't you? It's a small step from here to wanting to share your great ideas with others. Hence Oxonians' dominance in politics. And journalism. (And blogging?)
This, though, is not the only explanation. Here's another one. And for more Oxford snobbery, there's always An Englishman's Castle.
What odds are you offering against our next P.M. being an Oxonian?
Posted by: dearieme | May 17, 2005 at 09:37 AM
I never went to Oxford or Cambridge cos I am a northerner and thought both universities would be full of posh folks talking about horse riding, croquet and daddy's small yacht in Antibes and so forth. I was young and believed in the north-south stereotype so much.
I was wrong and wish I went to Oxford or Cambridge - now being a research professional, I reckon I would be better at my job as a result.
Of the folks I have met who studied at Oxford - some are a cut above and really sharp, but some are lame analysts who are only really good at debating. I suppose Oxford enhances debating skills and sometimes these take precedent over intellectual capacity, or can paper over the cracks of poor intellect or analytical ability.
But then I also met some mature students in Scotland with very sharp analytical minds who always wiped the floor with my Oxford educated friend...
Posted by: Angry_Economist | May 17, 2005 at 01:18 PM
So we should choose our PMs from Oxonians or Scots? It'll be hard to get long odds against that for the next PM.
Posted by: dearieme | May 17, 2005 at 02:34 PM
I went to Oxford for the same reasons you stayed away, Amgry. I wanted to prove (to myself if no-one else) that I was just as clever as the posh kids.
My most valuable lesson was much the same as Thomas Sowell's. He's said (IIRC): "the one thing you learn at Harvard is not to look up to people who went to Harvard."
Posted by: chris | May 17, 2005 at 03:33 PM
Although Cambridge has a heavier science focus, it also has a tutorial system and plenty of students studying economics, history, politics and sociology. And Cambridge also has a "Union" society for those wanting to pretend to be debating things.
So why the disparity between Oxford and Cambridge in terms of production of Cabinet ministers? Personally I think there are fewer Cambridge graduates in high political office as we have more integrity ; )
On the Sowell quote - I'm reminded of something Joan Robinson once said. It went something like this:
"one should not study economics to obtain a set of nice precise answers to economic questions. One should study economics in order to know how not to be fooled by economists"
Posted by: rjw | May 17, 2005 at 03:47 PM
Who in God's name would look up to someone just because he went to Harvard? Bloody Edward Kennedy went to Harvard! A youngster in my family says that she's so glad that she's at Oxford because, amongst other things, they work her so much harder than her friends elsewhere get worked. There you are: Oxbridge for the protestant work ethic! No more effortless superiority! Horny-handed son of toil: off to Oxbridge with you!
Posted by: dearieme | May 17, 2005 at 03:51 PM
The most observant thing said about Oxford is that anybody that has been there will make sure you know about it within 7 minutes of meeting you. (Or mention it within a couple of lines as being their alma mater) Never fails.
Posted by: Mark T | May 18, 2005 at 12:18 PM
Three lines, Mr T, and no mention. Not you, then? By the way, how would you know if it failed?
Posted by: dearieme | May 18, 2005 at 12:37 PM
Mark - I mentioned it merely to anticipate and reject the possible claim that I was merely being envious. Normally, I keep quiet(ish) about it - viz, pretty much every other one of my posts.
Posted by: Chris | May 18, 2005 at 01:57 PM
You may well find that most of the leading Scottish politicians were in the Glasgow University Debating Society! They started blowing off to us and each other very early on!
I think the nub of the matter is this - if someone is sharp, hard working and very intelligent and went to Oxford (or Cambridge), they are sh*t hot. If not, they are just like all the other average folks who went to any other uni, except they aren't as good as they think they are.
Then again, who wanted to spend all 3 or 4 years at uni/HE in the library? Whilst those getting a first spent all their time working, I spent some of my time in the bar talking crap and imitating Vic Reeves.
Posted by: Angry_Economist | May 18, 2005 at 02:16 PM
Cambridge doesn't have tutorials at all, it has supervisions. Different kettle of fish, of course.
Posted by: Johnny | May 19, 2005 at 09:51 AM
Brown, Cook, Rifkind at GLASGOW Uni: pull the other one.
Posted by: dearieme | May 19, 2005 at 10:03 AM
I wouldn't know if it had failed........just that people who went to Cambridge (or anywhere else for that matter)don't seem to do the same. Proabbaly explains the politician thing too.
Posted by: Mark T | May 19, 2005 at 10:04 AM
Johnny,
Granted Brown, Cook, Rifkind didn't, but these folks did:
Glasgow Univeristy graduates include: politicians Menzies Campbell, the late Donald Dewar: the first Minister of the Scottish Parliament, Charles Kennedy, Margaret & Winnie Ewing, the late John Smith and Sir Teddy Taylor...
The main point was many politicians were in debating societies...
Posted by: Angry_Economist | May 19, 2005 at 10:45 AM
A.E.: accepted. A cheerful irrelevance - in my experience, those who seem fondest of their old Uni have been St Andrews and Aberdeen graduates. Perhaps Rifkind, Brown, Kennedy et al studied too far south. Or perhaps my aquaintances all huddled together against the cold.
Posted by: dearieme | May 19, 2005 at 12:27 PM