Talk:Laura Spence affair

[Untitled]

I'm not going to edit the page right now, what with it being featured on the main page right now, but it is well worth noting that this was not a case Gordon Brown found himself. It had got plenty of publicity through the press before he got on the bandwagon. Most notably from the Daily Mail, as mentioned in this article in The Guardian, published the day before Brown made his speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:163.1.19.124 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 October 2006.

From memory, I think I remember that the original publicity came from the local newspaper (the Whitley Bay News Guardian) and that it spiralled from there

Smeddlesboy 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Magdalen candidates

Wasn't there also something in the press afterwards to the effect that all or nearly all of the 22 candidates for the places at Magdalen ultimately achieved straight A's at A-Level? I don't have a source, but that is my recollection; and the college just had to make some difficult decisions solely based on who had interviewed well. Legis 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Very, very many students accepted to Oxbridge have 3-4 A grades. These days especially 5 As is becoming more common, and sometimes more. A student with 5 A grades has reached a very high standard, but in this particular case Spence had applied for one of the most difficult courses to gain entry to (medicine) at one of the most prestigious colleges of the best (or at worst, close second best) universities in the country. Of her 5 As, one was in general studies (which some institutions don't count or attach less weight to, although I don't know if there is an official Oxford policy on this) and only one was in a 'hard' science, when I suspect many candidates may well have had at least one maths A Level and/or physics, + chemistry and/or biology. Combine that with an interview that she admits didn't go well...and the situation becomes a bit less striking. Then again, she was no doubt an exceptional candidate, and I'm not surprised if she felt a bit hard done by. But whether it was class bias, or simply a tough decision that didn't come down in her favour...I don't know. Badgerpatrol 00:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with everything you say Badgerpatrol, it would perhaps be relevant to remember that very few state school pupils will do five A levels in the first place, and out of those that do, I would imagine (but cannot prove) that virtually all of them will probably do General Studies. Which may be relevant to the debate as a whole? Though I don't want to re-start the debate on these pages! Smeddlesboy 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that that's true. Speaking for my own experience, all the (state) FE colleges in my area allowed a great deal of flexibility (I did 4, which was by no means unusual even then, and this was many moons ago (don't ask what grades I got however!)). Those didn't include general studies, which wasn't offered as I recall. I would actually suspect that at 16-18 the number and choice of A Levels is pretty much down to the student, especially given the fact that at that age students can travel a bit further and therefore perhaps have more flexibility in their choice of institution as well. 5, or 4 + general studies, or 4 + 1 or 2 AS levels, is certainly very possible, although any more than that and there are likely to be timetabling problems. Her real problem I suspect was the bad interview, coupled with her lack of "hard" science grades. (Although note that I'm not sticking up for the Oxbridge selection system, which is certainly suspect IMHO). Badgerpatrol 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps - I don't have much experienec of FE colleges. But in my experience of schools with sixth forms, taking more than three A levels is unusual (I remember I was advised against it) and general studies, when offered, is often compulsory. But I don't have the breadth of experience to ever claim to be able to generalise my experiences to the general! Smeddlesboy 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I went to a state school (FE college) in the north of England and, like many of the pupils there, did five A-levels including General Studies. I also got into Magdalen (to study Classics; Laura Spence's admission tutor teaches me Greek!), and in no way felt that my social background was an issue. The interviewers simply wanted to find out how much I know about the subject and how I would deal with philosophical problems. I wonder whether 40 years of Marxist dogma on education from Old Labour people like Gordon Brown could have had more to do with Laura's failure to get into Oxford than the reasons suggested in his Gallowian rant? Would she have been better prepared for an interview if she had gone to a grammar school, as she would have in the sixties? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Oxford does not count General Studies. It is not a proper A-level, and is no actual syllabus: see [1] and [2]. At my school people were entered for the exam without going to any lessons. There should be something in the article making clear that in Oxford's eyes, as in the eyes of many other universities, she got four As. Also, many subjects at Oxford, including Medicine, require students to take a written exam just before interview which counts for more than the interview itself. I am not sure whether this happened back in 2000, but if she did a test it would obviously be relevant.

Offers will be based on three A-levels, but anyone know if admissions tutors favour students who do more? I did A-levels at a comprehensive in 1995, and was only allowed to do three and an AS level in general studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standoor (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor John Stein

The newish article at Professor John Stein seems related to this, but don't know enough to be sure.--mervyn 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

sounds like it. I have added a link. Smeddlesboy 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I am nearly positive that Harvard does not have a pre-med major, so it would not be unusual for a committed future physician to take a major in biochemistry (in fact, one can major in anything as long as they meet the pre-med requirements - 1 year of biology, 1 year of general chemistry, 1 year of organic chemistry, 1 year of physics, 1 year of math, and for some schools, 1 year of English). So I don't see how it would make sense for someone to argue that she didn't show "commitment" to studying medicine by majoring in biochemistry - in fact, music is a very popular major for medical school applicants... ugen64 05:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that she is not an American. Medicine is an undergraduate-level degree in the UK, and Spence (presumably) had offers from numerous other institutions (British students can apply to up to 6 at a time). The point here is that she was perhaps more interested in obtaining a degree from an extremely prestigious institution than she was in becoming a doctor, or else having been rejected by Oxford she would simply have taken a place to read medicine elsewhere. If you want to remove the statement as uncited material then that's ok, but it is actually a perfectly reasonable criticism. Badgerpatrol 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a case of whether the point is valid, it's a case of whether the point was raised at the time, surely? It was me that originally added that sentence (for the record, I disagree with what it says (if nothing else, Laura could be studying medicine right now for all we know)) - when I first wrote the page, the reason I added that citation was that I remember those criticisms distinctly being aired in the media at the time, but I just added the {{Fact}} tag as I couldn't remember where and didn't have time to source it properly. I certainly remember Professor Robert Winston saying it on BBC's Question Time, but obviously have no idea of the date or anything as it was 6 years ago. For that reason I am going to add the sentence back, and will mention Prof Winston and QTime on it Smeddlesboy 07:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

update - did a quick google search and have now managed to fill this reference out with a proper citation as well as a direct quote from Winston. Smeddlesboy 07:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dissension

On careful reading, this sentence doesn't make much sense to me:

Those who disagreed fell into different camps: some believed there was no discrimination; some felt Brown did not have his facts straight and therefore should not have offered a public opinion; and some believed that Oxford was correct in not offering Laura Spence a place.

For those that believe Oxford were correct in not offering Laura Spence, surely they believed there was no discrimination i.e. there was no discrimination, she should not have been offered a place. Or did some of them believe there was discrimination and that's what things should be like and she should not have been offered a place? Also, wouldn't it be better to say Brown did not have all the facts as suspect many of those who felt this way were more concerned that Brown was unlikely to have all the facts rather then necessarily any of his facts being wrong... Nil Einne 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually perhaps it's just poorly worded. Did it mean to say, some believed there was no (unjust) discrimination at Oxford (i.e. discrimination wasn't practiced at Oxford at that time not just in the Laura Spence case)? In this case it makes more sense. Those who believe that Laura Spence should not have been offered a place simply believed she was not discriminated against because of her state school background. They did not necessarily express an opinion on whether there was unjust discrimination at Oxford. Then there were those who believed that there was no (unjust) discrimination at Oxford period (obviously Laura Spence was not discriminated against because of her state school background). Then there were those who believed Gordon Brown should not have used a specific case like this because he could not possibly have all the facts (they did not necessarily express an opinion on whether there was discrimination in this case or in Oxford in general) Nil Einne 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Medicine at Harvard

This is discussed above, but since it's part of another thread, I will re-iterate it here. Some editors keep adding a rebuttal to Winston's criticism of Spence on the grounds that she eventually studied biochemistry (at Harvard), rather than medicine. This demonstrates a bit of a trans-Atlantic misunderstanding, I think- we are all aware that medicine is not an undergraduate specialisation in the United States. But it is in the United Kingdom. There are (currently) 31 undergraduate medical schools in Britain. I believe that students can apply to up to 6 in one admission round, including either Oxford OR Cambridge (not both, but correct me if there are unique rules for medics). Therefore it is *highly* likely that Spence was in fact made an offer to study medicine elsewhere (and probably multiple offers), and chose to turn it down on the grounds that she was more interested in studying at a "super-elite" institution than she was in actually studying medicine. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the point is valid criticism as to her immediate commitment and mindset. Please bear in mind that Spence is British, not American- there was no reason for her not to accept an alternative offer to study elsewhere in the UK. (And of course if she wasn't offered an alternative place then the whole situation becomes moot anyway, being rejected not just by Oxford but by every other medical school as well. I consider that unlikely.) Badgerpatrol 13:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

...and whilst biochemistry is a recognised "pre-med" course (i.e. a full degree taken prior to entry to medical school) medical education in the US a) takes longer (eight years or so relative to five to six years in the UK) b) seems to be even more expensive, with fees around six thousand pounds (and about 25,000 for international applicants) per year, with seemingly few scholarships available (and even fewer for non-Americans). At the time of the Spence affair, fees in the UK were £1100 ($2200 at today's rates) per year, offset by whatever bursaries and low-interest loans are available (and there were and are quite a few for medics). Badgerpatrol 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may well be aware of it; but the British media in general isn't. I followed the Spence affair quite closely as it progressed, and was constantly amazed at the phenomenal lack of understanding the British media continually showed with regard to the American education system. The article shouldn't perpetuate that. And Winston's comments, standing alone, *are* misleading.

Also (although this is less directly relevant to the page content), his comments are a jackass thing to say — both stupid and illogical and quite rude. Doops | talk 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are potential OR problems involved in qualifying Winston's comments, but that's another topic for discussion entirely. Trans-Atlantic mix ups and misunderstandings are commonplace on both sides of the pond. I'm not sure that his comments really were misleading, and certainly not illogical or rude...the bottom line is, she either had the opportunity to go through medical school and practice medicine as early as possible via the normal route, or go to the US and take much longer to do it (if indeed at all). Putting my neutral hat aside for a moment, it seems ironic to me that the girl at the centre of what boils down to a dispute over academic snobbery would presumably snub attractive offers from other British universities (which, whilst they may not all be Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard, are still world class) because, in effect, she didn't want to lower herself to study at a "lesser" institution. Having said that, she didn't invite the controversy and shouldn't have been placed in the situation she was. Winston's point was a valid one- interviewers should be looking for how motivated a person is to actually study their chosen course, not gauge how enthusiastic they are to get into Oxford. Badgerpatrol 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's why his comments are stupid and illogical: a burning and unquenchable need at 18 to commit oneself permanently to medicine and become a doctor ASAP is NOT the same thing as the talent, once in medical school, for focusing on the work and improving one's medical knowledge and skills. We shouldn't conflate two different kinds of "commitment".

Here's why they're rude: instead of attacking Gordon Brown or defending Oxford, Winston is unprovokedly attacking somebody very young, who's done an admirable job of keeping her mouth shut.

In general, this is a business where it's the adults who make fools of themselves. First Paul Kelley and Gordon Brown, firing off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about (or, what's worse, *knowing* and not caring); but then people like Winston who buy into their opponents' fallacious notion that this is all about Spence. It seems so obvious: when 22 people apply for 5 spots, the 17 who don't get in aren't necessarily unqualified. It's just life. Doops | talk 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't read it like that- I read it as him defending the interviewers at Oxford, not attacking Spence. Ceteris paribus, someone who does have a burning desire to become a doctor at the age of 18 should get the place over someone equally qualified who does not. Fair's fair; and that's all that Winston was saying. I agree that many people could have handled themselves slightly better- but let's not forget that the intention of Brown especially was to defend Spence, illuminate what he thought was an unfair judgement, and bring about an equitable admissions system for everyone. That is a debate very much worth having. Badgerpatrol 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a further comment on applications. According to the UCAS article, applicants can currently apply for five courses overall (in my day ten years ago - two years before Spence - it was six, I don't know when this was cut) but they can only apply for up to four medicine courses (but can use the other application for a non medicine course). Also unless they've changed the form, all institutions get to see where else the applicant has applied to. It is not unusual for some applicants to hedge their bets, in particular to apply for a "back-up" course that will suitably qualify them for graduate entry medicine. (Here at Queen Mary, University of London biomedical science is an incredibly popular alternative route - indeed I'd say it's the most common enquiry at clearing.) Other applicants will apply for several different courses at fewer institutions. Without knowing what Spence's five or six choices were - and one of the biggest points in this whole affair is that a lot of information was not available to everyone commenting on it and Spence herself was rather dignified in not weighing in - it's hard to tell whether or not the form was demonstrating commitment. What is clear above all else is the difficulty universities have in assessing near identically qualified applicants for heavily oversubscribed courses and the dangers of the uninformed going into battle on what is a quite detailed matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Laura received 'top A grades' in her 10 GCSEs. But the top grade in GCSE is A*, not A. According to other internet sources, she received a mix of As and A*s. As it stands the article wrongly suggests to those not familiar with GCSEs that Laura got the highest possible grades, and is simply confusing to anyone who is familiar with them and knows A is not a top grade. How best to rectify this without making it hard for those unfamiliar with GCSE grades to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.20.224 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Row

I've edited down the last paragraph of "Political Row", it denigrated American Academics in a rather POV manner, without providing any sort of sourcing. The only source for the paragraph was the Harvard Financial Aid table, which related to the nature of her scholarship offer, which I've left as being relevant to the topic. The notion that American degrees and studies are inferior to those in the U.K. on the other hand has nothing to do with the controversy under discussion, especially when no one can find a source for those statements. --Pstanton (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

Just to clear things up from the discussion above: you could apply to 6 UCAS courses but only 4 for medicine until 2006, this limit became 5 in 2007 but you could still choose 4 medicine courses. As she immediately applied for the 4 year graduate-entry medicine course at Cambridge (to enter in Sept 2004) after finishing at Harvard (in May 2004), it seems obvious that she always intended to read medicine. She probably received 3 offers for medicine to start in 2000, but if you got a scholarship to Harvard (and to go to the US) and knew you could get into medicine later, would you turn that down?

Also, note that she eventually paid less fees this way as she would only pay for the first year of medicine in Cambridge as there is an automatic bursary for years 2-4. If she had done a 6-year course straight from school (presumably she would have applied the London unis where this is the case), she would have needed to pay fees for the first 4 years. Studying medicine in the US would be hideously expensive even if a US med school was willing to take a foreigner. 58.152.239.68 (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)