(There's a pie chart at the bottom which combines the PMs and Chancellors. The following shows how it was counted).
The first, Rab Butler, was already in office when The Queen arrived.
1 R. A. Butler Cambridge, Pembroke
2 Harold Macmillan Oxford, Balliol
3 Peter Thorneycroft Royal Military Academy, Woolwich
4 Derick Heathcoat-Amory Oxford, Christ Church
5 Selwyn Lloyd Cambridge, Magdalene
6 Reginald Maudling Oxford, Merton
7 James Callaghan Didn't go to Oxford - sat civil service exams instead
8 Roy Jenkins Oxford, Balliol
9 Iain Macleod Cambridge, Gonville and Caius
10 Anthony Barber As a PoW, law degree via the Red Cross, then Oxford, Oriel
11 Denis Healey Oxford, Balliol
12 Sir Geoffrey Howe Cambridge, Trinity Hall
13 Nigel Lawson Oxford, Christ Church
14 Sir John Major Didn't go to university - took banking exams
15 Norman Lamont Cambridge, Fitzwilliam
16 Kenneth Clarke Cambridge, Gonville and Caius
17 Gordon Brown Edinburgh
18 Alistair Darling Aberdeen
19 George Osborne Oxford, Magdalene
Chancellors of the Exchequer
The totals for provision of Chancellors of the Exchequer
Oxford 8
Cambridge 6
Other universities/colleges/professional exams 5
Other universities/colleges/professional exams 5
Oxford would have had 9 because Jim Callaghan would have gone there if he'd had the money, although which college is not known. Balliol scores 3, ahead of Cambridge's Gonville and Caius with 2.
To combine that with the previous bouquet of prime ministers it must be remembered that you get different answers depending on whether you count the number of offices (because some people served as both PM and Chancellor) or the number of administrations (because some people got more than one term).
Prime Ministers
Totals for the provision of Prime Ministers (inc. Nick Clegg )
Oxford 8
Cambridge 1 (Nick Clegg)
Other universities/colleges/professional exams 4
Other universities/colleges/professional exams 4
Combined Totals
A crude combined total is to add the two counts, which means some people will be double-counted such as Harold Macmillan, who served as PM and Chancellor, while Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair will have their multiple terms under-represented. It will give the general proportions although it won't be numerically accurate. I've included Nick Clegg, so consider Cambridge slightly over-represented if you wish, but the effect is negligible.
Combined provision of colleges to office:
Oxford 16
Cambridge 7
Others universities/colleges/professional exams 9
Cambridge 7
Others universities/colleges/professional exams 9
Dominance of Balliol
Despite the fiddle-factor it is still worth looking at the dominance of Balliol, but bear in mind that a weighted count would give St John's (Blair) and Somerville (Thatcher) more prominence.
Office holders educated at Oxford
1 Anthony Eden - Balliol
2 Harold Macmillan - Balliol
3 Sir Alec Douglas-Home - Christ Church
4 Harold Wilson - Jesus
5 Edward Heath - Balliol
6 Margaret Thatcher - Somervillle
7 Tony Blair - St John's
8 David Cameron - Brasenose
9 Derick Heathcote-Amory - Christ Church
10 Reginald Maudling - Merton
11 Roy Jenkins - Balliol
12 Anthony Barber - Oriel
13 Denis Healey - Balliol
14 Nigel Lawson - Christ Church
15 George Osborne - Magdalene
Of the Oxford colleges, Balliol is the front-runner with 5 but Christ Church is chasing it with 3. At Cambridge, Gonville and Caius also scores three.
Oxford colleges
Balliol 5
Christ Church 3
Others 7
Conclusion
It is surprising that Oxford has retained its dominance given the competition from Cambridge and ancient universities such as Edinburgh. Besides, universities such as Durham were established in the early Victorian period and many of the Red Brick (i.e early 20th Century universities) have had a century to catch up. Even the Plate-Glass universities have been in business for about 50 years.
Even more surprising is that it has dominance over Cambridge which outclasses it in some technical subjects.
Approximate proportions of higher education of PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer
 |
8 comments:
Very interesting.
Is bouquet the collective noun, or did you make it up? ;)
Maybe 'bucket' would have been a better word, Mr P.
So if they'd just gone to secondary moderns and then nothing afterwards, the country would be in better shape.......
You have to resort to John Prescott to get that background. A sample of one is not significant, which is just as well considering it is Prescott we are talking about.
Perhaps unfairly I did not include him on the grounds that his title as DPM denoted something different to Nick Clegg's, but it's a religious argument.
It would not have made all that much difference; Prescott would have been a score for 'other university' since he eventually went to Hull.
John Major is an interesting exception to most rules; he went to grammar school but emerged with only three O-levels which, even allowing for the differences in the number of subjects in the past, is still a fairly low haul, possibly reflected in that he did not stay to take A-levels, nor did he do a degree later, although he did take professional exams.
He's the nearest thing (AFAICS) to someone with a standard secondary education who then took vocational exams.
Whether you think this enabled him to do a better or worse job is worth a debate.
No, I was being serious.
Knowing how the other half lives might make for better ministers - on average, Prescott being an obvious exception.
Look at Gove's efforts to reform schools, or what David Davis might have done if he'd won against Cameron.
A rarefied Oxbridge background is certainly no indication of ministerial competence.
That reminds me, SWP boss Charlie Kimber is due to inherit a baronetcy soon. He went to the same school as Cameron.
Apologies. It is an interesting question because not nearly enough research has been done on the life experiences/outcomes of those who emerged from the Secondary Moderns (and the smaller number of technical schools) which operated until roughly 1974.
To make a fair stab at an answer I'd need to find a group which ended up taking serious decisions on behalf of others so that I can compare the quality of outcomes. I suspect I'll find that in private businesses rather than being able to mine Wiki data, but I'll have a snout round.
To assess the value of knowing how the other half lives is trickier than it seems because mythology is involved. Hague, for example, never hurries to correct the impression that he went to a comprehensive school. Only he didn't; it was a grammar when he went there.
It's not clear what either David Davis or Michael Gove are supposed to know that the others don't based on their educations. Like Major, their family backgrounds involved a certain amount of up-and-down, but their secondary educations were solidly selective followed university (delayed for 2 years in Davis case when he re-did A levels).
Their main difference - and one I'd endorse where ever it appears - is that they've done other things for a living before coming to politics. In Gove's case - like Boris's and many others - it was the related trade of hackery, where as Davis had rock-solid industrial experience and plenty of it. I agree; a great shame the party flinched there.
Perhaps this is the real difference; not education but whether a minister has ever had their own skin in the game, and which particular game. Callaghan was a tax man, Major was an administrator, Iain Duncan Smith was a soldier, James Paice was (is) a farmer. David Cameron doing a pretendy tv job in a holding-tank does not count.
I recently met a young Oxfordian who has gone straight from college to the local council and has got a job in a think-tank (i.e. pretendy job) whilst waiting to build a career in the House. No, no, no. I don't want any more people who are so useless you wouldn't employ them to weed your borders.
Tinker, tailor, cab driver, shelf-stacker, nurse, I don't really care what it is they do but I want them to have done it for the money and with the possibility of being sacked and facing difficulty because of that. I'll even accept lawyers providing they did it for real.
A rarefied Oxbridge background
I spent my early years as the son of a single mother living in a council flat on the top floor of a high-rise estate in the Midlands. 15 years later, I was at Cambridge. Those early years didn't seem very rarefied to me?
Oxbridge - and particularly Cambridge - is a lot more egalitarian than you might think. They don't care where you started from; they care only what academic level you have reached by the age of 17.
Anyway, going back on topic, it has long been held that Oxford produces Prime Ministers and Cambridge produces spies. We're actually quite happy with that; Cambridge has never deferred to establishment thinking, and produces better scientists as a result. Together with the odd spy, now and again.
Yes, odd spies. Exceedingly odd spies.
Post a Comment