Read on Twitter
This is a good piece and I agree - obviously! - with the arguments expressed. And I can understand why they wanted “big name” historians in there. But only *one* of those historians quoted works at a post-92 university. https://twitter.com/annafazack1/status/1388404292370026497
It is right and good to have support from people who work at RG and Oxbridge institutions. But I fear that foregrounding them, and the idea that post-92 history depts simply cater for students who didn’t get 3 A’s or can’t leave the local area, just further embeds snobbery.
1. Post-92s are producing excellent research in history. (Ask me how I know.)
2. Post-92s are places students *choose* to go, because they like the types of history taught there, the approach, the general feel
3. Students do move out of their local area to attend a post-92.
2. Post-92s are places students *choose* to go, because they like the types of history taught there, the approach, the general feel
3. Students do move out of their local area to attend a post-92.
And 4. You should NOT feel you have to go to an RG or “elite” institution if you have 3 A’s but you really liked the modern or new university you visited on an open day. Go with your gut!
When I welcome new first years every year I literally have no idea whether they had an offer of a place from several months before, whether they chose to enter via clearing, and I certainly have no idea what they got in their A Levels. And I don’t need to.
