And according to this presstitute,
the world is coming to an end
"Cambridge University keeps telling us its admissions policy is not socially elitist. Who's going to believe that now?"
Only.... guess what? William wasn't actually matriculated at Cambridge, or anywhere else. He is attending a TEN-WEEK program for agriculture management. But this doesn't stop our intrepid presstitute, crusading against Power and Privilege!
"I can no longer insist that "it's not like the old days any more"
(was she crying when she typed that?)
"It doesn't matter that he's actually been admitted to a 10-week "professional" course whose admissions process doesn't directly compare to the mainstream Cambridge one''
Oh, it doesn't??
Here's a snippet of the well-deserved evisceration Miss Melissa Berrill received in her own comments forum:
What a silly article this is. William is not being admitted to Cambridge University as a student on a degree course. The fact that the university also runs commercial courses in many other areas, that no doubt contribute to much-needed funding. Summer courses for thousands of international students could be put in the same category.
What exactly is your point? That you don't like the Royal Family? That is another argument entirely.
You are clearly very proud of your Cambridge degree, but the assumption of us plebs that everyone admitted to do a degree course at Cambridge is very clever--must be put in doubt by this piece of writing.
But his course is a short term training exercise and nothing to do with normal undergraduate or postgraduate admissions. Is this woman completely sane?
And it's a commercial course. Much like those run by every other university in the country. Which allows them to gather the funding to educate people whose finances might not ordinarily allow them to attend Cambridge (or other universities).
Very odd argument in the article.
I thought that spending a few years in a "non-professional" degree at Cambridge would equip you with the necessary analytical and reasoning ability to formulate a valid and coherent argument.
What begins as a promising article
quickly unravels into a discombobulated rant. On
the one hand you state,
Yet you go on to contradict yourself by
Well then, which one is it? Has William been admitted as an ordinary student or a professional one? If the latter, aren't you comparing apples and oranges?
You then go on to state something that is
I learnt that his course was a 10-week affair watching - gasp! - the evening news on TV. Every single article I've read on the issue quite unambiguously states that it's a short course. I think perhaps you ought to read beyond the headlines.
As someone who attended the same "posh" school with a not dissimilar background to your own, the only thing I find insulting is you using your university credentials as a sort of shield to establish your superior intellectual ability.
Couple that with the lack of any sound analysis whatsoever, and I think it's Cambridge University that should be insulted that years of rigorous education have resulted in such poor critical thinking.