According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.

And yet ,says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.

But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:

"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago - in the 60s and before - entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."

However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?

On average, about ￡5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?

Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.

However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centers of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited. Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:

"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centered on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together - the elite universities - are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite."

When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:

"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do."

However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil. This does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.

據(jù)《牛津劍橋陰謀幫派》一書作者沃爾特·埃利斯所說，英國(guó)如今仍然處于老同學(xué)關(guān)系網(wǎng)的控制下：你懂什么并不重要，重要的是認(rèn)識(shí)誰。他聲稱在牛津大學(xué)和劍橋大學(xué)求學(xué)的少數(shù)精英一開始便平步青云，扶搖直上，幾年之內(nèi)，就登上了特權(quán)和權(quán)力的頂峰。他的調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，英國(guó)高級(jí)職能部門仍然由牛津和劍橋的畢業(yè)生控制著，如果沒有90%，至少也有60或者65%。

埃利斯指出，牛津、劍橋的畢業(yè)生只占英國(guó)大學(xué)畢業(yè)生總數(shù)的2%。其它的研究者似乎也證明了這一點(diǎn)，即牛津、劍橋的畢業(yè)生一開始就在勞動(dòng)市場(chǎng)上占據(jù)著不公平的優(yōu)勢(shì)。最近公布的一份調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示：在法律界，去年任命的26名高級(jí)法官都就讀過私立學(xué)校，其中21人曾就讀過牛津和劍橋。

但僅憑這些就能說是一個(gè)陰謀幫派嗎？根據(jù)英國(guó)一家有代表性的私立學(xué)校--威斯敏斯特的前任校長(zhǎng)約翰·雷博士的看法，情況并不是這樣的：

"我承認(rèn)過去英國(guó)的某些重要領(lǐng)域內(nèi)存在著偏見，可如今這種偏見已經(jīng)不存在了。一段時(shí)間以前--即60年工或更早的時(shí)候進(jìn)牛津、劍橋并不完全是憑本事的。而現(xiàn)在，在任何能夠客觀看問題的人的眼里，毫無疑問，去牛津和劍橋讀書競(jìng)爭(zhēng)理很激烈的。"

然而，很多人都不同意這種說法。盡管有3/4的英國(guó)畢業(yè)生就讀于公立學(xué)校，而上牛津劍橋的學(xué)生中有半數(shù)以上的人曾就讀于私立學(xué)校，即"公學(xué)"。難道這是因?yàn)橛?guó)私立學(xué)校的學(xué)生比公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生更聰明些？或者，僅僅因?yàn)樗麄儨?zhǔn)備得更加充分嗎？

私立學(xué)校平均每年在一個(gè)學(xué)生身上的花費(fèi)是5000英鎊，是公立學(xué)校每個(gè)學(xué)生費(fèi)用的兩倍還多。那么財(cái)源少得多的情況下，公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生怎么可能與私立學(xué)校的學(xué)生競(jìng)爭(zhēng)呢？這些考試需要精心準(zhǔn)備，為此許多公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生傳統(tǒng)上要住校，以便有額外的學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間。

直到最近，仍有很多人就牛津大學(xué)的專門入學(xué)考試一事譴責(zé)牛津存在偏見。但牛津大學(xué)直到去年2月才決定取消入學(xué)考試，鼓勵(lì)更多的公立學(xué)校畢業(yè)生報(bào)考本校。從1996年秋天開始，申請(qǐng)上牛津大學(xué)的學(xué)生像其它大學(xué)的申請(qǐng)者一樣，將只根據(jù)他在中學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)期間的成績(jī)和面試的表現(xiàn)來決定是否錄取，盡管有些系仍可能需要專門考試。