Saturday, May 14, 2011

Idiot of the Day: Laurie Penny

Laurie Penny, apparently without any sense of irony:
In my final year at a British private school, over 30 kids were handheld through the application process for Oxford or Cambridge, whereas in most state schools a maximum of one or two begin the gruelling process, usually without the considerable staff support that we enjoyed.

Of those 30, about half were successful, and at least four or five of those were -- excuse my French -- thick as congealed slurry on the bridle path. They were dull, unimaginative posh kids who had no real interest in learning , who were just good at passing exams with the right training. What they had was the confidence to shine at interviews, and most importantly, the right kind of swagger to fit in. They had grown up being told they belonged at Oxford or Cambridge. As a consequence, they were deemed Oxbridge material, whereas thousands of state school pupils were not.
And where did Penny go to university, I hear you ask? Why Oxford, of course. Which surely makes her one of those "handheld through the application process". It also makes her as "thick as congealed slurry" and possessing "the right kind of swagger to fit in". Either that, or she's a total fucking hypocrite.

Of course, I do realise she could be all of the above...

UPDATE: Matt M in the coments section rightly points out that Penny could be classing herself (hell, she probably is) as one of the two thirds of the successful applicants that weren't as thick as congealed slurry. My bad; I meant to re-edit the article before publishing it but didn't. It should have read "it also gives her a circa 33% of being as "thick as congealed slurry".." She's still a fucking hypocrite, though, as she clearly benefitted from the private school hand-holding she now seeks to rebuke.

Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

At 2:11 pm , Blogger Matt M said...

Errr... She says that about fifteen were successful and only that "at least four or five" were "thick as congealed slurry". So it's quite possible she counts herself amongst the other ten or so.

And it's not going to Oxford that she's criticising (at least, not in that quote), but rather the fact that those with a bit of money can effectively game the system.

I'm not a fan of Laurie Penny (though I don't have a strong opinion on her either way, to be honest), but I think your criticism here is based on a particularly flawed reading of that text.

 
At 4:03 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

I think your point is fair enough. I meant to stress that she could well have been one of the four or five who was thick as congealed slurry, but didn't edit my post well enough.

However, there is no dount that she benefitted from the handholding in the private school system that she now decries. So the charge of hypocrisy still stands.

TNL

 
At 8:01 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more. She's naive yet at the same time deeply, deeply hypocritical, how much does she earn from her puerile scrawling?

Here's my take: http://goo.gl/lmwNY

 
At 8:17 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops, that link should be: http://goo.gl/3MnVX

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home