How you were accepted into college during the preindustrial era

  • Thread starter Thread starter noblegas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    College
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical context of college admissions during the preindustrial era, particularly focusing on the existence of entry exams, the socioeconomic status of students, and the subjects taught at universities. Participants explore the evolution of admission practices and the implications of meritocracy in education.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether entry exams existed before the 19th century, suggesting that the concept of meritocracy in admissions may be a more recent development.
  • Others point out that admission to universities like Oxford and Cambridge was historically based on college-specific criteria rather than university-wide standards.
  • There is a mention that early university education primarily focused on Latin and Greek, with entry tests being largely centered on translation skills.
  • Some participants argue that the wealthy had better access to education, while others note the existence of scholarships for poorer students dating back to at least the 13th century.
  • Concerns are raised about the current state of university admissions and the increasing tuition fees, with some participants drawing parallels to the U.S. system, particularly regarding sports scholarships.
  • Discussion includes the historical curriculum, highlighting the trivium and quadrivium as foundational subjects taught in medieval universities.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the actual knowledge gained by students, citing instances of academic dishonesty and the social status of attending university as a rite of passage for the upper classes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specifics of admission practices in the preindustrial era, with multiple competing views on the role of socioeconomic status, the existence of entrance exams, and the nature of the curriculum.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unclear definitions of meritocracy, the lack of detailed historical records on admission processes, and unresolved questions regarding the grading systems used in early universities.

noblegas
Messages
266
Reaction score
0
Did they even have entry level exams to use to determined if students would be admitted into a universities back in the 1600's and prior to that time or are the college entry exams a 20th century creation and only the very wealthy attended college up until the introduction of entry exams and meritocracy were used for admitting students.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Hi noblegas! :smile:

At Oxford and Cambridge (the only two English universities before 1800), admission was to the college rather than to the university, and was called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriculation#United_Kingdom".

I don't think there was any entrance exam until Responsions (in Oxford) or Previous Examination (in Cambridge) were introduced, I think just after 1800 … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsions"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And remember the only thing they really taught were latin and greek - so you could become a clergyman. So the entry test was pretty much just translation.
 
noblegas said:
are the college entry exams a 20th century creation and only the very wealthy attended college up until the introduction of entry exams and meritocracy were used for admitting students.

hahahahaha oh that's a good one! meritocracy! lol although I guess being able to throw "a great spiral pass" is a merit to some. The U.K aint much better if I'm honest though... :(
 
daveg360 said:
The U.K aint much better if I'm honest though... :(

It's only going to get worse as universities are given the freedom to increase tuition fees without limit (though I don't think one can get admitted to university solely on sports talent over here...)
 
cristo said:
though I don't think one can get admitted to university solely on sports talent over here...)
Except for US olympic rowers
 
cristo said:
It's only going to get worse as universities are given the freedom to increase tuition fees without limit (though I don't think one can get admitted to university solely on sports talent over here...)

Hm, some of the rowers in Oxford and Cambridge aren't exactly famous for their academic achivements...
 
A few years ago there was so many professional rowers on post-grad courses at the Dept. of Land Economy at Cambridge that they were planning to rename the dept because it had become a joke.
 
My point is that it is not nearly as widespread as football 'scholarships' are in the US. I think we can safely discard Oxford and Cambridge when talking about universities in general!
 
  • #10
cristo said:
My point is that it is not nearly as widespread as football 'scholarships' are in the US.
Give it a few years, we have spent the last decade pretty much copying every innovation in the US public school system.
About the only US educational project not adopted was Sesame street - about the only thing that worked!
 
  • #11
Trivium and quadrivium

mgb_phys said:
And remember the only thing they really taught were latin and greek - so you could become a clergyman. So the entry test was pretty much just translation.

Hi mgb_phys! :smile:

No, they were taught first the three subjects known as the trivium: grammar logic and rhetoric, and then the four arts known as the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.

So the trivial subjects (yes, that is where it comes from! :wink:) would have needed Latin (and maybe some Greek), but the arts were essentially maths and music, and wouldn't have (except of course that a lot of the texts would have been in Latin or Greek).

And yes, every clergyman needed a degree, but that doesn't mean that every degree produced a clergyman (if you'd studied logic and rhetoric in medieval Oxford, you'd have known all about that! :wink:)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium" …
The quadrivium comprised the four subjects, or arts, taught in medieval universities after the trivium. The word is Latin, meaning "the four ways" or "the four roads": the completion of the liberal arts. The quadrivium consisted of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. These followed the preparatory work of the trivium made up of grammar, logic (or dialectic, as it was called at the times), and rhetoric. In turn, the quadrivium was considered preparatory work for the serious study of philosophy and theology.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium_(education)#Description"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12


tiny-tim said:
Hi mgb_phys! :smile:

No, they were taught first the three subjects known as the trivium: grammar logic and rhetoric, and then the four arts known as the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.

So the trivial subjects (yes, that is where it comes from! :wink:) would have needed Latin (and maybe some Greek), but the arts were essentially maths and music, and wouldn't have (except of course that a lot of the texts would have been in Latin or Greek).

And yes, every clergyman needed a degree, but that doesn't mean that every degree produced a clergyman (if you'd studied logic and rhetoric in medieval Oxford, you'd have known all about that! :wink:)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium" …See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium_(education)#Description"

From reading the article on medieval universities you provided, I know how medieval universities were developed and what subjects were taught at the university and that a course you signed up for was based on the book that was assigned for the class. However, it still does not explain how you were admitted into a university and whether or not the wealthy were only admitted and what kind of grading system they used to determine if a student passed the course that they were taken.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


tiny-tim said:
And yes, every clergyman needed a degree, but that doesn't mean that every degree produced a clergyman (if you'd studied logic and rhetoric in medieval Oxford, you'd have known all about that! :wink:)

It also doesn't mean that people who did get degrees actually knew anything about the subject. It was for example not at all unusal for students to pay someone else to write their thesis.
Carl von Linné (the famous botanist) used to supplement his income by writing theses for his students when he was a professor in Uppsala, note that this was not considered cheating in any way since the main idea of the thesis defence was for the student to show that he could defend an idea in front of an audience (in latin).
Also, far from all students attended lectures. Spending a couple of years at a university was simply considered part of the upbringing among the upper classes.
 
  • #14
noblegas said:
However, it still does not explain how you were admitted into a university …

Yes, I can't find any information on that …

I assume that there was no entrance exam or other entrance requirement until about 1800.
… and whether or not the wealthy were only admitted …

There were scholarships for poor students right through from at least the thirteenth century until the present day.
f95toli said:
… It was for example not at all unusal for students to pay someone else to write their thesis.

I'm pretty sure medieval English undergraduates never wrote theses.
 
  • #15


tiny-tim said:
the four arts known as the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
I was thinking of 1800 when they had pretty much becoming a CofE dumping ground for younger sons.

The 4 arts came up recently.
The UG science course at Cambridge is a bit odd, in the first 2 years they have to do a range of 'natural sciences' - which means a student will work hard in their 'major' physics/chemistry and maths and then take a 'throw away' course (the first 2 years didn't count to your degree).

There are a couple of science depts that existed solely on the back of teaching the throw away course.
The astronomy dept decided to teach an ugrad course which was the most popular option for the students.
The other depts objected to the competition with a range of excuses, astronomy isn't a real science, its not useful etc and the final - we have always one it this way!

My prof came up with the ultimate argument (at least for a UK institution) of precedence. We were proposing to teach natural philosophy (physics) geometry (math) alchemy(chemistry) and finally astronomy = a perfect medieval science curriculum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K