But surely what it was demonstrating was a celebration of student achievement! The College had, above all the others, attracted no fewer than 101 talented undergraduates, and this historic event was to be celebrated as a milestone for generations to come. What is political about celebrating educational achievement?

Surely the mistake is to ignore the true motivation - and its historical genesis - and merely impose upon it a kind of modern presumption that since it has no clear connectivity with the modern world it must be suspect in some way. You could say that about the very building and architecture - but you would not (I hope) advocate demolishing it because it was not designed and built by Norman Foster?!

Baz

One small side-issue which I find laughable and saddening in equal measures...   the "educated at Oxford" racket.

Here where I live, there is one particular Language School (specialising in English) whose Principal sports an "educated at Oxford" tag. Native Brits would spot the ruse instantly - it's not a Degree from the University, but from another institution which issues educational certificates, which happens to be based - geographically - in Oxford. 

Well, fair enough, you may say - local people in Oxford should have a proper system of tertiary education accessible to them.  However, I fear that this particular institution is one that doesn't require much (or, ehem) any attendance,  and payment of the fees, plus completion of an exam-paper quickly shoos the candidate into a fancy-looking Diploma.

Where my problems arise is that this character is - forgive the judgemental tone - only semi-literate.  I'm especially aware of this, because I occasionally (as a favour) proof-read copy for a few websites here, and his rants pass across my screen.  Verbs with no sentences, crass grammatical errors, apostrophes scatter-gunned over the page pell-mell - not only depressing, but editing work I could well do without.  The (Russian-born) editor assumes that our "Oxford-educated" fellow must write with verve and aplomb, and barely needs editing at all The idea that this character not only teaches English, but heads a Language School,  is deeply depressing.  Nor is he from Oxford or remotely nearby, I should add.

And all achieved with the aid of an "education in Oxford"    One that any of us could put on a credit card   Oh, and of course - the Old College Tie (which he wears assiduously each day).

He has apparently also got a TEFL certificate - which is the only thing you need to set up in the Language School business.  The rants articles are about the EFL business etc - there are lots of foreigners here involved in it, so its big business.

A Wiki page is hardly the best place for examining such a concept. But there is very little on there that isn't itself political - for example in the first sentence, the mention of 'mental, moral & aesthetic development'.

On the contrary, I think that your attempts to render your own heavily political beliefs on education (including institutions, teaching methods, canons, or anything else) as somehow being outside of politics is a cheap rhetorical strategy. The same goes for the aesthetic dimension.

We see the rôle of the educator as rather like that of Maxwell's demon; that is to say his duty is only to open the trapdoor at just the right moment when the youth is ready.

Politics is an entirely different field. No advantage can come from blurring traditional distinctions; indeed on the contrary, clarity and good grammar must be the great desiderata in life.

This is an interesting analogy - you must know, however, that in reality Maxwell's demon is a physical impossibility, because of the expenditure of energy in the interaction between the demon and the particles he's allowing through the gate. So it is with education: before opening the door one needs to ascertain where the door is and how it might be opened, and finding these things out already changes something in both teacher and student.

I was being intentionally ironic