‘Future Conditional’ is probably the best play you’ll see this year. A satirical comedy written by Tasmin Oglesby and starring Rob Brydon, the production focuses on the UK higher education system and the inequalities within it. It would have been easy enough to simply review this piece of work, but I felt it more fitting, bearing in mind the power it has had in shifting my personal perceptions, to instead take the time to evaluate the core message Oglesby tries to bring. Namely, she proposes, through the medium of main character Alia (a Pakistani refugee trying to get into Oxbridge), that our system would be fairer if the top Universities took the best students from each school, as opposed to across the country. This, naturally, has a number of wider implications, not least that it would entirely change the concept of a good school, as you would somewhat counter-intuitively be better off sending your intelligent child to a ‘failing’ school so they look better compared to the other students there. I intend to try and come to grips with the proposal, and assess whether, in an ideal society, you would implement the change which Oglesby offers, or keep our current system.
We start, as all great optimists should, with the positives. Obviously, by creating a system such as this you would, at least artificially, create equality of education. It would ultimately standardise schools to the point quality of teaching and grades achieved would be much the same in whichever establishment you looked. With our current system, if school A has in the past achieved better grades for students it will attract new students (generally) with parents who have taken the time to source the best school, and gone to lengths (be it hiring private tutors, moving into a catchment area, going on a waiting list, paying an entrance fee etc.) to ensure their children gain a place. These are the same children who will later receive support at home to ensure they succeed in their exams, and, while this isn’t always the case, will often be from better socio-economic backgrounds which means less distractions from studies. A better calibre of student, who won’t be deemed as ‘disruptive’ or ‘difficult’ because of their upbringing, will create a better classroom environment, and attract better teaching, all of which boosts school A’s performance further, making it more attractive for the next wave of ‘pushy’ parents (for lack of a better phrase, and by no means a criticism). This is all great for school A, but the problems arise with school B. School B doesn’t have the same reputation, the parents who can afford to or know how to make sure their children don’t go there. This means school B has a higher concentration of children with difficult home lives, a higher concentration of academically challenged children who couldn’t pass the ‘good’ schools entrance exam, a higher concentration of ‘disruptive’ children who impact the others. Now imagine two students, one from school A and one from school B, are both applying for a place at Oxbridge. Clearly it’s unfair to judge them on equal terms, and yet that is what for the most part our current system does. What Oglesby tries to do in this play, successfully, is indicate to us the seeming ridiculousness of this, and lead us to the conclusion that a change is needed. For her, this change should come in the form of having you compete with students who’ve received the same standard of teaching, had access to the same facilities and been around the same people as you.
However, whether the change she proposes is viable is another question. Obviously there are practical criticisms, the likelihood of an act facilitating this passing in Parliament, then of being accepted by Secondary and higher Educational institutions is almost laughable. Oglesby herself sees this, having one character point out it would ‘never pass because it would work’. Whether that is the case is however debatable. True, a revamp such as this would superficially improve equality, but what of the other implications. The system Oglesby suggests would, at its basest level, mean your only competition for top university places were you classmates, potentially your friends. It could turn schools into purely academic environments, rather than areas of congregation where social skills are developed, as if you know you have to beat the girl on the next table to get into Durham are you realistically going to invite her out to lunch? Probably not. Furthermore, the system may inadvertently cause more wealth-based inequality than it solves. Whilst private education becomes ridiculous with a system like this, as it gives you no advantage over your very local competition, private tuition would clearly be useful. The richer children in schools would benefit from extra-curricular aid which others couldn’t afford, and essentially all the problems listed above would simply resurface, only this time outside the school gates. To this end, perhaps Oglesby has somewhat oversimplified what is clearly a very complex issue with various implications.
‘Future Conditional’ is a superb piece of theatre, well-written and excellently performed. It is commendable for the fact that, unlike the Russell Brand type revolutionaries who simply blame the establishment for everything and promote anarchy, it actually offers a solution to a system it points out to be flawed. Unfortunately, when one looks to the wider implications of this proposal, the same old problems seem to arise, just in a different form. Perhaps, if we wanted to be rather cynical, this shows how the rich will always find ways of ensuring their money can translate to advantage. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop trying to improve social mobility however; while Oglesby’s idea, in its currently unrefined form, can be quite clearly criticised, there is hope that a variant of it may be the future for our country to be able to boast equal opportunity.
By Jonah Elvidge