Did your child ever have 'the Oxbridge talk' and did it work?

And agree with slipshodsibyl too. Voting for students indeed! Ime teachers are often drawn to empty vessels whilst those lurking at the back are ignored. I remember in A Level English the teacher expressing complete surprise that the two best essays after the second week came from the two quietest members of the class

'A neighbour was telling me that her son and some of his contemporaries recently down from Oxford are struggling. Those hoovered up by the likes of Begonia or the financial sector are doing alright. The rest have jobs that barely pay the rent for a grotty shared house in a not so nice area. '

Is this because of the institution or the subjects studied?

Like Dustylaw, I am dubious about marking out Oxbridge favourites in - what did the OP say? - year 9? That's rather ridiculous and also insulting. Some of those kids will still be 13.

I think it's right and proper to guide able students towards the most beneficial GCSEs - and also giving kids the facts about how many A*s a normal applicant achieves etc, but then it should be up to the student.

For every kid who is not chosen and is determined to get there anyway and prove the school wrong, there are others who retreat back into their shells and feel they're just not up to it when they just might have flown under the radar.

Ds (year 11) attended a Cambridge talk, open to all. And all did attend! Ds said it was packed out. Obviously hardly any of these kids were going to make the grade, but at least the door wasn't slammed in their face before they'd even had a chance to hear what was what.

' it is OK if 'the Oxbridge talk' is a subset of that so long as it is not 'by invitation only'. I am uneasy about giving the accolade of 'favoured ones' because that is far more likely to put a cap on the aspirations and self-worth of other pupils than do any real good for the ones who are marked out.'

I very much agree with this and feel that some of the current emphasis is giving unhelpful messages. At one school I know teachers have to vote for you to be allowed to apply. At my own children's school anyone interested may apply and info is given to all. This can throw up some surprises ( nice ones!)

Although some of my colleagues would no doubt hang me for treason ...the top tier London universities offer an extremely rigorous academic experience, and everyone knows that!

A different experience though. Univeristy in London has a very different feel IYSWIM.

The London university where I teach though, is a very poor second to any of those choices.

For a start, a large proportion of the student body are from London and thus, live at home. They come in for lectures and go home/to work.

Another large group sre the overseas students. On paper, this ought to drive standards up and add extra texture, but in reality they socialise within their group and don't get involved in university life outside lectures- politics, music, drama, sports etc etc.

Also, a number of those overseas students just aren't up to it. But they pay through the nose, so ...

There are some very thoughtful views in this thread. To Milly, I would say well done to your daughter for showing her school that they didn't know what they thought they knew and what a mean response from her school! Given the huge competition for Oxbridge, everyone in a sense gets lucky anyway when they get a place. But I really do dislike the narrow focus on Oxbridge because that is just not terribly helpful (different when there was a separate exam to do). By all means give the children sensible advice and encouragement about aiming high, what that means and how to get there and it is OK if 'the Oxbridge talk' is a subset of that so long as it is not 'by invitation only'. I am uneasy about giving the accolade of 'favoured ones' because that is far more likely to put a cap on the aspirations and self-worth of other pupils than do any real good for the ones who are marked out.

Word, another crosspost, but I think we are agreeing.

We had a bit of a friend's brother in law situation, though actually with MiL who got very focussed on DS' Cambridge application, not helped by the fact that another very able family member was applying at the same time. I got quite irritated by the assumption, echoed by some earlier posts on this thread, that being offered a place on one of the top economics courses in the world was somehow a failure because it was not Oxbridge.

Not a view that seems to be shared by people we know working in the financial sector, and as Begonia suggests, the same applies with engineering. A neighbour was telling me that her son and some of his contemporaries recently down from Oxford are struggling. Those hoovered up by the likes of Begonia or the financial sector are doing alright. The rest have jobs that barely pay the rent for a grotty shared house in a not so nice area.

I also accept that Oxbridge offers a fantastic and unique experience. DS absolutely loved Cambridge when we looked around. London in my experience is tougher. Fellow students will be equally bright, and in part because of the high proportion of international students, equally hard working and motivated. Teaching staff will be good. However I suspect there will be more need to self direct to ensure you make the best of the opportunities on offer. If you do though, I suspect you might turn out more street-wise and employable. There is certainly less of an adjustment to moving to a job in London.

needmoresleep I think we do need to get our high ability kids to aspire to those places.

And I think one thing we need to stop doing, is pretending that there is equivalence.

There needs to be honesty, that there are tiers. Sure, we may disagree who exactly falls within each tier, but as a broad brush approach...

We then need to get those high ability kids to understand what they'll need to do to get themselves in the starting gates. And again, we need to be honest and we need to advise them in good time ie before GCSE options.

Finally, I'd advise them mot to get too het up. They gte five choices, that's more than enough to secure a decent place ...

Word thanks for that. I think we cross posted. And thanks also Begonia.

Which gets us back to he original debate. Should good kids be encouraged to aspire to Oxbridge or should they be encouraged to think carefully about what they might want to do in the future, and then aspire to top ranked rated faculties, a number of which will be in either Cambridge or Oxford, but with equal weight given to those elsewhere.

needmoresleep very interesting question .

I think it depends very much on the young person and what they want to do.

If I think they'd benefit from the rather odd-sausage approach at Oxbridge (and I say that as a fan), and they have no firm post-education plans as of yet, I'd probably advise them to give it a whirl.

However, if they have very deifnite plans and they know other courses are highly regarded in their desired industry (and have done proper due dilligence as opposed to my friend's-brother-in-law says...) then I'd say plump for those courses.

The reality, though, for most high ability students, is that there are lots of good courses in good establishments that will stand them in good stead. The teaching is pretty good and if they work to a decent standard, they'll leave with something worthwhile.

Unfortunately, there are however, far too many below par courses at below par universities, that do little more than part students from their money. The quality of education is poor and the peer group is low ability and the brand is not worth having...

Word, I usually find myself agreeing with your posts so a question?

Which would you rather. The right course, or Oxbridge choosing a less competitive course. This for many is the de-facto decision.

needmoresleep

In terms of branding, I think studying economics at LSE is every bit as advanatageous as Oxbridge, particularly in the financial sector!

And I think within certain industries in the UK, other courses at other establishments are stand out too.

However,in tertms of broad brush, especially internationally, Oxbride is still the gift that keeps on giving (to co-op a phrase from an earlier poster).

I went to Oxbridge and now teach there. I also teach at another university.

The two courses are chalk and cheese.

Frankly, I think it's a piss take that they're allowed to charge the same fees!

At the former, students get far more contact time, far more involved and enthusiastic tutors, a far more able peer group (important for seminars) and ultimately a far more impressive brand.

Really? I did not apply to Oxbridge, as I had had enough of my country boarding school and wanted to be in London. I have held some quite sought after jobs, and never felt that an LSE degree was a disadvantage. My contemporaries appear to have done equally well. In particular I think studying in an urban and international environment has been a real advantage.

The brand thing us definitely, most definitely alive. Don't be fooled into thinking employers don't favour Oxbridge graduates. My direct experience found other wise.

indigo, I'm realising that its not that we disagree but that we are starting from two different places.

I suggested in one of my earlier posts that the landscape seemed to have changed and that some universities and courses had risen to the challenge better than others.

One of the key differences I have spotted with DS and his peers is a vocational focus. I assume they are not alone as the number of would be medics and the growth of accountancy and finance courses might demonstrate. It may also explain why Universities such as Bath, Surrey, Southampton and Lancaster are zipping up the league tables.

So for he and his friends have been looking at subjects like engineering, materials science, NatSci, economics, psychology, chemistry, law and so on. Overwhelmingly applications have been to Cambridge rather than Oxford. Competition is ferocious and quite a lot of did not make it. Fall backs have largely been London Universities (Imperial, LSE, UCL) though some are heading for specific courses in less obvious places. (We know of two boys in recent years who have opted for Northumbria over good RG if not Oxbridge - who cares about ex-Poly if your ambition is to design the next iPhone.)

One of the reasons competition for these sorts of courses is so tough is that many EU and International applicants will take a similar approach.

The idea that this generation, as future employers, would see "a degree from Oxbridge" as superior to a rigorous degree from a world ranked faculty is laughable. Yes my son was disappointed not to get a place to read economics at Cambridge but this was more about wanting to get away from home. He does not expect the teaching he receives at LSE to be any less good. Oxford was not even considered. The sort of economics they offer did not appeal.

Ditto in a way with Harvard. You go if you want to do a liberal arts degree. If you know what you want to study and your parents have deep pockets (which plenty do in Central London) its probably Cambridge, MIT or Stanford. Oddly some of those who had always expected to study in the States then divert to Cambridge as the course is both shorter and cheaper. You then head for one of the big American research based institutions for post-Grad.

The employment landscape our children face will be tough. Improved communications means that all sorts of jobs can be out-sourced overseas. This idea of focussing ambitions on just two institutions, and the institution not the courses seems hopelessly outdated. I can see why this suits Oxbridge but is it the right advice for the brightest of the next generation. when they start hunting for jobs will they regret not having studied automative engineering or product design rather than humanities amongst the dreaming spires.

(Another thread altogether but entry level salaries for the sort of jobs people want to do following their Oxbridge humanities degrees have totally plummeted whilst London living costs have risen. Really hard to get your foot in the door unless your parents can support you.)

Interesting. No one wears a gown to take their exams at Cambridge. (They are two separate universities...)

And - as has been rather cogently pointed out in this thread it is inevitable that both universities will be the subject of far more negative than positive feedback.

Indigo -our DD went to Oxford and it wasn't the right place for her. She would have been much happier and more successful studying at another university with a different teaching style .

It's made no difference in her career , as she is in a job where any reasonable degree woudl have been acceptable

Your assumption that anyone who feels Oxford is not for them " failed to get an offer " is wrong and rather patronising

J went to Cambridge from a regular comp. No special talk. Just worked hard and filled in the application form.

I had an amazing time. Can't compare it really to other places as I didn't go to those. But for me, it was an amazing experience.

Of course Oxford and Cambridge are universally recognised as top class universities; product design at an ex-poly will not open doors in the way that an Oxbridge degree will. You may not like this, but it is true. As for thinking that taking exams in gowns is 'bonkers', when allowed to vote on whether to maintain this tradition or abolish it, undergraduates voted in favour of keeping the gowns.
In my experience, people who claim that Oxbridge is not for them because their nephew went there and 'turned out odd', or they prefer the course at ex-poly, usually failed to get an offer.

Yes, In year 10 the 6th form identified c. 15 pupils who they thought were Oxbridge material, they have all been on a day to look round and take part in some lectures. It's an ordinary academy.

My DD went to a talk and it really put her off. Mainly because the whole setup seemed very alien to her - she thought the whole exams in gowns thing was bonkers and said the tutors constantly went on about how it was 3x more work than other degrees. She did apply in the end as she only had 4 choices filled. Got an interview but no offer. She was the only state school candidate for her course at the college she applied to.

lljkk fine, but others might not take the same attitude.

Oxbridge teaches differently from other universities, but how degrees are taught varies from place to place and course to course. Even between Oxford and Cambridge there are differences (actually there it is more complex, as the college within the University is an important choice).

Oxbridge put money into events such as the one the OPs DD went to because they are under a lot of pressure from Government to recruit more students from State schools. They also want to recruit "the best" and in some schools in the UK there is real prejudice against sending students to Oxbridge. For some students Oxford or Cambridge might "fit" them far better than anywhere else - for others their learning style, future ambitions or whatever might be far better suited at another institution.

I did my doctorate at Oxbridge, and at least half the post graduates came from other places - including not especially highly ranked Universities.

MillyMollyMama My experience very similar.
DC went to a local bog standard comp which gets good enough results. DS1 was always quite talented at his subject but got no encouragement at the school.He wanted to go to Cambridge from as young as I can remember (didn't get the idea from me, I am uneducated).
The local 6th form though, did taster days for a few G&T from each local school. DS went along on trips to both Oxford and Cambridge and was inspired. His comp head teacher muttered about unrealistically raising expectations.
Two years on has an offer at Cambridge, a very tough offer, but fingers crossed.