Can’t let go of my childhood dream of getting into Oxford

[wannabeOxonian]

I had a childhood dream to attend Oxford University. The dream has been reignited again and I am looking for ways to gain a place at Oxford University.

My GCSE grades were quite good 12 A*/A but the issue is I started experiencing mental ill health problems during sixth form so my A-levels are mediocre plus I only have two A-levels because that’s all I could manage at the time.

I didn’t apply to Oxford during sixth form because I was worried my grades were mediocre so I ended up applying for any course I could find. I was accepted to a Russell Group university but I didn’t really like my time there and I didn’t like my degree very much so I scraped a 2:2 in the end because thankfully my final year was a 2:1 overall (65%) but my second year was horrific. This is now ten years ago.

I recently finished a masters degree at a good Russell Group university and had a merit, one percent off a distinction (69%). I am now looking to start a PhD in my field at a good university.

Wondering if it would be worth applying for Oxford and fulfilling my childhood dream at this point in my life?

Am I too old? Will my poor academic performance in sixth form and during my undergrad work against me, even with a PhD? I also haven’t published anything yet so I’m not exactly Oxford academic calibre right now. I feel insecure but I know I’ll regret it forever if I don’t fulfil my childhood ambition. Like I can imagine myself in my 80s regretting not going after what I wanted. Thoughts? Advice? Am I being silly?

For people wondering what I want to apply for, there’s a particular degree course that I’ve always wanted to study at Oxford. I’m not going to say what it is because I’ve shared too much here already in this post.

Hi,

I have 10 years experience leading a research group at an RG uni in science & supervising PhD & MSc students. So some comments

• doing a PhD is very different to doing an UG or MSc degree. It is 3 or 4 years of independent research, more like an apprenticeship for being a professor than like a UG degree.
• you should pick a PhD based on topic + supervisor, NOT the university or buildings. It may be that the right PhD for you is at Leeds or Durham or somewhere else. If you really want a PhD, you should be applying to many places.
• the biggest challenge in PhD applications is not just getting a place, but getting funding. A PhD should be funded by the university (don't take on a self-funded PhD) but funding is v competitive. That is where grades and papers etc matter
• you haven't said if you are arts or sciences - that makes a big difference
• what would your plans be for after the PhD? do you want a job in academia or elsewhere? if elsewhere, why do you need the PhD? For many non-academic jobs, a fancy PhD does not help and might even hinder your applications.
• you mentioned applying for RA jobs - that is a very good idea and in fact might be the only way that someone with your CV could get a PhD. if you can do a good job as an RA for a year or two, you might be able to get a paper and more importantly, you get into the network and get connections & find out where to apply for your PhD.

If you have more questions on PhD applications, come over to the Academic common room board where there are lots of friendly academics who can advise.

@foxgoosefinch then give OP your advice. It's up to OP what is helpful so help OP instead of picking fights with people in the comment section for literally no reason.

There’s no picking of fights, and I don’t think I have said anything remotely aggressive to you? It’s a discussion forum; replying to posters on a thread as well as the OP is what happens here. Disagreement as well as agreement is the whole point. Advice on PG applications is highly discipline specific, and there isn’t any relevant work experience or learning about data analysis in many fields. There aren’t really general points that are still relevant across all disciplines so it would be useful if the OP asked about specifics.

@foxgoosefinch you're getting pissy with me because my advice isn't relevant to humanities. Why would it be I'm a scientist. I wouldn't expect a humanities expert to give scientific advice and I wouldn't fixate on it if they said something that wasn't relevant to my professional area. So just give your own advice and forget about mine not being relevant to YOUR discipline. I'm sure OP is smart enough to figure out which bits they need.

You also twisted my words when you said this> It would equally be rare for applicants to have attended any conferences - they are expensive, and we wouldn’t care anyway. I clearly know that which is why I said 'BE AWARE OF' I didn't say 'GO TO'. It doesn't cost anything to google conferences and read some abstracts and BE AWARE of hot topics. You can get information on conferences from social media if you really want to. FYI it is aggressive to twist other peoples words and imply they meant something that they didn't.

I suggest you try. Keep in mind that you probably won't get in, but giving it a go might help with the 'what if' thoughts you're likely to keep having if you don't.

My story is similar to yours in places. Fairly good GCSEs, no A Levels due to MH issues and caring responsibilities. Later in life I got into university (a much-criticised ex-poly) based on my work portfolio. It was an amazing, nurturing place, and I graduated with a high first. Did my Masters in Cambridge and got a distinction (high seventies, good but not spectacular). Cambridge didn't care about the lack of A Levels at all. The recent academic record counted for much more. I would have been qualified enough to do a PhD there but there were no supervisors who fit with my niche, somewhat interdisciplinary research plan, so I ended up going elsewhere. The year I had at Cambridge, though, was one of the best and most novel experiences of my life.

It's certainly possible, but it's going to be much more difficult to find a good fit for a PhD than an MA.

My friend's partner (mid-30s) got a 2.ii and is currently doing a PhD at Cambridge. He was working with a research group which relocated to Cambridge and it became apparent that the work he was doing for the group could be done as a PhD. Excellent for him, and probably not what he was expecting to be doing when he graduated.

Funding is a big hurdle. I do think the OP is being unrealistic thinking she can work alongside the research.

I agree @Hillarious about the working alongside research. Both Oxford and Cambridge ask for proof of the entire funding before admittance as a graduate student - normally either confirmation from a funding body or department; or proof of total funds held on deposit if self-funding. Plans to work throughout aren’t accepted. Even with an offered place they won’t confirm a place unless the funding proof is there.

When I was doing my PhD at Cam the only paid employment allowed was to teach for the dept (there are a lot of places saying the same - not just Oxbridge, especially if the place is funded). I'm in an interdisciplinary field requiring independent funding (i.e. not allocated funding from a group project as you often get in the sciences). Funding was competitive (more than getting a place). I recommend a Masters first - that's how I swung mine as I didn't have a first in my first degree.

OP just to say I studied at Oxford for undergrad, I was so excited to get in and felt so proud… but I had a rubbish time there! Due to a mix of factors, mainly not finding my “crowd”.

So just to say, going there won’t necessarily be amazing or mean you are more fulfilled. I ended up being very jealous of my sister who went to Leeds and had the BEST time and still has loads of really good friends from uni.

If you just want it on your CV then definitely look at the summer schools

@Acinonyx2

When I was doing my PhD at Cam the only paid employment allowed was to teach for the dept (there are a lot of places saying the same - not just Oxbridge, especially if the place is funded). I'm in an interdisciplinary field requiring independent funding (i.e. not allocated funding from a group project as you often get in the sciences). Funding was competitive (more than getting a place). I recommend a Masters first - that's how I swung mine as I didn't have a first in my first degree.

That’s good advice. If you’re in the humanities, OP, an MSt can either be terminal in that you come out with a master’s degree after a year, or you can apply to pass on into a doctoral programme. I was ‘college mother’ to someone who thought he wanted to do a DPhil, but struggled during his first year and decided to leave with an MSt.

I don't know about Oxford but generally there are 4 (ish) ways to get onto a phd.

One is to apply for an existing project that is advertised much as a job is. With a 2:2 I suspect this is unlikely.

Two is to spot some non-specific funding and apply for it with your own phd idea-- they may match you to a supervisor. But you are unlikely to get funding these days with a 2:2

Three is to know what you want to do your PhD on and research supervisors, approach one, get them to agree to supervise you and then apply-- this seems the most likely route for you. If you need funding I doubt you will get it but if you self fund it is more likely.

It's pretty annoying, I also got 69% in my masters and this has put a stop to my phd funding hopes.

Do you have an idea of what you want your phd project to be? That is pretty important too.

presumably there's an interview process?
Just rock up and tell them that it's your childhood dream. I'm sure they'll be impressed.

I'm not sure why you're so set on a phd / academic future when your past record of academic achievement has, to be blunt, been mediocre.

The people I know who have done phds all got a first at undergrad.

I really am sorry to be so harsh. I'm sure there are many many things you could do that are fulfilling. Why not open your mind to a job/ career/ travel?

@SonicBroom

OP I was just thinking, did you try to get your masters dissertation published? What did you get on your dissertation? If you got a good distinction on it but not enough to take you over the distinction threshold overall then it might be important to bring that out.

Lots of people do publish at masters level, I was asked to try to get mine published but I just didn’t have time. I got 89% on my dissertation from a top London RG uni, and 82% on my masters overall (during Covid… and still didn’t get through the application stage for RA at Oxford or for PhD at UCL!!). Perhaps that’s something to work on with your dissertation supervisor if you do want another credential under your belt. They’ll gladly help in return for acknowledgment as a co-author. If your masters dissertation is not of distinction level and ideally of publishable standard (85-90%) then you need to rethink whether this is right for you.

What have your uni (for masters) said about it, you’d need a reference from them to support your application?

Also, most people only really go through with a phd if they’re interested in a career in academia, or perhaps if they’re in a STEM or clinical field. Outside those areas it doesn’t really add much to your value in the job market as essentially you’re learning research skills, and becoming an SME in a very niche subject.

I got 86% in my dissertation, a prize and a conference presentation out of it. (To the previous poster who said it's difficult to attend conferences, it's been pretty easy during covid as everything is online. There's no reason why the OP couldn't do what I did.) My GPA was 85% at a good RG university and my referee is a world expert in the field. I'm applying for funding but I fully expect to be rejected. One of my fellow students got better grades than me and she has a bona fide academic article to her name. She didn't get funding. I do wonder what planet the OP lives on. If she's applying for three and a half years of research, a fundamental test of her research skills is to find out what a PhD involves, thoroughly develop her topic, get someone to supervise it and meet the requirements of her chosen university. And it goes without saying that she must eat, breathe and sleep research. Even if you're applying for a job at Tesco, it's meaningless to say that you want it because it's your childhood dream. You need to have the relevant skills and an understanding of what the job entails.

@WellLarDeDar

So what would you suggest? That I try to work with a group in a discipline that I intend to do the PhD? I’m not sure how to become a more competitive applicant.

Okay I hope this is helpful - Relevant to Scientific degrees, unsure how relevant to humanities edited by MNHQ at OP's request
Work experience in the field that you want to do a PhD in would definitely make you more competitive. Showing that you understand the literature (and techniques if there are any-I'm unclear on the discipline your aiming for) is extremely important and they will expect you to discuss the literature in an interview and have some ideas of your own that you can explain logically in the context of the literature and it's relevance or 'usefulness'. A research assistant position or similar for at least a year would really help especially if you made it on to a paper or two. Also knowing people in the field can get you a great reference or make an introduction - research is so niche researchers in a given field all tend to either know each other or know of each other so a name and reference would benefit you massively. Be aware of big relevant conferences as well.

Many MRes students that apply for PhDs have their names on papers or have already worked or gotten to know the Supervisor so be wary of that. One way in is to study an MRes with the Supervisor you want and then they offer you a PhD once you've shown some potential. A few people on here have said that they will take in to account your previous MH struggles - some might but honestly, most wont unless they know you personally, especially somewhere like Oxford. People in academia don't rise through the ranks because they're good managers or they care about people, they make it because they're ruthless (they can be nice people at the same time but essentially. ruthless) so don't count on anyone making allowances for you and be ready for it. Particularly as many people in academia have MH struggles and are still expected to be brilliant, they'll be sympathetic but if you say you can't perform because of MH they wont trust you with their time or grant money. Be honest with yourself on whether you think you can handle it, its not an easy life. I know the basic entry requirements seem reasonable but take in to account that the applicants will be going above and beyond to make themselves stand out, so you need to do that too, particularly as you cant lean on your academic performance. You might not need a paper in the requirements, but applicants will have them and they'll have 1sts, distinctions, work experience, maybe a paper so the bare minimum is not enough.

Thanks This was such a great help My field is sciences not humanities @MadDeleine

@parietal

Hi,

I have 10 years experience leading a research group at an RG uni in science & supervising PhD & MSc students. So some comments

• doing a PhD is very different to doing an UG or MSc degree. It is 3 or 4 years of independent research, more like an apprenticeship for being a professor than like a UG degree.
• you should pick a PhD based on topic + supervisor, NOT the university or buildings. It may be that the right PhD for you is at Leeds or Durham or somewhere else. If you really want a PhD, you should be applying to many places.
• the biggest challenge in PhD applications is not just getting a place, but getting funding. A PhD should be funded by the university (don't take on a self-funded PhD) but funding is v competitive. That is where grades and papers etc matter
• you haven't said if you are arts or sciences - that makes a big difference
• what would your plans be for after the PhD? do you want a job in academia or elsewhere? if elsewhere, why do you need the PhD? For many non-academic jobs, a fancy PhD does not help and might even hinder your applications.
• you mentioned applying for RA jobs - that is a very good idea and in fact might be the only way that someone with your CV could get a PhD. if you can do a good job as an RA for a year or two, you might be able to get a paper and more importantly, you get into the network and get connections & find out where to apply for your PhD.

If you have more questions on PhD applications, come over to the Academic common room board where there are lots of friendly academics who can advise.

Thank you I might head over to Academic common room for more tailored advice. So in academia, the institution where you completed your PhD doesn’t matter? A PhD from Oxford doesn’t necessarily look better than a PhD from a university that isn’t as well known? Is that the same for industry jobs if you know?

@WheelieBinPrincess

Yeah true story about the 2:2 I’m afraid, lots of universities won’t even accept that to do an MA.

Absolutely not true. I did an MA at a top 10 university with a 2:2. Your professional experience since your undergraduate is also factored in.

‘ So in academia, the institution where you completed your PhD doesn’t matter? A PhD from Oxford doesn’t necessarily look better than a PhD from a university that isn’t as well known? Is that the same for industry jobs if you know?’

Dh (maths) moved away from Oxbridge for his PhD in order to work with the right supervisor. Since then he noticed that the department where he did his PhD had a higher success rate for its PhD students getting jobs than the Oxbridge department he had left. Students there were better supported and less likely to drop out.

Re the 2.2 issue, I have written regs for a PhD programme in the course of which I read a lot of others and it is very common to use the useful word ‘normally’: ‘normally a 2.1 or above’. That gives you room for manoeuvre if an applicant stands out in other ways but it does mean you would probably expect them to shine in other aspects than degree class.

@user1473878824

OP are you actually just desperate to do your PhD or just go to Oxford? Because if it’s the latter in all honesty it doesn’t seem very healthy.

I agree with this comment. In order to succeed at a PhD, you have to be excited about doing research in a particular field. Then you look for a university and a supervisor that correspond to your research interests.

Frankly, starting with the desire to go to a particular university and then wondering what degree you might do there is going about the whole enterprise the wrong way round!

Oxbridge can be great, but other UK universities can be equally great or even better; it all depends on what you want to study.

This can be a phenomenon among undergraduates too: they have a strong desire to go to Oxford because of the mythical status, the prestige, etc, but then it turns out that the particular Oxford course they've got into isn't the best fit for their interests, and they would have been better off somewhere else.

As an academic who has studied and taught at a range of universities, I think Oxford and Cambridge are overly idealised and mythologised. They also receive an unwarranted amount of attention in the UK press compared to other UK institutions.

Apologies if I've missed this and someone's already said it, but 'Oxford' (and 'Cambridge') are not monolithic places. The colleges are all different, so are the subject faculties. There are numerous different groups and sub-groups among students at all stages. Often, they do not mix socially.

Even with lab work involved, doing a PhD can be very, very isolating. Unlike undergraduates, you'll be unlikely to live in college and you won't have a ready-made group of contacts (students attending the same set of lectures). Your supervisor will I'm sure help you, but he/she will have an enormous number of other demands on their time.

The institution were you did your PhD matters less than the dept and lab where you do your PhD. You could do a PhD with famous scientist Prof NobelPrize in university of nowhere and that would be better than a PhD with Dr Beenheretoolong at Oxford. At least if you are going for a career in academia.

However, don't pick a PhD supervisor based purely on how famous they are. Prof NobelPrize might be living off his name and be a complete bastard to his students, and you might do better with Dr Newandkeen because she makes an effort to support her students and is at the cutting-edge of her field.

This is why it is v important to talk to people in your proposed field & try to find out at least some of the gossip on who is good to work with, what ideas are hot etc. An RA job is a good time to do that.

Try findaPhD.com for good advice on applying for a PhD, along with available studentships. I must say though it is going to be nigh impossible to be accepted for a PhD without a stellar academic track record.

Like MadDeleine, I spoke more from a humanities perspective, but I still agree with most PPs that have commented on this aspect, that the most likely route for your situation into any PhD will be via a very strong idea of your research area and a cultivated relationship with a prospective supervisor, regardless of which university that happens to be at. The funding situation in the humanities is even worse than in the sciences: we just don't tend to have big research projects with a PI and a bunch of PhD places (they do exist, but it's not the usual culture).

I think that for academic posts after a PhD, at least in my field, your PhD uni does matter (although of course it's not the only thing that matters). It's so viciously competitive, that even for part-time, limited-term contracts in an inconvenient part of the country, we are inundated with Oxbridge/Ivy-League applications. The time we are given to read job applications is so limited, that it's very hard to give due consideration to candidates who may have taken a possibly more unusual road...(I've complained about this, but am not hopeful of anything changing, tbh.)