to think that it does matter which university you go to?

[OrmRenewed]

My godson is brilliant. Bright, articulate, good-natured, good at sport and academic. He got 11A*s at GCSE. His school has told me he should apply to Oxbridge. He wants to do law.

His parents have basically conducted a campaign to discourage him. Why? As far as I can tell down to a really unpleasant reverse snobbery (Reading was good enough for me, it should be good enough for you, sort of thing). His dad maintains that all universities are as good as each other these days. AIBU in think that as the world and his wife go to university these days and now ones seem to spring up like mushrooms after rain, it matters even more that, if you can, you should take your chance to go to one of the top ones?

I am actually quite cross but it's not my business

MrsC - universities cannot see your other UCAS choices, so they have to make you an offer based on your ability not how likely you are to take it up.

If he wants to do Law, Oxford is one of the best places to do it. It's not true that all universities are the same. Better research ratings also feed into teaching, especially in academic (as opposed to vocational) subjects like History, Philosophy, Classics etc.

Oxford is no more expensive than anywhere else, in fact I think you may get more for your money if you are able to live in college the whole three years.

IMO the aim to get 50% of school-leavers to go to uni is misguided. Kids whose schools don't have such great careers advice and whose parents haven't been to uni/are less clued up about uni are more likely to fall for the idea that an ex-poly is just as good as a redbrick. They go, get into debt, graduate, and then find that the majority of the graduate jobs are going to redbrick/Oxbridge graduates. I feel they are being cheated.

I think it depends on the subject - Oxbridge not best for everything. But would have thought top choice for law.

I do think that some universities have a better reputation that others (Oxbridge being the obvious example). Some have particularly good names for certain subjects too.

I do think it's unfair of your godson's parents to discourage him from making an application to Oxbridge, but maybe there are money worries or they are concerned he wouldn't fit in for some reason (I'm not suggesting this is the case, but just an idea)?

If his teachers are encouraging him I would maybe have a word with his parents. Something along the lines of how pleased you are to hear he's doing so well and is being encouraged to apply, which might open up the conversation a bit?

op have you asked your godson's parents if they have a reason that they really would prefer if there son didn't go to oxbridge?
i knwo you think it is revesred snobbery but perhaps there is more to this?

Perhaps then if there is a particular reason you could either understand there concerns or reasure them - after all that is part of your godmother role?

If the problem's money, he'll be so much better off at Oxbridge than anywhere else. I come from a family from no money and was at Cambridge (admittedly 15 years ago) and hit major financial problems in my third year, and the college helped out with money from its access fund. Plus accommodation is cheaper than almost anywhere else - I lived in college accommodation all the way through and it cost me about half what friends at other universities had to pay. All the colleges that can afford to subsidise accommodation for students. Plus terms are shorter, so there's more scope for working in the vacations (though he shouldn't plan on working in termtime if he can avoid it).

And I agree with everyone who says law is one of those professions where it really makes a difference to have gone to Oxbridge: he'd be mad not to at least try.

YANBU. You need to judge by the course rather than the Uni as a whole, but all courses are not at all equal.

Re. money, if anything it'll be a lot cheaper at Oxbridge than most other options - DH was at John's in Cambridge and had subsidised accomodation and, if he chose to eat in hall, very cheap food as well. The college could afford to throw money into supporting their students through subsidies and they did.

I hope you can find a way to support him to make the choice that is right for him (could you take him to open days?) - and that may not be Oxbridge. But that needs to be his choice.

LeQueen, I know. It REALLY pisses me off. Labour are ostensibly trying to prove that they are for equality, but all they are doing is reinforcing a two-tiered system of education where those with the inside knowledge (middle and upper classes) benefit and those without get screwed. It wouldn't be so bad if tuition feed were cheap/free but they're not.

Agree about subsidies at Oxbridge. The individual colleges can be vvv rich (St. John's Cambridge own St. John's Wood in London) and it is up to them who they give the money to. If someone is bright but poor, Oxbridge is one of the best places to be.

It's always been my understanding that the expectations of students at Oxford are much higher than many other universities in terms of the amount of work expected.

Also, there are league tables to show differing standards across all institutues of higher education. I think its fair to say that Oxbridge are 'better', in that they can choose the 'cream' of academic talent, and it is very much in their interest to maintain that status quo in order to attract overseas investment.

I would also second the point made about studying law at Oxford...just scan through the background of the majority if barristers on their chambers' websites, and you will see!

However, I also think that admission requirements to many unis are very low, but that might be more to do with the fact that the government is obsessed with people going to university these days, and sees no value in any other path.

Maybe his parents think that life is about more than going to "the best" place academically speaking.

Academically (grades-wise and ability-wise) I could have applied to Oxford or Cambridge but I already lived in Cambridge and had a pretty good idea of what student life entailed there.

My parents didn't push me to go to Oxbridge, neither did my teachers (despite them saying that if I wanted to I could).

In fact, before I went to University, my dad said he'd rather see me with a 2.1 and have a great time for 4 years, than sit in the library all day and night and get a first.

In my time (older gimmer...) we heard plenty of tales in Cambridge about students committing suicide because of the pressure, thankfully my parents didn't want that for me and in the same way, sent me to a slightly less "pushy" private secondary school (the other one had a very high rate of anorexia among the girls there).

But if you want to be a lawyer you have to prove yourself by going to the 'best' (i.e. academically best-regarded) university, and doing as well as you can.

If you join a course where the minimum entry requirements are AAB, then even the lowest mark there is worth more than a first from a course with entry requirements of CCD. Because you are operating in a different intellectual league.

That's not so important for technical/practical courses, but for law, where intellectual performance is critical, it really counts.

Problem is that league tables are very, very blunt instruments. All universities are not the same, and Oxford and Cambridge may be best for some subjects, and not for others - no idea about Law. The perceived prestige put on O&C above all else is misplaced, but does affect howsome employers decide - unfairly so, but these blinkers exist. Choosing the right institution requires research and careful thought - snobbery, reverse or otherwise, shouldn't come into it.

They are not all the same-it is like saying all schools are the same. You wouldn't send your DC to a school that you haven't visited. You need to visit the university and ask lots of questions about the course that you want to do. Since it is very costly these days it is a very expensive mistake if you end up at the wrong place because you didn't do your homework first.

My DS is off to Uni this year. He has been offered a place at Kings College Cambridge and this did not affect his UCAS application as he was offered places at all of his options.

However, after much soul searching he has put Brunel as his first choice. He really struggled with the decision as he thought the prestige of going to Cambridge may have helped him in later life. In the end it came down to the course content (Aeronautical Engineering) and the one at Brunel fits into what he wants to do ideally. If Cambridge had offered the exact same course - he would definitely have gone there.

At the end of the day its his decision, he has to spend 5 years of his life at Uni. We only helped him to make an informed choice and are happy that he is happy IYSWIM. We would never have discouraged him to aim for his highest potential though - which seems to be happening in the OPs post.

In terms of finance - Cambridge was no more expensive to go to.

On a slight tangent (but same idea really) - does he actually know what he's letting himself in for with law?

When I did English, History and French at A-level it was assumed that the "bright" pupils would do law, luckily a careers advisor talked to us about exactly what it entailed (ie lots of learning text-books off by heart).

As a former Recruiter in investment banking, yes, employers would clamber all over ourselves to recruit Oxbridge grads, any degree(one of our best did Theology).

A 2.1 or above from one of these universities would put the world at your nephew's feet and allow him the leisure of those extra years to decide what he wants to do once he has said degree (although a couple of summer internships would certainly help too).

Apologies for not having read whole thread, but did read the first few posts - Oxbridge is better if you have no money, because they have loads of grants and endowments you can apply for. I went and they gave me a 500quid grant every year to help with my living expenses.

He should go wherever has the best course and wherever he feels he will fit in and be happiest/do best. Plus is he is worried he won't fit in at Oxbridge, he should visit first and see what it's really like - it is not all blazered twats quaffing Pims (although there are some of them).

University is very important, but which one is going to be the best depends on the subject, and your individual tendencies.

Oxbridge will usually open more doors, because employers will (with reason) assume that a 2:1 from them says more than a 2:1 from most ex polys, but other Russell Group universities will often be better for specific courses, and for unusual subjects you may be better off in a particular new institution (e.g. Sussex for artificial intelligence).

The boy needs more advice on the details of the various courses available - Oxford's law course, though technically demanding, used to be very heavy on the theory and history, and lacking in modernity and commercial practicality - that may or may not still be the case. Also, will any of the available courses give preferential entry to a desirable LSFE/Bar training course? A university where you can go straight on to the next step seamlessly is highly desirable.

He needs a lot of advice, and support from you to make sure that he goes to a place that's good for him, where-ever that is. And he needs to take his second/third choices very seriously - a lot of people who are "Oxbridge material" don't actually get in.

Why does he regret not sitting it though?

he sounds as though he has done absolutely fine without needing any artificial leg up through the Old Boys network!

If he actually wants to go, he should.

However, I can possibly see where his parents may coming from and that's in terms of his social life while he's there.

Okay, this was 20 years ago, things may well have changed out of all recognition, but my sister and her best mate (with their northern Comp education) both applied to Oxford - BM got in, sister didn't, both passed the entrance so we were never sure what they decided it on. However... BM got into enormous cc debt keeping up with the public school types she fell in with, was severely depressed and anorexic and, in conjunction with her trust-fund boyfriend, addicted to heroin by the time she left (with a not very good degree).

It's taken her pretty much the last 20 years to sort herself out and she freely admits that she always felt like she was never quite good enough to fit in with her peers there - of course this is entirely subjective and it may be that this would have happened had she gone to Slough poly, but it may be that this sort of thing is what the parents are worried about?

YANBU.

All universities are not the same, and if he has the chance to go to Oxbridge he should grab it with both hands.

Inverse snobbery may be fine for his parents, they have careers. But it won't be them having to try that bit harder for jobs/experience when he graduates.

i would have thought the job of the parent is to help provide the information required for the student in question to make their own decision, no? parents shouldnt ut their own opinions on it one way or another, i'd have thought. my school tried to encourage me to sit the oxford exam and i didnt really want the extra pressure so i said no. i think my parents were disappointed but tehy didnt put any additional pressure on me which i was grateful for. parenting is hard though and who knows how i will be when i get tot stage. unis definitely do vary though and although i went to a top red brick one, people at my work do look down on me a little bit because they are all oxbridge and i'm not....