Why didn't your child apply to Oxford or Cambridge?

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/27/oxbridge-state-school-numbers-falling

Given that most people who apply will not get in - there's no shame in an unsuccessful application. So what are the real reasons for this apparent reluctance?

In one sense I feel sorry for Oxford and Cambridge as the spotlight is always on them regarding widening access but no-one criticises Imperial or UCL or LSE or Durham (or anywhere else, really).

I do wonder about this constant harping on about the tutorial system at Oxbridge though. No doubt it is an interesting approach for humanities but how is it of any benefit for sciences?

Take a subject like Chemistry where you need to be in a lab as much as possible not chatting about theories over a cup of tea.

Oxbridge's short terms (which appear to be a hangover from the days when it was a sort of gentleman's finishing school) are actually a huge disadvantage for lab based science courses leaving student with far fewer hours of hands-on experience than students at places like Imperial.

Add to that the lack of any kind of industrial experience and it is clear that for subjects such as Chemistry a student is better off applying to another university with a good reputation.

So there are definitely subjects for which Oxbridge is a worse option and, no doubt, clued up students are avoiding it for that reason.

Apparently, at Oxford, Chemistry has the highest drop out rate of any course at the university. I imagine the short terms don't help with that problem.

Actually why does Oxbridge persist with its short terms and then go on about how "intense" the courses are? Why not just have normal length terms like everybody else!!

Scientists are in labs for a great deal of the time Raidne. They just do essays/ tutorials as well.

I thought the short terms were more to do with the dons needing time for research, rather than to facilitate the students doing the season......

I could be wrong, but my son has 3 8-week terms at Oxford and he has tutorials and lectures all the way through all three terms. This would be different if he had exams in the summer, but so far (two years in) I don't think he has had. At other universities there may be longer terms in the autumn and spring but in the summer there appears to be very little teaching in the summer, just exams, and term is often over by the end of May. So I think it all evens out in the end.

Quite Mimsy. The intensity of the undergrad courses at Oxford may be accentuated by the eight week term, but it's about the level of teaching and the fact of not being able to hide in large group seminars and the fact of exams immediately before the start of each term rather than the mere fact of short terms. I'm pretty shocked at the big wide open summer terms at some universities where almost nothing seems to happen.

Yes molio the expectations are pretty different. I teach at Oxbridge and also elswhere. The students at the former have tutorials every week and often written work too. At the later, tutorials are much less frequent and there is little work to hand in. And yes no lectures during the summer term.

University subject league tables seem to indicate that Cambridge and Oxford are the two best places for chemistry, with student satisfaction, research assessment and graduate prospects higher for these two universities than at Imperial, even if it is true that students at Imperial spend more time in the lab (which I'm not entirely convinced by...).

They thought they would not have got in and did not want to do the extra work needed; ended up with pretty relaxed 3 years at Bristol etc and high paid City careers so I suspect their choices of picking the easier path may have been wise for them. It has be an individual decision of course. Also in very academic leading schools they were not in the top 25% and you can see as someone else earlier on the thread who might be Oxbridge material even in these leading schools.

Student satisfaction isn't really a useful measure of much though. Imperial is generally accepted as completely on a par with Cambridge for quality of science and maths education (Perhaos a little less good on maths) and better than Oxford. This doesn't always translate into job prospects though because the magic name on your CV is a gift that keeps on giving forever.

None of it's a useful measure if you aren't happy with your chosen course. However, I don't see how high graduate employment prospects combined with high student satisfaction can translate into a "problem" with a "high drop out rate," nor does it seem to equate to a problem with selecting suitable applicants for the relevant courses. Drop out rate is higher at Imperial than Oxford... are we to conclude from that that Imperial has a "problem"?

Tutorial system worked brilliantly for my chosen subject (law, or "jurisprudence" as they liked to call it!), in terms of making it interesting. The only down side was that the real practice of law afterwards was desperately dull.

'Student satisfaction' is not only not really a useful measure Herc, it's one of the silliest measures ever.

Jane I think a lot of relatively well heeled sixth formers take that approach, particularly from second rate indies, but I think it's also true that they gain very little from their Bristol/ Exeter/ RHUL/ St A years beyond party time and a non descript 2.1 tag for their CV. What Oxford and Cambridge can do is teach students to think. I mean really think. That's why, as Herc says, there's a magic (as opposed to merely pedestrian) name on the CV.

I would also add that a 'high paid City career' is tantamount to the kiss of death for some...................................

Molio - that sounds rather rude... I think the likes of Bristol/Exeter/RHUL/St A. teach students to think, too, if they actually wish to learn!...

"Imperial is generally accepted as completely on a par with Cambridge for quality of science and maths education.. . and better than Oxford"

who by Herc? Have only heard this sort of talk from Cambridge grads who've succumbed to the denigration of 'the other place' too much.

In terms of entry standards Oxford is well above Imperial for maths, science and even engineering. The teaching is excellent at both so it seems unlikely.

It is very very hard to get into Bristol. I am very proud of my mildly dyslexic daughter for getting in. I am sure she liked the 3 hours of lectures a week she had in her subject and like state school parents at grammar school people seemto be assuming university is all just about the subject. In fact like a good private school it is about the whole person, the social side, your hobbies, learning to be away from home, cooking etc etc..

The things she gained from Bristol randomly.........included she took her horse down and got up at 6am to drive to where she put it and get it cleaned out etc.... she met some very nice friends who will be friends for life one of whom she could share a nice house with and then rent a room in his Covent Garden flat later which meant she could walk to work.... Just lots of new experiences and people and time to think about what you want in life. Bristol was great and I am sure many people there doing difference courses have lots of time in laboratories etc. and longer lesson times.

I am afraid far too many women think high paid careers are awful which is why they hang out on credit crunch threads and are virtually impoverished. We need to change the image of high paid career for women - they fun, they are wonderful and you are intellectually challenged every day and can make a fortune.

Xenia?

Tut, Mimsy!

Though I guess, like me you're just jealous that you didn't take a horse to university...

Yes rabbit it did sound rude, which I didn't intend. There is a good deal of apparently ill-informed anti Oxbridge prejudice on this thread and occasionally I think it's fair to recognise what those universities can do for their students. The tutorial system has the capacity to shape thinking in a way that other universities can't hope to; each student at Oxford and Cambridge costs in the region of £18,000pa to educate - that alone has to make a difference. It's what lies behind the name that makes it 'magic', not the name itself. Degrees are not all equal.

Jane of course there are many, many things to gain from university life other than the academic. I'm all for those things. But I have to say I'm pretty clueless as to what one of those universities I named has done for one of my nieces, who has just finished her third year. Apart from the partying and general silliness, she seems to have glided through the academic side entirely untouched. I would add that a great many of my male colleagues in the City also wondered why on earth they had got themselves into that particular life - a good number of talented people of both sexes gave it a try then upped sticks and left.

You can take a horse to water.

Zero, it's owning an island I envy!

Interested to know how someone even on one of the highest law/ bank graduate schemes of £40k could afford a flat share in Covent Garden without considerable parental help. I have a daughter on one of those and she's way down the tube line............

It is very very hard to get into Bristol

It isn't, it was DS lowest offer, and all of his mates who applied (comprehensive) got offers, not one was rejected.

Bristol is freefalling down the league tables, it is below the likes of Leicester on some of them.

DS is at Oxford, benefiting from a hugely wealthy institution that can afford to spend money on it's students instead of milking them for cash.

Bristol was DS insurance, I was praying he wouldn't have to go as it would have been 2-3 k per year more expensive.

My son's insurance offer was from Lancaster. We went to the UCAS day and I loved it (campus, town, atmosphere in the department). It does very well on its research ratings right across the board, I believe, in spite of being a small university. It seems to be below the radar for a lot of people, possibly because it's up north.

Morse and Lewis have a lot to answer for. Not that potential applicants are put off by the apparently high likelihood of being murdered in a small English city, but the representation of Oxford students is awful.

They are all either rich or posh, or bespectacled loners from state schools, or they are either geniuses or savants. No ordinary people doing ordinary things (unless they are about to be Victim No 2). And all the 18 yr olds are in fact 27.

For many people, this is as close to Oxbridge as their experience gets, and I quite see why they are put off.

I would expect any young person applying to Oxford and Cambridge to have the capacity to make an objective, rational, dispassionate assessment of the universities rather than relying on hearsay and prejudice to decide what to think about them.

Where I think children from high-achieving schools have the edge over those where there's no experience of sending pupils to Oxbridge is familiarity with one or both places. Which is why DC who have teachers with Oxbridge degrees have an enormous advantage over those who don't.