Dd told she should be thinking Oxbridge

[asdx2]

Dd y12 was invited to attend the applying for Oxbridge chat yesterday at school.
She was a little bemused as she isn't really sure of just how good she is but went along anyway and is open minded to the idea.
She is still unsure about what she would study at any uni. Her A2s are Maths, Further Maths, History and Economics predicted at least A in them all probably a couple of A*
So why should she consider Oxbridge as a serious option?

MillyR why just because you didn't want to go to Oxbridge do you not want your children to go? If they are of the right calibre intellectually and there is a course that suits them what are you so against? I obviously don't know your reasons, but it worries me that a lot of future successful applicants can be put of by this way of thinking.

takver i know

LMOTS

I would support my children if they decide to apply but I think that it would be better for them to go to another university because:

1. Oxford and Cambridge are not very exciting cities to live in. There is a sharp divide between cities and locals. My children live in a rural area and I would like them to have an amazing experience of city life, as you would get somewhere really vibrant like Manchester which has a huge and diverse youth population, many of whom are not students.

1. Going to a University like Oxford or Cambridge makes it harder for someone to integrate their regional identity into their adult personality; they are expected to tone down and mask their background in a way that they don't have to in the North, or Wales or Scotland at University.

1. If you are from a normal background you are going to experience prejudice at Oxford and Cambridge. Parents and teachers are right to tell sixth formers this. Some people can cope well with prejudice, but others will find it distressing. Students should be aware of this before they go, so that they can make their own minds up about whether or not they want that prejudice to be part of their university experience. If it puts some people who are sensitive to prejudice off going, then that is a good thing. Why do something that will make you unhappy? The negative social experience could damage a clever but socially ordinary person's academic progress.

1. It is very expensive to live in the South of England. If you go to University in another part of Britain you can network there and have more opportunities to find work there and have a good standard of living by being somewhere affordable. You miss out on those networking opportunities at Oxford and Cambridge.

5. You are not as likely to get postgraduate funding if you are an undergraduate at Oxford and Cambridge, as the research councils do not see it as their responsibility to bank roll Oxbridge, but there are huge numbers of really capable students at those two universities competing for the funding. You are far more likely to get postgraduate funding if you are in a less competitive pool of undergraduates elsewhere. You could then transfer to Oxford or Cambridge for PhD if you are genuinely an academic type, as all the posh but not that interested types tend to leave at the end of their undergraduate degrees, leaving a genuinely bright and more socially accepting PhD peer group at Oxbridge.

The funding issue may change under the new AHRC block funding rules, but as my son is likely to do Maths or Physics, he wouldn't be funded by AHRC anyway. The situation with NERC is likely to be more favourable away from Oxbridge. I am simply not wealthy enough to fund my son's PhD (if he wants to do one), and lots of Oxbridge students do end up relying on parents for PhD funding.

I have read in the papers that teachers and parents put children off going to Oxford and Cambridge; I think that is very sensible and it is quite patronising for people to demand that children like mine should have to take part in some kind of social experiment.

gosh milly you really don't like oxbridge!

Apologies if this has been well-said, no time to read whole thread closely:

I imagine maths could be good there, but it will be very much 'Love of numbers' rather than any other approach (like practical uses of mathemathics in industry).

It all depends what degree you go for, and what kind of degree (theoretial or applied) you want. Oxbridge may be topnotch for theory in classical subjects, but they are weak by reputation in lots of areas of applied research (or training and subsequent actual job skills).

I'm not sure that the old model of 'University to get a good grounding in theory' and then employer will give you practical skills to build on that -- actually works. Employers want practical skills, too, nowadays.

Weak for new technology areas and not brilliant overall for interdisciplinary areas, either.

I used to be an academic myself and Oxbridge published very little that I could ever cite (and I cite everyone and anyone given the chance).

I once considered a job at Cambridge Uni. They wanted me to post them 5 identical copies of the application forms/cvs/etc. FIVE. What? They couldn't use a photocopier? They didn't have one? It was donkey work beneath them? They were still stuck in the stone age? That was my final conclusion, alas. Nobody else has ever required 5 identical job submissions in a job applic. I looked at their research output and it was all cerebral stuff ("this is how I think others should think about how to do research") but precious little in the way of actual exciting new findings. I come from a background of applied social science. Pah, I was very unimpressed.

"3. If you are from a normal background you are going to experience prejudice at Oxford and Cambridge. Parents and teachers are right to tell sixth formers this. Some people can cope well with prejudice, but others will find it distressing."

I can categorically say I didn't - it's over a decade since I graduated, and the state/private ratio has improved since then. Yes, there were some silly toffs about, but I didn't bother them and they didn't bother me.

I've studied at two other institutions since, and I would definitely choose Cambridge, and would definitely encourage dds to go there if they wanted to (not, obviously, if they wanted to be a photographer or a cabinet maker or something).

Who is meant to be indulging in this prejudicial behaviour? The academics (in law, anyway, and quite a lot of the others I met) tend to be leftie types and also were the hard working grammar school kids, not the ex-Eton ones who would swan off for a job in the city in any case . I must admit my experience of Oxford first-hand was not as good, but since then I've met lots of Oxford graduates who I would have happily hung out with as a student.

I'm not saying Cambridge is the only answer, but did want some sort of balance to MillyR's diatribe. To deal quickly with the other points (i.e. it's cheaper to live in Cambridge with the subsidised accommodation and food etc - not very exciting places to live! Maybe if you're not at all academic and want to go clubbing the entire time - if you like parties and concerts and sport and lectures, there's more than enough to do, I assure you. I didn't do any "masking" of my regional identity, there were lots of people from all over the world. That's the great thing about being at an internationally renowned university! The PG funding is an issue, I admit. But it's not great at any other university either, and it's a bit of a lottery with some pretty mediocre people getting money while very gifted ones don't. That's a whole other issue and certainly not a reason not to take up a place at Oxbridge).

My longest ever post, I think, but I would really hate to think that anyone gave up the fantastic opportunity I had on the basis of a view that certainly does not accord in any way with my experience.

Georgimama

"Xenia will be along shortly to say that unless you go to Oxford or Cambridge then basically you will never be a MC lawyer and you won't be able to afford to send your children to private school and go skiing and might as well be dead.

Just you wait."

That should be quote of the week. But it won't!

SLF, I wouldn't in any way suggest that the staff would be prejudiced. The staff couldn't care less what background a student is from.

I am not really opposed to Oxford and Cambridge; I would be prepared to work there and would tell my children they were great places to have a career, and a really great to do a fellowship at. It is more the student experience that I think is somewhat lacking. There is a town/gown divide and there is limited opportunity to mix with people who are not students or connected to the University.

MillyR, how many 18-21 year olds go to university to mix with non-students in the local town/city. I think its great if they do have this mix of friends, but I think its highly unlikely in that age group that they are going to go out of their way to extend their social lives out of the student one, even in Manchester/Leeds.

Did you have a bad experience yourself? I can understand that you don't want your DCs university experience to be unhappy and I also don't believe in my DC being used in a social experiment. This is being done on the other side of the spectrum also by using discrimination against kids who have gone to the major public schools, by tweaking GCSE results by some factor according to the type of school.

You sound like you've had a really bad experience in either Oxford or Cambridge, MillyR. I really think though that you've been unlucky somewhere. I lived in Cambridge for 10 years after being a student there (from a state school) and in my experience its a lovely town to live in, the sort of place where you always know someone where-ever you go and with loads of stuff going on. I'd recommend it to anyone (student or not) as a place to live, not too big to be unfriendly, but with lots of arty and other stuff going on. The only exception I guess would be if they were into clubbing and seeing big name bands, its never going to have the same range as a 'real' city.
Hard to speak of what its like as a student now since its such a long time since I graduated, but certainly 20 years back I didn't see any prejudice at all against state school backgrounds or non 'posh' accents. In fact there was a bit of a stigma if anything at my college to being from a private school, somehow it sort of implied you were a bit thick & got your place because of where you'd come from (entirely unfair I know).
Certainly the student experience back then was very different from say being at Manchester in the late 80s/early 90s - more punting and parties, and less clubbing and drugs - but I'm not sure it was any less fun

I mixed with 'town & gown' in my time at Oxford - it was a bit unusual, but the divide isn't as great as people make out imo. And I never ran up against any 'normal background' predudice either. Not saying there wasn't any, but in my college/faculty it wasn't at all apparent.

I did mix with non-students at university, and even shared accommodation with non-students; my sister did the same.

I think the point that Oxbridge is more punting and parties, as Takver says, really illustrates my point. In whose version of student life do people go punting? It is so utterly removed from the real life experience of most students, never mind most people, and is exactly the kind of rarefied existence that I think is offputting to ordinary people.

I have visited Cambridge and found it lovely. I have lived in an Oxford college and think it is beautiful with lovely people, but I have never studied at either. I have no bad experience of either. I work with a lot of academics, and we have discussed the different student experiences that we have had studying at different universities and the different experiences we have of current students through our teaching at different universities. From these discussions I do not feel Oxbridge would suit children from a family or area like mine; they are still wonderful places for many students to study at.

There are many upsides to Oxford and Cambridge - there is a wonderful sense of community created by the colleges. I didn't mean to be polemical when I came on this thread. It is just that many people have stated the benefits of going to Oxbridge, and I think there are benefits to going to other universities that you miss out on by going to Oxbridge. It is horses for courses really.

As lots of others have said, needs to be right for your DD, although Russell Group definitely where to go if able.

Difficult to judge, but I guess you went and looked at schools a few years ago and it's the same thing really. Oxbridge fantastic for the right person, horrible for others (as is the case with all unis). Need to get a sense of atmosphere and environment, is the course detail what she's interested in, talk to people there, does she want 'big city' life or a more rarified atmosphere, how far is it from home (and does this matter)?

Friend of mine from state school went to Oriel at Oxford last year and ended up with near nervous breakdown due to work and environment - didn't make friends and in one of his German tutorials, the tutor and other students (all private school) started discussing some political topic in Greek - yes, really! Tutor very unsympathetic to his struggles as would affect her grades and make her look bad so happy to get rid of him; he's now changed course and is very happy, but family had to fight really hard for this and he ended up at home for best part of a year on medication.

PS not saying that all of Oxbridge sends you to drugs! Just that you need to find the place that your DD fits. Also have a cousin from state school, working class background, who went to Trinity at Cambridge and had a fab time

DS has just said that at the moment he is thinking of

Cambridge, LSE, UCL, Kings College...

He wants to read law and become a barrister.
Anyone with any experience on law at any of these Unis?

Not just Russell Group! Most people rate Durham and St Andrews pretty highly, yet don't realise that neither are in the RG. 1994 group also generally very good.

Have only skimmed most of this, but the best way to counter some of MillyR's not-that-substantiated points would be for the students in question to go to some open days. Oxbridge colleges actively encourage this and ther will be info on their websites. This should be helpful on checking out the surroundings, meeting some current student fronts, as well as talking to some staff about possible subject choices. They'll be open to people who don't have firm subject choices. Then, even if you don't apply, at least it's a known quantity, and, in fact, you lose nothing from applying.

Briefly, regarding prejudice, the only prejudice I witnessed in my Cambridge college was directed at the idiotic toffs who thought the world owed them a living. The vast majority of students in our college community were from state school backgrounds and regarded as entirely normal.

It may, however, pay to have a good look around colleges and choose one where you feel that you fit in to the culture. Some are posher than others. Mine was definitely of the not-at-all-posh persuasion!

I found there was some prejudice towards state school kids in my time at Oxbridge. Sometimes I think the posh kids are intimidated as, having sat in on admissions interviews, you probably have to be better to get in from a state school than a private school. It's not that they don't want to admit state school kids, it's something about the way private schools teach (smaller class sizes, being more likely to speak up) that helps them tick the boxes to pick a particular candidate. Remember the odds can be 10:1 against you. The interviewers are usually trying to see how you think, can you think on your feet, are you interested, will you be interesting to teach. Rather than looking for the answer to a particular question.

Having said that, I experienced a surprising amount of prejudice at University in Scotland so to some extent this is part of life.

I suspect your DD will know by the time she has applied/been interviewed if she wants to go. But don't write it off at this stage.

I went to Cambridge as did most people from my gap year scheme (v biased interviewer... almost all the others went to Oxford). A Cambridge college is basically a glorified hall of residence, whereas Oxford ones are more significant as your teaching is a lot more college-based (varies by subject in both places).

While there's a few very posh people and a significant proportion who went to private schools (including many Forces and expat brats and back then the Assisted Places Scheme, so not necessarily posh at all), the majority of incoming students are amazingly normal, whatever that is, although possibly a bit sheltered.

As for town:gown divide - yes, but less so than at a campus university like say Warwick, given that the campus and the town occupy the same space. It's not so much a divide just that as students organise so much themselves, external stuff doesn't get much of a look-in. OK neither town has the happening nightlife of London, but they have the huge advantage that you can say organise your own club night, whereas in London that's much, much harder. I did my next two degrees in London and found much less student activity going on, thanks to more students living at home or just further away and also just having less drive to do much apart from drink, and the expense of hiring space anywhere. Besides, students can visit London for under £10 and get there in a couple hours! It's worth thinking about facilities for extra-curricular activities, eg Cambridge has one of very few student-run theatres, so if you want to do backstage work it's great, Oxford doesn't have much, and Kings/UCL none at all as their facilities have professional staff.

There's also more support for broke or ill or stressed students at Oxbridge (not that it always works but it's a lot better than London), the accommodation is very cheap for what you get and the long holidays make you more attractive than most students to employers. PLus the uni name helps a ridiculous amount in later life - I have a crap Cambridge degree so I'm very glad about this!

FInally, the best careers advice I ever got was from my dad - "do a degree in a subject people have heard of, at the best university you can get into that you can bear to be in for three years"

One of the people said that Oxbridge is experience...in my experience, Cambridge, at least, is a very cheap University to be at.

I went to a college that provided accommodation for all three years and you only had to pay during term time.

I believe that my college now charges 90pounds a week, for 30 weeks a year. This includes everything except for a modest electricity bill.

Plus, we had excellent libraries so it wasn't necessary to purchase lots of books. Our computer rooms were also well resourced, so i didn't need my own computer.

Most activities are student run, so inexpensive. So, I believe that a Cambridge Education can be very cheap compared to other universities where you have to rent within the commericial sector and run a car.

MillyR, you are all wrong.

Over half the students at Cambridge are state educated. I was fully educated within the comprehensive system and felt entirely part of the University.

My northern friends didn't have a problem; there are even societies for Northerners!

You also have to remember that many privately educated children are actually poor. So, it is not that the other half are posh. (However, I was there in the days of assisted places, so I would imagine now that the privately educated lot are better off then then they were then)

Please also see my note on costs...living-in at Cambridge was dead cheap.

Plus, even state school students enjoy punting...it's fun whether you are posh or not. I loved punting (despite being not posh!)

I never noticed anyone not joining in a garden party just because they thought garden parties were elitist. They are not! (just cheap booze and lots of sun).

I then got married at my Cambridge college, used the grounds for the reception and the whole do cost 500quid. (Over ten years ago).

I do slightly resent this idea that kids who have been privately educated are posh snobs who can't mix with any but their own ilk. I've got two sons, both privately educated. The oldest has just applied to university from one of the top public schools in the country. There is an element of very sheltered, bigotted boys at his school, but it is very small and has got less as they have matured. There are also boys from families with huge wealth and there are boys from very ordinary families who scrimp and save to get them there plus those on bursaries (who,by the way none are aware who they are). Just about half of these kids end up at Oxbridge and the large majority wouldn't bat an eyelid at whatever background their fellow students came from. They are however impressed by others intellectual abilities far more than their parents earning capabilities.

Picking up on MillyR's point, I was a student at Cambridge with a girl who kept her lovely strong Hull accent throughout her time at Cambridge, without anyone commenting adversely on it. Three years later we met again, when she'd been working in London - and her Hull accent was gone. Although none of us wanted to comment explicitly for fear of making her feel crap, we couldn't help thinking that she had met more prejudice about the Hull accent in London than she had at Cambridge.

Prejudice against non-southern students? Sorry, there are certainly idiots in Oxbridge too, but in general that is exactly the kind of unsubstantiated comment that prevents brilliant state school students from applying and benefitting from the opportunities.

Despite the fact that I came from an international school in Asia, I thought Oxford was extremely diverse - much more than my school friends who went to Bristol/Leeds/Liverpool and found people were mostly white English and had very similar backgrounds.

If you have the grades and have a real passion for the subject, then why not applying? You can always turn down the offer, but the interviews are a good chance to meet other students, live in college for a couple of days, and meet current students - which was loads of fun anyway!

In terms of the future, Oxbridge will not get your children a job on its own, but it's much more likely to get them an interview at least pretty much anywhere in the world (which even other RG unis won't).