Oxbridge... How has it changed since the eighties?

[cathyandclaire]

DH and many of our friends studied in Oxford/ Cambridge in the eighties. They were bright all rounders from mixed backgrounds comprehensive/grammar/ public school and all studied/ partied and played lots of sport. They had fun. They handed in dodgy essays occasionally but really pulled out their fingers for exams and got mostly 2.1 with the odd one above or below.

Dd is applying at the moment and we are hearing stories of intolerable stress, relentless workloads and students failing to cope, breaking down and having little time to enjoy university life outside of their studies.

So, is it much, much harder than it was? Or are these stories from very high achievers who can't cope when surrounded by equals or even superiors?
Is it still possible to work and play hard, take advantage of extracurriculars and still get an ok degree from Oxbridge?

At 5 years old the only thing I had a passion for was Dr Who. Not much has changed truth be told.

I'm quite fond of hot baths now...a passion that was NOT fulfilled during my years in college, that's for sure. :(

Well I'm exaggerating about the numbers, but not far off. It's like someone had told applicants that they have to show subject passion from birth!

I was in Oxford as a graduate in the 90s. I would say the difference is: its harder for admissions Tutors to know who is really "bright", everyone has 3 A's/A* nowadays, in those days I knew Undergrads admitted who'd dropped to a B in one subject (and Medics in the 80s who had BBB). It always was cruelly intense, as term is so short. If you are naturally "brilliant" it might not be too bad, if you don't really care it might not be too bad - but if you got there through hard work - the pressure can be intense. Different colleges are different - I knew a boy sent down from Oriel for being in line for a 2ii (possibly 3rd) instead of his expected 2i/1st due to his extensive sporting interests.
I knew of one nasty suicide from my own college, and the counselling service was very busy.

However, when I did my first degree, someone from home who had been at my Uni in the 60s visited and commented on "how much harder students work nowadays". So maybe it has always been so?

I was at Cambridge late 80's - mixed group in terms of private / state school, many didn't get the grades they were offered and got in anyway (I got ABB - unthinkable now!!). I was in a quite sporty set and yes we played hard but I don't really recall being stressed unduly (except for the inevitable essay crises once in a while) - being in the library on a Saturday night was as common as being at a party, but most of all we didn't really know any different - it was just how it was and we muddled through and mostly got good degrees at the end of it all. I never was aware of any health issues, never saw any drugs...In fact I look back at it as a golden era where we had no responsibilities for anything and where I experienced my first great love affair.

I think the main difference now is that the students have en suite bathrooms (seriously - I had to walk across a quad to get a shower....)

I'm finding this thread really interesting.

I like students who have passion. I've not done interviews because I am so new, but I know plenty of people who have, and they would consider it strange if the student didn't seem excited by the subject. However, the word 'passion' is seen as a cliche ... I wonder if that's what the person you were talking to was thinking of, molio? Not so much that active interest is a bad thing, but that slightly over-dramatic 'I have a passion for this!' gushing is annoying.

There are still students who don't get straight A/A* grades, btw.

And my heart's desire at the same age was to run a sweet shop with a particular ginger haired boy called Adrian. That never happened :(

No Word, not quite that recent. He's clearly culled his loathing for passion over a number of years, but no doubt this time of year elicits a particular gloom :)

Gah, and I haven't got any better at reading, clearly, because I somehow missed your post at 11.42.

I'd like to ban the word 'passion' from personal statements. Because when they get here, I see anything but a passion for doing all of the things we tell them we know will help them in the subject I teach ...

An interesting question, OP, though I wonder why MN discussions always focus on Oxbridge as if there are no other top ranked Universities in Britain.

(I recently met a rather ghastly woman who was making a big thing about how her son was just down from Cambridge, what a wonderful learning environment it was etc. It turned out he read Land Economy. Meeting him I am not convinced that he is any brighter than DS' friends reading engineering, medicine, law, maths, or economics at other good Universities. However clearly his mother, and perhaps he, think he is.)

DS is taking the same degree at the same University as I did.

I think:

1. they work harder
2. they are much more career orientated. Lots of talk about who provides first year internships, with massive competition to get one
3. competition for places seems much stronger, and inevitably more international.
4. student facilities are much better, presumably as a result of Universities needing to respond to student satisfaction surveys.
5. no interviews and an expectation that most candidates will be offering multiple A*s, so you really do need to demonstrate a "passion" for your subject, even if you don't use the P word.
6. I'm sure my son was not alone is looking closely at the courses offered, and which academics would be teaching, before applying. A much more market approach. My friends and I mainly focussed on where we wanted to live.

From what DS has told us his Cambridge interview was much like a viva. A list of set questions. The economics was fine. He apparently got flustered in the maths and failed to answer questions he could normally expect to answer. So different from the experience of Molio's DC. To be honest I think he is better off with a 10 week term rather than try to cram it all in within 8 weeks. It has to mean less pressure and more time to do other things.

needmore I think the focus of this thread is the pressure that Oxbridge brings with it. Not borne from the students bveing cleverer than students elswhere, but because of the sheer intensity of the workload.

When I look at the other universities which compete in my subject, their students' workload is often half, and the terms shorter.

This definitely does produce a pressure of some sorts.

I went to Oxford in the mid-80s. From a comp. It wasn't particularly relaxed in my experience. I did enjoy it (I was quite passionate about my subjects then, and still am, I'm an academic elsewhere now).

I think there was a lot of pressure to work hard and do well but some students took that more seriously than others. You could coast along, but quite a few of my friends rarely/never stopped working, they tended to get very good results indeed. There were also a LOT of mental health problems at that time, especially anorexia, other eating disorders, self harm, suicide attempts, people ending up not taking finals due to stress. They used to joke that the local psychiatric hospital (the Wonford) got more firsts than the top colleges. It was actually rarer not to have an eating disorder than to have one, in my circles/courses (it may be the type of course and also the wtypes of people I make friends with!)

I didn't have an eating disorder myself, and I didn't work massively hard, but the expectation of workload was definitely higher than at other universities at that time (I had siblings and friends elsewhere, the difference was very marked). And Oxbridge does attract the stressed-out overachieving perfectionist types.

Word, not an argument as I really don't know the answer, but is it really the case that the workload at Oxbridge is double that of elsewhere. (I can see that an eight week term will make things more intense.)

Secret Squirrels says her DS has a very heavy load at Warwick. There are lots of jokes at LSE about the library being open all night so overseas students never need leave. The style of teaching may be different, but my impression so far is that today's students at good Universities, are more career focussed, mindful of the cost of University and the importance of good grades, and tend to work very hard.

Could any additional stress be down to:

1. the pressure of expectation;
2. the style of teaching;
3. the length of term.

maddadam that's interesting.

At a staff meeting the other day, we were discussing what we all might be looking for in this year's batch of applicants and I said well, a sense of humour, an ability to be flexible and above all not a perfectionist .

I was, sort of, half joking, but the room went quiet and I could hear brains whirring...I had not of course mentioned ability and aptitude. But it seems to me that that's a given and that there must be plenty of bright young people who will still be pleasant company .

needsmoresleep I can only speak for my subject, but we certainly have at least double the tutorials of our competitors, and written work would be expected for the vast majority of them.

So whilst the reading list may be similar, the amount of essays written in response to it, is far more onerous. And it seems to me, that this is the sticking point for most students. Lecturres, seminars, practicals, tutorials are all fine, but the written work is what they find hardest to cope with.

But yes your other three points are definite contributors to stress.

Students feel that everyone else is brighter/working harder/doing better.

The style of teaching leaves no room to hide. And some of my colleagues really do put their tutees through the mill each and every week. Must be bloody wearing! And those short terms give the place a very breathless quality, which you either love or hate (many kids who went to independent school are more used to this this).

On my daughters open day (not even RG so perhaps I shouldn't even be here!) they said "Don't use the word passion in your PS, demonstrate it"

I was at Cambridge 10 years ago and our workload was vast. I came from a state school and struggled to cope, I wound up at the counselling service although I came out with a good degree in the end.

It's interesting that someone made a comparison with Warwick. I had a friend in the year above me from school who was studying there, I was doing natural sciences, so 1/4 of my course was physics. I got totally stuck on a 1st year physics problem - he was studying pure physics and found it in his start of 2nd year notes. We'd been given about 4 lines to explain it, he had several pages! No wonder I couldn't follow it. Everything we did just seemed to be more crammed and intense.

On the other hand we had way more contact time, between lectures, practicals, supervisions and tutorials I seem to recall in 1st year it was 30+ hours a week. I was shocked when I went on to do a PhD at another Uni and they had so much less, yes it's less work but it's also less support. You might struggle with the work at Oxbridge but someone will at least notice if you are!

Oh and I've struggled with depression for the last 15 years, I don't think it was caused by Uni though, the same issues were present before and since.

I think for my subject (which might be the same as word's judging by her name), the quantity of active work (reading books, writing essays) is higher at Oxbridge, but the contact hours are perhaps lower. My undergrads at [other place with good reputation] had compulsory lectures, seminars and classes. They would write two or three essays per module per term.

Students here have optional lectures, supervisions and some classes. If they chose, they could attend lectures from 9am-1pm every day, then have perhaps two or three one-hour supervisions/classes in a week, while writing two/three essays per week.

Obviously, many of them won't choose to attend four lectures each day, so their contact time can be very little, but the writing load is heavy.

Jeanne - I read English and somewhat embarassingly I didn't go to a single lecture in my second year . However I deffo agree with the comment above that the teaching style leaves no place to hide: if you had not done your essay, you still had to talk through your subject for an hour one on one with your tutor. It was actually easier to have done your essay, read it out (really slowly) and have a chance of shaping the conversation.

I went through the old style entrance exams - general paper and EE offer route. Interestingly I have always thought that was a much more level playing field for those of us not at good schools (was at an average comp). The general paper was much more about what and how you thought than what you knew. Also, my school was not particularly focussed on advising A level choices (you were pretty much allowed to study whatever you wanted) and I had a disasterous choice. Under current regime a weak third grade would have sunk me, whereas the old style entrance exams were focussed on what I was good at, not what I wasn't good at. The general paper and the focus on the interview allowed me to shine with my very real interest in literature and reading round the subject.

I will not comment on the number of lectures I attended.

There are still entrance exams or tests in some subjects.

Needmoresleep you say your DS's experience was different to that of my DC. Do you mean you think they weren't nervous? They certainly were. And each seems to have had at least one fairly (or very) pedestrian interview, but I don't think any ever became completely tongue tied (they said something stupid instead :)). None of them were practised, as they don't go to a school which offers that sort of stuff - perhaps that helped, perversely, not sure. Or are you referring to the set list of questions. It's true that none experienced that - it's always been much more conversational, which is far easier to handle.

One friend of DS's did tell me he'd just completely clammed up, which is out of character. He didn't get a place though he richly deserved one, more so than some people who did.

Word, that makes a bit more sense.

DS will avoid essays if he can, and has chosen his first year courses partly on that basis. I assume many overseas students do the same. That said he seems busy, seems to have a lot of maths homework, and seems to be doing various things on his own initiative, encouraged by his tutor and others. I am sure he is not alone. If anything I would expect some of the overseas students will be working even harder. A Masters in his field is pretty much a requirement for many jobs, and to go somewhere interesting you have to get a good degree.

I don't know how this affects others, but so far it seems to be engagement, not pressure. He really seems to be enjoying himself. I don't know if the expectation that comes from "being at Cambridge" would make things more pressured. Or whether the fact that Cambridge can be more selective, puts pressure on the more average students. Or if the more intimate college system and having peers who may be inclined to perfectionism is contagious. In any event I am pretty sure having to write more essays, coupled with shorter terms would make things more difficult. Though some pressure is good, and inevitable in the run up to exams, a student who feels under pressure throughout their University career, is presumably missing out on important aspects of University life.

Molio,

it may be the subject, but DS was interviewed with quite a lot of other candidates for a very small number of places. The interview, perhaps by necessity, appeared quite formulaic, designed to test knowledge of the subject and ability to think. Which does does not seem to chime with your statement that

"I shouldn't think either university cares two hoots about a lifelong ambition to study history."

The competition was such that I doubt candidates would have got very far without a strong interest in the subject. The two boys DS knew who were offered places were superb mathematicians, both probably capable of winning a place to study maths instead.

I was not making any comment at all about your DC, who I don't know. My DS feels he let himself down on the maths part, but in practice you probably needed to ace everything to get a place. That said, I think there is room for a view that Oxbridge students do not automatically work harder, or receive a better education than students elsewhere. Or indeed, using the example I quoted earlier, that a degree in Land Economy from Cambridge suggests a higher level of intelligence than a good degree in a competitive subject at a comparable University. If the question is partly about the pressure at Oxbridge perhaps the answer can be found by looking at where the style of teaching differs from other Universities.

I did history at Cambridge, early to mid 90s. In terms of workload it was fine, a couple of lectures and a seminar maybe each week, a reading list and an essay to write for a one to one supervision each week (that was the challenging bit).

I had plenty of time to hang about in cafes lovelorn and get drunk.

The internet was coming in just as I left. I bet there is much more information available nowadays about the academic side of things, for example agreed reading lists for each paper and faculty wide guidance about stuff. When I was there each supervisor reeled off their personal choice of books to read each week and in terms of choosing lectures you just had to go to Heffers, get the lecture list and work out for yourself. I got to the summer term of my first year only to find that quite a few lectures relevant to my paper that term had already happened back in the autumn! We did have a director of studies but they basically just put you in touch with your supervisor and didn't do much directing otherwise! I bet kids nowadays get a more standardised approach with more info. Perhaps that brings with it additional pressure and expectations?