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?

Also to put the other side; the other university where I work isn't remotely selective and the contact time is far less strenuous. Tutorials happen a couple of times a term and there is hardly any written work. Even the reading list is shorter and often we're expected to provide print outs of the relevant bits of the text so sturdy ta don't have to read the whole thing !

And still there are students who can't cope...

Needmoresleep you confused me by introducing 'the experience of Molio's DC' who hadn't at that point actually been mentioned.

Brenda said a lifetime passion was a prerequisite for success. I don't believe it is and said so. But to turn that into 'not having a strong [current] interest in the subject' is distorting what I said, although no doubt unintentionally.

Since you raised the subject I've now compared the stats for both unis in the 2013 round and while I see that your son's subject at Cambridge is highly competitive, its success rate is still very comparable to the subjects that several of my DC applied for at Oxford (one was marginally more competitive, two marginally less). I think the synthesis on the interview front is simply that most of these kids are critical of themselves. I'd assume that the only safe thing to bet is that the ones who believe they've 'aced everything' are those furthest from hitting the mark!

I agree that certain students, particularly in sciences, seem to find producing the quality written work required for supervisions harder and therefore more stressful than in 'ye old times'. Unfortunately it seems to be a sticking point with many bright students emerging from the current education system, particularly those from a certain type of state school who have n't been able to develop those skills and never catch up. Even scientists have to be able write (although mathematicians are always the honourable exceptions).

Precious, I did not mean to be rude, though must have sounded it.

That said I worry (possibly too strong a word) about MN. A huge long thread about Oxbridge entry 2105, yet no general UCAS thread. A thread about how Oxbridge is different nowadays but no nod to other top Universities.

Widening the debate to
a) how have top universities changed given greater global comparison and league tables, fees, a tough job market and a more international student body.
b) is the Oxbridge approach more challenging for some modern students.

might tease out some answers, and perhaps suggest that alternative teaching styles offered by comparable institutions might suit some students. Given references to MH etc, its clear that some students are seriously unhappy in an environment when everyone assumes they should be having a wonderful time. In RL I know a surprising number of Oxbridge educated women who have never really worked as if mundane jobs are somehow below them after the glories of University. (Though alternatively it may be that an Oxbridge education has allowed them to meet someone rich enough to support them.)

I agree with the essay writing. I did not try Oxbridge, though the family joke is that I have better A levels than DH, who did. I wrote very few essays at University, and which later caused problems in a work environment dominated by Oxbridge graduates, though in fairness I often had a better grip of economics and finance.

As for Land Economy...

Poor lady. She had commuted up from some expensive bit of faux-countryside to run an errand for her son, and felt the need to immediately establish her/his status by telling me not only that he was just down from Cambridge, but that all her other seemingly numerous children had been to Oxbridge. Tedious. The son may be OK but not a great first impression.

There's a general UCAS thread in the secondary education section. Mainly populated by those of us who were on the GCSE thread in 2013. It's a really nice thread actually, lovely group of posters, lots of advice, lots of support. We are on to the third volume too, so we have talked A LOT. Right now the offers are coming in and it's lovely to hear about the DCs getting their offers.

There is of course nothing to stop you starting a thread about other universities though. Not entirely sure why you want to stop those of us who went to oxbridge talking about our experiences though?

I was at Cambridge in the 80s, and have a nephew at Oxford now. It doesn't sound that different - he is working very hard (but he always has done) and still finding plenty of time for non-academic activities and social life.

Need I started this thread to find out about Oxford and Cambridge specifically, because DD is applying and there is lots of rumour, speculation and also some scary stories circulating at school and she's worried that if (big 'if' obviously) she gets in, she may have a miserable time.

DH had a ball and was of the opinion that the work/life/fun balance was much the same as in his day and that that it depended on the groups you mixed in and your mind-set.

I hoped others ex-Oxbridge Mumsnetters may have some insight and the answers have been fascinating and helpful when will I realise that DH is, annoyingly, always right?

She has many close friends doing similar courses at the other, fantastic institutions she has applied to ( and the Yr13 thread has been very helpful) so we are happy with our knowledge about those and she is confident she would be happy at her first choice of those. One Oxford friend text her saying "Don't do it!" so I was hoping ( and have received) something more balanced.

Thanks everyone!

Rabbit, not wanting to stop anyone doing anything. Promise!

I still think it is a pity that a section dedicated to Higher Education is mainly focussed on Oxbridge and medical school applications. I don't know whether this reflects the general MN demographic, or whether some people post more. DD, who is in Yr 12, has already commented on the fact that some of her peers seem to think an Oxbridge offer is a clear marker of academic success. Given several posts point to some people being very unhappy, I can't see a problem with trying to suggest that Oxbridge might not be the be-all and end-all, and indeed there might be better alternatives for some students. We are very lucky in the UK to have a number of world ranked institutions.

DD does not plan to try Oxbridge, in part because she is looking for a more practical/less academic focus to her degree. So happy to withdraw and head off to Secondary Education for discussion about other Universities.

People start threads - anyone is free to do that. I admit I get a bit twitchy when I read the medic parents banging on about how much harder it is for their kids than for anyone else (because I know how hard it is for a music kid and many of them clearly don't) but ultimately - I just need to go post in a music thread (and there's now a conservatoire thread on the secondary Ed section too) and stop worrying about the wrongness of other people.

There is no denying that an oxbridge offer is a clear marker of academic success, to try to do so is to be a bit silly. It's not the only marker though and I don't think anyone here is saying that? DD may apply to cambridge as a fallback - but she probably won't (because she probably won't get the requisite UMS for her ASs). If she doesn't that won't make her any less good at what she wants to do, if she does it won't make her any better. There are specific reasons why cambridge would be a good place for her to go if she didn't get into where she really wants to go, but it's not the be all and end all, even out of the back-up UCAS options.

Incidentally, DH is a retired university lecturer, he taught at 3 different English universities (top rank, not oxbridge) and there were suicides and MH problems at those universities too. It's not really very fair to paint a picture that these things are exclusive to oxbridge. I was in an horrific car crash while I was at university (the crash happened in the holidays though) I spent months in hospital and had to repeat a year because of this (missed a whole term). I subsequently had anxiety problems because I was terrified of traveling in vehicular transport. This wasn't anything to do with cambridge but I bet I got added to the MH stats there.

Cathy and Claire - DD just started this term. I would say she is a good all rounder from a fairly intense school. She is loving it but does say she has never worked so hard in her life. She is finding time for rowing and ballroom dancing plus an active social life. It is early days but she says her friends at other uni's (including LSE and Imperial) are finding it lower key. In fact she has friends visiting this weekend and they'll have to amuse themselves for a while as she has a supervision to prepare.

She loves the supervision system but she is not shy - I do wonder this could be intimidating for quieter types. One thing I would say about DD compared to my other children is that she can read and analyse material very rapidly - I think this is essential for Oxbridge (and it was tested at interview). My second DD who is bright but gets stressed more easily and works harder but more slowly has understood that Oxbridge is not for her.

I went to Oxford, Somerville and had pretty much the experience your husband described, except obviously during my Mods when I was stressed to hell, but that's to be expected. That was in the noughties. Loads of rowing, nights out/pub, bops.

I meant to add, I am a bit of a workaholic and perfectionist, plus needed to have a million hobbies. If I had gone somewhere else, I would have still found plenty to fill my days until I was stressed out, that's just who I am! Now a SAHM and I still make everything difficult for myself! I think a lot is about that kind of personality, not the university itself!

Rabbit thank you. I found the first medic thread really intimidating, though perhaps useful as it has given us early warning of the need to consider back up plans. Plus an incentive to remind DD that good AS results will be crucial.

cathyandclaire, sorry then about hijacking your thread, though would still argue that a bit of "compare and contrast" might help identify the differences (good and bad) about Oxbridge, which in turn might help work out whether it is the right place for a particular student. My University boyfriend was at Cambridge and though it was fun to be in a student dominated environment in a beautiful city, we knew a few MH casualties. In fairness the ready availability of LSD probably played a part. I can't recall ever feeling envious. Some of the posh girls could be really snooty, and academic competitiveness seemed more overt. DH too liked the idea that DS consider following him to Oxford, though accepted the course was wrong. His close friends were all state school educated and have gone on to academic type careers. His Oxbridge experience seems to have been quite different from the one I used to witness.

DH and I were at Oxford in the early 00s. We were at a traditional college with a higher than average (even for Oxbridge) proportion of students from the big name public schools (I think there were a dozen in our year from Westminster alone, which seemed mad even then), although our wider circle of friends came from a very diverse background.

It was very pressured then and also very unstructured for arts students - insane amounts of reading, large amounts of work, large amounts of free time. How well you coped with all of that governed whether you had much/any time for extra curricular activities. None of my friends were the types to do everthing, but looking back we all did 2 or 3 things - sport, media, drama/music, business groups etc

The huge difference between then and now would be that every student there is paying an exorbitant amount of money to be there, and financially very few students could afford a 'second chance' - retaking a year, changing course or college etc. There is also the fact that as far as I know Oxbridge still forbid students to take on paid work during term time, although I'm sure many do now, and many tutors even in my day were incredibly unsupportive of students working during holidays. We were supposed to be reading and preparing work, nothing else. That, combined with the less than rosy job propspects for even top graduates, the likelihood of having to go on unpaid internships, of having to pay insane amounts of rent for a shared shoebox in London to get on the career ladder etc, must be putting HUGE pressure on Oxbridge students in what is already quite a pressure cooker environment.

I guess there is also a very strong sense of competitiveness, for example among law students for the same lucrative training contracts.

I would still say to any sixth former if you think you can do it, do it. It is a truly unique experience.

I wonder what would happen to someone who found themselves in the situation I was in - smashed up in intensive care? Mind you, I came from a WC background and was on full grant plus bursary so someone in exactly the same situation now would probably get all the help they needed. But I wonder what would happen to my kids if history repeated itself (not something I really want to contemplate obviously but sadly once the sort of thing that 'happens to other people' happens to you, you can never actually stop expecting other bad things to happen too. I can't, anyway).

I took on paid work during term, in the late 80s. Some of that paid work was for my college (I worked in the student bar). I also busked and played in clubs and pit bands. There was no ban on me doing this.

Ok, yes working in the college/Union bar was always acceptable. I had a friend who DESPERATELY needed the money who was working in the KA though and had to sneak around a lot to do it. Which makes no sense, as she could just as easily have spent the same amount of time on amateur operatics or rowing up and down the same spot of river,and no-one would've batted an eyelid if she got her work in on time.

I think the premise was that 'real' work might end up taking priority over studies, whereas college work or extra-curricular stuff never would. Not sure that theory holds water.

I vividly remember being in a tutorial where our tutor was laying into us as a year group in general for not having done as much reading as he wanted, and he held up a letter from one of our peers shouting 'Look at this! She says she's going to work at XXX in the summer! When's she going to do her fucking reading! When are you?"

I also worked every single holiday. Office work. 9-5. Nobody batted an eyelid, not even after my time in hospital.

I went to Cambridge in the early 2000s. The routine that worked for me was lectures in the morning, and work in the afternoon. I didn't really work at the evenings. I did well enough like this (until I basically stopped working completely...) There were some people who did a ridiculous amount of work, but they were the exception. I certainly didn't feel that it was quiet socially.

Exam term was very stressful. Particularly if you hadn't understood something fully at the time, it was very difficult to catch up.

It did feel like we covered ground a heck of a lot more quickly than people I knew at other universities.

I went to a private school, but felt more affinity with the state school pupils compared to the fancy boarding school lot with their drinking societies and so on.

I knew students sent down for a term in the 90s because they worked in term time, but my college was towards the top of the Norrington table.

The advantage of Oxford (and I believe Cambridge) is the living costs can be far less, as the terms are shorter, there is a lot of room in college and you only have to pay rent in term time (lots of places you have to pay 40-52 weeks rent). I think student accommodation has become ridiculous, some people would prefer more basic rooms and paying less rent.

I didn't know anyone who did paid work in term time at Cambridge in the 80s, but a lot of us took jobs in the holidays. I waitressed at Christmas time, and did general office jobs in the summer.

Even back then, colleges usually had funds to help students who were struggling financially, and from what I have heard, this has expanded since then. I think many colleges would prefer you to ask for financial support rather than trying to work more than a few hours a week in term time.