Workload at Oxbridge - honest feedback please!

[rhubarba]

Hi - I’ve read quite a lot on here about the workload at Oxford / Cambridge being more ‘intense’ than at other universities. I wonder how much of this is self-perpetuating hype and how much is reality? If you have DC at these universities, are they constantly overwhelmed? How bad can it actually be? I was specifically wondering about social science subjects at Cambridge (DD starting later this year). Do they really have to write three essays per week? Is there time to have a social life? How much pressure is there? Please be honest!

@Hollyhead

It is not true that 'all these people' go on to head up most private and public organisations. The very few Oxbridge graduates I know do not have stellar careers at all

@MistletoeMeadow

My dc says all the tutors are friendly and supportive, and there is good pastoral care too

It really depends on the subject.

I did history at Cambridge. A weekly essay - following a reading list of about 10-15 books/articles. And an hours one to one supervision on that essay each week.

There were lectures but these were kind of optional, ways to get up to speed or explore a particular interest in depth. I might go to two or three a week.

But mainly it was being in the library reading all week and then one massive essay crisis writing day, then supervision, then celebrate it all being over by doing little for two or three days, then panic, and the cycle started again, repeat for 8 weeks.

People doing sciences had far more scheduled time and supervisions, eg a whole morning of lectures, and possible two supervisions in the pm to prepare for. In a sense more stressful, but with history it really was just you, the reading list, your A4 pad and a pen ... could be quite lonely!

• I don't have a stellar career

In arts and languages - a huge reading load for sure. It depends what you take, but the exam papers usually span parts of history going a long way back to the dawn of regularly written literature, as well several registers of translation pieces! The first year is a set syllabus (or combination, if languages) and the exams in the last term feel like a pretty big deal and big workload because it's possible to fail and have to resit. It's a leap from A-Level standard.

In sciences - a lot of labs, which may require consistent late night attention and some projects also cannot be left dormant for weeks over vacations.

I think you do have to like work and not just like getting away with things. The tutors are usually great but will find you out if you skimp too often. There is time for a social life though, although many people can only pursue a couple of extra curricular things regularly as they can also run at quite an intensity.

@jellybeanteaparty

Work hard, play hard would summarise. There is time to have a social life or to do a sport/hobby but you do need to keep on top of the workload

I left in '08 and I feel like I spent A LOT of time out drinking, parting and getting entangled with questionable men (The philosophy DPhil still makes me cringe). The work was pretty intense - I do remember many hours huddled in the Rad Cam, but my abiding memories are of running around in a cocktail dress not spending all my time cramming in the library. I don't remember sleeping much though...

I got a sold 2:1, so I can't have been that lazy!

@valbyruta

I am really pleased to hear this.

One of her household members had suspected ADHD and was encouraged and supported by the Chaplain and the student welfare team to approach the college GP. The situation is not 100% sorted but is significantly better

My DD had always been used to a very busy schedule having done 5 A levels and previously played sport to a high level. She said the shock of the Oxford workload really hit those who has only done 3 A levels and had focused solely on academics with minimal outside interests. However, it does have an affect on the mental health of lots of students. She now wonders now why she put herself through so much pressure when she could have gone elsewhere and got the same job at the end of her degree and had more of a balanced social life.

@allfurcoatnoknickers we were there at the same time! I wonder if I ever saw you in the Rad Cam?

I had a much heavier workload than any of my school friends (I went to Oxford to study English, they mostly went to RG unis). I had about as much work in a fortnight as they had in a term. I did have time to enjoy myself, but there was always a lot of work to do.

It has prepared me well for my career in teaching where there is always something to do. I have found I don't get overwhelmed by it as some of my colleagues do, because I have never known any different in my adult life.

DD is hopefully off to Oxford in October. I think she will be fine as she is very self-motivated and has a strong work ethic. DS is talking about applying. I think he would struggle and he just doesn't have the self-discipline. He's only 16 though, so perhaps it will develop.

I think what has hit DD is not the intensity of term-time - as a 4 A-level + EPQ + 10 hours a week hobby type, she was reasonably well-prepared. It's the fact that in her subject it is normal to set multiple pieces of assessed coursework / essays with extensive reading lists during the 'holidays' as well, so there is little genuine downtime.

@Hollyhead

Given all these people then go on to head up most of our private and public organisations, does the Oxbridge experience not explain some of the work yourself to death long hours culture? Is it really such a good thing? Why not just do the same amount of work in a normal term what does this even achieve?!

Work isn't just confined to those 8 week terms. There are often lectures and supervisions on either side of the term. Christmas and Easter contains reading, computing projects, essays and exam revision.

Dd is a first year at Cambridge doing a humanity subject.
The workload is huge. She does play hard too - lots of formals and lots of socialising - but it means relatively little sleep. She easily works 60 hours a week. She's thoroughly enjoying it too and getting great feedback (only one essay a week usually and one tutorial).
My second child is intending to apply and I don't think would thrive as much as dd1. I would not be disappointed if dc2 does not get an offer (though disappointed for their disappointment if you know what I mean). They're hard working and intelligent but in a different way.
On the other hand the support is really good - I know that at least twice a week dd1 is seeing someone who knows her (a bit) and hopefully would spot if things weren't going well.
I have friends with children at other unis who need more support and are not self motivated - who literally attend no lectures and apparently do no work - and no one appears to know our care.

But why is Oxbridge so different?

I don't really buy the implication that somehow Oxbridge degrees and grads are always better, though it is a belief that DD has heard expressed by recent grads. Not that long ago at a party she and a friend were quick to defend their institutions and why they believed their medicine and vet degrees were just as good as those offered by Oxbridge, despite the fact that neither of their institutions had the same culture of long hours. Similarly whilst at LSE DS worked longish office hours six or seven days a week, but in a consistent way without late evenings or more and almost certainly covered the same amount of ground, subject wise.

Key differences were:

1. longer terms. LSE ran a pattern of two 12 week teaching terms in the autumn and spring and then a 6 week "exam" term, so teaching was spread over 24 weeks so could be less intense.

1. A different teaching approach with larger classes rather than tutorials and relatively few essays. Which perhaps provides more place to hide, but also requires a level of self discipline.

1. A different exam structure. Four exams each in first (which counts as one exam for your degree classification), second and third years. If students don't do enough work they tend to fail and have to repeat the second year. Third year can be a relatively straightforward if you have good results in your first and second years, or gives a chance to pull a decent degree out of bag if you have done less well. So not the same pressure that you might get if you have everything riding on the final exam.

Students did need to work hard to get a good degree, and with exams in January and June students will be doing at least some work during Christmas and Easter vacations. From many accounts the Oxbridge experience sounds so much more fraught. Does it have to be?

@dancingdreamer - the first part of your post is utter nonsense

It's hard but not impossible if you treat it like a 9-5 job. You go to the library, read the gazillion books, make notes and wrote, write, write without overthinking it. The trouble is Oxford students do overthink it because they're all high achievers who want head pats I know this because I am one. The only way to not sacrifice a social life in the evening is by getting up early. The people who start at 11am finish at 11pm, the people who start at 7am ar run the bar by 7pm. History was the smallest workload when I was there. Classics was hard, especially as my tutor was German and liked to set German books.

@Needmoresleep there really isn't any difference between medicine (and presumably vet med) at any institutions. But all the medics I know at other unis (and knew back in my day too) basically work the same hours as all students seem to at Cambridge or Oxford. I know current medics at lots of unis and they are all working 9-5 plus 3-4 hours in the evenings...

@Plumedenom I completely agree. The friends I had who got the most out of it all treated it like this- a fairly gentle 9-5 of academic work is plenty and actually leaves a lot of hours over for other things.

Sorry, just catching up. Thankyou for all the perspectives. In response to a pp, yes she did obviously know about his tutorial system and shorter terms before she applied. But I guess it’s hard to appreciate the full implications of this until you’re there - and even then, you have no direct experience if anything else to compare it to.

She did not do 5 A-levels . No way. She did three and an EPQ, but she was in a school that has a reputation as being one of the most intense in the country. Except, a lot of this is hype really because once in there, I wouldn’t say it’s overly pressured and they all seem fine. So this why I was wondering if the same can be said for Oxbridge. But it would seem the ‘hype’ is real in this case!

She has a good work ethic though and is well used to being surrounded by peers who she perceives to be much more able than her. So hopefully this will count for something. She is not a massive worrier. From what people are saying here, it sounds like she just needs to get into a good routine of working 9-5. I will be relaying the MN advice. Thank you!

The Oxford grads delivering the lecture were not medics or vets. Simply young people who had taken on board the idea that Oxbridge degrees were better and Oxbridge students worked harder. In all subjects apparently. DD and her friend were having none of it.

That said DD spent last year intercalating at Imperial and the culture was different to Bristol. All medical schools will have slightly different cultures and teaching styles and those attracted to Oxbridge or what was known as the ‘London teaching hospitals’ may be more focussed and ambitious and as a result consider themselves more hard working. One thing DD did observe is that she seemed to have had more experience in collaborative working, whilst her Imperial peers tended to take a more individual approach.

My post was not not really about medicine. More about the perception that Oxbridge students carry a uniquely heavy workload. I was trying to unpick this. Many will agree that economics graduates from LSE or engineering graduates from Imperial will have broadly similar subject/technical competence to their counterparts from Oxbridge. Why then are Oxbridge students perceived as uniquely burdened. Short terms, everything resting on the final exams, essay (these would have stressed my DC!), the tutorial system? Or even as one or two others have suggested, though I am less sure, that Oxbridge attracts a certain sort of perfectionist or overachieving personality.

Plumedemons description of students who need head pats is interesting. Not many of these available at universities that don’t employ a tutorial system.

I am a lecturer. Did my PhD and taught at one of these. Now teach in totally different uni. The difference is that students at oxbridge actually do the readings. None of my students do. None. It’s depressing. But it is what it is. Because oxbridge students actually do the work, the competition between them is more intense. So this perpetrates the cycle. So yes - it is much more intense. And yes, they come out with a better education. But it isn’t really because the ‘work load’ is higher, but rather they are in a more competitive more work oriented culture, if that makes sense.

Basically- if your kid is the type to actually do the readings and do their best, they ll be fine. They d prob have a similar workload anywhere. But if they don’t it will show much more at oxbridge. They’d prob be able to skate by with a natural intellect and Wikipedia and cramming for essays/exams elsewhere (though this would get them a 2’1 at best). It won’t cut it at elite universities.

Ha, I didn’t need head pats and I certainly didn’t get them! The intensity of my workload was self-inflicted because I chose to spend most of my time directing plays. Much to the dismay of my supervisors.

In my first week I was given sage advice by my college “father”. There are two ways you can approach your time at Cambridge. You can slog your guts out trying to get a first and drive yourself crazy, because firsts aren’t just about hard work, you have to demonstrate brilliance too. Or, you can aim for a respectable 2:1 and get the most out of all the other opportunities, which are incredible.

I have one DC at Oxbridge, one at a very good London uni. The one at London says his work load is way, way less than his brother's. Three essays a term not eight essays plus lab work.

The London one also says his tutors are amazed that he does the reading and that he gets pissed off in seminars that very few other students seem to put the hours in. He's made friends with a few hard working students who are aiming for firsts, like him, but he admits he is cruising and winging it, partying way harder than he's studying but still on target for a first in comparison with his brother who works until 10pm most nights. I do think there's a higher expectation of excellence at Oxbridge,. If he was there, he wouldn't be clubbing until 3am several times a week and still getting a first.

I don't know. Is working till 10pm every night better? All I know is that DS worked steady, albeit longish, office hours through his first degree and Masters, with plenty of time to play sport, be active in societies and generally hang out. When he arrived on his US PhD programme, his peers were from across the world, and some were in the habit of working extraordinarily hard. Yet there was no evidence that either their technical skills or knowledge were superior or that their work habits brought them any advantage.

I accept that there may be a higher proportion of students at other Universities who don't engage as they should. (Education is wasted on the young?!) Some of that will be selection. Hard workers are more likely to get into Oxbridge. And perhaps also down to the pressure of the close academic supervision which means there is less chance to hide, as well as the influence of University culture and of peers.

To some extent it is hard to generalise. Many of DS' friends are still on the fringes of academia ( PhDs, RAs, TAs). As UGs they all worked steadily together, colonising a room of the library and socialising after. They all got firsts. They may have felt the need to work "harder" had they been at Oxbridge, but I am not sure it would have been of obvious benefit.

Just remembered the experiences of a couple of my friends - both taking Theology, so probably not very close to the area you are looking at.

One, who appears to be somewhat scatty and bubbly, had to learn enough Hebrew (with no prior knowledge or tutor) to get to grips with the reading list prior to starting the course aged 18, and did it. Both then got intensive Greek, both Biblical and Modern, as a given in their first year (that was to be part of the exams at the end of that year, because of it unlocking a lot of the study areas). That sounded so tough - learning an obscure language largely on your own and while also navigating the first year.