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!

@Needmoresleep - I don;t thinking wokring until 10pm each nioght is better. We joke in our family taht when we catch up with DS2 we ask: How's college work because he;s always telling s about the parties he's been to. With DS1 we never ask about work, we say, 'Been to any parties lately?' But he has a great work life balance too - he is in a music group, runs one society, is active in another, has a LTR and is a half blue for a uni sport, so there is balance in his life. He just works late to maintain a double first in joint honours rather than let it slide towards a more relaxed 2.1 (which I would do). He's a very 'work hard play hard' type which is common at Oxbridge I think.

Sorry for atrocious typos. Thumbs!

'Short terms, everything resting on the final exams, essay (these would have stressed my DC!), the tutorial system?'

These are some of the massive differences between the Oxbridge experience and most other highly-ranked universities - I don't think it has changed.
When I was there (1980s) everything rested on the final exams in your final term. In Modern Languages you only had exams (Prelims) in the second term of first year and then nothing until Final 4th Year after Year Abroad. The Year Abroad was the only one where you could relax, as no work was set by College and you usually worked abroad as a Language Assistant in a school for 12 hours per week.
However at Oxford because of the 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 tutorial system you couldn't really ever slack off and if you did, you could be set 'penal collections' i.e. College exams which you had to pass or get 'sent down'.
This rarely happened as the tutorial system kept you on track with 3 essays per fortnight.
I didn't even suggest applying to my children, as I think everything being on the final Exams, regardless of what you have done in the previous 3(4) years is unfair if you do not perform on the big day'.
So long as you are brilliant at your subject based on people I knew, Maths is probably the subject with the easiest workload, as at least you don't have copious volumes to read in the vacation.
At the Universities my children have attended there have been no reading lists before attending, exams have been on-going and eventually they count towards the degree. They seemed to have time off in the vacations with no work set. So in other words the complete opposite.

I genuinely can’t get my head around people who don’t perceive weekly reading, essay writing, and 1:1 supervisions / tutorials (+ optional lectures) as the best possible model of undergraduate university study.

It really was an exceptionally fine way of life. (Even given all the things that were less than ideal ‘in my day’.) I’ve heard a few current non-Oxbridge students - children of Oxbridge parents and so brought up on the idea of that learning model - who are amazed at the relative lack of challenge of their own university lives: two or three essays a term, fellow students with no real enthusiasm for their subject who turn up to seminars having done no reading, ‘group’ projects that inevitably fall one or two people … That, to me, sounds grim.

But I’m sure there’s also a happy medium!

If it is" the best possible model of undergraduate study",then why havent its Global competitors followed suit...?

Oh I don't know, some actual teaching as opposed to grumpy dons sitting through listening to your hurriedly written essay might have been nice. I only got what I think of as teaching in my penultimate term and it was bliss.

If you're a rules-follower, then yes having to a reading list of 10 books and an essay to write would require 24/7 work. However, the trick is learning how to wing it. And I would argue that much of what is wrong with our politicians is this trait they've picked up at being educated (humanities etc, not sciences) at these two universities. It really favours the blagger.

@nolanscrack

If it is" the best possible model of undergraduate study",then why havent its Global competitors followed suit...?

Because it is very expensive - you probably do get your £9k worth on an Oxbridge arts degree - elsewhere where they cram in the maximum number of students to attend mainly lectures, set fewer essays so less marking and have large seminar groups they probably get less value for money than the intensive 1:1 or 1:2 tutorial system.

@nolanscrack

If it is" the best possible model of undergraduate study",then why havent its Global competitors followed suit...?

Because the student has to be smart in order in deal with it. Many couldn't.

Harvard has far bigger endowments,as do many US universities, so it cant be a matter of finances and I dont believe that Oxbridge students are any smarter...this is starting to read like ..because its always been done this way...

Valley I agree with your post. It is very formulaic. Academic thinking and writing co-develop together, over time scant evidence of this in our politicians

@nolanscrack

Harvard has far bigger endowments,as do many US universities, so it cant be a matter of finances and I dont believe that Oxbridge students are any smarter...this is starting to read like ..because its always been done this way...

So what if it is though? The teaching style at Harvard isn't the same as non-Oxbridge UK universities. What's wrong with different establishments having different approaches? Obviously they're all going to argue that theirs is the best.

@TheLeadbetterLife

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.

That might have been plausible advice in the 1990s when only 7% of students got a first. But that figure is now more like 34%. Firsts no longer require brilliance (if they ever did), whereas not getting a first is now a fairly sure sign of absence of brilliance. These days a 2:1 is the new 2:2 - it says you're somewhere in the bottom two-thirds of graduates.

I got a first and I'm neither brilliant nor a slogger. Like I said, I'm a blagger - I write very elegantly very quickly. I regurgitated crammed information beautifully in the space of three hours and I couldn't remember any of it the next day. It's not real learning.

I was a lazy fucker who spent most of her time on the bus to another city, in which resided a boyfriend. But even I could see that the most important bits of learning happened during supervisions - and this was even with the worst of them. The two day scrambles at the library, the overnight essay crises - gone in a flash. Everything of value that I still remember came from the hours spent 1:1 with someone who cared enough about the subject to feel compelled to fill in the gaps in my hastily written essays.

I wish I’d known how much I loved supervisions at the time …

It is many moons since I read History at Oxford but though the course has changed the fundamentals haven't. I think I had more work in the first week than my DS had reading history at a Russell Group uni in the last few years.
There's a reason Oxford like to do their own entrance process, because only those with an "Oxford brain" will survive. By that I mean you have to be passionate about your subject, you have to have an endlessly inquiring mind which can absorb and evaluate information rapidly. These skills have stood me in good stead ever since. You also need the work ethic which I don't think many other unis demand.
I still had a social life though. I started work at about 8.30am and worked more or less solidly till 4.30 then went off and did a social activity.

When I was there (1980s) everything rested on the final exams in your final term

I don't think this was particularly unusual in those days, though, and certainly not unique to Oxbridge. 9/10ths of my degree rested on a series of 3-hour exam papers at the end of my final year. So did most of my friends.

I'm not convinced it's the best way to actually learn something in a way that sticks, I tend to agree with those who think there are probably better ways to learn.

@Valleyofthedollymix - are you me?

I'm not convinced it's the best way to actually learn something in a way that sticks, I tend to agree with those who think there are probably better ways to learn

To be fair, these universities aren't just about learning...

@twaslongago a slightly hollow laugh that Maths is perceived as having the easiest workload . There may not be the volume of reading but the problem sheets can be killers! DS once spent 9 hours on one problem on one sheet. I guess the exam structure is a bit easier with 40% of final degree classification taken from end of Y2 exams.

I am getting worried reading this. Dd has an offer, but also offers from Edinburgh amongst others. She is a stressy persona and I don’t want her to be so overloaded that she can’t enjoy it at all.
Why so much more work than anywhere else ? Is it worth it ?

Interesting. In my day you could fly with your readings, essays, exams and also have time to socialise, play sport or take part in drama, politics etc etc.

One of my family at same university 30 years later was warned by their tutor that if they wanted to do extra curricular stuff they would sacrifice a first for a 2.1 or even 2.2.

I am sure the commitment makes for highly driven eg lawyers who are happy to have their lives dictated by transnational work, and who can earn £100,000 on leaving university. Not so sure it contributes to happiness, community cohesion, or understanding of those who contribute as much to society in different ways.

@BeardyButton

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.

That's the thing these days, students go to university, yet half the time it's more a culture of partying than studying at most universities, then they wonder why some students don't get better grades etc

As a Cambridge graduate in an arts subject I can verify it’s absolutely not a myth. The workload is considerably higher than for the same subject at even the other top universities. I wrote a long essay every week plus a lot of translation work. Weekly one on one supervision too so you’ve got to be on your game. The far higher workload is how they justify the MA Cantab (not sure whether Oxford does this too?) - anyone with a bachelors degree automatically gets a (fake) masters.

One of my family at same university 30 years later was warned by their tutor that if they wanted to do extra curricular stuff they would sacrifice a first for a 2.1 or even 2.2.

This is sad to hear. My tutor used to say the opposite- the people who did best were often those with the motivation and organisation to do other things to a high standard as well, while those who under-performed academically often didn’t take advantage of other opportunities either.

@Valleyofthedollymix

I got a first and I'm neither brilliant nor a slogger. Like I said, I'm a blagger - I write very elegantly very quickly. I regurgitated crammed information beautifully in the space of three hours and I couldn't remember any of it the next day. It's not real learning.

This is exactly the skills you need to succeed in a humanities degree. I was the same - ruthlessly efficient at bashing out weekly essays and memorising the salient points for final exams. In the 4 days a week I wasn't working I managed to play several sports at university level, take part in various music groups and loads of time for pubs and clubs. If you find your niche the workload doesn't have to dominate. But some subjects have a heavier timetable of unavoidable commitments such as lab work, so they are always going to leave less time for extra-curricular. I'd hate anyone to be put off Oxbridge after reading this thread. Yes, I'm sure even my lightweight humanities degree would have been easier at many other universities, but genuinely very few of my Oxford contemporaries struggled with workload. The ones that did (and sorry, this is a generalisation!) were more likely to have been spoonfed at public school and struggled with the discipline of managing their own workload.