Is Oxbridge no longer worth applying to?

[Ericasdog]

I have been meandering around the uni threads and am coming to the conclusion that Oxbridge universities are no longer worth applying to. I would like to have a conversation about whether my observations are correct.

Getting in - The process seems random and obfuscated. People apply in good faith only to be told that, in fact, they were applying just for one place on their course after all. Applicants with perfect credentials don't get interviewed whereas applicants with lower credentials do. Socio-demographics are a huge factor but nobody knows how they work. The process requires a lot of investment on the applicant's part, yet, seems whimsical on the part of the institution.

Getting out - The drive for state school recruitment has coincided exactly with big corporates going 'university 'blind' why is there this correlation now and what does it say about 'elite' institutions, two of the three top careers for Oxbridge grads are teaching and healthcare, yet, the workload is huge I'd want a career that I couldnt get from any other uni for the efforts, and the slightly eyebrow raising associations with certain alumni, staff and initiatives.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that all your points are complete rubbish.

The fact that the process of getting in is neither perfectly predictable nor gameable does not make it "random". University-blind recruiting is still the outlier, and even if you enter a university-blind process you've still had a world-class education and exposure to world-class facilities and extracurriculars. Nobody makes Oxbridge graduates go into teaching and healthcare; those are the two top destinations everywhere, and God forbid our country's brightest young things might spend some time in public service roles.

They remain, on every measure, two of the best universities in the world.

They’re the best for many subjects and if you get in you tend (on average) to excel. You have a heavy workload, yes, which is why you become very good. You get small group tuition and it’s an excellent learning environment. The salaries and jobs graduates get are on average very very good.

The application process is clearly laid out in multiple places, and applicants get interviewed if they stand a chance.

And suggesting that healthcare and teaching are bad destinations is weird. We should encourage our brightest and best to enter top universities and then use/pass on their detailed knowledge and skills for the benefit of our whole society.

I don't understand your point about 'just applying for one place on their course after all'. Isn't that the usual procedure?

Dahlia This refers to people applying to a college that takes a certain number of students for their subject only for that number to suddenly change...and other weirdness. How can anyone argue that the application process is clear? The steps may be clearly written out but once the application is in, it seems to get manipulated out of all recognition.

You don’t have to choose a college if you don’t want to- you can be assigned one.

There is an element of uncertainty as there is with any interview process- how the questions fall, who is better on the day. It’s certainly true that lots of good candidates don’t get a place. But it doesn’t follow that the process is random.

Re your second point, some employers are university blind, not all. The hope is that the high workload and excellent teaching* might make you a genuinely better candidate, rather than just better on paper.

• Obviously there’s excellent teaching at many universities.

In that case the student, if deemed suitable, is pooled to/interviewed by another college. For the majority of applicants it's the university that's the crucial part, not the college. Look at any post-offer-day rejection thread. Pinning your hopes on Trinity having say 2 more places for Whatever Subject than Balliol is not a failsafe strategy.

I can’t remember the exact document but there was a survey, in the last few years, that found that where organisations ran university-blind application processes, the privately educated, Oxbridge candidates swept the board. Simply because they were better educated and much more accustomed to thinking on their feet and flexing their muscles in a competitive environment.

Essentially, what the organisations were looking for was exemplified by the Oxbridge candidate, even if they weren’t wearing a badge of provenance.

From my own point of view - I’d choose Oxbridge again and again. The positives far outweigh the negatives, even decades after graduation. But I completely appreciate that other people might want something different.

Oxford and Cambridge continue to be very well-regarded and popular universities and I don't imagine that will change. However, applying is not compulsory, or the be all and end all, and of course students should apply to institutions they feel will suit them and their subject best.

My thoughts are...are you a journalist? An Oxbridge reject or has one of your DC recently been rejected?

I worked for an employer with a large graduate scheme. My dept used to mainly recruit from Cambridge. We were aghast at the idea of university blind recruitment when it was introduced, but the calibre of graduates has skyrocketed. It’s amazing the difference. The grads are adding much more value than the pre-blind recruitment grads.

Blind recruitment works, hence why the big employers are opting for it.

@CountryCousin Interesting, but definitely not my experience of running a grad scheme using blind recruitment over 4 years. We ended up employing grads from non-RG universities (many overcame barriers to education) and they are a very resilient bunch, intelligent and ask loads of questions, have self starter attitudes which has benefited the business immensely. I realise that it’s only my experience, but sample is sizeable - around 25 grads. It’s been a huge contrast to the cambridge uni grads who were intelligent, but lacked a lot of skills employers want, which made them far less effective. They were also quite similar, whereas we now have a diverse team and are benefiting from diversity of thought - which is really important to work we do.

Realise this will be biased by individuals we’ve employed, but it’s my first hand experience.

University education is not always a great predictor of who will do well in a professional environment.

Oh, I agree. I accept the findings of the survey but would certainly argue that once organisations change what they’re looking for, then university-blind recruitment is sure to bring a more diverse and dynamic workforce.

I wouldn’t change the name of the university I attended - but it will be excellent if the university itself evolves.

Agree with PPs that your premise is flawed. Is your question really that a DC in a private school faces more competition and a certain level of candidate coached and with certain grades might no longer expect an offer?

IME it is not random though given the numbers who are predicted or who achieve the equivalent of A*s or As in old money exceed the number of places, some unsuccessful who have the grades can kid themselves it is random. Also, private schools can ruthlessly game the system and IME state schools place more rigour on grade predictions and even under-predict.

Oxbridge always offered to the individual and is increasingly basing offers on more than absolute grades which don't reflect potential nor achievement when educational environment is taken into account.

Some employers may declare being university blind but many don't and the networking and other advantages of Oxbridge education remain.

You might want a career you can't get from another RG but IME, the teachers tended to become heads, the healthcare tended to become consultants and to some, financial achievement wasn't the be all and end all. There are many who head to the City.
So apart from disagreeing with both sides of your premise....

Sorry you're not really correct about the process. It is not random, it is based on the teaching style they need students to be able to handle. They need completely self motivated students who in effect come up with their own ideas to present to their tutor. It is not so much "taught" as guided, and with a final examination structure, requires a huge amount of discipline in the student's part. They don't just need to be clever, they need to show enough enthusiasm and curiousity for their subject to actually enjoy the insane workload. As for the opportunities when leaving, again, they are huge. I graduated 20 years ago, and it still opens doors.

Just to add thoigh, some moments at Oxford were horrific. I thrive on pressure, but still at times found it really crushing, mainly because I was so massively into college sport that I struggled to keep up with 2 essays and 4 translations a week. I got quite used to sleeping four hours a night in term time and recovering in the holidays. Not for everyone I gues.

It must be frustrating to have paid £100k+ then for doors not to be politely opened when previously they were. PMSL at the notion of Admissions Tutors randomly giving places - would save them a lot of time. Perhaps you'd need to sit on the other side across the interviews with the range of candidates who were offered and those who weren't before you had a view of the magnitude of the whimsy applied?

If you love your subject, the tutorial system is amazing. You get to talk to world experts on your subject, one-to-one.

If you're mainly doing a degree as a stepping stone to a career (and there's nothing wrong with that), it may not be worth applying, but it does depend on the career. Corporates may be university-blind on paper, but you will observe a strong correlation between - say - partnership in a Magic Circle law firm/big professional services company - and an Oxbridge degree. For other professions, like medicine, your university is of little importance.

@CountryCousin yep agree with you. I think it all comes down to how the employer approaches the blind recruitment. The employing managers are all involved in shaping and delivering it.

I wrote the essay/ presentation question part. I don’t want to say what it is, but it’s skewed towards those who are less privileged, who have more real world and less theoretical experience. It’s related to the work we do, so might be difficult to replicate I don’t know. The upshot is we get far better arguments from state school / international students, and I think they progress through the assessment feeling confident and being themselves which helps them shine. Whereas those who are more ‘coached’ end up looking less authentic and don’t do so well.

As a result our diversity has improved (BME, EAL, state school background- which is me). Before was very much ‘recruit in our own image‘ approach.

Getting in - The process seems random and obfuscated. People apply in good faith only to be told that, in fact, they were applying just for one place on their course after all. Applicants with perfect credentials don't get interviewed whereas applicants with lower credentials do. Socio-demographics are a huge factor but nobody knows how they work. The process requires a lot of investment on the applicant's part, yet, seems whimsical on the part of the institution.

I can only speak for Oxford but I think the process for most courses are very clear. OK, dc need to do quite a bit more research but information about how may of each subject each colleges take is freely available (my own dc looked at the numbers in a range of colleges, decided they wanted a college that took a larger number of students of that subject and applied accordingly).
Yes, lots of brilliant students will be rejected but again most subjects have an admissions test with cut offs at which interviews would and would not be offered. Again dc knew what range they needed to score in on the admissions test to be in with a chance of an interview.
At Oxford it is the faculty to have the final say, so if the faculty want you, they will find you a college. Again, lots of stats and reports on how decisions are made freely available.
Yes, interviews could be said to be subjective and a lot depends what happens 'on the day' but they mirror the tutorial style of teaching and so applicants likely to do well at interview and likely to thrive in the tutorial style of teaching.
One of the key differences is the number of candidates interviewed - at Oxford only about 30% of all applicants make it to interview but once there, obviously the chances of securing a place are might higher. Their admissions tests have been running longer. Cambridge interview in the region of 75% and some subjects don't have admissions tests and so the process might appear more 'random' (I can't believe it is though)

I'm presuming it is not you applying Ericasdog but you are thinking about supporting your dc if they are thinking about applying?

At 17 my ds had absolutely no idea what he wanted to do for a living. He knew what subject he wanted to study and he knew where he should be aiming. It is only now as a 2nd year that he has started thinking about what direction he wants to head in. I imagine that applies to a lot of young people unless they re considering vocational (law, medicine) subjects. And the education at Oxbridge is undeniably outstanding overall (my ds said some of his lectures are so beautiful they make him nearly cry - STEM subject) even if some modules are weaker than others.

I'm assuming that the OP is yet another private school parent who is upset by the fact that private education no longer seems to be the golden ticket into Oxbridge. Yawn.

There are plenty of fantastic reasons for applying to Oxford or Cambridge if you want what they're offering. They are both outstanding universities with very unique and enriching student experiences. However, they won't be right for everyone because people want different things from their university experiences.

I studied at Cambridge and am hugely grateful for the opportunities that it gave me, both as a student and afterwards. DD is extremely bright and has always planned on applying to Cambridge, but she is now wondering whether she prefers the medicine courses at a few other universities instead. That's fine as far as I'm concerned. There is no one right path.

Of course, given that dd wants to do medicine, she is one of those very disappointing students who will end up working in health care, so you probably think any degree would be wasted on her in any case. I'm wondering what kind of career you feel would be worthy of an Oxbridge graduate?

I think you’re talking nonsense, TBH.

But feel free to leave the applications to others.

Of course it’s still worth applying but, like anything else, you have to realise that it’s always a long shot.

Yes, it’s confusing if they are turned down with perfect grades and it’s perfectly natural to think “What more could they have done?” But, the reality is, far more are turned down with top grades than those who are offered places.

Regardless of job prospects and whether or not institutions are ‘recruiting blind,’ both Oxford and Cambridge are beautiful cities with amazing histories and architecture. Amazing places to be a student if you don’t mind working hard.

I think a lot of people are confusing the impact of contextualisation with the impact of Covid - ie the unis have offered less places per se in recent years due exam cancellations (ie lower offer ratios with the expectation that nearly all students will meet the offer conditions).

Regardless if what you want to do, an Oxbridge degree is hardly going to hold you back in life!

@ Ericasdog. Can you explain what you mean by this comment?

"This refers to people applying to a college that takes a certain number of students for their subject only for that number to suddenly change...and other weirdness"

I can only think that if a college normally accepts 10 students for a certain course but only 5 applicants meet the criteria/have the potential, the college will only make an offer to those 5 applicants