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?

I don’t have DC who have applied to Oxford but, from what I’ve seen on here, the process does seem more standardised there (ie decisions made at a department level)?

I do have DC at Cambridge and I do agree that the admissions process could be better standardised across colleges. Why have a system where some colleges do two interviews per candidate, but others only one. Some send reading days or hours before the interviews, others don’t. Some want you to send in one or two essays, others don’t. I suppose in one way, it allows students to play to their strengths (eg, if you’ve got essays you are proud of, apply to a college that requests essays). But I don’t know how selection from the Winter Pool can be meaningful when they’ve all had different ways of being assessed by the college they applied to?

But in general and regardless of all this, I believe they are just looking for students who have “outperformed” in terms of the opportunities afforded to them. They look at every individual in context. From a school where the average grade profile is CCC, then a student with all A/ A has certainly outperformed expectations of their cohort. From a school where average grades are AAA (state or private), a student will just have to have done “extra” to prove they have outperformed - eg. school prizes in their subject; essay competitions outside school, etc etc.

This is the way it is. I can see how it’s tempting for a parent whose DC gets three A from a top grammar or independent school, to look at someone getting offered a place with lower grades and think it’s not fair. People are only human. The process takes resilience and there is a fair bit of extra work / investment involved and so rejection is never going to be easy. But the reality is, that person who got in with “only” AAA might have achieved those grades in a school where hardly anyone even thinks about uni. But there is nothing to stop a student in a “top” proving they are an “outlier” too. Its just that this ‘proof’ will mean more than grades alone in the latter case.

“top school” that should have read.

I think there was a lot of heartbreak and disappointment this year's round because of HSPS (which I think is a reasonably new offering, so not much previous application data to go on) - some parents from this [academic] year's Oxbridge hopefuls thread feel their kids ended up chasing a smaller number of places than they'd realised. This might be what the OP has seen. (Apologies to the parents concerned who I'm sure don't want to get dragged in to this!)

OTOH I met a woman the other day whose son is doing maths at trinity Cambridge (the most mathsy undergrad option possible with a huge reputation) and she was saying his rationale was that because they have such a rep, trinity C has 40 maths places each year (as opposed to single digits in most colleges) so he reckoned he might as well give it a swing, and got in.

There's no doubt the Oxbridge entrance process feels pretty overwhelming and obscure to people who are new to it, although the unis are genuinely doing their best to demystify.

No covert underlying motivations but it is indicative (of several things) how my op can only be framed in these terms.

What I am really interested in discussing is whether the power and wealth associated with elite societal institutions will remain or move elsewhere once their democratisation has taken place. Relatedly, I am interested in multi-lucrative careers, which would be the only reason to go to Oxbridge (I know about the 'interest in subject', etc. tropes but let's put these aside for now). Why don't more Oxbridge graduates get these jobs, or, do they? I am also interested in the decision making/political class that emerges from elite institutions but that is probably a whole other thread)

Multi-lucrative career is new jargon to me.

What on earth does multi-lucrative mean? And why would the quest of that (whatever it is) be the only reason to go to Oxbridge? A couple of obvious points though (1) Interest in your subject is actually pretty key to being at Oxbridge (2) Your dismissal of public service jobs such as 'teaching' and 'healthcare' (presumably on the basis of potential earnings) is very telling. You do realise that people don't just go to a top University to secure their future earnings stream, don't you? Or maybe you don't.

I graduated from Oxbridge 5 years ago. It definitely helped my career - even if some applications are university blind, many companies came to recruit directly while I was there, particularly banks and consultancies. I had so many free dinners

What the fuck is a multilucrative career?

If you just mean a high-paying one and why you had to make up a new word for that, Christ knows the City, law, and high-end consulting are all positively rammed with Oxbridge grads. As is the Cabinet and the top end of the civil service.

The decision making classes is easy - any halfwit child who wants a career in politics knows that anyone who is anyone has done PPE at Oxford. Therefore they want to do PPE at Oxford.

Cambridge doesn't offer PPE so don't bother going there. PPE is a massive department at Oxford so the future great and good, and not so good, meet up, network and there you go.

Yes you might be interested in Politics or Economics and know there are great departments in other universities. But if what you really want is to be an MP/Cabinet Minister/PM you already know the links are Oxford PPE and the Oxford Union so that is what you are going to aim for.

@Ericasdog

No covert underlying motivations but it is indicative (of several things) how my op can only be framed in these terms.

What I am really interested in discussing is whether the power and wealth associated with elite societal institutions will remain or move elsewhere once their democratisation has taken place. Relatedly, I am interested in multi-lucrative careers, which would be the only reason to go to Oxbridge (I know about the 'interest in subject', etc. tropes but let's put these aside for now). Why don't more Oxbridge graduates get these jobs, or, do they? I am also interested in the decision making/political class that emerges from elite institutions but that is probably a whole other thread)

Is English your first language? Genuine question: you're using a lot of words, apparently without fully understanding them.

Why would an interest or passion in a subject be a 'trope'? Perhaps it is the case that along with changing demographic Oxbridge is simply attracting more students with a very genuine love of their subject than 10, 20 or 30 years ago? And so career paths will look different.
My (limited) experience suggests STEM graduates go onto a number of paths, academic, tech start ups and yes, a few to banking and corporate jobs.

I have 4 nephews who have all graduated from Oxford or Cambridge, from either medicine or STEM subjects. None have gone to multi lucrative careers but all are very happy and doing well in their chosen careers. My own dh graduated Trinity College Cambridge 35 years ago and is still in a technical role, albeit well paid but certainly not corporate or multi lucrative.

Still, it would be interesting to look over time at changing patterns of employment, particularly in relation to different subjects and different institutions. So widen research - e.g. Nottingham, Bristol Edinburgh and Warwick are among the top 10 targeted by top graduate employers. Bath and Birmingham have fantastic industry links.

I think if you are the right applicant and suit the way they teach, then generally you have a good chance of getting in. Lots of students can get top grades but few have the type of mind they are looking for. I always thought that’s why they interview as they can tell extremely quickly if the prospective student has what it takes.

So yes, I do think it’s worth it but not the be all and end all.

OP, why is “interest in subject” a “trope?” What do you mean by this? If a student isn’t genuinely interested in the subject, they almost certainly won’t get in. The whole point of the interviews is to gauge this.

Also, you are wrong if you think everyone at Oxbridge is only there with the objective of ‘multi-lucrative careers.” Why do you think this? Some students are studying Classics of Archaeology or Music or Anglo Saxon and Norse! They’re hardly likely to be clamouring to get into the city jobs you seem to think is the sole purpose of going to Oxbridge. There is more to life than that!

@kulfi
Classics is a great route into law. Having a good brain can get you anywhere!

I think passion for a subject can be over stated. People apply for a subject they might like or are already good at. No one does archaeology or anthropology at school so you take a punt at liking it at Oxbridge.

Parent of a privately educated Oxbridge reject here, and I disagree with you. Of course an Oxbridge degree is always going to be a fantastic asset. And there’s never just one place on a whole course - candidates can be allocated to a different college. This year was exceptional due to referrals. Fewer offers were made than usual, but that’s happening at other unis too.

I assume you meant to type deferrals but yes, that makes sense. Ditto what PacificState said

The application process is not confusing. If it confuses, that may be an indication that the work itself once there would be impossibly confusing

Need to raise ambitions. Multi-lucrative careers are passe and what the hoi polloi aspire to. The Oxbridge who don't fall for the 'interested in the subject' trope are heading towards poly-lucrative careers now. Those who head towards health or teaching should be ashamed of themselves, taking a spot that someone who could be earning more might use. So selfish.

My siblings went to Oxbridge and I did not try - our in NE England school until my younger sibling got in had never had anyone there. It did not hold me back but I probably could have been Oxbridge material really and was top of my year in law etc won prizes and that kind of thing.
My 5 children could all have tried Oxbridge but having assessed the effort involved coupled with what they thought were for them a low chance of getting in they did not bother. In my twins' year at private school 100% of those who tried Oxbridge failed which is not surprising as it not as academic a school as my other 3 children's schools.

I think top law firms recruit about 7 or 8% of their trainee solicitors from each of Oxbridge and Cambridge so about 15% in all. Durham is about 5% and Bristol similar. (3 of my children all lawyers or nearly so went to Bristol and one lawyer one to Nottingham (4.5%)).

If Oxbridge starts letting in people who are not suitable to advise law firm and private equity etc etc clients then companies will hire from elsewhere. I do not think that is the case so far. I did an experiment earlier this week in looking at those people in one of the groups my sons are in on their final law course to look at those who have a training contract at a law firm once they finish and pass the course. I wanted to see where they were coming from in terms of university attended, type of school etc. This is very anecdotal . They have 4 people in their group on a corporate subject with contracts from a big US law firm. It is based on what the students write about themselves on their linkedin profiles. They all have firsts or 2/1.

There are different groups of only biggest firm trainees however and I bet those have more Oxbridge than my little list below.

Ms X went to a boarding school and then Bristol
Ms Xi, very good London academic state school, then Nottingham
Ms Y, very interesting background in Africa, then a UK university, then UCL

Then 3 from a mid ranking UK London firm

Ms Xi ii, degree in China, BSc Manchester
Ms Z, state grammar, Bristol, 2 years as paralegal
Ms Y, well known girls' boarding school, Nottingham U

Mr A - another US law firm, well known London private school, Oxford,

Ms B - mid ranking London firm, private school near London and then a BSc 1st

Then different London mid ranking firm
Ms C, Liverpool - not sure of school
Mr D France schooling, then US degree

Fairly large firm
Ms Ei, first degree abroad where she is from and second degree then Warwick LLB
Ms F state grammar then Durham and mentions various special programmes for the disadvantaged.

Middle ranking firms London:
Ms G, private school in Oxford then Leeds, then Bristol
Mr H, N Ireland, then degree abroad and another at home
Ms G, leading girls' academic boarding school (seems to have A* in everything ever, top 1st etc) - I didn't note down the university I think it was Oxbridge for sure
Ms H boarding school then Edinburgh

Then my twins - day private school London and then Bristol. I was actually quite surprised how many of the above were from the 20% who go to fee paying schools at age 16 given the aim to get people into these jobs who are not from that. I suppose as the law exams and the tests are pretty tough and objective, it can be a bit late to pass all the tests and assessments at 20 if you have years of disadvantage behind you.

Moral of the above tale though may remain if you are a mother work full time and pay school fees - it pays off.

@valbyruta Yes, I did mean deferrals. Bl00dy phone autocorrect!

@goodbyestranger Ouch!! Love it!

Xenia you are clearly very smart but how on earth do you, after all those years as a successful lawyer, get to that particular conclusion?

I think it’s always worth applying. It’s a learning experience as is everything. I’m saying that with a DC who missed out this year. It’s a process and to be fair, I still don’t understand it really. My DC eats/sleeps/breathes their subject, goes to a sixth form in an underprivileged area and is predicted 3xA an A in their EPQ and has 2x grade 8 distinctions under their belt but still didn’t warrant an interview much to the shock of their teachers🤷‍♀️
But within that process they learned things and though very disappointed not to even be considered, became stronger and grew a little resilience.
Oxford themselves freely admit that the admissions process is not perfect and can be flawed and that they often miss people who would flourish and admit people who don’t 🤷‍♀️ But that’s life in general isn’t it?

@Ericasdog

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 seem not to understand pooling, which both Oxford and Cambridge do. Their different procedures aren't too difficult to find and understand.

I am interested in multi-lucrative careers, which would be the only reason to go to Oxbridge

What a very strange idea.