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?

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'm just back from a few days in the latter, visiting DD who graduated last year and then fortunately both she and her BF got jobs in the area (engineers of different types). Bloody gorgeous, and got to see an interesting Hockney exhibition and a water vole.

A "mega-lucrative career", you unforgiving lot!

So, an applicant's application is relativised according to the cohort from which they are applying.

Will applicants from high achieving cohorts stop applying altogether because they have reached a ceiling and can't improve on their application any further? Does an application contrasted against a low achieving cohort open up a space for inferences that may or may not be true ("this applicant may have achieved more in a different context")? As I said, lack of clarity.

Re teaching and healthcare professions - I was genuinely surprised at the numbers. I would expect more Elon Musks than teachers (teachers are clever and good but Elon is clever and rich).

Will applicants from high achieving cohorts stop applying altogether because they have reached a ceiling and can't improve on their application any further?

I wouldn't have thought so, because significant numbers of them still do get places, and as they have another 4 UCAS slots there's no real downside to giving it a shot.

Re teaching and healthcare professions - I was genuinely surprised at the numbers. I would expect more Elon Musks than teachers (teachers are clever and good but Elon is clever and rich).

There are literally millions of teachers and healthcare professionals in the world, but only one Elon Musk, and not very many others of his ilk. Statistically there are bound to be more people entering professions which employ large numbers - add law etc.

OP, I think you are missing the key point that many intelligent people understand that there is so much more to life than making money.

If you don't understand that people value other things much more than they value a "mega-lucrative career", then quite naturally, you will be surprised at the number of Oxbridge graduates who are not earning as much as they could be. What you need to understand is that, it isn't necessarily because they can't earn big money doing something else. They just don't want to.

@Cherryblossoms85

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.

I agree with all of the above.

@AlexaShutUp

OP, I think you are missing the key point that many intelligent people understand that there is so much more to life than making money.

If you don't understand that people value other things much more than they value a "mega-lucrative career", then quite naturally, you will be surprised at the number of Oxbridge graduates who are not earning as much as they could be. What you need to understand is that, it isn't necessarily because they can't earn big money doing something else. They just don't want to.

Yes... DD and her BF graduated last summer and are happy being engineers. They're paid decently as new grads, but they're more interested in making things than mere money! (Quite exciting things)

What you need to understand is that, it isn't necessarily because they can't earn big money doing something else. They just don't want to.

Yes. My best school friend is an academic. She enjoyed Oxford because, for the first time in her life she encountered a situation where she wasn’t more brilliant than the teachers (at school her work was above their own ability and they weren’t able to critique it) , so she was challenged more and has always enjoyed studying for its own sake.

Will applicants from high-achieving cohorts stop applying? No, of course they won't. Should high-achieving applicants from low-achieving cohorts make way for those who have had better educational opportunities? I really don't think so, but your argument seems to imply that you think this is what ought to happen to preserve Oxbridge for future generations.

... at school her work was above their own ability and they weren’t able to critique it ...

Well, there's one reason to encourage Oxbridge graduates to become teachers, perhaps?

It's only one of five choices in their UCAS form. If a student wants to apply I'd encourage them. If nothing else it gives their mother (or father) something to drone on about on Mumsnet 🤓

None of my kids applied but I wouldn't have minded it if one of them had gone to Oxford and another to Cambridge then I could have experienced Oxbridge vicariously through them. I think they are both amazing places.

Weird thread. My contemporaries from Oxford are doing a wide variety of things — some so lucrative that they’ve been able to retire at 50 to pursue their passions, others not lucrative at all eg musician.

My 3 DC either at Oxbridge or nearly so certainly feel lucky to be there but I wouldn’t say their successful applications were “random”. They’re not geniuses and two of them aren’t even very hardworking but something clicked in the application process. I won’t say more because I don’t know why they specifically got lucky. They went to a comp incidentally, and got the same offer as their privately educated peers (AAA for Oxford and 3 A stars, 1 A for Cambridge).

Of the 3 people I know who went (all men), arrogant twats (one of which definitely abusive) but the third guy is lovely.

@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?

Big-4s say they are university blind but I have it on good authority that for two of them, every single Oxbridge candidate who applied for a specific grad scheme was interviewed. That isn’t a coincidence. (The winning candidates were almost all state school, but apparently that isn’t unusual because the elite private school Oxbridge grads tend to get more senior non-grad scheme roles).

What I think you're asking is whether Oxford and Cambridge have lost their cachet since they started to admit the hoi polloi.

God I despair of the British class system.

Surely the Oxbridge admissions process is trying to identify and weed out the people who aren't particularly interested in the subject or the course but are treating it as a stepping stone to a mega bucks job. Complaining that those people lose out is a bit bizarre.

Oxford and Cambridge are primarily about providing an education in an academic subject. Generally staff and students there put more effort into that aim than at other UK universities. It entails assimilating lots of novel material at reasonable speed with (generally) ample opportunities from tutorials to be led through how to avoid lazy reasoning based on practice in problem solving or articulating ideas cogently.
So it is worth applying if academic challenge appeals as an aim per se. However very bright candidates don’t stop being very bright just because they have n’t been through the Oxbridge system If motivated, they will also get a great education from other universities and may well pick up skills and opportunities they would not have developed in the Oxbridge system. As for eventual careers, personal qualities, motivation, stamina and social context all come into play on top of education.

It’s not really surprising that people teach after Oxbridge. Teaching is the only way some people can continue with their subject that they really wanted to study.

Of course others use their study as a vehicle for other careers. Not everyone is going to teach history or anthropology. They find other careers and all the attributes @sendsummer describes come into play. Desire for a job and personality do matter.

I’m not sure Oxbridge sets people up to be entrepreneurs. They might well become leaders and company owners but often our best known entrepreneurs are not highly academic. They have other attributes.

Oxbridge attracts all sorts of people but some have the ambition to earn well and others don’t. As a nation though, we need high earners. A high tax take has never been more necessary.

As a nation though, we need high earners. A high tax take has never been more necessary.

Yes, we do need high earners, but we also need talented people doing the many hugely important jobs that don't have high earning potential. Everyone plays a part.

Oxford and Cambridge are primarily about providing an education in an academic subject. Does anyone know how medicine at Cambridge differs? Is the focus on science over work experience helpful for training as a doctor?

@RadioGiraffe - at Cambridge and Oxford the medicine course is essentially a science degree for 3 years before 3 years of clinical training.

Thanks @HoneyMobster, I just wondered what kind of doctor this 'churns out'? Ds is obsessed with the idea of studying medicine and studying at Cambridge. I don't want to derail, and might start a thread on it.

@RadioGiraffe - my DD is (hopefully) starting at Oxford this October. Suggest you join the Medicine 2022 thread and ask questions there!

@AlexaShutUp
Unfortunately we cannot pay for all the services we need unless we have many many high earners. We do need a breadth of talent but those who have had the most expensive education are best placed to pay the taxes we need. That’s why Tony Blair championed education as a vital attribute for a successful nation. Of course we need great teachers but ability to teach doesn’t necessarily come from being Oxbridge educated. Any decent grad can be a great teacher as Teach First tells us.

[quote TizerorFizz]@AlexaShutUp
Unfortunately we cannot pay for all the services we need unless we have many many high earners. We do need a breadth of talent but those who have had the most expensive education are best placed to pay the taxes we need. That’s why Tony Blair championed education as a vital attribute for a successful nation. Of course we need great teachers but ability to teach doesn’t necessarily come from being Oxbridge educated. Any decent grad can be a great teacher as Teach First tells us.[/quote]
And many successful entrepreneurs are not particularly academic, and didn't go to university at all. You certainly don't need an Oxbridge degree to set up a successful business.

Of course we need people who will create wealth and employment, and pay a lot of tax into the system. However, we absolutely need excellent and talented people in fields like teaching, medicine, engineering, research etc as well. You sound like you buy into the idea that those who cannot do, teach. That's not the kind of education that I want for my dc, or for the next generation more broadly.

@mathanxiety

What I think you're asking is whether Oxford and Cambridge have lost their cachet since they started to admit the hoi polloi.

God I despair of the British class system.

Isn't this back to privilege is bought? Is the OP saying that a bought education entitles you to an Oxbridge entrance and it's unfair that the state kids are getting a shot.

Lovely to see that times are changing