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?

@AlexaShutUp
I clearly said earlier that entrepreneurs didn’t necessarily have or need an academic education.

Why you think engineers are the same as teachers and doctors baffles me. How many engineers are employed by the state? Hardly any. The vast majority are in the private sector. We do have to understand that wealth creators held it possible for the state to employ others. We have a huge state sector and it’s quality is very important but it doesn’t pay for itself or it’s pensions. Just look at the debt this country has on state employee pensions. It’s eye watering.

make it possible ….. not held

Is the focus on science over work experience helpful for training as a doctor?

It would be curious if it didn't.

[quote TizerorFizz]@AlexaShutUp
I clearly said earlier that entrepreneurs didn’t necessarily have or need an academic education.

Why you think engineers are the same as teachers and doctors baffles me. How many engineers are employed by the state? Hardly any. The vast majority are in the private sector. We do have to understand that wealth creators held it possible for the state to employ others. We have a huge state sector and it’s quality is very important but it doesn’t pay for itself or it’s pensions. Just look at the debt this country has on state employee pensions. It’s eye watering.[/quote]
Where did I say that engineers are employed by the state? Clearly most engineers are employed in the private sector, but surely you don't think everyone employed in the private sector is earning mega bucks? So how is that relevant?

The OP was surprised that so many Oxbridge graduates go into careers that are not particularly lucrative. My point was that it's important to have talent in a range of fields, including those that don't pay particularly well. I really don't know why you're suddenly fixating on the state vs private sector. Are you suggesting that everyone with talent should work in the private sector and leave the public sector to be run by the mediocre people who weren't good enough?

NotNotNotMyName I haven't got the science to back this up but I would say there is probably no correlation between an Oxford education and being abusive. Army, police yes but Oxford probably no.

sendsummer has touched on this but to answer the question in purely financial terms, an Oxbridge education costs the provider far more per student than the student pays in fees. For those who like a bargain (I do), then on that basis alone: yes.

It's hard to get in and highly competitive but your post is nonsense. I work with young people and we have had between 6 and 12 go every year for 10 years. Targeted reading, a huge amount of hard work and a dedicated approach are needed. They are all at state schools in one of the UK most deprived areas.

@AlexaShutUp
You put engineers in with doctors and teachers. They are mostly paid by the state. DH will be gratified to know that engineers are worthy citizens too.?

On the earning front - leaving the academic aside - the six DC who have already graduated are earning vastly different sums. From very silly money to really much too little for what they do. But Oxford gave them the opportunity to choose. Some have moved from what they originally thought they would do, actively taking a pay cut (eg Magic Circle law to human rights), but all have gone into areas they chose freely. It's absolutely impossible to measure quality of life on income alone. DC7 no idea what he will earn (scientist, could go any which way), and DC8 has just started idly thinking about internships etc having got her first formal set of exam results and has been strongly counselled by me not to let those results - which were very, very strong - sway her decision about what to do. We had this conversation yesterday, that they simply create options, but the key thing is to think about what she would actually like to do, and what her priorities are for the future. None of the eight DC will inherit any significant sum, so they don't have that large wooly comfort blanket either.

I am surprised that you think the application process is 'random and obfuscated'. To me it seems very clearly set out on Oxford's website. They also provide lots of information and breakdown on the application stats.

The number of places for a subject at a particular college is irrelevant as you do not have to express a preference for a college and if you do you may well end up at a different one.

Oxford gathers much more information from applicants via submitted work, aptitude tests and several interviews than other universities.

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

Yes.

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

No. Of course they won’t stop applying.

OP, as I’m sure you’re aware, in many schools, the focus of the teachers is getting most of the class to achieve a “pass” grade - like a C. This will determine the level and type of content delivered and the discussion in the classroom. A student who is focused on an A* will have had to show extra initiative to explore the subject beyond ‘the norm’ in their classes. They are making up the shortfall themselves in many ways. This obviously shows they have initiative and motivation beyond their cohort.

For a student in a class where nearly all of them are working towards A / A, high level discussion beyond the curriculum will just have been the norm. They will know what an A essay should look like because that will just be the expectation. They don’t have to find this out for themselves.

This is not to say an A from a selective school is in any way worth less than one from a low achieving school. It’s not. An A is an A and they’re all ‘marked blind’ by the same examining boards at the end if the day. But where the student in a low performing school has had to show extra resilience to make up for a shortfall in ‘A level teaching,’ a student where that was the norm will need to demonstrate that same level extra focus and resilience in other ways. For instance, I know of a girl applying from English who write her own book. There are loads of competitions and ‘supra curricular’ opportunities online and it’s not be beyond a student who is well/supported in a top school to find these.

Also, admissions rotors are not stupid. They will know that, for instance, the Year 13 English prize at a very selective school like Westminster or somewhere, will have had significantly stiffer competition that the same prize at a comprehensive where the ability range is mixed.

So yes, to answer the question I think yours asking - contextualisation can be a bit of a blunt instrument, but it definitely better than the alternative and at least they are trying.

Tutors no rotors! Sorry for typos above

If by relativised, you mean the Admissions Tutor might be able to differentiate between the ability and potential of a 'hothoused' private school sixth former and someone who had no support from a school where no one has been to Oxbridge then yes. If by that you mean the child at private school is disadvantaged in absolute terms then perhaps wonder how Eton could still have got 48? to Oxbridge.

Ericsadog ... has someone you know being rejected by Oxbridge sent you down this road?

[quote TizerorFizz]@AlexaShutUp
You put engineers in with doctors and teachers. They are mostly paid by the state. DH will be gratified to know that engineers are worthy citizens too.?[/quote]
I wasn't talking about who they were paid by, I was talking about people who had chosen to go into careers that are necessary and important but not lucrative. Some of those careers will be in the public sector, some in the private sector and some in the third sector. That is totally irrelevant to my point.

You seem a little upset that your DH has been put in the same category as lowly public sector workers? Why is that, I wonder?

Point one is rubbish. The dcs’ peers all incredibly bright. The dcs went to a comprehensive school but I sense that they weren’t patronisingly beckoned in with lesser achievements .

Point two - from ds’s experience - has some validity. As I said ds went to an ordinary comprehensive and we are not wealthy. Yet quite a few institutions now actively do not want Oxbridge graduates. 70% of Oxbridge are state educated, yet it seems some places are convinced that they are all Sebastian Flytes. I do think that some HR people have a big bag of McCain oven chips on their shoulder about where they went and it’s their chance for “revenge” in some way.

No. Not remotely upset. He’s happy and I’m happy! I was making the point that people who are doing a job that society values are not all paid by the state. Therefore I totally agree that an Oxbridge education gives choice but it’s grads are also not necessarily the best at what they choose to do. However there is no denying the state has invested heavily in them and I would like to think Oxbridge grads do think very carefully about careers. And I’m sure most do!

Actually anecdotally I think there is some evidence that some people who would have traditionally applied to Oxbridge are deciding not to, particularly from selective schools. But conversely more people who would perhaps have not applied are doing so it evens out.

Many people really don’t understand how different the Oxbridge teaching model is to other universities. It’s not for everyone, it’s not just about raw intellect it’s about the way you learn. The more they broaden the pool of applicants the more they are able to select those who can truly benefit from the tutorial/ supervision system.

What is indisputable is that the pressure is huge, it’s a very intense experience with high workloads and short terms. The skill of managing that workload and of being able to write several essays a week , mastering huge amounts of information and being able to defend your argument in person is an impressive one but it’s not the only one out there.

My DD is a vet student at Cambridge and for her definitly worth applying The method of learning, facilities, competing for the university in her sport, plus the whole experience cannot be underestimated.

Moom Typed long reply but lost it on phone. So, bullets:

1. I am intetested in wealth, privilege and social control.
2. Battle for Oxbridge not about subject or course or reasonably paying job but about the wealth and privilege that Oxbridge on CV allows.
3. Wealth and privilege are great. Ordinary people have little access (everywhere) so any system that increases access is good.
4. Wealth and privilege are scarce so what happens to existing w&p groups? Does w&p move around, cease to exist, etc.? People don't give up w&p easily.
5. After battle for Oxbridge, why don't more Oxbridge grads aggressively pursue the w&p that they can have access to? Is this a facet of Britishness? Of Oxbridge? Are they simply more grateful for any decent job rather than having the grander expectations of the previous crowd, eg, Boris, to whom 250k a year for a crappy column is "chicken feed"?

If you can't get in, and Oxbridge doesn't deliver (and produces Boris), will people go elsewhere?

@Ericasdog - I am confused.

Thousands of students pass through Oxford and Cambridge every year, doing a range of subjects. Some are career driven, some love their subject, some are there for the experience - and combinations thereof.

It is tiresome to go on about Boris as if he were the only person who ever attended. As I said, we have thousands of Oxbridge graduates all making different choices and having different ambitions.

I am also confused. I just don't really understand why the assumption is that people go to Oxford/Cambridge because of the access it gives you to wealthy people?

That might be the case for a minority of students but I really don't think it applies to most of them?

I also don't understand why there is confusion about why Oxbridge students don't aggressively pursue V high paying careers. This is only confusing because it is predicated on the assumption that most people go to Oxbridge in pursuit as you put it of "wealth and privilege" - if they didn't go for that reason then them not pursuing it later is no longer a surprise surely?

In the case of my own DC, current and recent Oxbridge students, Oxford and Cambridge offered/ offers the opportunity to choose. It did the same for Boris. That doesn't mean that all current students resemble Boris. Also, the pursuit of money isn't at the top of the agenda for all young people and I'm not clear that it was for Boris either. Am I being too simple here? It just doesn't seem hard to understand.

Oh sorry I failed to refresh before typing; crossed.

After battle for Oxbridge, why don't more Oxbridge grads aggressively pursue the w&p that they can have access to?

Because they don't buy into your value system. They don't especially aspire to wealth and privilege and prefer instead to aspire towards other things instead.

Some will aspire to a society in which there is equality and justice, and in which wealth and privilege play much less of a role. Of course, they won't necessarily get to realise that vision, but many will be content with moving things a little further in that direction.

Others might aspire to create new knowledge, or to develop new technologies - perhaps for the benefit of society, or in some cases, for the sheer love of it.

Others will have different motivations.

You are utterly mistaken to believe that wealth and privilege are what everyone wants out of life. Many people place little value on those things at all.