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 think your point 2) is wrong - that's not why most young people apply, in my experience.

In terms of your other questions, I suppose (in the tutorial tradition) I'd answer with another question: if not oxbridge, where are your subset of people (those seeking to obtain or sustain their own wealth and privilege) going to go, in the UK?

Anecdotally there seem to be more people applying for US colleges, that's definitely a thing with upper middle class kids (it's relatively expensive even with bursaries). If you have languages you might try top European universities. But for most, Oxbridge remains 'the place' where you will meet other people who can reflect yourself back at you and be in your social and professional network to the benefit of your wealth and privilege. Not the only place, but still probably the main one.

The UK has other brilliant unis and other unis where you will meet the sons and daughters of politicians and socialites and royal families and captains of industry, but Oxbridge has a concentration of all these things springing from reputations built up over centuries. If there's going to be a decisive change to another concentrated centre of privilege and wealth combined with academic excellence I think it will probably take a long time to emerge. Either that or (short answer) MIT, Stanford and Harvard.

@TizerorFizz

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!

I don't think anyone has suggested that all jobs that society values are paid for by the state? Where are you getting this from? I certainly don't believe that. I believe that there is immense social value in my job, but I don't work in the public sector.

I also don't think that anyone has suggested that Oxbridge graduates are the best at whatever they choose to do. Clearly, there are a multitude of complex factors that determine the extent to which an individual is successful in their chosen career.

I have no doubt at all that most Oxbridge graduates think carefully about their chosen career, but I don't agree that they should all be pushed towards the most lucrative private sector roles. If it's true that they have benefited from the educational opportunities that Oxbridge offers, then we need to see those benefits across all areas of society.

Is it the case these days that the state has invested more heavily in Oxbridge students than in other graduates? I thought that the additional funding for the Oxbridge tutorial/supervision system had been stripped a few years ago?

It’s so tiring that people always mention Boris Johnson on these threads, as if he defines Oxbridge. Why bang on about him all the time and so what if he got in the 80s with EE or whatever the system was back then. That time is not now!

Also OP, the people who make millions / billions in the next generation will be at the forefront of jobs and new industries we haven’t even imagined yet. If you are asking who will be the multi-millionaires of the future, it won’t be so much those in the solid, well-trodden career paths, it will be those who are flexible and innovative in ways we haven’t thought of yet. The multi-millionaires I know are if the ‘.com generation,’ but when they were at uni, they couldn’t have seen it all coming. But what they all have in common is that they are not risk-averse. They are adaptable and the type who think outside the box (if I can put it like that) - always anticipating the ‘next thing.’ There are people such know who have founded and sold companies for billions. It will be the same in the future.

I dont believe that many undergraduates know there true destination in terms of career until they get into the working environment. I do believe that Oxbridge and other top universities open up doors and opportunities ... My dd (Warwick) recently applied for a summer placement (shes currently working at achieving a 1st ) and was turned down. If you look at the juniors employed by this company they are 99 percent from Oxbridge and the company use the summer placements to take on graduates the following year. The company state they are looking to widen participants but it seems like a closed door.

However, im a firm believer that anyone who is really motivated and driven will achieve their goals no matter what university they attend.

One of the girls my dd went to school with family were incredibly well off (Yacht, Ski Chalet etc). The father of this girl had been an apprentice engineer, studied part time at University of Bedford (Luton) went on to set up a very successful engineering company with contracts with the likes of Coca Cola. Sold the company although he still manages the business....what is lovely is that the company have an incredibly good apprentice scheme so continue to open doors for budding engineers.

It is a very interesting thread. If people from less well off backgrounds think being a teacher (or food van driver like my son) is very worthwhile even though low paid and use Oxbridge to study what they love and get the job of the4ir dreams on £24k a year I have no problems with that. I didn't pay school fees so my older son would have a certain level of income. Even at 14 I was reading books about girls who joined closed convents for life to live a happy spiritual life. There are lots of ways to lead the life you want with or without university.

As for what high paid employers want it depends on the firm. Some need a lot of good graduates - law firms need that - so they cannot just look at Oxbridge or they would not ave enough people even with the high exam grades and law school exam passes that they need.

When I was 17 I suggested to my head that I tried for Oxbridge (no one had ever been from my school in NE England - very small girls' private school and most people did not go to university at all and across the country only 15% went to any university then anyway) and she said as I was a year young at school I should not try. I went to university aged 17. When I got the best A level results in the school it was suggested by a neighbour I take a gap year and try Oxbridge but by then I was just so keen to leave home I went to Manchester at age 17 and it worked out fine. I did persuade the head to let me take three days of 3 hour exams for an academic scholarship to university - I had read in some old novels about people taking scholarship exams for university. The exams were in (i) General Studies including Mathematics then the next day (ii) General History and the day after (iii) English . I got the scholarship. I probably would have suited Oxbridge better as I was into classical music and spent much of my time at Manchester singing in various choirs in the UK and abroad and an Oxbridge college choir instead would have been ideal but it was fine - I found my own niche at university. I don't think it held me back then not being at Oxbridge and the same with my adult children today.

Because they don't buy into your value system

Nobody knows what my value system is. I am reporting observations because I am interested in them. Whether they align with my own beliefs is another matter.

The one observation that is consistent is that, historically, ordinary people have been excluded from wealth and privilege, hence the raging battles. How resources are limited (there is no reason why everyone can't be wealthy at least, not sure about privileges) is of considerable interest. I know that there is but a single script when it comes to Oxbridge but one or two things appear to be less straightforward than how they are presented. It's not that big a deal, though. We could be having the same conversation about entry into the arts or an elite sport.

I know that there is but a single script when it comes to Oxbridge but one or two things appear to be less straightforward than how they are presented.

What is this single script? How do you know this?

@goodbyestranger

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.

Not necessarily. I did an OU degree and in my course almost all the lecturers were also lecturing at Oxford and / or Cambridge and couple even at Harvard. Apparently this is not uncommon in some STEM fields / Business where the OU is as good or better that red bricks. Oxbridge use associate lecturers in the same way other unis do, teach the same material, and expect a similar amount of work. The difference is that there are opportunities specifically available to Oxbridge students (eg access to debates, private lectures, events) due to the reputation of Oxbridge that aren’t to others.

It would be of massive benefit to society if we break down the wealth and privilege barriers. There is ample evidence to show that Meritocracies are more successful at a population level. Everyone benefits in terms of lower crime, higher GVA and productivity and improved public services, better health outcomes for all - even the ex elite benefit.

Not sure why you want to uphold a system which is inefficient, unproductive and doesn’t maximise outcomes for economy and society.

There is a LOT written about how groupthink is harmful to socioeconomic success and how diversity over conformity / collaboration over positional power, optimism outcomes including profit.

OP, I think you need to go and educate yourself!!

*optimises outcomes

It depends on the course. It’s probably harder to get in to do maths at Imperial or LSE than oxbridge. Oxbridge courses tend to be more classic - if you want business, IR, neuroscience, IT you’d be better applying elsewhere. And that’s a good thing that not everyone wants the same place.

OP, your value system appears to be evident from the assumptions that you are making. Unless you are deliberately posting things that don't align with your values in order to be provocative.

Wealth can be accrued via entrepreneurship and setting up businesses. It’s nothing to do with Oxbridge. A few jobs are very much Oxbridge (some barristers Chambers are nearly all Oxbridge) but these are fewer now. When I started work, most of our Education Officers were Oxbridge snd became Education officers after a short stint of teaching. Not these days. There will be changes. Privilege is altogether different. Also very poor people can be privileged if they have had an Oxbridge education and stay at home to tutor their children!

Battle for Oxbridge not about subject or course or reasonably paying job but about the wealth and privilege that Oxbridge on CV allows.

Academics would like to think that the “battle” is about being facilitated to do groundbreaking work in the future by the education received there.

There’s a man on YouTube who is a tutor at Jesus College (the Oxford one) and he’s made quite a few videos about what it is they are looking for in potential students. His name is Matt Williams if anyone is interested. He also talks about what they are looking for in a PS. It’s may be quite useful for potential applicants, but what is certain is they clearly don’t give a hoot what school they are applying from!

DD doesn't have or want access to wealth & power, but she does have access to a rowing boat which she would never have had the chance to get into elsewhere. She's delighted Oxbridge are levelling up the playing field in their admissions, as she's from one of those terrible pesky state schools which is snatching the up places from the truly deserving. She obviously thought it was worth applying.

Same with my dd, HewasH2O (but minus the boat)
I think she was the second person from her secondary school in the last 5 years to get a place at Oxbridge

How very dare they

It just seems such a peculiar thread. In my professional life I work with graduate employers who are happy to recruit excellent candidates from UWE or Solent, but still recruit from big name universities as well. Surely you just apply to 5 universities where you think you will thrive for 3 or 4 years.

@Ericasdog - interesting you appear to think going to university at all has any point to it. Have you researched the other universities in the UK to see what proportions go into teaching, healthcare, entrepreneurship, lucrative careers, unemployment, or postgraduate research? I mean, why bother with university if you just want to become rich with minimum effort, and have no other interests in life?

www.bucs.org.uk/events-page/rowing-regatta-2021-1.html

Are all the 'university' teams in the BUCS events comprised of staff / outside members? (Genuine question, if only Oxbridge affords the chance to row nowadays).

@MarchingFrogs - it’s not that Oxbridge is the only place that affords the chance to row, it’s the fact that every Oxbridge college has a rowing club and boats, and termly inter-collegiate competitions, so the chances of having the opportunity offered to you and being able to give it a go are much greater - the sheer numbers of boats and clubs to number of students, and the visibility of the sport in every college, makes it exceptionally accessible to the complete novice. I doubt this visibility and accessibility to students with no prior interest in or history of rowing whatsoever is so much the case at non-collegiate universities.

@MarchingFrogs

www.bucs.org.uk/events-page/rowing-regatta-2021-1.html

Are all the 'university' teams in the BUCS events comprised of staff / outside members? (Genuine question, if only Oxbridge affords the chance to row nowadays).

I've no idea (don't know what BUCS is). However, it's certainly the case that Cambridge (and I assume Oxford likewise) must have hundreds of boats between all the colleges, with undergrads encouraged to give it a go. My DD can honestly claim to have 'rowed for her college', having made 3rd boat for a short while and participated in a fun race or two. Other universities do have rowing clubs, but the one near us looks to have 3-4 boats in total so presumably only the really keen and talented get a place.

The same sort of thing doubtless applies to quite a lot of sports, with the collegiate structure giving more opportunities for more to participate. Not sure it's very relevant to the OPs question though!

There are loads of university rowing teams at Henley. A neighbour rowed for UWE. It’s not just an Oxbridge thing at all. DD has a school friend in the GB squad. She’s never been near Oxbridge.

@TizerorFizz - the fact the friend is in the GB squad kind of exemplifies the point - you can row badly but for fun at Oxford and Cambridge, or row elsewhere because you are unfeasibly good at it.