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?

That’s pretty damning @Wannago. I wonder if this is all universities and there is a focus on Oxford and Cambridge because of their fame. Or if it is a particular problem at Oxbridge.

@Empressofthemundane

That’s pretty damning *@Wannago*. I wonder if this is all universities and there is a focus on Oxford and Cambridge because of their fame. Or if it is a particular problem at Oxbridge.

A quick google search comes up with this:

cantbuymysilence.com/universities-pledge-list/

The following Universities have signed onto the Pledge to stop using NDAs for complaints about sexual harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct ...

Now obviously merely signing the pledge doesn't prevent sexual harressment, rape, bullying etc from occurring, but not signing the pledge seems a very, very concerning attitude on behalf of the relevant institutions.

Some notable absences beyond Oxbridge: LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, St Andrew’s to name a few.

@Empressofthemundane

Some notable absences beyond Oxbridge: LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, St Andrew’s to name a few.

Totally agree, there are indeed. But the point that the Times makes is that each college at Oxbridge is an independent entity, and would need to sign individually. And not a single one has!

Note that the pledge also only agrees to "stop" using NDAs, ie in the future. It doesn't even go so far as to waive any rights under existing NDAs. But no doubt lawyers are poring over them to work out what the implications might be on who knows how many existing contracts.

Because if there weren't any existing contracts it would seem to be a no brainer to sign!

[quote Xenia]One city law firm Clifford Chance does this:

"The magic circle firm will tackle Oxbridge bias with changes that will withhold information about candidates’ university and schooling background from interviewers at the final interview stage, it has been reported.

The decision to adopt a ‘CV blind policy’ aims to ensure the law firm recruits the top talent from across the country and from a wide range of backgrounds; not just those who have [attended] an independent school and/or [had an] the Oxbridge university education.

Staff involved in the final assessment stage of the recruitment process will only be given the names of the candidates. In the preceding stages, the firm will also whittle down prospective interviewees by scoring applicants based on all types of work experience they have done – not just experience related to the legal sector." www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/commercial-awareness/news/clifford-chance-introduces-cv-blind-policy-in-graduate-recruitment[/quote]
Lots of professional service firms do this, inc big 4 and the city law firms.

But applicants tell us where they went to school or uni - so we as interviewers aren't told, nor will ask. But inevitably during the interview the applicant will offer that info up

But applicants tell us where they went to school or uni - so we as interviewers aren't told, nor will ask. But inevitably during the interview the applicant will offer that info up

Sort of genuinely innocently, as in, Oh yes, when I was at X, that situation came up in these circumstances and this is how I dealt with it, or shoe-horning it in totally deliberately, because they just know that it must impress the interviewer, or at least it ought to?

I think one point is that there are no Oxbridge shoo ins. It is the proverbial top of the class, academic high achievers with a range of 9s at GCSE and a handful of A stars at A level who have been lauded by their teachers throughout their school career who have the most to lose as it were.

Does the high flyer put in an Oxbridge application and face the deflating experience of rejection given the odds or go for another university. I have seen situations (well in the past) where there was a lot of disappointment when the accepted school 'stars' failed to get in.

I think it’s worth applying if you have a shot. Sure, rejection is likely and also deflating, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Learning to keep your chin up despite knocks or even unfairness is part of developing character and the life skills that are required to succeed and flourish.

It's only at the final interview stage at Clifford Chance that university history will be withheld. This really isn't much of a step toward eliminating Oxbridge bias.

Although only something like 8% and 7% at big law firms went to Oxbridge and I think it was 6% Durham and 5% Bristol etc and the rest elsewhere so it is not as if 90% of these high fliers are Oxbridge. Instead only about 15% are which means other universities mean you probably have a very good chance.

www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities-2019

That's the leading 130 firms Xenia, so the net goes way beyond the properly top firms. I think the picture at the latter is fairly different. 130 is a lot of firms.

Glancing down I can see there's a little more narrowing but not a lot. That said, even at Magic Circle firms it's not the case that almost every trainee is an Oxbridge graduate. And it's also fair to say that that type of law is anathema to lots of very good law graduates, and not what they aim for.

I just did a totally unscientific google search of a top firm and trainee solicitor linked in. First chap is Exeter (he got a first), next one a lady - first again from UCL in this case, next - male Edinburgh 1st, next lady who was UK state school very high exam results, then USA university (black - not that that is relevant but kind of as we are talking about contextual recruitment etc etc) and very high exam results. Next lady - Liverpool 1st (A levels AAB but contextualised would be high).

Next lady - 1st, Manchester. Next lady - 1st Oxford black, state school. Next one - male very high exam results Cambridge (doesn't say if 1st) bu even 11 A* at GCSE etc. Next man York 1st some kind of access to university course so probably contextualised a bit earlier in his life. Cambridge starred first them Cambs MPhil, is next man - state school

Anyway I will stop now. It seems for that firm if you don't have a first you are not even in the running....

My best friend is a partner in a Magic Circle firm - made partner when she was 32. She’s from Scotland - went to the local comprehensive and then to Dundee Uni - hasn’t caused her career any problems.

I think the Oxbridge graduates to monito r are those from relatively poor backgrounds who may wish to take on socially important but less highly paid jobs such as teaching. It may very well be that the student has taken inspiration from a teacher and wishes to emulate them in their career which is fantastic. An interesting point was made earlier about the fact that those from poorer backgrounds may not have the same aspirations in terms of remuneration as their wealthier counterparts.

yes, although sometimes it is the opposite - rich ones do not really think about money and do not care what they earn and not to wealthy students might want a rags to riches life to have all the things they never had in their early life. It would be interesting to plot that both as to if the less well off want the higher paid jobs but cannot get them as their accent or cultural capital or written English etc is not good enough or they do not want those jobs for moral or all kinds of other reasons. In other words what makes people pick certain jobs - eg 4 of my children are lawyers or about to be probably because I am a lawyer, my doctor father did a lot of court work and work with lawyers and his uncle was a lawyer. My sibling is a doctor, same specialism as my father - both consultants in the NHS - presumably because that was the topic of interest at home and what we know and my uncle was a doctor too. Just as my great grandfather was a coal miner (although is father was an agricultural labourer - presumably worse paid than mining in those days) as was his wife's father a coal miner as was his father and his father before him, all in the Durham coal fields.

By any chance, are you an overseas (international) student educated in independent sector who has tried Oxbridge last year (2021 entry) and failed again this year? You sound so much like someone I know from my school.

This is a question to OP

You raise a lot of interesting questions for which I think there is no clear answer.

You are naïve if you think Oxford and Cambridge ever produced more Elon Musks than teachers. Not just because there are only a handful of people in the world like Elon Musk and they usually have pretty non-standard backgrounds that suggest they would have made it regardless of upbringing. Mostly because these universities were quite literally created to create academics and educators. They were both originally for monks and priests, then expanded to include non-ordained students who became lawyers, doctors and civil servants. They remain focussed on those who are most academically able, who are often a slightly eccentric bunch and not necessarily the best communicators. Universities have never done a great job of creating entrepreneurs.

I loved my time at Oxbridge but I don't think it gave me an edge in my career. I spent a lot of time reading by myself in the library, writing copious notes on my reading, organising my thoughts and then writing essays. The terms are short - only 8 weeks - so you have to cram a lot into them.

Some professions, like medicine, are already university-blind. I gather this is becoming increasingly common in the City / big international corporates. If it helps students to re-focus on what they want to do, rather than the brand of the university, that is a good thing. I have been reading about George Stephenson recently. He was one of the greatest engineers of his generation but he never went to school. He taught himself to read at the end of a long day's work at the local coal mine. Would he have achieved this if he had to sit at a desk from the age of 5 until the age of 18? Somehow I doubt it. Our education system is so broken that it makes me despair.

My own father told me when I was a child that if I do what I love I will do it well. It is the very best piece of advice I have ever received and, if you are student thinking about your future, I suggest you do the same.

Also, if you are interested in history, one of the things that I find notable about our history is the extent to which people of modest upbringing have successfully risen up the ranks. Thomas Cromwell in the 16th century is not an isolated example. Shakespeare was a grammar school boy. Isaac Newton went to a grammar school in Grantham and became one of Cambridge's most famous alumni (out of a very long list). Humphry Davy from a Penzance farming family attended a local grammar school and went on to become a member of the Royal Institution... The list is endless. Our most illustrious institutions have a long history of embracing people regardless of the power and wealth they were born into. Incidentally traders in the City (as in banking traders) were traditionally boys from the East End. The job requires a certain appetite for risk that it seems public schools and Oxbridge did not encourage.

Doing a good ad for grammars there Genevieva.

I'm confused.

I went to Cambridge. The main reason I wanted to go there was because I thought the buildings were bloody beautiful, there were a million libraries, you could live in college and be cared for all three years, and every time you went to dinner you were stepping through an old door that people had been stepping through since 1547 or even earlier in the case of other colleges. I was kind of having a romantic love affair with the place, really. A dream of cycling about, reading books, having coffees, meeting a boyfriend etc, all under the dreaming spires, cozy courts and medieval staircases. I don't think I ever thought about earning loads of money or having a powerful job.

I don't know why anyone thinks the admissions process is confusing. It is simple. It is a desirable place to go to university. So it attracts lots of applications. The university has a choice of many very bright candidates. Far more could do well at Cambridge than there is space for. So the interviewers interview and give the places to the people who seem like they'll make the best use of it and who they feel they would enjoy teaching. They reject many who they know would do fine there, after all there are only so many places.

If my DC want to try for Oxbridge then I will encourage them no end - both DH and I had the great privilege of studying there which has been one of the highlights of both our lives. I would love my two to have the same. But no illusions that they will have to work hard, and even then, there are no guarantees as there are simply not enough places. Its not the be all and end all, and doing your degree at Durham, or Manchester, or Leeds, or Newcastle or Edinburgh, or wherever, will be a different but no doubt equally significant experience if that's where life takes them. If I'd gone to my second or third choice uni, no doubt I would have had a significant and interesting experience there too.

Plenty of top judges from less well off backgrounds were also the product of grammar schools.