Oxbridge schmoxbridge?

[Randomword6]

I'm just wondering, my kids all rejected the idea of Oxbridge as dated and elitist, and I didn't go. It was thought back in the day that going to either was a guarantee of a good career, but is this true now? Does it depend on the subject?

Roger Penrose sat a Cambridge scholarship exam whilst still an undergraduate at UCL. It was mainly his father’s idea. Roger’s heart wasn’t in transferring over. He was happy at UCL. He has said that he messed up part of the exam because he had a cup of coffee before it and was left trying to answer questions whilst the insistent call of his bladder got in the way of thinking.

Described here from about 18 - 24 mins interspersed with talking about conics - if anyone is interested in such minutiae.

Needless to say he didn’t get in. He did go to Cambridge to do research later of course.

I think Roger’s experience shows the weaknesses of a system that chooses people based on performance over a very short period of time and under pressure as well. You may end up getting people who are ‘cool under fire’ - or who just didn't touch the coffee - rather than people who have the potential to be innovative in the field later on.

From his words, I get the impression that he got to Cambridge at just the right time for him. He already had a grounding in the basics, he had matured in his thinking, and was ready to make the most of being surrounded by people with interesting ideas.

For some people, particularly those with an interest in research, it is better to encounter Oxbridge later rather than sooner, even if getting in at 18 is a more celebrated event.

I know 3 people who have been to Oxford (one being my daughter)
They all have interesting well paid jobs
All had employers crawling all over them to offer them a job
Oxford is a great city and she had a fantastic social life there
I have heard all the "its elitist " stuff
But that is life
The workplace is fiercely competitive
Any one who goes to Ox Camb is hugely enhancing their career prospects for the rest of their working lives

I agree - it is a big advantage. However if you are next tier down - Durham etc it is not going to make a vast difference really. I don't think lawyer children of mind who went to Bristol are right down some pecking order when it comes to recruit in London law firms who take about 16% of their trainees from Oxbridge and about the same percentage from Durham, Bristol and Exeter combined.

Life is very competitive and for those who want to play that game it certanily helps to get high exam results and go to a good university.

@OutwiththeOutCrowd Amusing story about the coffee. Managing Coffee intake was a big deal when I was at Oxford - I was sharing a house with 5 other finalists and we all stopped drinking coffee about a month before finals so that we wouldn't have to go to the loo during our 3hr final exams. Those extra few minutes could be significant

The Oxford system works well for those who flourish under the stress of one off exams ie your final degree grade depends on your performance in the last 7/10 days of your 3 or 4 year degree - doesn't mean it is a good system but that is what is it.

I think the 'gap' between Oxbridge grads and the best of other RG universities is very small. A lot of the best at other RG universities were possibly Oxbridge rejects and given a different interview experience would have likely gone to either of those universities. I think it is wrong to assume graduates of Oxford and Cambridge are inherently a great deal more talented than other graduates.

As far as recruitment is concerned comparing similar degree subjects Oxbridge graduates do earn more but aan economics graduate from the LSE possibly will earn more than an Oxford theology graduate. It is also the case the most targeted universities by employers seem to be the civic universities.

All university graduates should have a chance if a particular advertised role and as far as I am aware no major employer uses a filter of Oxbridge only. With the advent of the internet job application is a lot more of a universal process and there is less likelihood of employers discriminating between universities

It is up to careers teams at RG universities to help their graduated aim high and gai positions that were historically dominated by Oxbfudge grads eg the bar, the city,journalism, politics etc.

@mids2019 I agree with all you say - the number of excellent candidates applying to Oxbridge is much higher than places available so inevitably there are many graduates from other unis just as talented. Also many potential candidates choose not to apply to Oxbridge. And then students develop at different rates and by graduation who is best suited for a job isn't necessarily the same as who was successful in applying for a top uni place

Let's hope the direction of travel continues to be employers are more open in their recruitment - many are working hard to be so.

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

In law for instance a subset of the RG are dominant and career prospects are on par with Oxbridge grads. Similarly investments banks will target places like UCL and Warwick alongside Oxbridge. Non Oxbridge universities do not have the name recognition internationally but employers are aware of them.

There is the assumption though that everyone entering university is after a high paying career which is certainly not always the case.

Another thing to consider about Oxbridge is that like many other universities they recruit a significant number of foreign students and the international reputation as possibly the best universities in the world tends to drown out the reputation of other outstanding universities e.g. UCL.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/why-cambridge/careers

The most popular career for Cambridge grads is teaching which makes sense since students are particularly passionate about their subjects. However secondary school teaching is not the most highly paid profession out there (in fact many may be about to strike).

I think though we get a skewed perception of Oxbridge graduate prospects as people are more likely to highlight the 'high fliers' or well renumerated. I also get the impression in some quarters that going into teaching is somehow 'wasting' an Oxbridge degree as teaching recruits over a wide variety of universities both new and old. I think this is a reflection of societies attitude to teaching though which needs changing.

I also noted that the 10th most popular profession was nursery and primary education which shows that Oxbridge grads do go into a very wide range of proffessions.

aan economics graduate from the LSE possibly will earn more than an Oxford theology graduate

Well yes. 'Very probably' rather than 'possibly', I'd have thought!

As far as recruitment is concerned comparing similar degree subjects Oxbridge graduates do earn

Imperial College graduates actually earn more than Oxbridge graduates, according to the latest rankings.

Earnings is only one measure of 'success' and not necessarily correlated with contribution to society...

Well said @Juja
Sadly, there are some mumsnetters (not necessarily on this thread) who seem to think that the only measure of someone's worth is financial.

@ofteninaspin

@Juja and

I think that's a really important point ; one that is missed on numerous occasions.

There seems to be a bit of a narrative on MN that an Oxbridge degree will lead to 6 figure salaries 5 years after graduation. For some yes that will be the case but only in certain fields and actually I think they are in the minority. Oxbridge graduates entering teaching for example will not possibly earn these salaries (similarly in research). These graduates will presumably be very good at their job but we don't tend to hear from parents of Oxbridge graduates saying that their child is now a teacher. I think this actually not a great reflection on society.

In some areas Oxbridge is Schmoxbridge, for example in Medicine where the university unattended really doesn't matter a great deal in recruitment or again teaching where university attended d is again not a huge factor.

I think what in some cases the Oxbridge premium is overestimated and it is a perfectly reasonable decision for an academic pupil not to apply. If the student for example.doesn't have a burning ambition to get into investment banking or certain types of Law there really is not that great a disadvantage going elsewhere. There is advice between new universities and RG in general but that is another discussion.

This in no way dimishes the achievement of getting into Oxford or Cambridge but like all students they have to not assume a gilded future is necessarily promised.

Also with respect to Oxbridge being dated and having many quaint traditions this shouldn't put people off and I actually think Oxbridge are proceeding in the right direction in terms of widening participation something I think a little.alien even 30
Years ago.

My friend did Chemistry at Oxford,
. She became a primary school teacher and is now a stay at home mum due to circumstances.

Really? That's deeply bizarre thinking.

Imperial College graduates actually earn more than Oxbridge graduates, according to the latest rankings.

Is that taking into account the fact that essentially all of the former are doing STEM subjects whereas oxbridge is a mix? If you're going to compare salaries then you need a 3d graph so you can split up by subject not just institution.

Of course, as others have said, salaries aren't everyone's main metric of 'success'. How to assess contribution to society and being happy and fulfilled is a lot more complicated!

@Reliant
@Reluctantadult

Primary school education is of vitally important. I think it is sad some think it is waste of an Oxbridge education to go into primary education given that primary schools recruit from a wide range of HE institutions and I think we have to somehow change that perception.

@mids2019 I agree being a primary school teacher is the definition of an important and good career! I suppose I made an assumption that where the op asked about a good career, they meant in terms of earnings.

Perhaps that was an incorrect assumption. I committed the crime of not rtft!

However I do also think that there are better ways of becoming a primary school teacher than via chemistry at Oxford. That's my friends own opinion too. But of course life takes you funny ways sometimes.

mids2019 you are coming out with some rather sweeping but dubious statements.

One, for example, is where you say that the background of an applicant for a teaching role is is no consequence. I can assure you from direct experience across many years that an Oxbridge applicant for a teaching post in a school at the top end of the state selective sector will have a clear advantage from the outset over any other applicant, assuming competence at actually teaching and no glaring red flags. That is for the extremely simple reason that the raison d'etre of grammar schools is social mobility and if a teacher is not capable of stretching the very top students in the class, thus opening the doors to the top universities, then they would be failing a section of their students. Unfortunately there are too few applicants of this standard for various reasons, but when they come along then that background is key, most definitely not of no consequence.

You also talk about MN parents of Oxford graduates. As a parent of eight Oxford students I have often chipped in with the fact that of those who've finished at Oxford (six to date), they have very, very varied salaries and careers. And this despite the fact that all eight attended the same co-ed school and at finals they were all - oddly - within just a couple of marks of one another. I've only ever viewed education as a passport to choice, and each of them has been able to have a fairly free hand choosing, I think thanks to their Oxford education. Not because of the Oxford 'label', but because of the education they received which is essence was taught them to think, properly. I would also think it possible to argue that each has a socially valuable career, but then I tend to think that lawyers of all colours make a valuable contribution, so I'm prepared to include the corporate lawyer in that class as well as those working for the NHS.

Most teachers don't teach in very selective state grammar school though.

There are 163 grammar schools in England, and over 3,000 state comprehensive schools. I'm struggling to get exact figures so I am happy to be corrected.

I can see where goodbyestranger is coming from with her comments re Oxbridge educated teachers and grammars. There are a number of Oxbridge educated teachers in my children's relatively well known grammar schools. They tend to teach top sets maths and sciences and definitely play a role in identifying and coaching Oxbridge-shaped talent although it isn't done in an overpowering way. PhDs are quite prevalent too.

Funnily enough, there are exceptionally bright students in state comprehensive schools who also need teachers capable of stretching the very top students in the class.

Yes Walkaround, clearly that's true.

My experience is not in the comprehensive sector.

@goodbyestranger

getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/train-to-be-a-teacher

The current means of getting into teaching is quite regulated and QTS is fairly mandatory. The school where QTS training is offered in my experience is fairly prescriptive though available to anyone who fulfils a certain standard (degree and a minimum of 4 in GCSE maths and English).

Demand for teachers has always in my experience been high and successive recruitment drives have tried to bring in teachers from a range of backgrounds. I know a fair few teachers without Oxbridge degrees for example.

Senior Leadership teams in my experience tend to look at performance during the AGE stage primarily as the training assessment acts as an indicator of the quality of teacher (hence me saying university attended may not be a paramount factor for successful applications)

it is a rally good thing Oxford and Cambridge graduates are moving into teaching and obviously I am sure they will be passionate about their subject.However I certainly know that a lack of an Oxbridge degree won't be a barrier to progression. There is no specific targeting of Oxbridge grads for teaching as there may be for say investment banking and the marketing of teaching as a profession is fairly distributed amongst the majority of universties..

I would think that graduates from any university wouldn't limit the type of school they teach in and as has been pointed out the majority of schooling in the UK is comprehensive.

the overall point is that if your ambition is to become a teacher then you have realistic chance of getting a job from a wide range of universities therefore Oxford and Cambridge do not necessarily offer a significant advantage. Remuneration for teachers is on set scales and therefore university has no bearing on this (at least in the public sector).

It sounded from your post that Oxford and Cambridge educated teachers are only to be found in a certain sunset of selective education but is this the xase?

I agree that satisfying careers are sometimes not well remunerated and happiness i n life is I guess paramount. I guess a lot of this comes down to how you define a 'great career'. Good education and projects are not a monopoly of two universities.