Relative merits of different universities generally

[herecomesthsun]

I had a conversation with someone I know (Dr A)recently about different universities. I have been trying in a small way to get more support for some students to apply to Oxbridge (and also other Russell Group universities). This person works for a non Russell Group uni. They said that Oxbridge no longer has a cachet - they were very disparaging about it - and that they would specifically discourage their own DC from applying there and that it was widely accepted that other unis were better. They thought that students got less individual teaching by experts at Oxbridge than at other unis.

I thought this was a bit odd, but might be their own individual opinion. I would think that generally, OB was a good idea to get into, if you can, on a have-a-go-but-don't-pin all-your-hopes sort of basis, and then RG was a fairly good idea to pursue; American unis might be fantastic if you can get the funding; other unis might be superb especially if they have a particular course that excels or a tutor who you know is interesting to you. And different settings of course suit different people.

I have studied and taught (in a very junior way) at an OB uni and also studied and taught at other RG unis. I also did a course for work at at non RG uni. My experience suggested, boringly, that OB>RG>non-RG for quality of teaching, support and so on. However, we are talking of patchy, anecdotal experience over 40 years here (as I am long of tooth) so my undergraduate experience for example is very out of date.

Another person who had heard this conversation later said that their partner, another academic of much experience and seniority, agreed with Dr A. So I wondered what the thoughts are on here. And also, how to get objective data to substantiate either point of view?

I don’t know how “less individual teaching by experts” can be reconciled with the tutorial/supervision system at Oxford and Cambridge. I was a PPEist a generation ago, and the one-to-one and one-to-two tutorials I had were frankly the gold standard of individual teaching by experts.

Re 1 to 1 tutorials, yes, that was what I said; but Dr A said that the teaching was all done by very junior staff; that none of the well known professors were involved in teaching; and everybody knows these days that Oxbridge teaching is no longer any good.

I figured that it may well be that academics these days are under such huge pressure to publish, inevitably there could be a knock on effect on the teaching.

I suppose the student experience might have changed a lot recently?

Slightly missing the point, but I don't like Russell Group as a shorthand for 'next tier below Oxbridge'. Maybe I'm biased because my child is at a non-RG university (St Andrews) and have other friends with children at Bath. It's a self-selecting marketing group that includes universities of wildly different standards and degrees of selectivity. It feels offensive to both those in the group and those not in it to lump them all together.

Isn't boringly true that it's dependent on the course and the subject. I don't think you could argue that, say theology at Oxford, was more impressive than engineering at Imperial or MORSE at Warwick.

My teaching at Oxford wasn't particularly impressive but then I wasn't an impressive student. I don't think that having junior staff teach is new. I was talking to a friend the other day and I realised that he taught one of my friends at Oxford - he's less than two years older than me! That said, there's no doubt that they're great universities and they'll only be improved by getting a wider group to apply to them as you're helping to attempt. I'd ignore Prof A.

Like the OP I’ve had a range of experiences at different Unis including OB, next tier down and lower tier over the last 30 years. I’ve also a DC at OB as an undergraduate.

My view is Unis are all quite different and you make the most of where you are. I don’t see any point rubbishing any particular Unis. They serve different purposes and cater to students with differing learning styles.

DC has tutorials at OB with a mixture of eminent learned Professors and super engaged younger Post Doc Fellows. Both bring different perspectives. One post doc fellow (~30 yes old) is just amazing, so supportive and encouraging.

OB isn’t for everyone but to actively discourage an application- unless clearly they aren’t going to achieve the grades - seems somewhat silly. Let young people explore all options and decide for themselves.

With our DC maintenance of self confidence in Yr 13 was critical so applying to a good range of Unis and making sure they’d be happy in each place was critical. Offers are increasingly unpredictable and competitive at a growing number of Unis.

To be fair, everyone knows St Andrews, Bath, Lancaster and I think Loughborough are not RG but are very highly respected so why on earth anyone would get exercised about them not being RG is beyond me. RG might be marketing in the eyes of some but the hard fact is that RG grads (plus a few others!!) earn the most according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Medicine and Economics are the best outcomes for salaries. However LSE grads outstrip Wolverhampton economics grads by miles on starting salaries so why anyone believes RG is losing its position is beyond me! In some subjects, less difference in pay, but ease of getting the job might be a factor, especially if A level results are taken into account.

Oxbridge supplies so many people in positions of power in our country from lawyers, judges, politicians, civil servants, banking and finance and others, these universities are understandably sought after. In no League table are they not ranked pretty much top. Even abroad the name still means something. Their global appeal is immense and so is their research prestige. As others are abroad but Oxbridge is still a world leading brand.

Who teaches is a moot point too! Many undergrads don’t see the top people if they don’t choose their specialism. People who recruit grads probably don’t care if professor watsisname rocked up to lecture you or not. What employers want are intellect and skills. Not name-dropping.

Oxbridge takes a lot of effort to get into. Often Dc are bright who go there. However not all want, or aim for, stellar careers! There are others in other universities who can compete. Of course, but most getting the top paid jobs are RG plus. It’s worth noting that as late as 2016,just under 60% of barrister pupillages went to Oxbridge grads. There’s little evidence to say that the Post 1992 Group are just as good. However they have a job to do.

I assume DrA doesn’t believe in aiming high. Is this a northern trait? Just wondering because London schools seem to have a different ethos. You are right to ensure DC do the right A levels, aim high snd don’t listen to DrA’s wishful thinking.

@herecomesthsun

They thought that students got less individual teaching by experts at Oxbridge than at other unis.

Is individual teaching a thing anywhere these days? My DS is in his third year (top 10 for his subject) and has never had any individual teaching at all. They have "tutorials" but pretty large groups, usually 10-20 or so, which are supervised by junior staff or phd students, certainly never by a lecturer. He only "sees" the lecturers in the lecture theatres during lectures - that's it!

My son was at Oxford a few years ago and was certainly not taught only by junior staff. His specialist third year module was taught by a well-known professor. That's all I can contribute here!

They said that Oxbridge no longer has a cachet
This is absolute bollocks. If this person really works at any university in the UK sector (not making it up like those men who pretend to be ex-SAS) then they either know nothing at all about the sector in which they work, or they're lying. Is this someone who failed to get in to Oxbridge themselves, or got knocked back for a job there?

it was widely accepted that other unis were better
Some unis are better than Oxford or Cambridge in specific subjects but I can't think of another university that is clearly better than both in any subject. And overall, taking the quality of the whole university, no uni in the UK is better than either - though Imperial may well be as good for science subjects, but I'm not a scientist so can't say for sure.

They thought that students got less individual teaching by experts at Oxbridge than at other unis
This is the bit that particularly think they were lying, since it's so arse about face. Oxford and Cambridge are two of the few unis in the UK where undergrads are pretty much guaranteed to get small group teaching (as well as lectures) from world-leading experts because of the role of the Colleges in teaching. At some of the other prestigious UK universities, students very rarely have any contact with anyone senior (LSE has been notorious for this for years).

Oxbridge is the best. Everybody knows it, and frankly that means that even if the teaching was crap, the doors it would firmly wedge open and keep open would still make it worth it.

I went to Cambridge and the doors it opens afterwards are worth it on their own, even if the experience itself wasn't stellar, which it was. People offer you jobs based on your university alone almost. They look at you differently at interview when they know you went to Oxbridge. You get offered jobs that only go to people who went to Oxbridge or a select one or two other universities, or to people who went to the equivalent in the US. People who say they're not the good standard obviously haven't tried job seeking with Oxbridge on their CVs.

As to the experience itself - the degrees are miles ahead of many other unis. For many subjects, to study a degree in one subject at Cambridge you usually have to study an array of other first year subjects that people are other unis on the same named degree would never study. And that is not diluting your primary subject either: you just have to attend more lectures, more supervisors and do more work. The supervision system gives so much one on one tutoring time I have not seen it matched by anyone I've spoken to who've gone to other unis. I stayed with a few different friends at other unis during their term time (outside mine) and was amazed at how little work they had to do and how few contact hours they had.

Don't let people who are bitter or otherwise motivated convince you that up is down or black is white. The Oxbridge name opens doors and the courses themselves are fantastic.

Add on to that they'll effectively be going to university in a what often seems like a castle, Hogwarts, something unique and special, the whole experience is definitely worth striving for and life changing when achieved.

OP,

Writing as an RG academic, I think Dr A is mostly talking bollocks. As @TizerorFizz says, St A’s, Bath, etc are generally very well regarded for UG education and IMO beat much of the RG for this across many degree programmes. Is Dr A from one of these unis and perhaps feeling excluded from the RG?

Furthermore a number of non-RG unis, including many post 92s, have strong pockets of excellence. They may focus less on research and more on the student experience. All to the good.

But I agree that the Oxbridge tutorial system cannot be beat for intensive teaching. In my discipline, Oxbridge engage PhD students and Collegiate Tutors, but academic staff at all levels also participate in the tutorial system. Those I know seem to take it seriously and also to enjoy it. In my own STEM School, almost all academics including professors also give at least one tutorial or supervision each term and most at all ranks give two or three. (Those on a teaching pathway give considerably more). Almost all of us also offer final year projects and other significant opportunities for UG engagement. The RG grew out of a research focus and it does mean we have something extra to offer, aside from a misplaced snob appeal that I dislike.

I don’t think there are many careers why recruiters just seeing Oxbridge on a cv will
automatically take that candidate. With a 2/2 almost certainly not. To get any job these days, there are hoops to go through. Not every Oxbridge student will be great at everything. It’s still a case of finding your niche. Also with so many talented Dc not getting into Oxbridge these days, of course grads from other universities will be great candidates too. There’s no automatic way into anything for Oxbridge grads. That doesn’t mean DrA is correct though. The hurdles are there for everyone.

@TizerorFizz - bemused as to your reasoning that Dr. A may be from the north 🙂

Care to elaborate? Maybe I missed something obvious earlier in the thread

The eldest is at a non RG at Lancaster, and youngest has applied to none RG Reading/Chester. Oxbridge is great and eldest did apply there and got to interviews; but in hindsight now, she says shes glad shes at lancaster as she thinks she would have struggled with the pressure of Oxford and would have felt inadequate to ask for help if ever she struggled with a topic; something that she does not feel at her current university. Her support system has been amazing there and she got 2 internships in first and second year.
The youngest chose her two none RG's because of the course, zoology/animal behavour. She could have chosen somewhere like Manchester, but they was asking for Chemistry/physics as a second science, something she did not do as she hates those. And the course modules at these two unis were amazing and they have a good support system for study abroad/work abroad, which was one of her key things she needed.
For any university choice, it comes down to so many factors these days, even cost of living comes into consideration even more.

As long as you are happy with your choice of subject, at your choice of uni, at a uni you can afford, in a city that you like, good support, and with good prospects afterwards, then you are onto a great start.

@bguthb90
Itx well documented that far fewer Dc go to Oxbridge from the North East. A lot more go from other areas in the south. I accept I was being a bit naughty suggesting a northern connection but a relative in that area thinks the same. A teacher. I might be utterly wrong but maybe in areas of low access to Oxbridge, perhaps teachers and people who influence young people agree with DrA. It’s no advantage, so don’t bother! The notion of aiming high doesn’t exist because everywhere else is just as good.

Thanks for your reply @TizerorFizz.

I grew up in the NE and I remember when I applied to University (1990 so a different generation) my school encouraged aspirational students to apply to Durham (where I went), Leeds or Manchester. York was never recommended, not any Scottish universities and those south of Yorkshire/Lancashire might as well not have existed.

However, this was the height of the Thatcher years when the North/South divide was very much alive and kicking.

I guess one thing to take into account is that the density of private and grammar schools is a lot lower in the NE than the South, so highly probable that aspirations --entitlement aren't as high

I can only go on experiences of my three children (all in last 10 years) - one each at O and C - both taught by a range of different staff, including some 'juniors' - ie PhD students, who are at the cutting edge of their subjects and other staff who are world experts in their fields. No issues at all with the quality of teaching. My third was at a RG uni, chose it for different course not available at OB, different style of teaching, more emphasis on employability skills, which was perfect for DC and they went off into an entirely different field anyway.

There's a lot of snobbery, inverse snobbery and nonsense talked about OB and other universities. Comparisons are not really fair unless looking at very specific courses and with a specific student in mind - what will suit them best? Good for you for encouraging as many as possible to have a go at OB. They can only admit students from the pool of those who apply, so the more that go for it, the more that will have the chance of going. Your friend Dr A sounds jealous and out of date.

To be fair, everyone knows St Andrews, Bath, Lancaster and I think Loughborough are not RG but are very highly respected so why on earth anyone would get exercised about them not being RG is beyond me.

I agree. Although I think a lot of people just think that RG is synonymous with high ranking universities and would include the aforementioned universities in their thinking.

We are in Yorkshire, and DD's school positively encouraged the students to apply to Oxbridge. When she was in year 13 they had 16 students sitting the aptitude tests for Oxbridge. Two got offers after interview and only one went. The other did less well than expected at A level.

Yes, this is pretty much true. Professors don't give undergrad tutorials, only college tutors who can be anything from senior lecturers to postgraduates. The quality of tutorials varies widely and is a bit pot luck. Oxbridge also has very few/none at all links with industry/businesses for placements, which I find very (career) limiting. I not a great fan of Oxbridge for undergraduate studies. It's great for postgraduates, who then have supervision from leading experts in their fields, but undergrads never get to see/work with the 'famous' people, and get no leg up through 3rd year placements.

Professors don't give undergrad tutorials

As I posted above, a few years ago, my son did have tutorials with a Professor in his third year at Oxford. So that's not right.

That is very rare that a professor teaches undergraduates - many colleges won't have a professor among their fellowes in the course a student might be reading, and going to another college for tutorials does not happen very often. As I said, who you get varies widely depending on college/course/availability. And of course, it's not a given that a Prof is a better tutor than a Reader. You can get people who literally sleep through your essay.

I woke up a few days ago to R4 Today with the professor who teaches my DD for one of her PPE modules bring interviewed. Sometimes she has one of two others in her weekly tutorials, but some are one to one. At least half of her modules have been taught by professors in college and she's only had to leave her college for the R4 interviewee's classes.

She is lucky. One of her uncles is a non-teaching professor at another uni, whereas another uncle funds his post doc by teaching random modules & seminar groups.

This is laughable. DD was taught Chemistry by the Head of Chemistry at Cambridge university in her 1st & 2nd years. He is a Fellow at her college and she has been to his house for dinner a few times with her housemates as she now supervises some of his students despite not being a Chemistry specialist. She sent me a lovely photo of the Fellow with all the college Chemists in their college hoodies just before their last lecture of the series in year 1, so I'm inclined to believe her.

Let Dr A crack on. If he won't let his kids apply, that's more spaces available for others.

None of this is true.

For my History degree, I did a grand total of 4 papers with the tutors in college (who were both great, and one is now a Professor, although she was still working her way up back then!). All the others were with experts in different periods in different colleges. Same for everyone else who was studying humanities, although I think sciences were slightly more college based throughout their undergrad, although supplemented by departmental labs and lectures.

Friend from work did her undergrad at Hertford, had 3 papers as a first year taught by Professor Tyerman. All the linguists at my college had a professor in college for at least one of the languages they were studying who supervised all of their lit papers. At least one professor who taught undergrads for law as well, and physics, biochem, maths, economics, politics...

Just had supper with DC1 at O. He has lots of direct contact with a world class Professor who’s a Fellow at his college. She’s being v supportive over refining his dissertation topic. Also he’s working with other fellows, lecturers and Associate Professors (new name for Readers) in and out of college. He really values this personal attention and was saying how fortunate he is.

London schools seem to have a different ethos

It's well documented that far fewer Dc go to Oxbridge from the North East.

I think the point is even more fundamental than that @TizerorFizz . In the second quote Oxbridge could be pretty much replaced by "University"

The UCAS current cycle end Jan data was announced a week or so ago. 42%, slightly down compared to the prior year. However the disparities - at the gender level to start with - and then between different regions of the is stark. Not necessarily anything new in that. However the focus over quite some time now on school improvement in London is very evident.

Applicants (england, 18 yr olds) 42% overall; female 48%; male 36%

London : Female 63% Male 52%

London's Male % is higher than that for female applicants in any other part of England. South-East next: 49% female and 39% male

North East in contrast 41% (f) and 27% (m) Although the SW female % is marginally lower again than that in the NE!

So anything being done to effectively encourage ambition which seems to be what the OP is hoping to do is to be welcomed.