My son not thriving at Cambridge

[Masalamother]

My son is 1st year at Cambridge and got all A stars at A levels. He was so pleased to get offer but reality is different. His school friends at other universities doing same course (Durham and Nottingham) have much less work and more fun time. He says they are getting firsts in assessments but he is only getting a 2.1 - even though he topped them easily at school. His course is harder - 2 essays a week whereas they do one a fortnight. He was always told to apply for the best university but now thinks he should have gone to a lesser one as degree class is what counts. I don’t know what to say to him. He probably should have had a year out because he seems very burnt out and disillusioned… All degrees are not the same - he/we never realised that! The advice of his teachers to “be aspirational” was simplistic

Lots of useful perspectives here to consider. And options on switching course/college/uni if that is the right ultimate move.

But yes, shorter terms & being permanently surrounded by peers who were ALL in the top handful of students at the schools they have come from is tough competition!

And it is inherently designed to be competitive to continue to push every student there to be the best they can be.

That may be too much for him, or he may relish the challenge?

Once 1st year exams are over, make sure he talks to both course & college staff about his overall experience & options. Once he's had a couple of holiday weeks to decompress, he may have a better overall perspective from 30,000 ft.

In every high-flying cohort, there will be those running the country, companies, and making headlines in 10-20 years time. And those who will be doing extremely well for themselves by Joe Average's measure - but simply not quite in the same league!

There is no shame in being in the 2nd group, as long as he has some coping mechanisms in place to prevent comparison being the thief of all his joy! And the time & energy to add in some non-course activities which bring him a bit of diversity in his friendship group & some much needed fun & relaxation-even if it's from burning the candle both ends during super-intense 8 week terms.

I chose not to apply to Oxbridge because I wanted 'the most' student experience, not the shortest & most stressful... if he can reconcile his position with what he wanted out of it a year ago, great! If not, he's learnt some valuable things about himself & his learning patterns & interactions with his peer group which will be useful for the next 40 years. And it's not too late to tweak course/college/university to suit him better.

That is emphatically not failing, either way, & I wish him luck with picking his way forward from here, knowing himself a little better from the experience

Nottingham grad here. According to one of my tutors I was “academically in the top ten” of my cohort of several hundred students. To this day I think I was better off being a top student at Nottingham rather than being a weak student at Oxbridge. It was the right place for me.

I sympathise with your son because Nottingham gave me a good balance between academic challenge (Russell Group, most of my peers had AAA/AAB) but equally there was time to dabble in student politics, to visit bars and nightclubs, and generally get involved in all the opportunities available to students. In a slightly circuitous way, it was the extra-curriculars that led me to working in HE rather than the hours in the library.

I’m proud of achieving a First but I remember no syllable of some of the texts I studied. University is surely a diminished experience if academic demands are such that there is little time for anything else.

In life things are not always ideal. I think it would be best if he just puts up with it for the next 2 years of his course even if the work is harder than his friends elsewhere. My siblings went to Oxbridge and I didn't try and I did fine; however so did my siblings in their careers too. My children didn't try for Oxbridge (3 went to Bristol and 1 Nottingham and 1 Reading) and 4 are solicitors (last 2 qualified earlier this year). I think if you can get to Oxbridge it definitely helps in many of the higher paid careers and well done to your son for getting in. My children have

.. my children have cousins who were/are at Oxbridge and we do know it can be very hard work. Hopefully your son will find year 2 easier and have a nice summer holidays to recover.

lol at people saying you can't have fun at Cambridge and it's all work.

I was football captain, played an instrument in an orchestra, helped my friend out if she was desperate in a different sport that I wasn't great at, rowed for a year, watched a lot of TV, went to the college bar or student nights, socialised with friends, usually went to a ball in the summer, did voluntary work as well as some library shifts for extra cash.

Yes there's a lot of work but it's a work hard, play hard environment.

MH is more important than staying at a uni where he’s unhappy. Sure he can transfer for the second year? First year doesn’t seem to count towards final grade.

But did you participate in the cardboard boat race, @IdisagreeMrHochhauser ?

But @Captcha4903, there is time for non academic stuff at Oxbridge. Plenty of DC at Oxbridge get involved in sport, music, politics, drama etc, have a great time socially and get decent degrees too.

I'd never heard of it. Seems it started after I left.

I did once pass out drunk on an overnight punt. Does that count?

It's a bit odd to believe that all Oxbridge students are in the library and not in clubs/bars, socialising, setting up societies and doing sports- what do you think a Blue is for?! It is a work hard play hard environment and not for everyone, but to imagine students aren't out partying...there's an intensity to all of that that doesn't suit everyone, but it's not a different university experience unless you want it to be.

It's a bit premature to guess at what degree my current finalist DD4 might achieve, if any, but she took her second finals paper yesterday, rowed in eights today, went to her college ball which she was on the committee for less than three weeks ago, and has worked hard and played hard and socialised hard throughout her four years. I'm very aware (and equally grateful) that she's not had to contend with any real struggles but even so - this portrayal of utterly oppressive work leaving no room for normal life is just way off the mark.

The issue is that students who go to Oxbridge have excelled at A level, a fair number with minimal work. At uni, there is no curriculum for your tripos exams like there is for A levels. You can't know the subject you're to be examined in inside out, unlike A levels, no matter how hard you study. That is unless you're doing Maths. That's the only subject I've seen where students can achieve 100%, but only if they're exceptionally good. And actually, for Maths, the amount of studying needed is small for those exceptional students. For them, it's an innate ability. And therein lies the problem. Everyone at Cambridge has been brilliant at school, but someone on the course is going to get a II.2, some will even get a Third, and you may have to acknowledge that you peaked at A level. But stick it out and you'll get your Cambridge degree, and they'll even throw in an MA for free in due course.

Perhaps your son needs to stop working so hard and acknowledge that something less than a First is still brilliant. My daughter is under no illusion that her friend's II.1 in History from Oxford will be viewed more favourably than her own First in History from a top RG university

What information was used in the first filter other than a minimum 2:1?
These schemes get very vast quantities of applicants to whittle down before interview stage, so how was that done?

I. Can't. Produce. Any. Breastmilk.

The first filter is only degree class.

The next stage involved online tests - possibly more than one though I can’t remember now. If you look up the top 10 U.K. law firms you will see - recruitment is basically the same for all of them these days.

Haven’t read the whole thread but know of a family who could have written this exact post. A high flying student suffers and thinks everyone else’s course is much easier..
In reality the student was pushed very hard her whole life with additional tutoring at all stages and parents micro-managing her life including how much studying etc. This is literally the first time that she’s stood on her own two feet and the tutorial system is torturous if you’re not on top of the topics.
For many others who didn’t have that support but still got in, they will appear to thrive in comparison. They can have a good social life while working hard too. The same goes for students in other top universities.
The bottom line is not to push your kids too hard.

I agree with this. I know a student, not at Cambridge but at another excellent university, studying medicine. They were always top of the class through school thanks to being pushed by their dm. The moment they started their university studies they began to flounder. It’s been awful to witness.

I think you are on to something @Savoury . I teach in a selective school and I can spot the "tutored for years" mob, even though they don't get tutored for the 11+ in my subject. They don't have the same elasticity of thought-process that some of the perhaps lesser-scoring, but less pushed students do. This whole parenting thing is a balancing act: support but don't push, protect but don't smother etc.

Malbec absolutely. I think we will have been aware of the same parents over the years.

On MN in earlier years I used to get really quite a number of unpleasant comments about what I must be like as a parent to have DC regularly getting into Oxbridge. They were a small but vocal group of posters. One or two calmed down subsequently when their own DC got to Oxbridge. Naturally the nastiest comments were from those whose DC had been at excellent schools but had been 'redirected'. I never reported. Apparently I must have been 'stealth boasting' about not pushing and not micromanaging (I didn't manage my DC let alone micromanage!). I'm delighted that all my DC made it through successfully (although not without hard work) and that they all give me credit for doing the opposite of pushing. I've always left them to it and was never aware of what homework or any other deadlines they had apart from public exams. It makes for a much easier life for a parent and it also makes for a much healthier one for DC, imo.

Obviously encouraging DC generally is very different from pushing and I have to say I was extremely touched last month to see the acknowledgment in DS4's DPhil which included a phrase along the lines of 'And to my mum who may or may not read this but who has always been supportive'.

@Karolinska, that’s such a lovely acknowledgement of parental support from your DS.

I don’t think this is true in all cases. My dd has never been tutored, definitely not pushed, in fact had to stop her working to excess as she pushes herself way too hard. Her mental health is far more important than exam grades or which university she goes to.

defnotadomesticgoddess it's clearly the case that pressure can come from within, with no external pressure from parents at all. What I'm saying - and I think others too - is that parental pressure is often really quite harmful.

Thank you ofteninaspin. The same subject as your DD I think, on the sciencey end of the spectrum. Which is why DS4 is quite correct in his hunch that I won't read it - I wouldn't understand the slightest thing :)

I think the pressure can come from parents (but this is not unique to Oxbridge, I find lots of the Chinese/HK Chinese students at our uni also suffer from family expectations) but also lots of very internally driven perfectionist type people, and whoever said they are not that flexible sometimes is right. I see that I'm this type of person and I'm not flexible about goals, but I've got better over the years and no longer thing it's the end of the world if something doesn't happen the way I thought it would (hard lessons, not easily learned in the first year at uni!)

I think that is a little unfair.

My DC went to a high profile school, partly because it happened to be our nearest school in a area where state schools were troubled. (Unless you are an MP when catchments don't seem to be applied.)

DS applied to Cambridge, and was unhappy not to be offered a place. Not particularly because it was Cambridge, I don't think he gave his University choice that much thought, but because it was the first major rejection in his life. The school's advice had been sensible. He was good enough to thrive on an academic and mathematical course, but economics was very competitive and so he should apply to the four top courses of this type and be happy with whatever acceptance he got. After a very long wait and after rejections by UCL and Warwick, LSE offered him a place. The wait was hell. Once he got offered the LSE place he did not give Cambridge a second thought, and certainly would not have described it as a "redirection".

DD chose not to apply to Oxbridge even though she would have had school support. She later took a degree at Imperial. It would be reasonable to argue that the courses they took were as good as, if not better than the equivalent but less specialised degrees offered by Oxbridge. DS was offered a place at Oxford for Masters which he did not take up not least because staying at LSE was a sufficient platform for a funded PhD.

So...

I think there may have been advantages in going to Oxbridge. Certainly DS might have gained from mixing with students studying other subjects and the wealth of extra curricular available in colleges, and a lot is made of the advantages of the tutorial system. But other places offer other advantages. For DC these might have included:

• very few essays. A big one for them, and it certainly reduced the pressure. It obviously goes both ways and perhaps a requirement to write would have served them well, but hey.
• longer terms. More than that the LSE, and I think Imperial, are based on two 12 week terms and one six week exam term. Christmas and Easter vacations are then used for revision. More time to cover the material presumably helps relieve the work pressure.
• A different exam structure, so you sit half your finals at the end of the second year, making it possible to go into your final year with your degree classification pretty much assured. The compulsory and difficult technical courses tend to be at the end of the second year. Fail them and you may have to resit but you have not lost everything. Again less stressful.
• more group working. I am sure it happens at Oxbridge as well but the absence of individual tutorials did seem to mean that time was spent working things out with your peers. Imperial especially had a lot of group projects and assessments, whilst DS was strongly encouraged to support and get support from peers whilst writing his third year thesis. This may have left them more aware that others were not finding it easy either and allow them to feel less isolated.
• Again hard to define, but LSE/Imperial are very different to Oxbridge. You just need to walk around. I think a buzzy international and urban environment suited DC in a way that dreaming spires might not. One specific was that every student we know who went to Cambridge had a parent who was a high flying banker. Almost certainly this is a London observation, but both DC were quite happy to get away from some of the ambition they had witnessed in their schooldays.

In short, Oxbridge offers a lot of great things. But so do other places. DC are different as well. A lot is about fit and recognising what you want from a course.

Call that sour grapes if you will. We are very lucky in the UK to have a number of good Universities. I think part of the problem sometimes is that because Oxbridge can be elevated as if the two Universities are somehow above the rest, students there can feel a weight of expectation.