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

How does your programme recognise young people that went through state school and managed to get into Oxbridge, and then get a lower grade because the work is that much harder? I get that the Oxbridge system brings bias in that private schools are over represented - but aren't you penalising/missing out on young people who have beaten the odds, and still done very well?

@PelicanPopcorn just because you go to a state school doesn’t necessarily mean you are disadvantaged.

we have a mentorship program that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can apply for.

Quite a number of DC's peers went to Oxford. Some loved it, a few were unhappy - often not the ones you would expect, and often not for academic reasons. The proportions were roughly the same as those who went elsewhere.

So we knew people who transferred from Oxford to Warwick and to the US, and others who moved from Imperial to Bristol, and Bristol to UCL and who transferred from Loughborough and from Southampton. Equally others who were unhappy in their first year but then found the subsequent years easier.

The key thing is to try to work out what is going wrong, and whether it is fixable.

• will the course get more interesting or more manageable in the second year
• will accommodation change. Not Oxbridge, but DD was a lot happier sharing a flat with other sporty girls rather than the very druggy and slovenly crew she was with in her first year.
• is there scope to meet others through shared interests. University sports or societies. One boy we knew was unhappy until he opted for town rather than gown and made non student friends.
• Is there scope to improve study techniques. Too often the instinct, when faced with University workloads, is to work harder, when actually you are better off working smarter. Is there support that would enable him to examine his current approach and see how he can open up time to relax and be social.

And so on.

If the fit, either course, culture or place, just isn't there he needs to decide whether to slog it out as an active decision, or to transfer with the accompanying where and how.

I look back at when I was a (dozy) student and wonder about the MN focus, and claimed expertise, about employers. Young people, by definition, don't have much experience and day to day stuff is more of a challenge than it would be for us. Basic things like how you deal with flatmates who don't wash up or whose noise wakes you up or keeps you awake. How you deal with a heavy work load, pick yourself up following perceived failure, how you build friendships in a new environment as well as the more tricky things like drugs and relationship drama.

Employability will depend as much on maturity, confidence and resilience as much as the class of degree. Yes, without a first he might be filtered out of some of the more competitive grad schemes but others will as well. Bright, sensible young people are in demand and will find a way in and then rise. Within a couple of years people will stop asking about class of degree.

The first step in the process is for him to consider his options in a positive way, seek advice where he can and then make an active decision and own it. If he decides he has taken a wrong path, it is not a failure. Equally if he decides to stick it out but to take steps to ensure that his next two years are more enjoyable, all credit to him. Further down the line some of his peers will find that they are in a job they don't like but are better off sticking it out for a couple of years than jumping immediately.

Good luck.

We were generally trying to hire from the top quarter of Phd graduates from very good unis. We were looking for depth of understanding and intellectual curiosity. And yes, we interviewed and rejected people with firsts (and indeed PhDs) from Cambridge and Oxford because they were fairly well drilled, but unexceptional.
30 years ago a first class degree was rare. Now they're awarded to around 30% of a cohort. If someone scraped a first but was not in the top quartile of their graduating class, that's not the kind of background we were looking for.

Gosh. I would have been delighted to scrape a first! It’s very tough for young people these days. No wonder mental health is such a massive problem for them. Everything is so competitive.

Yes but all this is completely irrelevant to the OP and her son, who is not studying a PhD and will never be applying for the kind of technical role you are talking about.

And I also refuse to believe that someone who “scraped” a first at Cambridge, in any subject, is “ordinary” academically, or only got in because of their school. It must make you feel really superior to reject these people though and then post about it on mumsnet…

Bottom line is, OP’s son has an amazing opportunity and it will benefit him for the rest of his life, whatever his degree result. There’s also no guarantee of doing better if he moves to another university, as standards at eg Durham and Nottingham where his friends are, are also extremely high.

I have a question for the posters who say that they use blind recruitment to hire new grads.

There is no question that it is harder to get a first or 2:1 from some universities than others. Otherwise, the probability of getting a first at the low ranked universities, who take students with significantly lower A level results, would be much smaller than it is.

So how does that fit with blind recruitment? Do you think it seems fair to ignore this?

At Cambridge, for humanities, HSPS seems to be mentioned a lot as far a workload goes. Why is this when in theory you take the same number of papers as every other course?

My former law firm used CV blind recruitment - as long as a candidate got a 2.1 they would get through the first “filter”. They would then have to do various tests - psychometric, group tasks and interviews.

To get a training contract with a law firm you don’t even need a law degree so there’s no logical reason why we should prioritise someone who got a first over a 2.1 in any subject - as long as you have a minimum level of skills it’s about performance across a range of things that degrees don’t always test. Unsurprisingly however candidates who had gone to top universities tended to perform very well in our own tests too.

However, no qualified law jobs are ever CV blind. Quite the opposite. When I moved firms at 7 years qualified there were various firms that would only recruit from certain universities (usually US firms) and my degree result was mentioned at numerous interviews.

@Harrietm87 - do you think that is maybe because US firms are checking your network/client tapping potential - and for Oxbridge it can be even more of a network than the most famous private schools? The alumni programme is huge and you can go back for formal hall at any time etc etc. and if you are a lawyer and trying for partnership knowing a ton of bankers from you uni days is helpful?

The training is supposed to show. For example when (parts of, or the whole of?) the Civil Service switched to blind recruiting, the proportion of successful Oxbridge applicants increased. (My understanding is that on the whole this was achieved by taking the high road.)

@OmuraWhale - https://jobs.cliffordchance.com/how-we-hire-london

You can read up on the first magic circle firm that started blind recruitment many years ago.

These top firms know how to train graduates really well and invest a lot of time and money in doing so. They have rafts of tests to assess them. Interpersonal skills, quick thinking, creative solutions are all very important in the job market (just to name a few examples). They don’t want to waste their resources on graduates who do not make the cut after the 2 year on job training programme.

In some ways, Oxbridge is great preparation because you have to manage a huge workload and still make the most of the place while still remaining sane. In addition, I bet loads of Oxbridge graduates have very high innate reasoning skills (either verbal or non verbal off the scale).
However, there is also a contradiction with Oxbridge in that they say that in their recruitment process they focus primarily on experts who are passionate about their subjects and real specialists. I think a lot of City jobs do not just require real specialists, they require really broad skills and specialism at the same time. Interpersonal & communication skills and team skills/leadership, in particular, are very important, as well as the big one, resilience. Personally, all the really successful people I know are also really disciplined and all exercise very regularly to keep energetic and balanced as well. And they do not fuss about small things, they are good at seeing the big picture.

Thank you @harrietm87 @Araminta1003 @poetryandwine for these helpful replies.

The message I'm getting is that blind recruitment works best if the firm has a well-established recruitment process with a clear picture of the skills they're looking for.

However, there is also a contradiction with Oxbridge in that they say that in their recruitment process they focus primarily on experts who are passionate about their subjects and real specialists. I think a lot of City jobs do not just require real specialists, they require really broad skills and specialism at the same time. Interpersonal & communication skills and team skills/leadership, in particular, are very important, as well as the big one, resilience. Personally, all the really successful people I know are also really disciplined and all exercise very regularly to keep energetic and balanced as well.

The contradiction there is perhaps with what oxbridge say they focus on in recruitment vs their output ...the qualities you describe largely overlap with those many of its students exhibit and need to thrive.

It’s extraordinary and eye-opening that so many people feel that Oxbridge students have the heaviest workloads. The vast majority of students at ‘lesser’ universities are also working part time in conjunction with their studies in order to pay their way. I’d think that they deserve the same if not more credit. I know very high flying lawyers who did exactly this which is probably why they are now at the top of their professions.

An excellent point. I always discuss any employment in letters of reference, particularly for UGs, because I agree with you

Not that my university is so much ‘lesser’

I am so glad you say that @poetryandwine

“The contradiction there is perhaps with what oxbridge say they focus on in recruitment vs their output ...the qualities you describe largely overlap with those many of its students exhibit and need to thrive.”

I wonder whether Cambridge relies somewhat on self selection and just hopes that those who apply have a good look around first to realise what qualities they may need to thrive there? I am not sure whether like with top private schools or law firms they are allowed to question whether the environment itself will suit the student in question? (I always thought they focus on academic performance primarily?)

@Araminta1003 it may be, but I actually got the sense it was more a reflection of the US firms not necessarily understanding the U.K. system/perhaps trying to replicate how they do it in the US. Unlike U.K. firms, many US firms don’t train lawyers so want a quick way of filtering the lateral market, and it’s an easy criterion to provide the recruiter with so they can say they’ve ticked the “elite” box.

Perhaps things will change as these firms become more established in the local market.

Exactly. The OP would do well to encourage her son to get a job with some responsibility over the summer and gaining some real world experience

I expect a 2:1 from Cambridge would probably top a first from Nottingham, Durham etc......

You are strongly discouraged from getting a proper term time job at Oxbridge? I think many do work in the college bar for extra cash and some tutor online regularly (and that sphere is really booming now). But it is much rarer to have students there working in supermarkets etc every day. The 8 week term and intense workload is too much.
I assume many do work in the long holidays and then also do internships etc as well as further study.

I don’t think top employers care whether you grew up on a council estate, worked your way into a great uni, worked on the side, showed amazing resilience and dynamism vs whether you got a full scholarship at Eton and a Harvard rowing scholarship. The personality type and potential will be the same. They are just looking for the best and most ambitious candidates.

I take your point but a great many Oxbridge students work during the holidays - I and the vast majority of my friends did. You aren't allowed to work during term time because there's so much work, but I wouldn't have been able to go if I didn't earn anything.

You're making the assumption that only rich people go to Oxbridge, which is totally untrue. The entire time I was there my parents gave me a total of £150. The rest was self-funded through student loans and me working.

Sorry for contributing to the thread derail! OP, I hope your son works through it. As PP said, realising you are only 'average' in some settings is a big (and needed) part of the Oxbridge experience ...

Agree, what a bizarre way of recruiting - definitely not the case at the civil service or other trad government schemes, and financial organisations actively target Oxbridge students and top US and European universities. Also Oxbridge students have access to internships within companies which target those universities.

As for state schools, Oxbridge has been better at recruiting those kids for years now.

Anyway OP, most people know that a second class degree from Cambridge is generally more attractive to employers than a first from Durham or Nottingham which are first class Universities anyone would be proud to attend but are not Oxbridge.

That is not to say your son should remain there if he is unhappy. I left my university after year one and started again. Plenty do.