2.1 from Oxford or 1st from Bristol/Durham

[kekeke]

Could someone help settle a debate I had with a work colleague. Her daughter has just got her a level results and got AAA which means she met the entry requirements for her offer of History at Oxford (Balliol).

The mum was more keen for the daughter to accept Bristol or Durham, citing that she’ll have less pressure and it will be a lot easier to get a first there than Oxford (probably true). So the mum thinks getting a 1st from Bristol will be better than getting a 2.1 from Oxford.

Thoughts?

@ErrolTheDragon Yes, some things to show commitment and leadership and time management, but pursuing a hobby first and work being second isn’t great.

The people he'd have been interviewing would obviously have very good academic records too which showed they weren't all play and no work. Not the (probably long outdated) stereotype of a Blue with a Third!

@ErrolTheDragon why “obviously”? Many managers and even DH as an owner interviewed for non grad jobs on occasions. Not everyone comes with stellar academic credentials! In business you would not expect your PA to have a first class degree from Oxbridge! You would be looking for other attributes!

@ErrolTheDragon is referring to the recruitment of research scientists. So yes, obviously a solid academic record.

That’s a very very narrow field. It’s not business in general. Or even the state sector in general. So degrees matter more or less - depending upon job. Employers must have fair selection criteria. Academics I rather suspect, choose people like them! Others have a broader list of attributes. It’s just how it is.

Well yes. But even for something like being a research scientist (industry, not academia) where the degree matters a lot (and demonstrates commitment to work not just play which was the point being clarified), an appropriate level of outside interests was also deemed a useful criterion.

I think most employers want a rounded person. This is why university and degree aren’t everything to many employers. There’s a lot more that they look for.

I just graduated from Durham last year with a 2.1. I got three A stars at A Level and so did most of my Durham friends of which only a couple got firsts. Considering it seems there are no A stars in those A Levels, it is certainly not guaranteed that she would get a first either way. If she has the opportunity to go to Oxford she should definitely go there if that’s the university experience she is looking for. The whole debate is a ridiculous way to choose a university.

Seriously ? Do you realise where Bath and Lancaster are ranked these days?

Yep and if you’re looking at Linguistics Lancaster is really the number 1 – something like 3rd in the world

Cambridge is number one for linguistics but Lancaster is indeed a brilliant institution for the subject. Historically, world rankings have it as MIT, Cambridge and then Lancaster.

Yep there’s a hair’s breadth between them – Cambridge is 92.9, Lancaster 92.7 – with MIT number 1 globally with 99.2 and Oxford at number 4 with 92.2. (According to QS ranking.)

LOL have you been near management consultancies, investment banks, private equity funds etc? The last thing they want are rounded people. They want people who can spend 100 hours at work every week for years and think that the gym constitutes a hobby and deliveroo a lifestyle.

There isn't a strong correlation between all A* at A-level and Firsts.

LOL have you been near management consultancies, investment banks, private equity funds etc?

Mercifully not, and while these may be the fabulously paid jobs they're not typical and not what the majority aspire to (if aspire is the right word).

I took this to mean one essay per course per term rather than in total.

@ErrolTheDragon I agree. Not everyone wants these jobs.

Also who says these young people don’t need to have a personality? DD1 has friends who work for high flying jobs such as city law and banking and they are lovely people. They are interesting and fun. It’s easy to characterize people as robots but some will meet clients!

Hi CorWotcha. Only mentioned this as you stated Lancaster was No.1. This is, as you accepted, not the case. There is also a significant difference in entry requirements between Lancaster and Cambridge for Linguistics with minimum offers AAB and Astar AA respectively. This becomes even more stark at IB with 35 minimum for Lancaster as opposed to 41/42 for Cambridge.

For the very long hours high paid City/finance/law jobs you need someone very physically and mentally strong (never ill etc) but are not allowed to ask that these days. May be if they sport they are probably not so depressed they never leave their bedrooms and play video games all night and are probably a bit happier and fit. You also need someone who is able to and prepared to work all night for no extra pay and that kind of thing.

However colleagues will be working with that person so the stuck at a Russian airport test may be is right - would you want to be stuck on the arctic circle at an airport for 19 hours with a plane delay on a business trip with this new graduate or are they as dull as ditch water and no fun?

Which is still woefully incorrect and a myth those at Oxbridge like to believe

I am going to mention the Russian airport fest to DH as he tends to use the go down the pub test!

There is a qualitative difference between an assessed essay rooted in primary research over several weeks/months and an essay churned out from secondary sources in a library over the course of a week. The two have their merits but are not comparable.

Quite right @Ceramiq. There are lots of reasons for this - subject studied, number of subjects studied, type of exam/assessment, more equal access to resources, greater dependency on self-motivation and less actual 'teaching' to name just a few.

Most employers (with the exception of magic circle law firms and some City financial institutions) aren't that bothered about A level results when recruiting graduates. Most universities aren't when students are applying for post-graduate study.

Sure, and it would be deeply unfair on students applying for post-graduate study were they to be judged on their earlier, far less advanced achievements. One of the things I really value about the UK university system is how well it rewards students who do exceptionally well in their undergraduate degree regardless of institution (which is so dependent on socio-economic background and prior achievements in circumstances over which people have very little control, given that schooling is chosen by parents).

I hate this Oxbridge snobbery and it's depressing that it's still prominent today. Are they really that much better than every other UK university these days? I went to Birmingham 30 years ago and my DCs aren't uni age yet (but getting there far too quickly for my liking!) so don't know much about them these days but it all smacks of elitism to me.

The child in question should just go to the uni she wants to not gamble on possible grades in 3/4 years time.