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?

(The Russian airport test is of course terribly subjective and ensures people hire people like they are so I am sure HR would not touch it with a barge pole. Indeed the idea you need colleagues you like is not necessarily best for business. The whole thing is a can of worms on all sides. However in life if you can make people like you that is a very good skill so always worth cultivating).

I would think most people would be more concerned by the 'open plan office' test than the Russian airport one!

Yes, Oxbridge is qualitatively different for many reasons. That doesn't mean there aren't excellent graduates from other universities too or that all Oxbridge graduates are stars. But on average Oxbridge graduates are more likely to form part of the élite (power, wealth, networks, academia etc) than students from other universities.

I don’t see why we cannot accept some people are just suited to elite jobs and others are not. Some are not remotely interested even if they are bright. They prefer something else and have more free time. Lots of people get opportunities to apply but there is many ways employers choose who they prefer. University id often not one of them. The skills learnt might well be. Or just a higher level of intelligence and test passing ability. Or even their ability to be personable and friendly. Of the universities and degrees mentioned, they might well get the grad over the starting line if anyone has drawn one up.

Does Oxbridge open doors or is it that Oxbridge graduates have the confidence and perhaps sense of entitlement to apply for high status careers? I have always thought there was a motivation for high achieving graduates to go for high profile careers so as not to 'waste' their potential or advantage.

I had an Oxford educated lecturer who back in the 90a was constantly bemoaning his salary compared to his peers at Oxford and as he wasn't a professor he sorely felt he hasn't lived up to his potential or met his salary expectations. I think the perhaps bitterness did come across in tutorials.

I think a lot of this debate is about expectation post uni and thatvwxpectation isn't necessarily fully aligned to the uni. Some people are ambitious in one way others are ambitious in others.

I think your critical thinking skills ( and knowledge of performance) are slightly off here.

Your A* grades point to a bright pupil who is very motivated AND does well in a very structured learning environment.

motivation can go up and down. Lots of people who studied very hard at school lose interest in studying at that tempo. ( in fact, I’d worry about the ones who do)

the brain doesn’t stop developing until 24 and some people just don’t have the maturity at 17 to study for exams- but by 19/20 they’ve hit their stride.

and university is very different from school- I know lecturers complaining about how students now expect to be babied and told what to research ( these are lecturer at top universities)

I’m many years from my graduation and I can tell you that not only is there little correlation between A* and firsts, but there is no strong correlation between how well my college friends are doing in real life ( financially and in other areas) and the degree they received.

The reason for the greater on average élite jobs/lifestyles of Oxbridge graduates are down to personality which is a multifaceted thing. Of course Oxbridge selects on entry for personality: the question that admissions ask is whether the applicant has star potential.

It is very hard to pick out what results in higher pay and what doesn't. In my profession (law) they are doing a lot of studies of it all, collect data on who went to fee paying school and all kinds of information, particularly as certain people are doing badly on the new multiple choice solicitor exams SQE1.

Parents might push children go to go as good a university as they attended or parents may have more money to be able to pay rents in Durham colleges or in Bristol and others might encourage a teenager to study at a university near home and live at home with no rent to pay as that is cheaper even if the local university is not as good.
Some families might think becoming a teacher is high paid work (because compared to family members that is high pay) and other families might regard £100k as a basic minimum income before tax they think their children ought to earn. Some people are so very rich they will never have to work so low paid work painting art works or trying and failing to get an acting job is what they will do. Other families in some cultures expect all girls after university (if they go there at all) to marry, serve men, have babies and never work).

In general it is best to try for the hardest to get into university where you have a good chance and have a reasonable back up below that as your second choice.

@Xenia Are there any strong hypotheses to account for the success or otherwise of candidates in the multiple choice SQE1?

Some other career paths (eg management consulting) have adopted standardised psychometric testing as the first filter for graduate applicants and it would be interesting to know whether it was possible to identify early markers that point to success.

Lol this obviously also has a huge amount to do with the prestige attached to the name and old networks – people hiring people like themselves. For example journalism, where Oxbridge graduates hire other Oxbridge graduates.

If hiring processes were blind (wrt university name), you’d see a much lower concentration of Oxbridge graduates in certain organisations and industries.

Obviously I’m not saying that there’s no value in an Oxbridge education or that there aren’t high-calibre individuals among these students due to the rigorous selection procedure. I’m saying this is nowhere close to the whole story.

When hiring processes are blind, graduates from élite universities outperform versus non-blind hiring processes.

Either way once DC's start applying for jobs in theory the companies are blinded to which university and the the first rounds are multiple guess questions on anything under the sun so whether it is a first or 2:1 is immaterial.
Combine that with the fact there are no relevant jobs for graduates.
I suppose if you have been to Oxbridge and the formal meals you do know how to set out the cutlery properly in your zero hours hospitality job

My AAA Dc got a 2.1 from one of your ‘other’ RG Unis and was head hunted for a dream job the week of graduation.

I have a 2.1 from Cambridge. I have worked and lived abroad. Nobody ever asked me what grade degree I had. All they heard was 'Cambridge' and it did its magic. I'm not saying that's right - but definitely Oxford.

So they weren't uni blind hiring?

@BadOsS Loads of employers don’t. Not every country worries like we do. The grand Ecoles still mean something in France as Harvard and MIT do in the USA. It’s only us that puts down talent and try to pretend all degrees are equal. Doesn’t get us anywhere. Just takes more time to sift applicants snd Oxbridge grads still get the jobs. Maybe the time wasted could be used for bumping up productivity?

Both my DC have 2.1 degrees from Cambridge. I can assure you that Cambridge on a cv still opens doors.

@jeanne16 What doors? Purely the name Cambridge or the skills they acquired? A friend of mine has a dc with a maths degree from Cambridge and doors have not noticeably opened. Mainly because he’s dull.

My DD with a degree from Bristol earns multiples of his salary.

What I think can matter is the critical mass at a uni wanting an elite job and the friends you make. If you think being a teacher is the best job for you because you are not attracted to high earning roles, then great. You will probably have similar friends. If you really want that hard to get job, and all your friends do too, the chances are you will get what you want. This applies to many universities that have a critical mass of DC who really want these jobs. It’s not just about family background either. Some people just grab opportunity and want the high paying roles and the lifestyle. Others just don’t.

DC1 got a graduate job with an Investment Bank and has stayed there since graduating.

When DC2 was applying 4 years ago, he heard back from every grad scheme he applied to. There were only a handful of companies doing blind applications.

@jeanne16
I think there’s more now doing this but it’s a lot more work to recruit. . DD is on her Chambers pupil selection committee and doesn’t find uni blind very helpful. It’s box ticking in many ways but the outcome is the same. It’s all about the right fit. Ambition matters a lot and how you present yourself.University is only part of the jigsaw puzzle and other students can join in or they would never get a high paying job. What I think Oxbridge does better is networking and self belief. Students there are in a sizeable group of ambitious people. Not so much at some universities.

It's only in the UK, 'Uni blind' is a thing. Outside of it employers are very uni conscious or at least are on a country level.

Ah okay interesting. What do you think is better?

DC2 works for a small company where CEO went to Brown. Will only look at cvs from Oxbridge in UK.

Clearly not!

@jeanne16 I really don’t understand that mentality. We do all know brilliant people don’t get into Oxbridge. Why would you not look at a maths grad from Imperial or Warwick? Or an economics grad from LSE. It’s totally bonkers and frankly somewhat ignorant.