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?

Also her degree class will only be relevant for the first few years of her career.

All CVs I see of younger graduates have the degree class in. For more experienced hires it's not always there, but the university always is.

If Oxford was her firm choice and she has achieved the grades then she will be going there. I assume this is a theoretical discussion and not àn actual choice.

I too got a 'Desmond' many, many years ago when only about 10 percent of school leavers went on to university - this was the same for almost all of my contemporaries.
We had one friend who got a first, and a few more with 2.1 but 2.2.s were the norm, followed by Thirds.
These days, looking at DS and his friends/contemporaries a 2.1 is definitely the norm and anything less is vastly inferior and a bit of a failing. He and nearly all his friends went to RG institutions.
I don't know whether this is grade inflation or something else but I do know that in my day if you got a 2.1 you had a decent chance of going on to do an MA while these days you need a first.
Incidentally, both DH and I have had good, well-paid professional careers despite the shame! DS is also doing very well in his chosen field.

For something like Medicine or Engineering where students that would get a 2:1 at another uni fail at Oxbridge yes. I’ve heard a lot of medics who regret going to Oxbridge for that reason.

For anything else no. Oxford has much more of a wow factor than a first.

I do a lot of senior level recruitment for civil service and government departments the name of the university is always redacted.
However I went to Durham and a first is absolutely not a cake walk, they are very very difficult to come by.

Many City employers are trying to proactively increase the number of non-Oxbridge students. A 1st from Bristol/Durham would be viewed more favourably than a 2.1 from Oxford at my firm.

It’s all a bit hard to say as Oxford is flux in terms of its intake, which then necessarily impacts on the student body ( and on the academic body) and that in turn must filter through to employment. Edited to add the other moving part is the extent to which employers are also participating in the equal opportunities approach and how an oxbridge degree fares on that front. Once I’d have said go to Oxford but the old certainties aren’t there.

This depends on what profession she wants to pursue.
Quite a few work places now have non bias application forms where you don't put in the name of your uni at all.
Others still value to the "oxbridge" graduate.

I think her mum has worded it incorrectly she should want her daughter to go and do something she enjoys learning in a place where she enjoys.

I mean, she could get a 1st at Oxford, which would be the best of all. I don't know why you'd pass on that opportunity if it was open to you, just based on the presumption, right or wrongly of the likelihood of getting a 1st. It's hardly a walk in the park getting a 1st any where is it? If Oxford offers the university experience she wants, Oxford it should be. And given so many career opportunities are still based on connections, I'd wager Oxford offers a better chance to make the connections that may make a difference.

If employers really are choosing their employees purely on where they went to uni no wonder the country's productivity is so poor.

There has been massive grade inflation at universities. That is why getting a 2.2 makes a degree pretty worthless, since most students get a 2.1 or 1st these days.

There is also no way of assessing or comparing different unis or courses. My DS had to work really hard at Cambridge to get his 2.1. Most of his school friends got 1sts at their various RG unis, seemingly with little effort. My DS got quite despondent about it at one point.

However, in spite of everyone saying jobs are now uni blind, my DS has found Cambridge on his CV to be very helpful.

Neither is guaranteed. Where the daughter want to go?

I'm a hiring manager for a grad scheme and would consider the two to be approximately equal. So in that regard I'd be recommending Oxford (because it's Oxford).

It's when you get slightly lower down the rankings (think Bath or Lancaster) when I'd say the Oxford 2:1 is significantly better than the 1st from elsewhere.

Some do and some don't.

Some want graduates who fit into nice little boxes, while others prefer mature graduates.

We tried that a few years ago (anonymising the university name) and it was a complete disaster. The quality of candidates brought in for interview dropped like a stone.

I think it's bonkers to say that getting a degree from Bristol will limit your employment opportunities in future. It's Bristol, not the University of Weston-super-Mare.

It's also pretty hard to get a first from Bristol, so on that basis I think the likelihood of getting a first or not is a stupid reason for choosing Bristol over Oxford.

So does that mean a 2:2 from Oxford is a 2:1 from a RG? Therefore a 2:2 from a RG is like a 2:1 from an ex Poly? Does it even work like that?

Your DD needs to decide. One of the biggest reasons it's 'high pressure' at Oxbridge is because the terms are so bloody short so they have to cram all the teaching in.
Also depends if your DD knows what she wants to do as a career, some sectors still like an Oxbridge grad (law springs to mind), other sectors will use the degree classification as a sifting mechanism in job applications.

@theurbanpigeon
A friend of mine did Geography at Bristol Uni (in the 90s admittedly but presumably how much is required of them is the same now?) He had to complete several essays every week and read several books every week too.
As for Oxford Uni colleges being more diverse than Bristol Uni - ha thats hilarious. Big nope to that.
Its also crazy to suggest that attending Bristol Uni will forever affect her future career negatively. My impression is that yes attending Oxford can be beneficial but equally plenty of employers wont be as narrow minded (as you seem to be!) and will actually prefer applicants who've attended somewhere more diverse (ie not Oxford!)

There is no direct line between 2:1 at Oxford and a 1st elsewhere! Especially not Durham
or Bristol. When posters say DC don’t work at these unis and breeze a first from them it’s utter cobblers. It’s talk between young people. Also some dc are bright at Durham and Bristol and could have gone to Oxford in a different era. It’s totally untrue to say they are not talented. Plus employers recognise this.

Both Bristol and Durham grads can get great jobs. As Oxbridge ones can. If they want them. At uni blind employers they still find the academic cream rises and all dc with firsts are absolutely not the same. Nor is a 2:1 from Oxford going to necessarily beat a 2:1 from Durham: other qualities like personality and skills also matter. Also a 2:2 from anywhere can be a barrier to getting into a grad scheme. Even with Cambridge maths!

You don't know whether she'll get a first from either uni though... My niece was in this situation when she was deciding where to do law and was advised to go for the uni she was most likely to get a first at, as that's what law firms would look for. In the end she went for the higher ranked uni, worked hard and got a first anyway.

Tricky one. Oxford is 2nd in the UK History league tables; Bristol 12th.

Oxford is also 2nd in the global university rankings, Bristol 50-100th.

You cannot compare a 1st from one vis a vis a 2:1 from the other as that is a nonsence. At this stage the student could leave either uni with a 2:2. Both are intellectually rigorous and the criteria for the degree is monitored by the CQC to ensure robustness of both. It will be the uni that she is happiest in that will lead to the better result (and that may not actually be material enough to distinguish between a 1st or a 2:1)

Oxford grads have a 93% employment record 15m post graduating (40% go on to a Masters, another 30% onto professional exams etc); ave post grad salary £38.8k after 5 years

Bristol grads survey in 2021, 60% were employed, 29% in further ed/training; ave salary 5 years post graduation £29.9K

On balance, a degree from Oxford is generally more marketable but it does depend on what the student thinks they may want to do afterwards.

If student loved Oxford, she should go for it; if she felt out of place, over-awed or is ambivalent, then maybe Bristol is a safer bet.

Even that is putting the cart before the horse a bit. As of now, Durham has no places at all in Clearing for home students. No idea about Bristol. But did either of them have places available for History even at 8am on Thursday?

I think you'll find that a higher proportion get firsts these days.

The salary from Bristol is very low. 5 years after graduating? My DD isn’t a history grad from there but has friends who are. They all work in London and earn at least double that!