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?

If Bristol has changed its core curriculum for history like that it must be attracting a different type of student from 15 years ago! Maybe that’s the earnings issue? Not getting higher paid jobs because they don’t want them? Previously many History grads at Bris were high flyers. DDs friends were! Or there’s an issue with who is responding to surveys! 5 years after graduating. Even Oxford’s figure has 50% earning less than £37,000. That’s pretty poor too.

Surely class of degree mainly matters for the first job. After that is experience on top of skills gained at University that will help.

Arguably Oxbridge teaches resilience and the ability to work quickly and under pressure. The tutorial system may mean that there is greater scrutiny of individual work. The college system encourages mixing with those studying other disciplines and trying out new sports and other activities.

There again the pace can be pretty brutal elsewhere (I'm thinking LSE and Imperial) and requiring quite a high degree of self-motivation.

I suggest that a DC is likely to gain most from the place that suits them best and where they are likely to engage most deeply. This might be Oxbridge for some, but not for others.

My naive view says Oxford

I think it depends on the person. I know people who thrived at Oxbridge, loved the course and got great jobs. I also know people who had a lot of mental health issues with the pressure, hated the course and never used their degree after graduation.

I'd be asking:

1. does she do well under pressure? Is she happy to be possibly mediocre amongst her peers or would she rather be top?
2. does she LOVE history. Really love it? Does she prefer the course content at one of them better? If she's not 100% sold on history, does one allow easier swapping of courses?
3. is there an extra curricular activity she wants to do that is much stronger at one than the other?

Tbh Bristol is an excellent uni and I doubt it will make much difference in terms of jobs.

Personally I made the mistake of going to Oxbridge despite it not being my top choice of course, because it was Oxbridge. I regretted it. But I think I could have been happy there doing something else.

Of course it won't be true in every case, but on average I think it is surely true, which is what matters for interpreting these stats. At least on purely academic factors. How many students do you think are accepted by Bristol and turned down by Oxbridge? How many the other way round. I'm too lazy too look up average A level grades achieved, but I would bet they are higher at Oxbridge.

I think a 2:1 from Oxford sounds better than a first from Bristol.

@pinkspeakers both universities set AAA as their entry requirement.

If that’s the case we have no idea how many people were capable of going to Oxbridge but chose Bristol, whether they put them on the UCAS form or chose to exclude them?

What I find most interesting is that the Oxbridge students are almost spoonfed and taught and advised what to research and have a good amount of contact hours. The students studying the same subject elsewhere have to have more initiatuve and self motivation due to one essay per module per term .....

Some thrive in the high contact environment, others don't

come on, this is mad. Obviously a 2:1 from Oxford will set her up better for life.

So long as you get a 2;1 every grad scheme is open to you. A 1st is good for the world of academia but if she enters the workforce nobody will care between the 2 grades.

The Oxford credential, by contrast, would follow her for life and also provide a helpful network. Also, I know this is pretty offensive, she'll more likely end up with a higher earning spouse from Oxford.

I also suspect it's probably harder for a smart person to get a 1st from bristol than a 2:1 from Oxford as at Bristol she would be more reliant on being self motivated rather than at Oxford where they have more tutorials and oversight, however I don't know for certain.

@muggart You think other unis don’t have alumni networks? Some employers seen to care about firsts but others care about a very wide set of attributes and skills. A first with not a day spent working might not be viewed as great. People who aren’t personable or interesting with a first might not do as well as someone with a 2:1. Motivation and ambition count for a lot. As for the spouse comment! Really? Ever heard of “sisters are doing it for themselves”? My DD is, and has, earnt more than any boyfriend! That includes the Cambridge educated one!

As others have said, it isn't as simple as that. She might arrive at Oxford, find she has a tutor and subjects that really suit her and fly and get a 1st. She might arrive at Bristol, lose her way and come out with a 2:2.

It's not a guaranteed one or the other, but I suspect she'd feel far worse if she'd taken her dm's advice and gone for Bristol and then doesn't get a 1st.

Presumably as far as the OP's colleague's daughter is concerned, this is in any event an entirely theoretical debate. If she's firmed Oxford on UCAS and achieved the required grades, any insurance choice will now have fallen away.

In my experience, many graduate schemes specify minimum 2:1. Whether those employers then rank applicants with a first ahead of those with a 2:1 (or carry out ranking according to where the degree was obtained) I don't know. I have not personally seen any graduate schemes that specify that applicants must have a first (or express a preference for candidates with a first).

I had the grades to go to Oxbridge. I opted not to apply. I wanted to pursue hobbies on Saturdays without having to skip lectures and tutorials. I wanted to have longer terms so I could have more time enjoying student life. I wanted the experience of a bigger city. I didn’t like the sound of the college system. I chose my uni not only on the department I would be in but also on the specific opportunities available outside of the lecture theatre.

A young person is likely to do best at the place they feel most comfortable. They have got to be able to fit in, make friends, knuckle down to some work, manage the workload, manage their own stress and enjoy their course before it’s even worth worrying about the reputation of a university and the degree classification on their job prospects. Durham, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge are all good unis. Who cares which they go to if the young person in question is happy and motivated.

In some circles people would be looked down on for going to any of those unis, Oxford and Cambridge more so. In others quite the opposite would be true.

Some people and employers will be impressed by a 1st, others will think it’s a likely indicator of poorer soft skills, perfectionism, someone who works too hard or even someone who both works and plays too hard.

I wanted to pursue hobbies on Saturdays without having to skip lectures and tutorials.
I don't think Oxbridge does Saturday lectures and tutorials, nor do most universities. The lecturers/tutors don't want to work weekends any more than the students.

Oxbridge students are almost spoonfed and taught and advised what to research and have a good amount of contact hours. The students studying the same subject elsewhere have to have more initiatuve and self motivation due to one essay per module per term
That's a very odd view. They have a high number of 1-2-1 contact hours, but aren't spoon-fed. That's the opposite to what the tutorial system is designed to produce and from the people I know who work in recruitment that's definitely not what they find.
I also don't see why only doing one essay per term would give them more initiative or motivation. It's going to depend on the course and the lecturer as to how much help they get, but I suspect if there's only one essay to do, then that gives far more scope for the lecturer to be able to say "I want it like this/researched like that" than an hour's tutorial where the majority of the time is spent in debating the previous week's essay.

Some people and employers will be impressed by a 1st, others will think it’s a likely indicator of poorer soft skills, perfectionism, someone who works too hard or even someone who both works and plays too hard. I doubt that many people, unless they have a chip on their shoulder, think that a 1st is an indicator or poorer soft skills etc any more than people would think that about someone who got a row of A*s at A-levels. People who gets 1st vary just as much as the people who get 2:1s or 2:2s in personality, and amount they work.

I have a first from a RG uni. She should go to Oxford.

Yes of course they do! But the Oxbridge alumni network will have more highly successful people in it than RG networks.

She's wrong - univeristies have benchmarking and invite external examiners from other universities to check students work to make sure standards/grades are comparable across the sectors.

TLDR - a first from one univeristy is the same standard as a first from any other university (inc Oxbridge etc).

If it is the same degree format and subject then the first is better, where you studied it is not relevant.

Horses for courses

It depends on the student. She has to look at both courses and workload and decide which she prefers.
I know people who went to Oxbridge and absolutely hated it, some carried on but I know two 19 year olds who were put under so much pressure that they became ill and had to leave. My own brother was offered a place at Cambridge but chose a different uni and has done exceptionally well in his adult life.

Snort.

Oxbridge is more than the degree. It's kudos, history and a very select experience.
Of course it won't determine a better outcome long term but it's a unique chance in its own right.

@amigafan2003 You actually think a first from Oxford is the same as a first from Wrexham University? Are you absolutely sure? You would be unique in the uk if you truly believe this.

Cards on the table, my son is Cambridge reject for History who will be going to Durham.

Durham/Bristol are likely to be less pressured as they have longer terms, Oxbridge are more prestigious and possibly a 2:1 from there would be held in higher regard than a 1st from elsewhere - I don’t know, but think it is possible.

What I would dispute is the implied certainty the mother has that simply because her daughter got into Oxford that would automatically qualify her as one of the top students at Durham or Bristol.

UCAS now publishes the most common, highest and lowest grades achieved by accepted students. For Durham the most common grade is A star, A star, A star vs A star, A star, A for Oxford. The highest (A star, A star, A star) and lowest (A,A,B) are the same for both. I wouldn’t read too much into this either though- it just shows it is nuanced.

Which is 'better' will depend on the individual, where they thrive, how they develop as a person, and how much they learn not just the grade they get at the end.

My dd had a similar choice (made at the appropriate time when deciding whether to firm Cambridge or another uni). Honestly I think she'd have been absolutely fine either way, there wasn't a wrong answer just a choice of 2 alternative good ones!