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?

This OP.
Also Oxford carries a cachet that other universities don't have. The man on the street even internationally (if they know anything about foreign universities at all!) know Oxford. The same way they know Harvard and Yale.

From a recruitment perspective 1st Vs 2:1 makes little difference. Especially for humanities subjects where a first is just as hard to get at any other academic university.

Personally I'd be more worried about the workload - if DC will struggle to handle they're not only likely to develop MH issues but also, won't be getting the experience that matters more
Joining clubs, societies, work experience etc.

Applying for internships for example is a job in itself and they start at the beginning of year 2, usually when course difficulty starts to ramp up.

At Cambridge/Oxford you get a masters degree.

Oxford.

No you don't.
www.new.ox.ac.uk/oxford-ma-0

Also OP she can transfer elsewhere after the first year if she cannot cope (although it'll be a somewhat different student experience and not easy as modules etc must match)
.there's no shame in it.

But if she doesn't choose Oxford she'll always be wondering what if.

In respect of academic work presented for a degree, yes.

I've worked in HE - I have taught at and graduated from Lancaster (top 10 UK uni) with a Ph.D and I've taught at a local college delivering HE - we had a Cambridge professor as our external examiner who verified the standard of our students work to be the same as their own for each relevant classification. I've also been an external examiner for Durham and for Keele and yes, the standard of work presented at both is the same for a first class etc.

Now, non-academically, there is a world of difference between Wrexham and Oxford ofc.

My experience is a couple of decades old but certainly my 2:1 from Cambridge (stem subject) has bought me more kudos in my career than contemporaries who had firsts in that subject from other RG unis. A few of us graduated at the same time, trained in our career at the same time, did phds and I have found more promotions and opportunities. I think one certainly is more capable than me but I have been lucky that employers seem to love Cambridge. Also as others have said it’s a uni experience somewhat unique and really not to be turned down lightly, but harder work than I ever imagined and certainly harder than I know anyone else worked. It was extreme to be honest.

I recently interviewed 5 candidates for a role in my department. Not history, but wanted to comment for context.
On paper Candidate A was strong, a Batchelors and Masters from Oxford. In reality, he mentioned Oxford 37 times during the 30 minute interview (I kept a tally after the first few), very much expecting that to carry him through, whereas I didn't shortlist him, as an over reliance on a location rather than the substance was jarring.
In the end I took on someone with a lower class degree (BSc only) from a Midlands university.
So considering the location as an enhancement may not be the right focus before she's even started, as others have said, the teaching style and environment are much more important.

My bad. They very much did have Saturday lectures for my subject (a million miles from history) when I was applying as I queried how it worked if you were away for a weekend with a hobby, but they possibly no longer do.

Maybe at your uni, but the research is clear, there is a correlation between As and A stars at A level and firsts.

I would grab Oxford with both hands. It's a beautiful city and the colleges are stunning. You'll mix with some of the brightest young people in the world.

Bristol is non comparable IMO, although a perfectly good uni.

If she’s ever interested in leaving the UK, then Oxford is infinitely preferable regardless of result. No other uni mentioned on this thread other than Oxbridge mean anything to anyone outside the UK.

I went to the toughest uni in my country. If I’d stayed at home just having a degree from there would have had the same cachet as Oxbridge does in the UK. Instead I came to London and it was completely unknown. It’s the same reaction from people elsewhere who stare blankly if I mention Bristol or Durham - or even Imperial which is currently ranked 8th in the world! People only have a few spaces in their brain for names of “world class unis”. Just think about who in the UK has ever heard of anywhere other than a handful of unis from any other country (probably all in the US) - that’s how others will view Bristol.

Is the OP coming back?

Why did the mother let her apply in the first place? Is this a contextual offer?

The whole premise of the question is thoroughly unpleasant- rather than happily accepting the Oxford place she presumably wanted and worked hard for, she should somehow play the system by taking a place she wanted less in the hope of an easier ride she may well not get. Poor daughter.

Whether a first from Bristol is better depends on lots of things, such as the sort of job she ends up applying for. But seeing as going to Bristol doesn’t guarantee a first any more than going to Oxford guarantees a 2.1, the question is moot. She should go to the university she prefers, presumably Oxford if that was her firm choice.

FWIW, I think the Oxbridge tutorial system is second to none in terms of the academic opportunities it gives you- if you love your subject, having several hours a week to discuss it 1-1 or 2-1 with a world expert is an outstanding opportunity. But who cares about that when you could instead be gambling on what some theoretical future employer will think of some theoretical future degree you may or may not get 🙄

My incredibly hardworking DS is at a RG uni doing history (sorry, also not Durham or Bristol - I know, horrifying!). He got significantly higher grades than the DD in the OP and is getting 2:1s all through.

A first is not a given, especially in such subjectively marked subjects.

It really is quite the leap to assume a first is predestined at any university.

Probably a made up post by a mum whose dc didn't get into Oxbridge and is trying to make herself feel better?

'let' her? A parent may give advice but it should be the student's choice.
And once that choice has been made - as appears to be the case here, the girl has a place now - then best the parent is wholeheartedly supportive, not indulge in speculation as to what might have happened elsewhere and certainly never 'I told you sos' (particularly in this case...some kids do or don't thrive at various unis for all sorts of unpredictable reasons )

The OP wasn’t talking about her DD. It was someone else at work who was wondering this! So don’t quite know why op is getting a hard time.

It’s fairly clear that some unis give lots of firsts. Neither do i remotely believe all firsts are the same standard or prepare students to be the best in the workplace.

Neither are they all very bright but subject makes a huge difference. They find a niche that suits them but they don’t necessarily have a greater level of all round intelligence. I’ve met a few people I know are amazingly intelligent. Most got to Oxbridge. One went to Durham. I’ve met others with firsts and their exam results were mediocre until they got to uni. Generally the brightest dc are excelling all the way through. People don’t suddenly get ultra bright. I’ve seen people with a first fail to get employment. Uni study doesn’t always translate to being a great fit at work.

I would always say Oxford but not if it’s going to be stressful. AAA is frankly the lowest they accept. Pre testing must have gone well though and interview. The DM here is wrong to think elsewhere is a shoe in for a first with AAA.

However CCC is ok for a first at lots of places!

I agree with everything you say in your first post but defy you to find the data which supports your second assertion!

A lot can happen at University - those 3 x A in no way guarantee a 1st or a 2:1 or even any degree at all. It's a very odd discussion imho.

The oddest thing is the belief that you can turn down your firm offer after results in favour of your back up. You can't. It's a contract.

Can I just point out that the ‘one essay a term’ thing isn’t true? I did history at an RG uni and had 6-8 (usually pretty long) essays a term. Plus lots of other stuff to do. I graduated two years ago.

Also, Durham is collegiate like Oxbridge (for the people who have brought the college system up).

I know that they have insane work loads at Oxbridge, all crammed into very short terms, but we’re not just pissing about at other universities either.

I do think it’s mad to turn down Oxford because you might, theoretically, get better grades elsewhere though.

Exactly. The daughter has applied, been interviewed and worked hard to meet her offer. If the mother is about to pull the rug from under her feet and tell her she has to decline the offer and go to Bristol then why go through all that in the first place?

@Piggywaspushed Assuming you mean me. I know several DC with a first and CCC at A level. They are not that bright in terms of academics but found their niche. Lots of courses ask for CCC or even less. Of course at low tariff unis students get firsts with these A levels.In fact lots of firsts at some! Often the degrees are not very academic and DCs would not get to a RG or equivalent for an academic subject. So they take what they can get. Employers do know this and it’s why some uni students earn more than others overall. It’s not a level playing field when all aspects of a candidate are taken into account.