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?

Just want to comment on the regular claim that Oxbridge has short terms. While that is true, at least they have 3 of them. Other unis now seem to have 2 full terms and then a 3rd term of about a week, finishing in early May.

My DS never finished until late June.

Yes, and I await recent data in this, not anecdata with recent evidence of courses that actually ask for CCC. BCC or BBC is standard. Sure, some may in reality have achieved CCC but usually there is a backstory to low achieving entrants who get firsts. Often those are mature entrants or those from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as care leavers.

If it is the same degree format and subject then the first is better.

just looked up stats for UK and
about 30% of degrees get firsts nowadays. However it ranges from about 20-37% depending on subject.

Looking at popular degrees for example business and management is harder to get a first in at 20%. Computing is easier at 42%. Maths way easier, and so is physics and engineering and medicine, vet and dentistry much harder to get a first.

Can you see history?

Looking at popular degrees for example business and management is harder to get a first in at 20%. Computing is easier at 42%. Maths way easier, and so is physics and engineering

Would be interesting to know if those stats are actually showing something like A level grades where a naive interpretation would be that FM is the easiest to get an A* in

Most people would advise going to Oxford with those two choices (and I write that as a lawyer mother with 4 lawyer children - last 2 qualified this year, 3 of which went to Bristol (and did not try for Oxbridge).
If she chooses Bristol and still gets a 2/1 (not that there is anything wrong with a 2.1) the whole plan has not worked and she cut off her nose to spite her face. Better to stick with Oxford.

The point is, though (which I highlighted way upthread, and more than one other poster has since), it isn't a question of choosing Durham or Bristol as an alternative to Oxford, not for 2024 entry, unless either of those had History available first thing on Thursday morning, the DD in question released herself into Clearing straightaway, nipped in and applied and was successful in securing a place.

She had Oxford as her firm, she made her offer, she is therefore going to Oxford, unless she turns them down, either to release herself into Clearing, or altogether. The only certainty about that would be 'not going to Oxford this year'; whichever university she had as her insurance, that place melted away as soon as the system was updated with the information that the Oxford place was secured.

I suspect that it really doesn't matter. Your degree is a tiny part of career success; other characteristics matter much more in the long run.

Often people who are extremely academically successful aren't actually that successful in career terms.

This makes no sense as gif mother csn have no idea what the DC will achieve, degree class wise, at either uni.

As the recruitment consultant upthread said, I’m not convinced it makes a huge difference.

Ive worked with plenty Oxbridge grads. Was at RG uni myself ( before it was such a thing) and I have to say the quality as an employee varies just as much as anywhere. Some are brilliant, some average and some awful.

academic ability is one small part of what makes someone a great employee.

while there is a vague ‘oooh this one went to Oxford’ when considering applications, it doesn’t matter as much as how someone performs in interview and how they fit into wider team

@Piggywaspushed My nearest uni has nearly every course listed as 88-112 Ucas points from a variety of qualifications. This includes civil engineering and criminology and law. CCD is 88. Some courses say only 2 A levels are needed. These are arts subjects but do they need to be degrees? I don’t think so. The idea that it’s all adults applying is ludicrous. Look at the shiny new halls! I guess you also think this uni awards no firsts. It does but they aren’t going to compete with law at Durham are they?

I researched history in clearing at 8am on results day as my ds is applying next year. Neither Durham nor Bristol were in clearing for history. Other RG were but not those two.

That's impressive forward planning!

@Ellerby83 These two are still hugely popular for this subject and Oxford takes around 1 in 4 applicants for History single honours and has nearly 900 applicants, of whom they shortlist nearly 700. We all know very many bright dc don’t get in. So they go elsewhere and the unis mentioned will get quite a few of them. Many will have better than AAA at A level.

With sons at Bristol and Oxford, I would without doubt recommend Oxford. If the child is bright, robust and hard-working of course. The Oxbridge experience is definitely high-pressure. But there is so much more one-to-one teaching, supervision and focused study. It is much more high-quality learning experience. And the college system works well.

Bristol is lacklustre for many students. I had lunch with my friend recently who went to Bristol many years ago to study Law. Her son is now there. She said that she thinks Bristol is still depending on the reputation from years ago and she is shocked at the low quality experience her son and his peers have had. based on that, I would recommend Oxford every time.

I don’t know about Durham.

I don’t know if the First at Bristol is guaranteed either. Despite these all being A star students at A level, they are feeling a bit disillusioned with Bristol. They may end up doing themselves a disservice and not engage or study hard enough. Which would be their fault of course.

I am sure this is indulgent posturing on the mother’s part. Of course she wants her kid to take the Oxford place and of course her daughter will. There isn’t any real doubt I am sure.

Yes... this is a girl who has been interviewed and chosen by Oxford against stiff competition, they have judged she's someone they want to teach, they set the required grades at AAA when they could make it higher if they wished or thought students attaining those grades wouldn't be good enough.
She may do better in the Oxford system than elsewhere!

My child has had Sat morning lectures. Really limited their ability to come for weekends. Not great.

It’s interesting that uni choice still makes such a difference. If I compare my sons at Bristol and Oxbridge, the Bristol one seems genuinely ‘cleverer’ to me. In every way, apart from the odd A star. He also is more quick-witted and likeable (hate to say it). Yet for his first job, he may be viewed as ‘less’ than his Oxford brother.

UCAS now publish actual grades achieved by those who go to each course at each University over the last 5 years. For History at Bristol the most common grades achieved are AAA and the lowest are ABB. For History at Oxford the most common are AAA* and the lowest are AAA. A-levels grades are clearly far from the whole story in terms of how strong a student it. But there is a difference which you do not see when just looking at required grades.

Damn. The A stars don't come out! It just bolded instead. The most common at Oxford is 3 A stars!

If she "only" got AAA there is no guarantee she would get a First elsewhere. There will be plenty with higher level grades at Bristol/Durham. She should make the most of her Oxford opportunity.

I went to one of the unis mentioned in the OP. My workload was far less than my friends who were at Oxford and Cambridge. It was certainly far easier for me to achieve a 2.1. Employers must know this.
I think Oxbridge still opens so many doors. My friends who got on the top grad schemes for magic circle & US law firms and for quant jobs were all Oxbridge, LSE or imperial. You are obviously still in with a chance for these jobs from Durham and Bristol but I think it is harder.

Oh my, I have all this to look forward to in the next year, although mine has dropped out of A levels twice and we’ll be applying with UCAS points from an Access to HE diploma. Will be a nightmare trying to parse this data and apply to her!

Wow there are people who obviously have some chips on their shoulders about getting a first.

My daughter got one from an excellent RG in a really complex Science. She was also a
Drama scholar. at her school where 2 pretty well known actors had been Drama scholars. ( one was in a film in 2022 and again in 2025 and the other was in lots of films playing eg opposite Emma Thompson) This establishes that she has something about her and is watchable. She was also nominated to be the best UK sub editor of the year - so can work on a team. She also worked for Radio 5 for 2 weeks holiday and was asked back…. So must have good social skills which is good as she was pastoral support at her school. However what she did do was strategise her degree to seek to get the best marks whilst also making £2000 from Depop selling clothes to help with her travel fund/ holding down a bar job.

So all those denigrating Firsts - what did you do?

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

Some probably are. But early on in people's careers it's probably based on their knowledge of what kind of ability and skills the course turned them out with. An employer which has a couple of people on the interview panel who are eg Maths or Engineering or Comp Sci Oxbridge graduates themselves knows the depth of intellect, knowledge and the sheer work ethic that other Oxbridge grads possess, not to mention their ability to work at a very rapid pace indeed taking on a LOT of information in that time. If that's what they're looking for, they'd probably go for the Oxbridge grads over someone with a degree in Software engineering from Liverpool John Moores uni who covered the same amount of work in a whole year that the Oxbridge grad did in one term, and who spent a lot of their free time getting pissed in the union bar.

If you're looking only at generic soft skills, people skills, managing projects etc, I agree that Oxbridge doesn't necessarily confer any advantage early on in someone's career, as someone from a lower tariff uni might naturally be better at that type of thing, as part of their character, or their course might have ensured that they practice at those skills much more than an Oxbridge grad. But they are all things that come with experience, and that you can learn from others. So eventually both types of graduates may both be at the same level in terms of soft skills, but do they have the same ability for absorbing vast amounts of very difficult information very rapidly? I'm not sure that is something that can be learned or practised - you either have that ability or you don't. And I guess this is what employers know when they are looking to recruit from Oxbridge.