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?

My understanding and impression is that Oxford and Cambridge are streets ahead of other unis.

For a start pretty much 100% of students will have achieved top grades and passed a test to get in. Bristol on the other hand is full of contextual offers, sorry but a completely different co-hort. No way would I say turn down Oxford for Bristol.

@1apenny2apenny Oxbridge don’t mention exactly how they choose students but lots of info about neighbourhood, school, family circumstances are conserved plus some other relevant factors. That’s why private schools are now less than 30% of student body. Bristol obviously isn’t “full” of contextual offers! How can it be? However they are damned as being elitist and damned now they are not. It’s utterly ridiculous. Their history degree is full though so they are popular: ditto Durham.

Plus going to a uni that’s “streets ahead” does not make the student streets ahead. This student has AAA so the minimum required but might have aced the HAT and interview though. It remains to be see how the degree turns out. That would apply to Oxford and Durham too. She wouldn’t make the standard offer at Durham!

Obviously Oxford is the better choice, but my children who went to Bristol found it very good. Both Bristol and Oxford try to consider contextually but in different ways children from particular backgrounds. One of my sons was at halls in year 1 in Bristol where apparently more children from fee paying schools go than any hall or college in the country which you can regard as bad or good depending on how you feel about those kinds of things so that did not really feel like Halls crammed with children from very poor backgrounds let in with contextual offers but they might go to different halls and apparently at both Oxford and Bristol contextual candidates we are told do as well was others in finals.

At the end of the day if some universities go too contextual and if that results in graduates employers find cannot do the jobs concerned then employers will simply turn to universities producing the graduates of the types they need whether that be skill set, the fact they are working class (if that is flavour of the month at the time) or whatever. At present it remains very hard to get into Oxford, pretty hard to get into Bristol and down we go to those places where you can get into with very low grades.

Absolutely this. I worked like a dog to get a 2:1 at a RG university, about 5% got 1sts, another 20% got 2:1s and the majority 2:2s.
Grade inflation because an issue when students became 'customers.'

The only comment I would make is that a reader / senior lecturer and also a senior professor who taught me History at my Red Brick uni left to go to Oxford.

So you are being possibly taught by the same people. However, I had the benefit of having smaller classes or seminars at my college. Both were/ are leading experts in their field. In fact as you walk into the History section at Waterstones or Foyles many of the books on their topics are written by them.

One also had a well publicised ongoing feud with another Historian much aired in the Times / Telegraph whose name rhymes with Riggs.

My own regret is that I was too emotional anxious and getting over various boys to appreciate the peals of wisdom taught at university. I suffer terribly with anxiety and dyspraxia so struggled to write in those days before laptops.

I never went below an A minus or AB ( border line 1st) for all the essays I wrote in second and third year but ended up with a 2:2 because I freaked out with exams. The famous professor called me in and asked what could be done about it all as I got a first in one exam and then had a panic attack and got a third in another. That was my general pattern. Neck in those days there were no mitigating factors, extra time or quiet rooms.

That’s something that no one has mentioned and that is do exams test anything but nerves? Had I been continuously assessed at school, university and law school I would have been right up the top. So for many reason I don’t but the whole Oxford hype as a professor from my university marked my essay as firsts and then went to Oxford and marked people’s essays there as firsts etc.

My point being the people teaching at Oxford have probably just come from down the road in UCL or Kings etc. I doubt that the quality of reaching is all that much better.

Clearly, my advice would be go to Oxford as it’s well known around the World and opens doors but I don’t buy the concept of better teaching.

As others have said - there's absolutely no guarantee she'd get a first elsewhere.
if she's looking for oxbridge is the way to go

Just to be clear 40 % of Oxford grades are firsts

31 % of Bristol grades are firsts.

The level of marking seems similar allowing for fewer contextual offers at Oxford.

How do you know there are fewer contextual offers at Oxford? It’s much smaller. Do they publish this data? Oxford says it uses contextual data. Not sure it makes lower offers. You would expect a lot of firsts at Oxford. These dc are pretty bright.

Afaik Oxford doesn't make contextual offers in terms of required grades - its offers are already a shade lower (pretty much always AAA for arts, A*AA for stem, I think?) than Cambridge and some of the other top unis.
Rather, as I understand it, it uses the contextual data in deciding who to interview and presumably then who to make an offer to.

I haven't seen the Norrington Table mentioned for a while on here, but always thought it ironic, given that a) it exists and b) how it is calculated, that whereas the (appallingly, in their case) high number / % of Firsts awarded elsewhere is obviously considered pretty terrible, a sign of HE Going to the Dogs etc (wasn't there even the announcement of a proposed Inquiry into it at some point?), the same at Oxford is obviously very much something to be celebrated. At least by the Oxford colleges finding themselves at the top of their university's league table.

Re the contextual offers. As PP says with Oxford it's not a grade drop but with Bristol it's postcode grade drop so my leafy comp gets contextual despite being a very ££ area.

Sorry but the two are just not comparable and I really don't understand why people are saying they are.

In case this is of interest to anyone, the most recent stats for Oxford including the subdivision between male and female students which in some subjects is fairly stark:

https://gazette.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gazette/documents/media/final_honour_schools_bachelor_of_fine_art_and_bachelor_of_theology_2022_-_1_to_no_5402.pdf

These figures show a little more layering than merely 40% of degrees at Oxford are firsts. If you're female and reading PPE: 16%. Classics and female: 11%. Etc.

(Very aware that my reading of the statistics is very basic :)).

The daughter needs to make the choice to go wherever she feels she will be happiest.

Apart from perhaps some really selective jobs where she goes won’t make that much difference. Her experience and how comfortable she feels at uni will probably have more of an impact longer term.

She needs to make her own choice definitely.
but re grades- I often used to recruit for NHS, yes we would have considered a 1st from RG as ‘better’ than a 2:1 from Oxford.

I couldn't disagree with this more. A first from an excellent university like Bristol or Durham will certainly not 'limit employment opportunities'.

DD is going to be doing History and modern languages at Bristol having been rejected by Oxford. She very much wanted to go to Oxford but will have a great time at Bristol. She got 3 x A* in her A Levels but the offers for both would have been the same at 3 x A (as were other offers she received from Durham and Edinburgh).

Who knows what difference it will make?

Re the contextual offers. As PP says with Oxford it's not a grade drop but with Bristol it's postcode grade drop so my leafy comp gets contextual despite being a very ££ area.

It can also be school-specific. Like you @1apenny2apenny we live in a wealthy area (the nearest town in one direction is regularly described as one of the most expensive places to live in the UK). However it's a grammar school area so the secondary modern DD2 attended is specifically listed by Bristol University as one from which pupils will be given contextual offers.

I think Bristol is generous but they were complained about when they were not! So there’s more of a mix now.

@MirandaWest If your DD has a career in mind, gets all her career ducks in a row,. It’s useful to have an engaging personality and ability to pass selection tests, then she really will not be disadvantaged! Employers honestly do not just look at degrees and where it came from when it’s Bristol or Oxford! So Many other attributes count and she should hold on to that.

Regarding the Oxbridge vs others debate, there’s certain areas where Bristol and others are top unis. Eg in Engineering not that many engineering employers see Oxbridge grads applying.

How does she know or expecting a certain grade? Best to pick the uni where the course looks most of interest, and the student will have the most enjoyable time. Degrees really don't matter for work nowadays. I have two degrees and it hasn't helped my career one bit, it's all about experience, skills and attitude.

You would have to examine in each subject the male/ female divide at undergraduate level and also apply that to all RG universities to see any context. If you are trying to suggest that someone reading Classics is less likely for a female at Oxford than Bristol.

I was having an interesting debate with a friend who is a fellow at Bristol in Engineering and her husband a professor. I noted that at some law firms and Big 4 some people seemed to get partnership more readily or quicker if they had firsts which might suggest that Big 4 and some Law Firms prefer firsts for promotion as opposed to just getting foot in door. My friends argued to the contrary that people who obtained firsts might know how to work smart to achieve the required results. They demonstrate this first in their degree and then in their working lives.

I guess that can be an issue with statistics.

I mean if you look at all of this, some people aren’t necessarily smarter per se but they work smarter eg they don’t try to go for mismatched A Levels. They choose topics for written work that can garner top marks. They might carefully select their university modules rather than just go for something they fancy. They might chose an A Level where a sister or parent already had study it and that helps a lot. Some people chose topics as their parents teach it and that helps enormously. Back in my day some people found that sleeping with the person setting the exam helped!

As a lawyer I spent years learning how to look behind any figures presented as evidence because figures can be skewed and even sometimes self fulfilling eg historically employers thought that Oxford was top dog do they sought to employ heavily from there but as time progressed they realised that actually UCL or Manchester are ok etc.

Looking at partners in Big 4 ( who earn as well as most partners in law firms) they seem to come from Durham, Manchester, Cardiff, Oxford, Birmingham, Southampton. Many seemed to have firsts who made fast progress but all these tells us is coincidentally they had firsts. It does not tell us that a first is preferred.

No Noras, I'm doing nothing beyond posting the statistical breakdown, since MarchingFrogs made reference to the Norrington Table and you said that 40% of Oxford degree classifications were in the first class. I found the distinctions between subjects and male/female very interesting but it could be a relatively niche interest I'll grant you that :).

I first looked at it in July when my youngest DD was waiting for her results and was slightly nervous when I saw that what she had said was correct (that she might well miss a first, given that far fewer female students reading Literae Humaniores get a first (11%) and almost none - male or female - starting latin and greek from scratch achieve a first).

The possible/ likely reasons for the difference in numbers across the subjects at Oxford are certainly interesting to me and I suspect that they may not translate to other less exam heavy unis.

Anyhow DD4 managed a double first in the end which she was very pleased with. So all's well etc.

Actually my experience within Oxford Colleges is that the academics think the Norrington table is a nonsense and would prefer it not to be produced, but information is publicly available (and certain parts of the press lap it up) and so it is difficult to stop it.