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?

I am a lawyer too (with 4 lawyer children) and I certainly think high academic achievement is helpful not least as law itself can be complicated.My view is the girl should go to Oxford not Bristol (as she might not get a first from Bristol anyway). There has been detailed work including an Exeter university study on the exams for solicitors and background etc etc. I believe the latest look at the new SQE exams found that if you have a first you are most likely to do well in the exam, 2.1 next best and 2.2 next best so that seems to be exactly what you might expect. (50% fail those post grad law exams) and as SQE1 is 100% multiple choice it is a fairly pure exam in terms of being fair.

If the NHS prefers a non Oxbridge first over an Oxford 2/1 that continues to confirm my view that we need to defund /abolish the NHS.

If the NHS prefers a non Oxbridge first over an Oxford 2/1 that continues to confirm my view that we need to defund /abolish the NHS

I think you can stand down, as this is certainly Mumsnet hyperbole.

I have a dc who narrowly failed (pooled etc) to make Oxbridge with four A stars and is now at one of the unis popular with "rejects." They are finding the apparently prestigious course extremely easy, score first-class marks in every piece of submitted work, and because the workload is relatively light it has given them a load of time to do other stuff they love AND socialise. If it carries on this way they'll be well on course for a first in finals. However, who knows how they'd have done at Oxbridge, they know their friends who are there work a lot harder and enjoy themselves less and don't get such good marks. So this "mother" may have a point but it would be a totally weird reason AT THIS STAGE to reject Oxford (also, as others have pointed out logistically impossible) and the first is not guaranteed for her dd or for my dc or for anyone.

BTW the idea that a first from uni of Wrexham is equal quality to Oxford is laughable, much as I'd like it not to be

It won’t make any difference in the long term. She should choose where she think she will be happiest.

Apart from when she's 60 and looks back on her life and can't quite believe she got a place at Oxford but turned it down.

It's probably true that it’s harder to get a First at Oxford - but that’s because it has such high standards and is so highly regarded throughout the world. I would still choose Oxford. Rightly or wrongly, there is still a certain cachet attached to going there. My two (both educated at state comprehensives) loved it.

Educational attainment doesn't guarantee career success. For me personally, I went to Essex Uni, did an average business degree, got a 2:2. Spent loads of time doing extra curricular activities though (sport, music). Now I'm in my 40s and in the top 4% of earners U.K. wide. Resilience and problem solving and an ability to work things out and just find a way to deliver a project - that's the critical but when I'm recruiting. Appreciate every job is different but thought I'd add a different take on the point. Is choose Bristol unless it's so niche like brain surgery that they need to go to the best school for the best training.

My Bristol child has a friend there who got in with a contextual offer. He told my kid that once he and his friends from his school got contextual offers, they stopped trying so hard and achieved average A-level grades. Who knows if this is bravado or not.

On another point, whether the lecturers at somewhere like Bristol and Oxford are the same, the structure at Oxbridge is such that the students at oxford have far more intensive teaching, whoever the lecturer may be. They have to prepare large amounts of work for weekly supervision and scrutiny. In some courses it is one-to-one or two to one supervision. There is no way that is happening regularly at places like Bristol. I know because I have a child there.

Really? I have worked in the NHS for 30 years and have never heard of this. What’s the rationale?

Surely not everyone on here who says they recruit for a company can possibly actually BE a recruiter. There seems to be a huge amount of posters insisting they recruit for various companies and then trot out their particular pet peeve.

I find some recruitment assertions wierd too. Surely even the nhs is looking for competencies and personal attributes? Just looking at a uni or grade of degree is plain retro! Who does this? Candidates should be shortlisted against clear requirements for the job. Usually a 2:1 or 1st for young grads is required but beyond that, when expertise is paramount, undergrad degree matters less. No recruiting professional (and lots of people who do this are not CIPD qualified) will only look at degree and uni. There’s so much more to finding the right employee and legislation required fair recruitment, not prejudiced recruitment.

Also worth noting than girls are slightly less likely than boys to get a 1st at Oxbridge (about 10% less on average) than at other universities (where it’s about par).

Various explanations proposed but one reason is the exam structure which suits boys better. Historically for many subjects 100% of the degree result was based on final exams crammed into one week at the end of the final year with no continuous assessment throughout the course at all. This tends to favours boys who rise to the challenge of the one-off exam performance but not girls who are generally more diligent and work consistently throughout their degree but react less well to the stress of a one-off exam. I believe some subjects have changed their assessments to account for this but given the gender gap still exists clearly it’s not enough.

Not by any means a reason to reject an Oxbridge place but worth being aware of.

Exactly

Those contextual offers are usually still high.
So a course where the offer is A star A , A
may get a contextual offer which is A AB
This is particularly true for the most popular courses such as Law, Medicine, Economics etc
Most students at Bristol who get the contextual offers usually exceed the contextual offers because the contextual offers are usually offered to very able students anyway who have been predicted high grades.

Just that a 1st is ‘better’ than a 2:1, and that’s more significant than the Uni.
however, the recruitment would go more on experience anyway so 🤷‍♀️

Yes I made this point a while back and linked to the Oxford statistics. In some subjects the difference is striking: probably no surprise that PPE and Classics are among them - both have almost everything riding on a very large number of closely scheduled exams in May/ June of the final year.

DD is worried nearly a year in advance that if her period is cripplingly painful in the crucial week, it will seriously affect her result. She won't be the only girl affected by that.

@MonsterSister
That is a valid worry. Even spreading out the exams over say 3 weeks - so more like GCSEs/A-levels - would help

I think a number choose to regulate their periods with the pill over finals.

Coincidentally I was chatting to a recent Oxford female PPE graduate last night who was describing the brutal final exam system. That's how my Finals were too, but I think it's a bit passe now as it doesn't really reflect the world of work. If it also disadvantages young women, it should probably be adapted. Never really thought about it before, but might explain why DD2 got better results in her Masters (which was mainly graded on her lab work and her dissertation, written over 3 months) than in any previous academic qualifications.

thing47 although (as another broad generalisation) boys do less well in coursework than girls.

I think the OP was having a debate with someone else about how grades from different Unis are perceived. Her DD was not thinking of not taking up her Oxfied place. I suspect those who go to RG non Oxbridge like to suggest that a 1st is better and those that go to Oxbridge suggest a 2.1 from there is as good.

Actually working hard to achieve deadlines is paid work for many. Certainly for my DD. Taking in lots of info, often delivered late, is part of her job. I think unis who do the slow and steady evaluation don’t always prep students well for work. My DD had a mix. Can’t see anything wrong with that.

The amount of work done at unis depends on course. Engineering at many unis is like having a job. DD did MFLs. Loads of self guided language learning, 6 hours a week would not get you anywhere.

Oxbridge.

In my experience, an Oxford 2:1 has opened doors that a first from anywhere else just wouldn't. It's harsh but true.

DD has quite bad side effects from the pill (has tried). It's an extra hassle that only affects the female students, isn't it?