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 think someone who has an Oxford offer would be nuts to turn it down. As an aside I’m quite surprised the entry requirements are so low.

The Oxford entry requirements especially for arts subjects has always been low because of the extensive admissions process which isn't mirrored at other unis. Once the tutors have decided they want to offer to an applicant they don't need another filter. And apart from high grades acting as a filter for other top unis, several of the latter (eg Durham) want to discourage Oxford offer holders from putting them as an insurance choice. People often talk about it being 'easier' to get into Oxford because of the relatively low grades required for quite a few subjects but of course that isn't true at all (although quite pleasant for DC to be able to take the foot off the pedal after their offer, if they're that way inclined!).

That's very bad luck - poor her.

Makes sense!

@TizerorFizz
yes agreed being able to work to deadlines is important in many jobs. But usually in a job you will build up a reputation over time and a succession of deadlines rather than just the one. If you’re feeling sub-par one day maybe you have the option to postpone the deadline or push through & get the job done and recover afterwards.
In Oxford finals, you obviously can’t postpone and a week of intense exams is a massive test of physical stamina as much as anything else. It just seems to suit boys better (obviously not all boys but as a generalisation).

Oxford without a doubt but significantly due to the subject. A good degree in history from Balliol will generally open more doors than a history degree from non Oxbridge. Whether or not it should is another issue.

I'm bemused at the Oxbridge tutorial system being described as spoon feeding (unless its changed dramatically in recent years).

Yes, and many of the most intellectually challenging jobs don't (and shouldn't) be done in a rush. The solution to a real-life complex scientific or engineering problem is often likely to take more than an hour or two to solve (let alone dealing with several different ones in that period!), test and implement.

If it was spoon-feeding, I would not have my child on the phone stressed this year about not being able to complete or understand their supervision work! It is very hard.

Yep!

I always think allegations of spoonfeeding anywhere are unfair. Eg in very good state and private schools with bright children sixth form teachers often teach beyond the curriculum and there is a lot of education for education's sake even if it is not on the syllabus - mind of the opposite of spoon feeding, loads of efforts by the pupils and lots of interesting discussions in class.

On the point about different lifestyles at Oxbridge and elsewhere it also depends on the course. Some sixth formers will pick courses with not many hours a week (wherever they go) as they want a very balanced university period of loads of hobbies, new friends etc; other courses are very intensive, lots of hours. None of my children tried for oxbridge as they thought they would not get in ( so a lot of effort for nothing) and secondly because it would be a lot of effort to get in.

I agree with both these pp. Choosing RG over Oxbridge won't limit opportunity, but Oxbridge can open doors a bit more easily. It's not as clear cut as it once was but the positive bias definitely still exists. I have been heavily involved in graduate hiring for major UK employers across sectors (banking, law, consulting, civil service, etc.) so speak from quite a bit of first hand experience.

If it were my daughter I would be advising her to choose the place that she thinks will give her the best all round experience. I personally chose RG over Oxford because I fell in love with my RG university (Warwick) and have never regretted it. I had a ball, loved the work, and now have a great career alongside plenty of Oxbridge graduate peers. Having said that, if she thinks she could be happy at either I would be encouraging Oxford.

Excessive thinking time mat work is not often cost effective. It’s a luxury. Time is money.

For some things, certainly.
For other complex problems, insufficient thinking time will result in suboptimal solutions which ultimately cost more, or are an utter disaster.

It's not an either/or - uni assessment methods should have a balance appropriate to each field.

@ErrolTheDragon Yes. They should but Oxford can do what they want and employers aren’t objecting to it.

Tbh I'm not sure it's just oxbridge though some of their courses may take it to the extreme.

Don’t lots of 3 year courses require a dissertation?

Very few people turn down Oxford or Cambridge at this stage. It is definitely harder to get a first - I’ve been teaching for 30 years and have watched the degree grade inflation rise over time. Lots of very average students getting firsts but Oxbridge definitely has a higher standard. As other posters have said it’s horses for courses but I think it’s an odd reason to turn Oxford down.

I think they the degree people do is as important as the place they do it. I wish that I had encouraged DD to do computer science and with physics ( she got something like 94 % in her GCSE) Whatever university you go to you are going to need high grades for that but the earning can be huge.

Were we to consider that wider parameter things get trickier. My sister in law graduated from Liverpool and did her PhD in Reading - I doubt that few people except bankers and top 10 partners legal firm earn as much as she does . She was on a team of 10 or so who made a Covid vaccine a few years ago and has a large house sprawl in the US. Her and her hubby ( PhD ) from Oxford highly ranked DD university as pretty leading in the World. She’s now a senior director in big pharm. Her hubby has made a new stent that he is marketing.

The opportunities and earning potentials with Sciences are huge.

I think that Sciences rank different from humanities.
I was looking at Big 4 and many of the senior people seem to have biosciences, physics, chemistry etc etc

So if the question was a first from Bristol in pharmacology or a 2:1 from Oxford in religious studies that might be a tricker question. If I had 2 candidates and I was a law partner I would ponder how the former might be useful in the bioscience team that is hugely expanding as an area of law etc
The development of things like metamatrials and the race to patent so much - the world is changing really fast.

No I'm not.

However in the last 20 years myself and my colleagues plus friends and acquaintances in different sectors at many employers have been handed CVs and told to help recruit people. While I've never been involved in graduate recruitment some of my friends have.

I've also done interviews.

The reason why employers, medium size and up, involve what seems like random employees in their recruitment process is that they are trying to recruit diverse teams and people are supposed to prefer people like themselves.

So after CV sifting by HR who have their own criteria, then random employees may get your application who have a different criteria. So some people's prejudices about universities will be at play unless the company does blind recruitment. Other people's biases about particular university courses, writing style, hobbies, etc will then be at play.

The thing with people preferring people like themselves in my field can simply be the fact that you have a hobby you are immersed in outside work, or because you have worked on something similar to the person who is interviewing you.

@Reugny Doing the same hobby is never a reason to recruit someone. It’s not remotely fair or objective. It’s almost certainly not a requirement for the job or a desirable attribute. Obviously the benefits of such a hobby could be desirable attributes that match the criteria but that would need reading out and others might have the same ones via another route. I find it hard to believe such unprofessional thinking still exists.

Where did I say it was the same hobby?

Definitely for graduate recruitment but also in the recruitment of 2nd/3rd jobbers it is expected that people have hobbies outside work. These hobbies can be anything from making art, fishing, playing sport, dancing, needlework, bird watching, playing in a band, learning to play an instrument as an adult, learning another language to add to the X languages you already speak,...

In short it simply looking for people who have things that help them to de-stress outside work and show more of their soft skills.

It's really important to enjoy your course and to have the opportunity to study the bits of your chosen subject that really appeal to you. One of our DC is at a university that has far greater breadth and depth in their particular subject than any other university in the UK. Other universities might be better ranked overall and better known, but for the subject there really is one outstanding university where our DC is able to study what they are deeply interested in and it makes all the difference to learning and skills acquisition.

It can be worth putting a few hobbies down just so show you are a reasonably interesting person although few employers will recruit on that basis. I once discovered 50% of one legal committee I was on sang in really difficult specialist chamber choirs - what a niche thing! However you will equally get loads of men (and women) into football. Whenever I have looked at my child's CV I have wanted them to put a range of their hobbies - eg one did some rugby but I would avoid too political hobbies in case it puts someone's back up - eg if you are in the anti abortionists group or are a Labour party member not always a good idea to put that down as might annoy 50% of people recruiting you.

@Xenia Always be careful about listing hobbies that lead to injuries and time off work. In SMEs it can be a real issue. Also vast amounts of time taken to do an intense hobby is a bit of a red flag too. Eg repeated days off to compete! Most firms want someone who fits into a team and pulls their weight.

DH used to be involved in recruiting research scientists. The companies liked to see one activity 'pursued to a high level' - maybe two, not a list of lots of different things! And by this they meant actively engaged, so for graduate/postgrad hires it might be being a club committee member even if you weren't a star performer. I suppose this sort of thing is evidence of being a team player, taking responsibility and pulling your weight in your leisure time and they'd found that tended to translate to workplace attitudes.