Is Doxbridge a thing?

[mids2019]

Oxford and Cambridge both outside top 3 in uni rankings for first time https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15114137/Oxford-Cambridge-outside-three-prestigious-university-rankings-time-London-School-Economics-first.html?ito=native_share_article-top

I think the DM was trying to make a point about social inclusion but given the Times is a reputable university of guide is this a beginning of a shift where Oxbridge aren't undisputed in their dominance?

Durham is a really good university and in 2025 is it that Oxford and Cambridge have competitors?

“Ha, we were “warned” by people who really dislike Durham that it’s full of rich international students!“

@RayonSunrise - some of whom went to elite British boarding schools before? Thing is with social media the kids know where other kids are going to uni. They are all really connected. You just need one rich IT Italian kid going to Durham and voila, it may set the trend for the Italian rich kids (or whatever nationality). My DD is in Year 12 and knows kids across all schools locally from grammars to private schools to comprehensives and they all talk and gossip about where to go to uni. Not sure us adults get a full look in anymore what drives their ultimate choices.

As far as I am aware, they no longer make contextual offers. But they do (like Oxford) look at the context in which your prior grades and subjects have been achieved. So someone who looks less impressive on paper from a low-attaining school with little experience of Oxbridge entry will have a lower bar for interview than someone who went to a top private school with a string of very high grades and lots more subjects at GCSE, which seems very sensible to me. I think everyone gets the same offer regardless of contextual factors.

And they look at things like what sort of area you live in and prior FSM eligibility etc.

Oh that’s so sad! And rather pathetic.. Woxbridge.. Doxbridge.. 😆😆🙈🙈

“They've been clobbered by successive governments to do so, while Durham etc are under comparatively little pressure to do the same and consequently take the people predicted and achieving top grades, who tend to go to very good private schools.”

Oxbridge have the financial buffer to deal with the clobbering and political point scoring from Central Government. A lot of the other Russell Group unis do not. Some have no choice but to try and look as desirable as possible now, even if it seems naff.

I have to say although it’s not widely publicised (not as much as some scholarships focused on students from the NE), the Durham grant is very generous and paid out until parental income is about £30k, and you don’t have to apply it’s based on student finance.
BUT I also know that at Oxford some parents have questioned the absence of ensuites, in historic colleges. So the need to share rooms is a barrier. (They also don’t advertise their disability support, although are still receiving plenty of disabled students).

Agree. I went there back in the day for postgraduate and the standard of the St. Andrews graduates (with firsts) on my course was much much lower than people from York where I did my undergraduate.
I've never understand the hype. Unless it's suddenly become great all of a sudden.

The graduates on my course and the lecturers certainly seemed to think they were the absolute best in the UK, mentioned it on a very regular basis and yet they weren't.

What kind of 'talent' from private schools do you think is leaking out exactly?

Looking at Cambridge for example, of their 31 courses, every single one bar four, needs either an admissions test or a college admissions test.

Some studies in the past have shown there isn't even a strong correlation between A level results and degree success. Another recent study by UCL showed that state school GCSE grades in STEM and English are higher than private school pupils once adjusted for socioeconomic factors.

As it stands, Durham, Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge are ranked 1st, 2nd, 4th and 7th for the highest proportion of private school intake.

So it doesn't seem to me that swathes of private school pupils are somehow losing out.

‘Another recent study by UCL showed that state school GCSE grades in STEM and English are higher than private school pupils once adjusted for socioeconomic factors.‘

Only because it included grammars in state schools which we know, are highly selective. Many private schools aren’t. I’d like to see what the data about ‘state’ schools looks like, with grammar school data retracted. We’ll never see that of course.

St Andrews - yes I think it’s the William / Kate factor. The place is packed with very wealthy Americans these days.

“The question is are the privately educated with connections getting to the same positions bypassing Oxbridge? Does the Oxbridge label matter a great deal when it comes to the ultimate destination of these young people or is schooling the major factor? There also is the question about whether Oxbridge are missing out on talent as they diversify....i.e. letting some private school talent 'leak' out?”

Or perhaps it has far less to do with schooling and university choice and far more to do with wealth, educational level of the parents etc and friendships of the parents. Cultural capital anyone?
Let’s take a child attending a small private school in the Midlands with parents who are a teacher and a local business owner who holidays once a year in Wales. Does anyone in their right mind really think that child is more privileged than Keir Starmer’s children, for example, with extensive travel and connections and opportunities in London, regardless of what type of school they went to.
Privileged is entrenched because of who your parents are and what they own and what experiences they offer you from an early age. Education is only ever touching the sides of that.

Probably around the same time DC were at Westminster School.

The top maths set there was small and phenomenal. Eight students, one of whom had original research published whilst still in sixth form. (She had been invited to a prestigious summer camp in the US and this was the product.) Despite this she apparently was not the brightest in the group.

None of the four DD was friendly with went to Oxbridge. Two went to the US (Harvard and possibly MIT) whilst two went to Imperial. In other subjects as well Oxbridge regularly missed some very strong applicants, though in fairness some of the surprises were the other way. I remember in particular one astonishing boy who was good at everything. Really good at everything: sport, music and academics, who only got in through the pool, but who then stayed on to take a PhD. Over time Westminster's Oxbridge acceptance rates have declined, and more are going to the US, London and increasingly,. elsewhere in the world. The calibre of applicants is unlikely to have changed much, nor will the teaching have changed.

The questions is then whether Oxbridge by spreading the net wider and looking for unpolished diamonds is picking up students with greater potential. If it is, well done to them. If not, and they are passing over good applicants for political reasons, their falling position in the league tables might have an explanation.

A decade ago when parents swapped news of where their DC were going, English parents would almost commiserate when I mentioned LSE. Overseas parents, often with finance jobs, took a different approach. As far as they were concerned LSE was "a great school" and a place there was something to be pound of.

MN too. A decade ago there was a weird poster who kept rubbishing Imperial. It was one reason I started posting as it seemed crazy to advise strong students to rule out one of the very best STEM universities in the world without proper consideration. (It turned out the poster had had a DD who had studied fashion in London and had not enjoyed it, which had led to a general animus against studying in London.) Things have changed and people probably accept "Loxbridge".

In terms of mobility London University have quite a good track record in partnering London schools and the built in advantage that going away to University is not the norm for many London families. You then get an odd mix. Plenty from private schools who can afford to live in London and plenty, often East European or other ethnic minorities from London, many of whom will have been through good grammars or magnet sixth forms. (Or benefitted from private school bursaries.) In contrast there is probably an underrepresentation of middle or working class kids from the north. Given the large number of overseas students, and the strong focus on subject, differences in background seem to be less obvious.

I don't think it's relevant to talk about your experience two decades ago. Sorry that it wasn't great and I agree it was pretty snobby back then but it's a long time ago and universities change.

How often are DSs and DDs actually looking at employability and graduate prospects? Or are they mostly focused on seeing where is fun for a "good sesh" for 3 years

Durham and St A are much smaller in terms of research output as far as I know and QS and TES weight on that. This doesn't impact undergrad experience that much.

DD looked at prospects for all the subjects she was looking at studying. Otherwise, she might have applied to do Criminology. (Apparently they have the worst graduate prospects). She is now doing Maths. She’s not bothered about clubbing. She goes occasionally but is happier chatting with people. She chose Sheffield as she liked the course, had a good reputation and the city was acceptable to her. It was one of the cheapest places to live out of the places she looked at but I don’t know how much of a factor that was.

The world rankings skews towards research in a way that flatters STEM, if your DC wants to study humanities, the judgements are different.

Araminta, I was talking to DD about cultural capital last week.

DD spent her 2 years as a foundation doctor in a part of the UK where virtually none of her colleagues had spent time in London or heard of Westminster school. No networks, no obvious advantages, she was judged on her work. Like 50% of her intake she is now unemployed (Boris opening up entry level health sector jobs to world wide competition has been a disaster. Unless they are stellar and determined, those needing experience struggle to compete with overseas applicants who already have experience. The latests survey suggest that 10,000 from her intake have no work, other than perhaps zero hours locum work - and this is excluding the large number who have already left medicine or have gone abroad.) Her very bright friend from medical school, the first in her family to go to University, is in a similar position. Both are applying, with great work appraisals and strong references, both in the UK and Australia. Sadly the latter is far more likely.

Cultural capital seems to count. DD has several advantages. She grew up surrounded by ambitious types whose parents were successful and who expected to be successful themselves. She knows she is as capable as them, including those who studied medicine at Oxbridge. The labour market for new graduates is grim, but she has seen others plot and plan from a very early age. She knows how it is done, and is already reaching out to take on voluntary research and other things that will enhance her CV. Her dad does quite a lot of recruitment so is in a good position to proof read her CV, and (since she is now beyond the reach of a University careers office) I am sorting out some interview training. We have talked about other options. Perhaps there is scope to shadow a friend of mine who is a senior consultant in her preferred speciality in another country. Perhaps she might take a year out and take a Masters in that speciality. The broader public school education with five A levels, lots of sport and some very good leadership experience will do no harm, nor will her challenging intercalation. Her friend has been lucky. An Australian hospital turned her down for a job but then called back and asked if she wanted it. However longer term DD may well have the edge.

In the current job market great grades and Oxbridge will only take you so far. To get that first job, especially when competing against AI or international graduates, you will need more. A language, confidence and other social skills, resilience, strategic thinking, and ability to self start. And if Trump's latest announcement saying employers will need to pay $100,000 per year for each overseas employee, is implemented we can expect that tough competition to get a whole lot worse, with a new wave of experienced professionals competing for entry level jobs across the board. There will be disagreement about whether private schools and Oxbridge deliver more useful value added than alternatives. What is becoming clear is that an Oxbridge degree is not the golden passport it once was.

All opinions are subjective and things change with time. But these are the current rankings:

The Times:
-St Andrews #2
-York #20

Complete University Guide:
-St Andrews #4
-York #12

The Guardian:
-St Andrews #2
-York #38

St Andrews is an excellent education, in a magical place with solid job prospects. I would not put anyone off considering it.

Finally, I think the London based universities just get better and better. Alas, DC based in London sometimes want an adventure outside of London.

But as my previous point stated, the calibre of candidates at Oxbridge/durham/warwick/imperial/LSE are exactly the same. There are far far more qualified candidates than there are Oxbridge places. Oxbridge have accepted AAA for courses that LSE have asked AAA

This whole belief that anyone who gets in to Oxbridge did better at school and is brighter than those who went to any of the other unis mentioned is just a fallacy.

it’s like medical schools. Far more applicants than places at the most desirable schools. Top quality candidates will end up at random medical schools out of a numbers issue not lower talent. No one gets into any medical school in the UK without the grades, experience and aptitude.

For those who have not seen it this is the Trump proposal

https://globalnews.ca/news/11437767/trump-immigration-h-1b-visas-fee-gold-card/

I don't know that much about US visas but assume they last perhaps 3 years. If so there could be a whole load experienced IT and tech types looking for jobs in Europe.

If a DC is based in London and unfortunately misses out on Oxbridge aren't the next best (or even better unis) in London. My DS missed out on Cambridge for economics and instead went to the LSE. There was a bit of too-ing and fro-ing about "ooh maybe it's better to leave London" but ultimately we told them that the best place to go was the LSE. They went to LSE. Did one year in halls and the other at home. Moved out for master's and absolutely missed London so much. Now he never wants to leave.

Saves a lot of money as well. Like I understood there's a value add for going to Oxbridge over London fair enough. Though the LSE economics department like to say they are better than Cambridge.

But like what's the value add of going to Bristol over LSE/UCL if such fab unis are right on your doorstep.

These high skilled visas are mostly used by Indian IT companies, TCS, Infosys and the likes, to bring their best offshore people onshore, close to customers and give them experience with some hope they will go back home at some stage and will work as a lead on US/UK/EU projects, commanding high pay from customers but working on offshore rate.
A huge proportion of these people then do everything they can to settle.
We aren't talking about world leading scientists, top CEOs etc here, it's normally your IT PM, BA etc. Only a tiny percentage of these visas will be in former category.

I will admit I don't understand it fully but recently had someone rant about how his firm would suffer as a result of the Starmer trade deal with India which would allow his Indian competitors to bring in staff with exemptions from things like NI giving them a competitive advantage.

Certainly true in medicine where doctors coming in from India are able to sit exams with a much higher pass rate than the exams UK trained doctors need to sit, where there are incentives in terms of expedited family settlement and where over half the specialist training places go to doctors from overseas medical schools with other entry level jobs attracting hundreds if not thousands of applicants, often with lots of experience. And not just doctors. In DDs deanery 90% of newly graduating nurses were apparently unable to find jobs this year whilst the NHS continued to recruit experienced nurses from the Philippines.

If the US closes its doors, the UK/Europe becomes more attractive, so the competition will increase. Throw AI into the mix and the world is looking like a very tough place for new graduates.

Put simplistically AI will replace entry level graduate jobs whilst with the huge expansion of universities in China and India and elsewhere, the number of competent graduates worldwide looking for those jobs is increasing fast.

Merit then becomes increasingly important. A degree certificate, even from Oxbridge, is not enough. Knowledge, experience, technical skills and personal characteristics matter. Its not an easy world in which to be a young person. DD has been buoyed by friends telling her their war stories of looking for graduate jobs four or five years ago, and coming out the other end. Unfortunately things are only getting tougher.

This Oxbridge doesn't make dropped grade offers. They consider the application in connection but Oxford make a standard offer and Cambridge make what they call a typical offer (with some people being made higher than typical offer).

I had thought you were right about Oxbridge not making contextual offers, but after Charlie Kirk’s murder, there was a splash in the newspapers about the president of the Oxford Union being gleeful about his murder. The papers also mentioned that he had achieved ABB. There was a heavy implication that his was a contextual offer.