DD decided against applying for Oxbridge

[SinuousTendrils]

My DD has finally decided not to apply for Oxbridge. Of course i realise she had a slim chance of getting in but I'd really hoped she'd throw her hat in the ring. With the current graduate jobs market as it is, I thought she might be in with a chance of a golden ticket if she got in.
Is it really that dire out there? Would a talented high achiever really struggle to find a career after uni? I've been advising her to consider her STEM subjects rather than literature, which i think she'd enjoy more...thinking at Oxbridge humanities degrees still have currency...it's so hard, isn't it?!

@theredcar I graduated in 2012 so it's been a while, however law firms still very much do this. I myself was supposed to go down for some of these events last year, i didn't go in the end for other reasons so can't give a comprehensive answer of how it's done exactly. And while a few magic circle law firms have adopted this blind CV approach, the majority have not!

Law is a more conservative career than others so I'm not saying it's the same for everyone.

I am simply saying it's a lie to say going to Oxford doesn't give you an advantage. What one does with that advantage is up to them, you still have to do the work.

I wouldn’t say that this is the best advice.

My best piece of advice, if she likes lots
of subjects (I was the same) would be to go to the unis she likes and the courses that interest her, attending their open days, and get as much of an idea of their vibe from that. Her subconscious will be absorbing so much about the teaching styles and life environment. And then pick whichever one makes her most excited/interested/comfortable. If she enjoys her course and environment, that will be the biggest factor in her doing well and retaining enthusiasm. Her experiences on the course, the connections she makes and people she meets, will probably be the biggest leads to employment connections afterwards, so going with something that she loves the most in a place she loves the most is probably my best piece of advice.

I find it very interesting that on education threads about school age children most people agree that education is about more than grades and, if they are able, they will spend money on enriching their child's education - paying for extra curricular, tutors or private school etc.

But when we get to higher education it is suddenly all about grades, and all about what university you go to and what you will do with your degree.
Why does education stop being a valuable thing in its own right at age 18?

All the PPs on this thread dissing Oxford and Cambridge is very amusing

Accountancy doesn’t need a degree, unless you specifically want to go down a grad route. Employers will often support their staff to study, and civil service is one employer that widely offers finance qualifications via apprenticeship or even just by having a job in finance in one of their departments.

This, essentially, was my daughter......only she went through ALL the hoops of the Oxbridge process and then never got an offer. Now living her best life at Durham doing History & English Literature. You have to let them follow their own dreams - if Literature is what she loves, then go with that i say!

I would feel some relief if I were you.

DD doesn't regret her time there but says she envies her friends who went to other reputable unis and had time to really throw themselves into an extra curricula passion. DD did pursue a variety of hobbies whilst there but short semesters and a heavy workload mean time is pressured.

My understanding is that it's harder to get a 2.1 at Oxbridge than at some other unis (I could be wrong) . It seems that a 2.2 immediately eliminates an applicant from certain graduate jobs so an Oxbridge degree could be quite the opposite of a golden ticket.

With hindsight I would encourage a son/daughter to study something they love but really really make use of gap year and holiday time to gain experiences (such as internships and volunteering) that are relevant to potential careers they fancy to help set them apart from other candidates.

Good luck to you and your daughter, OP! 💐

I'd agree with this. Some of my friends went and they did well (although they went to very traditional colleges and the state school kids stuck together so it wasn't a great social class mixer, if anything it widened the gap).

I was asked by a (very kindly) teacher if I wanted to apply. I declined, as I was too busy/lazy/uninterested to do any extra work. I'm glad I did as I know had I succeeded (unlikely) I would have failed miserably. The weekly defend/attack seminar would have destroyed me and my traditional Redbrick (sit, listen, absorb, have a think, write an essay, have a chatty seminar, cram for an exam) was an amazing place for me to succeed with zero pressure and lots of time to do other things.

I think I've finally caught up, and can hold my own when cross examined :-), but I agree many people seem to slam Oxbridge as out of touch, nerdy and full of brains with zero soft skills (I think we have successive governments/PMs/Chancellors to blame for that. When the truth is that at 16/17 years old these kids had the motivation and intelligence to work towards the specific goal of sitting for Oxbridge, and maybe missed a couple of sixth form parties to study!
That said the whole contextual admissions has really hit Oxbridge and put a lot of clever, private school kids off applying. Which means employers are now looking at the universities these kids apply to and learning towards them.

The terms are shorter and therefore more intense at Ox/Cambs so it really is down to whether your daughter woild like that or prefer a regular uni. I have one at Sheffield who absolutely loves it there and is glad they didn't apply for Oxbridge. She does need to know what she is applying for so a year out might help her if she has no clue yet.

And let's not forget, you can get an offer at Oxbridge and not one at Durham (my son managed this feat - got into Cambridge, but was rejected by Durham for English Lit!)

First: as others have said, Oxbridge is not for everyone and it's not a golden ticket to a job.

Second: If your DD doesn't favour any particular subject, the Scottish system (ie Glasgow out of her choices) will be better as it allows a much wider range of subject choice and flexibility as you go through the degree.

No it’s not hard! Just support your daughter’s choices. She might hate stem at uni and you’re more likely to do well in subjects you enjoy. And a “golden ticket” is no good if you’re miserable. Stop putting pressure on her to do what you want her to do. Step back and give your head a wobble.

I am not BTW among those dissing Oxbridge as I work there. But it's not the best place for everyone who could get in. On the flip side, there are many who don't apply who could do brilliantly there.

If she has no burning passion, she likely isn’t suited to Oxbridge, where the tutorial system is the real difference to all other unis - you sit and discuss your subject with experts in the field for HOURS on end. If you just want a good degree to get a job after, go for Bristol/Manc/London etc. I went to Oxbridge (with a stem subject) and loved it but part of me wishes I went to a red brick and breezed through with a first. I’d have had more options available to me.

I think your daughter needs to work out what she wants from life and your job is to guide that conversation.

Has she considered a social science - economics etc? A really good in for a huge number of roles in future.

For the people at the back: my dd has asked me for help. She enjoys and is v. good at STEM and humanities. She is struggling to decide where to go and what to study, so i am helping her by gathering advice and information; this has been an excellent way to do that. My head is quite stable, thank you.

If I was advising my child what to do to give them the best chance of a grad job, I would be looking at something that AI couldn’t replicate and something that the ageing population requires -
occupational therapy or physio would be an obvious one.

Not sure if this would be of interest though

UCL also do a BASc programme which is pretty unique.

I'm an Oxford grad and DC is looking at unis for 27 entry.
Oxford hasn't changed as much as other unis. E.g. Oxford assesses almost exclusively by closed book written exams with very limited coursework components. The only change since my day is that now you type rather than write them. By contrast I surprised that Exeter said they had no end of year exams for the course my DC is looking at and a variety of different assessment forms.

The one friend I know who went to Cambridge hated it! And it definitely hasn't been a 'golden ticket' for her career.

It doesn’t, but to be qualified you will have to do exams which are equivalent to degree level.

This is kind of true but depends. My daughter went to Oxford and was regularly going to events in her second year run by various law firms etc aimed solely at recruiting. She made various contacts with the HR teams at that time.

One thing I would say OP. I went to a very run of the mill non Oxbridge uni and I would pick that experience any day over what my daughter had. The work was utterly relentless. No way she could have had a job at Easter or Christmas like I did and I believe she even had to agree not to.

It is very very full on. Part of uni for me was the social side and that is, from what I’ve seen, much better elsewhere.

I don’t think it’s worth spending thousands to get a degree if she doesn’t know which one to apply for
gap year, real life experiences and a part time job if possible then see how the land lies in a years time

Really valid point. I keep telling her in her times of achievement anxiety that her worst case scenario grades wise might be going to Sheffield, which she absolutely loved at the open day and I think the city she would enjoy the most to live in.

Get her to do a plumbing course. Will do a lot better for herself that way imho.

I went to Cambridge. The experience will be very different depending upon which college you apply to. I was a state school kid and went to Churchill, where the vast majority of people were state school too and it was brilliant. Having met some people from other colleges (several from a place that rhymes with Jaint Sons for example) I know would have hated it. The lectures are organised by the university (so are practicals etc too for the subjects that require those; I did science), but your life is dominated by your college, and it's the college that arranges the supervisions (tutorials) and where the majority of the socal life will come from.

An adverse impression from visiting one or two colleges is absolutely not a guarantee that the time won't be enjoyable. I visited a few and Churchill just felt right, despite being hideously ugly to look at and a bit out of town. Any course will however be very intense and hard work (hands up who else had saturday morning lectures) and isn't necessarily for everyone. Depending upon what you'd like to study, other options may be better for certain subjects too.

Having been through the process myself I am certain that a large number of very capable students lack confidence in applying or are actively discouraged because it's "not for the likes of them" or the school hasn't had many (or any) people who won a place there. This IMO is a far bigger driver of the state / private school imbalance that still remains and it makes me irrationally angry. Applications are not judged on the number of surnames, esoteric handshakes, family history at that university, wealth, political connections, the ability to catch a cricket ball left-handed, the school the person went to, or the applicant's preference for set vs runny marmalade