Did your child ever have 'the Oxbridge talk' and did it work?

[MrsMot]

Dd has let slip that she and her best friend are among 6 girls in their year (single sex grammar) who are being invited to a talk on Friday where they'll be encouraged to think about applying to Oxbridge for uni.

It's not something she's ever considered, she's very self-deprecating but has a very 'individual' way of thinking - asks questions all time.

As a background, dh didn't go to uni for various reasons but probably should have, I got a solid 2:1 but was the first in the family to do so.

I just wondered if anyone else has had this experience?

Of course Oxford and Cambridge are universally recognised as top class universities; product design at an ex-poly will not open doors in the way that an Oxbridge degree will. You may not like this, but it is true. As for thinking that taking exams in gowns is 'bonkers', when allowed to vote on whether to maintain this tradition or abolish it, undergraduates voted in favour of keeping the gowns.
In my experience, people who claim that Oxbridge is not for them because their nephew went there and 'turned out odd', or they prefer the course at ex-poly, usually failed to get an offer.

J went to Cambridge from a regular comp. No special talk. Just worked hard and filled in the application form.

I had an amazing time. Can't compare it really to other places as I didn't go to those. But for me, it was an amazing experience.

Indigo -our DD went to Oxford and it wasn't the right place for her. She would have been much happier and more successful studying at another university with a different teaching style .

It's made no difference in her career , as she is in a job where any reasonable degree woudl have been acceptable

Your assumption that anyone who feels Oxford is not for them " failed to get an offer " is wrong and rather patronising

Interesting. No one wears a gown to take their exams at Cambridge. (They are two separate universities...)

And - as has been rather cogently pointed out in this thread it is inevitable that both universities will be the subject of far more negative than positive feedback.

indigo, I'm realising that its not that we disagree but that we are starting from two different places.

I suggested in one of my earlier posts that the landscape seemed to have changed and that some universities and courses had risen to the challenge better than others.

One of the key differences I have spotted with DS and his peers is a vocational focus. I assume they are not alone as the number of would be medics and the growth of accountancy and finance courses might demonstrate. It may also explain why Universities such as Bath, Surrey, Southampton and Lancaster are zipping up the league tables.

So for he and his friends have been looking at subjects like engineering, materials science, NatSci, economics, psychology, chemistry, law and so on. Overwhelmingly applications have been to Cambridge rather than Oxford. Competition is ferocious and quite a lot of did not make it. Fall backs have largely been London Universities (Imperial, LSE, UCL) though some are heading for specific courses in less obvious places. (We know of two boys in recent years who have opted for Northumbria over good RG if not Oxbridge - who cares about ex-Poly if your ambition is to design the next iPhone.)

One of the reasons competition for these sorts of courses is so tough is that many EU and International applicants will take a similar approach.

The idea that this generation, as future employers, would see "a degree from Oxbridge" as superior to a rigorous degree from a world ranked faculty is laughable. Yes my son was disappointed not to get a place to read economics at Cambridge but this was more about wanting to get away from home. He does not expect the teaching he receives at LSE to be any less good. Oxford was not even considered. The sort of economics they offer did not appeal.

Ditto in a way with Harvard. You go if you want to do a liberal arts degree. If you know what you want to study and your parents have deep pockets (which plenty do in Central London) its probably Cambridge, MIT or Stanford. Oddly some of those who had always expected to study in the States then divert to Cambridge as the course is both shorter and cheaper. You then head for one of the big American research based institutions for post-Grad.

The employment landscape our children face will be tough. Improved communications means that all sorts of jobs can be out-sourced overseas. This idea of focussing ambitions on just two institutions, and the institution not the courses seems hopelessly outdated. I can see why this suits Oxbridge but is it the right advice for the brightest of the next generation. when they start hunting for jobs will they regret not having studied automative engineering or product design rather than humanities amongst the dreaming spires.

(Another thread altogether but entry level salaries for the sort of jobs people want to do following their Oxbridge humanities degrees have totally plummeted whilst London living costs have risen. Really hard to get your foot in the door unless your parents can support you.)

The brand thing us definitely, most definitely alive. Don't be fooled into thinking employers don't favour Oxbridge graduates. My direct experience found other wise.

Really? I did not apply to Oxbridge, as I had had enough of my country boarding school and wanted to be in London. I have held some quite sought after jobs, and never felt that an LSE degree was a disadvantage. My contemporaries appear to have done equally well. In particular I think studying in an urban and international environment has been a real advantage.

I went to Oxbridge and now teach there. I also teach at another university.

The two courses are chalk and cheese.

Frankly, I think it's a piss take that they're allowed to charge the same fees!

At the former, students get far more contact time, far more involved and enthusiastic tutors, a far more able peer group (important for seminars) and ultimately a far more impressive brand.

needmoresleep

In terms of branding, I think studying economics at LSE is every bit as advanatageous as Oxbridge, particularly in the financial sector!

And I think within certain industries in the UK, other courses at other establishments are stand out too.

However,in tertms of broad brush, especially internationally, Oxbride is still the gift that keeps on giving (to co-op a phrase from an earlier poster).

Word, I usually find myself agreeing with your posts so a question?

Which would you rather. The right course, or Oxbridge choosing a less competitive course. This for many is the de-facto decision.

needmoresleep very interesting question .

I think it depends very much on the young person and what they want to do.

If I think they'd benefit from the rather odd-sausage approach at Oxbridge (and I say that as a fan), and they have no firm post-education plans as of yet, I'd probably advise them to give it a whirl.

However, if they have very deifnite plans and they know other courses are highly regarded in their desired industry (and have done proper due dilligence as opposed to my friend's-brother-in-law says...) then I'd say plump for those courses.

The reality, though, for most high ability students, is that there are lots of good courses in good establishments that will stand them in good stead. The teaching is pretty good and if they work to a decent standard, they'll leave with something worthwhile.

Unfortunately, there are however, far too many below par courses at below par universities, that do little more than part students from their money. The quality of education is poor and the peer group is low ability and the brand is not worth having...

Word thanks for that. I think we cross posted. And thanks also Begonia.

Which gets us back to he original debate. Should good kids be encouraged to aspire to Oxbridge or should they be encouraged to think carefully about what they might want to do in the future, and then aspire to top ranked rated faculties, a number of which will be in either Cambridge or Oxford, but with equal weight given to those elsewhere.

needmoresleep I think we do need to get our high ability kids to aspire to those places.

And I think one thing we need to stop doing, is pretending that there is equivalence.

There needs to be honesty, that there are tiers. Sure, we may disagree who exactly falls within each tier, but as a broad brush approach...

We then need to get those high ability kids to understand what they'll need to do to get themselves in the starting gates. And again, we need to be honest and we need to advise them in good time ie before GCSE options.

Finally, I'd advise them mot to get too het up. They gte five choices, that's more than enough to secure a decent place ...

Word, another crosspost, but I think we are agreeing.

We had a bit of a friend's brother in law situation, though actually with MiL who got very focussed on DS' Cambridge application, not helped by the fact that another very able family member was applying at the same time. I got quite irritated by the assumption, echoed by some earlier posts on this thread, that being offered a place on one of the top economics courses in the world was somehow a failure because it was not Oxbridge.

Not a view that seems to be shared by people we know working in the financial sector, and as Begonia suggests, the same applies with engineering. A neighbour was telling me that her son and some of his contemporaries recently down from Oxford are struggling. Those hoovered up by the likes of Begonia or the financial sector are doing alright. The rest have jobs that barely pay the rent for a grotty shared house in a not so nice area.

I also accept that Oxbridge offers a fantastic and unique experience. DS absolutely loved Cambridge when we looked around. London in my experience is tougher. Fellow students will be equally bright, and in part because of the high proportion of international students, equally hard working and motivated. Teaching staff will be good. However I suspect there will be more need to self direct to ensure you make the best of the opportunities on offer. If you do though, I suspect you might turn out more street-wise and employable. There is certainly less of an adjustment to moving to a job in London.

There are some very thoughtful views in this thread. To Milly, I would say well done to your daughter for showing her school that they didn't know what they thought they knew and what a mean response from her school! Given the huge competition for Oxbridge, everyone in a sense gets lucky anyway when they get a place. But I really do dislike the narrow focus on Oxbridge because that is just not terribly helpful (different when there was a separate exam to do). By all means give the children sensible advice and encouragement about aiming high, what that means and how to get there and it is OK if 'the Oxbridge talk' is a subset of that so long as it is not 'by invitation only'. I am uneasy about giving the accolade of 'favoured ones' because that is far more likely to put a cap on the aspirations and self-worth of other pupils than do any real good for the ones who are marked out.

Although some of my colleagues would no doubt hang me for treason ...the top tier London universities offer an extremely rigorous academic experience, and everyone knows that!

A different experience though. Univeristy in London has a very different feel IYSWIM.

The London university where I teach though, is a very poor second to any of those choices.

For a start, a large proportion of the student body are from London and thus, live at home. They come in for lectures and go home/to work.

Another large group sre the overseas students. On paper, this ought to drive standards up and add extra texture, but in reality they socialise within their group and don't get involved in university life outside lectures- politics, music, drama, sports etc etc.

Also, a number of those overseas students just aren't up to it. But they pay through the nose, so ...

' it is OK if 'the Oxbridge talk' is a subset of that so long as it is not 'by invitation only'. I am uneasy about giving the accolade of 'favoured ones' because that is far more likely to put a cap on the aspirations and self-worth of other pupils than do any real good for the ones who are marked out.'

I very much agree with this and feel that some of the current emphasis is giving unhelpful messages. At one school I know teachers have to vote for you to be allowed to apply. At my own children's school anyone interested may apply and info is given to all. This can throw up some surprises ( nice ones!)

Like Dustylaw, I am dubious about marking out Oxbridge favourites in - what did the OP say? - year 9? That's rather ridiculous and also insulting. Some of those kids will still be 13.

I think it's right and proper to guide able students towards the most beneficial GCSEs - and also giving kids the facts about how many A*s a normal applicant achieves etc, but then it should be up to the student.

For every kid who is not chosen and is determined to get there anyway and prove the school wrong, there are others who retreat back into their shells and feel they're just not up to it when they just might have flown under the radar.

Ds (year 11) attended a Cambridge talk, open to all. And all did attend! Ds said it was packed out. Obviously hardly any of these kids were going to make the grade, but at least the door wasn't slammed in their face before they'd even had a chance to hear what was what.

'A neighbour was telling me that her son and some of his contemporaries recently down from Oxford are struggling. Those hoovered up by the likes of Begonia or the financial sector are doing alright. The rest have jobs that barely pay the rent for a grotty shared house in a not so nice area. '

Is this because of the institution or the subjects studied?

And agree with slipshodsibyl too. Voting for students indeed! Ime teachers are often drawn to empty vessels whilst those lurking at the back are ignored. I remember in A Level English the teacher expressing complete surprise that the two best essays after the second week came from the two quietest members of the class

"jobs that barely pay the rent" are often the incredibly sought-after ones. And twas ever thus that new graduates had to live in crummy flats if they wanted to live in London. I know it's worse now, but even in the late 80s only people with rich parents were swanning about Parsons Green. Everyone else was exiled miles out on the Northern Line (top and bottom).

I recently did an online course on applying to US universities. One of the key features was that you should have a balance of the universities you investigate and apply to. So you should have a few "reach" universities, ones which are a challenge for you to get into. Most should be "challenge" universities, for which you are/will be about as qualified as their average. Then you should consider a couple of "insurance" universities, ones that you should be well qualified for.
The other key factor they talk about is "fit", which is how well the University fits your needs and aspirations, and how well you fit the kind of student they are looking for (which seems to be more key in a lot of US universities, where they look for things outside academics).

Something similar could be useful in the UK. I would like every student who could get the grades for Oxford and Cambridge to at least look at them, if only for 10 minutes. They may then decide they actually want to go to LSE, or Surrey (maybe big animal veterinary science?) or Newcastle or Huddersfield.

Not everyone on MN it seems.....

And a wider point might be that the landscape has changed, partly because of student fees and partly because graduate jobs are so hard to get. Good and realistic advice is important not just for the most able, but all those heading for tertiary education.

Some institutions seem to have risen to the challenge better than others. We did a few campus tours and the approach, as opposed to course content, of similarly ranked departments was very different. Some were really quite uninspiring and innovative, as if they did not know they wanted to attract good students. I am not surprised to see employment focussed universities such as Surrey and Bath race up the league tables.

I have spent quite a lot of time recently working in Bournemouth and have been impressed by some of the University's recent graduates, who have found jobs in the town using their seemingly good marketing, design and communications skills. This may be a small sample issue, with perhaps only the more employable individuals landing these jobs. However the Poole/Bournemouth area has a lot of large and small employers willing to take on graduates and thus a demand for people with good and up to date skill sets. Even, perhaps especially, with second or third tier institutions the message perhaps should be to aim as high as you can and do your research, looking for somewhere with a commitment to good teaching, and an understanding on the employment market for skills taught, and with a similarly motivated and able student body.

Selecting a few and talking to them simply about "Oxbridge" is limiting. However I agree that it is important that students have early advice so they can make the right subject choices and understand that hard work and good results will make a big difference. Higher education is a huge personal investment for a young person and decisions should be properly informed.

"Is this because of the institution or the subjects studied?"

Probably the latter. Plus the fact that salaries for sought after jobs have fallen with the rise of unpaid internships. My neighbour felt that these jobs were increasingly becoming the preserve of those whose mummy and daddy could pull strings, give the little darlings an allowance and buy them a flat in Parsons Green.

Hence my point that the subject matters as much as the institution, if you want a good job afterwards. The argument that the Oxbridge brand alone will open doors may not carry as much weight as it did.