What is the point in studying at Oxbridge?

Original post by RainPoncho

Hear me out please! I'm considering applying to Cambridge to study Computer Science. I have the right predicted grades so far and the work ethic needed for Oxbridge. My 6th form has pushed me towards applying to Cambridge because "if you can get the grades you should", but looking further into the whole process, going to a prestigious university such as Cambridge seems like a waste of time.

Take the Natural Sciences course for example. I'm hardworking and enjoy the subjects I study but the hours needed for the course per week, such as many other sciences, seem absurd. Surely 3-4 years of a demanding course like that would be painful?

Also it seems much harder to get a decent degree (2:1 for example) at Oxbridge compared to other universities, begging the question: why bother?

I'd rather have a decent work :tongue:

lay balance, have good teaching and end up with a 2:1 degree in a subject I enjoy. To be honest, who wouldn't? So why is there such a hype about going to Oxbridge? I'm not making jabs at both universities, I'm honestly confused about the merits in studying at them.

Please enlighten me, I'm from a state school in the North East with very few Oxbridge hopefuls so I haven't had much more information about Oxbridge other than the entry requirements. What I've stated here is gathered from internet research so correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's just always beneficial to apply to the places that will give you the most opportunities post degree. In reality going to any other university like LSE, Durham, Imperial, UCL ect would probably not hinder you in anyway, but it's always nice to say that you got into the most prestigious university in the UK.

Reply 5

1drowssap

17

Original post by RainPoncho

Hear me out please! I'm considering applying to Cambridge to study Computer Science. I have the right predicted grades so far and the work ethic needed for Oxbridge. My 6th form has pushed me towards applying to Cambridge because "if you can get the grades you should", but looking further into the whole process, going to a prestigious university such as Cambridge seems like a waste of time.

Take the Natural Sciences course for example. I'm hardworking and enjoy the subjects I study but the hours needed for the course per week, such as many other sciences, seem absurd. Surely 3-4 years of a demanding course like that would be painful?

Also it seems much harder to get a decent degree (2:1 for example) at Oxbridge compared to other universities, begging the question: why bother?

I'd rather have a decent work :tongue:

lay balance, have good teaching and end up with a 2:1 degree in a subject I enjoy. To be honest, who wouldn't? So why is there such a hype about going to Oxbridge? I'm not making jabs at both universities, I'm honestly confused about the merits in studying at them.

Please enlighten me, I'm from a state school in the North East with very few Oxbridge hopefuls so I haven't had much more information about Oxbridge other than the entry requirements. What I've stated here is gathered from internet research so correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the 1 to 1 tutorial system is the main selling point for these universities. Personalised attention and teaching at uni. What more do you want? An analogy would be people at Oxbridge flying in first class on the plane while everyone else flies in economy class.

Reply 6

Rob da Mop

15

The terms are intense, but the supervision system is brilliant and there's so much going on. Honestly, come to an open day and if you still think you wouldn't relish the challenge and enjoy the experience then fair enough, don't apply.

Reply 7

nexttime

22

Original post by RainPoncho

Hear me out please! I'm considering applying to Cambridge to study Computer Science. I have the right predicted grades so far and the work ethic needed for Oxbridge. My 6th form has pushed me towards applying to Cambridge because "if you can get the grades you should", but looking further into the whole process, going to a prestigious university such as Cambridge seems like a waste of time.

Take the Natural Sciences course for example. I'm hardworking and enjoy the subjects I study but the hours needed for the course per week, such as many other sciences, seem absurd. Surely 3-4 years of a demanding course like that would be painful?

Also it seems much harder to get a decent degree (2:1 for example) at Oxbridge compared to other universities, begging the question: why bother?

I'd rather have a decent work :tongue:

lay balance, have good teaching and end up with a 2:1 degree in a subject I enjoy. To be honest, who wouldn't? So why is there such a hype about going to Oxbridge? I'm not making jabs at both universities, I'm honestly confused about the merits in studying at them.

Please enlighten me, I'm from a state school in the North East with very few Oxbridge hopefuls so I haven't had much more information about Oxbridge other than the entry requirements. What I've stated here is gathered from internet research so correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes those are probably the main disadvantages of Oxbridge - a perfectly reasonable viewpoint.

However...

There are loads of advantages too. In terms of your student experience, the college system is probably the most prolific difference. Far greater welfare and student society provision is probably the second most noticeable one. A lot more money spent on you allowing very small group or even 1 to 1 tutorials with top academics. Its also a very beautiful city, you meet some astounding people, there are advantages to short terms... the list does go on. And lastly... prestige. There is a definite difference in opportunity, especially in fields like law (so I am told) and in academia.

Spoiler

Oxbridge is definitely not for everyone - couldn't possibly agree with the statement "if you can... you should". There are a lot of positives to consider though.

Reply 8

Blackacre

12

Original post by RainPoncho

I understand where you're coming from and totally agree. However I have heard that it's a lot harder to get a good grade from Oxbridge universities compared to less competitive ones. Surely it's easier to get a job with a 2:1 degree from an average university than a 3rd degree from Oxbridge, or am I just completely underestimating Oxbridge's prestige? Does the fact you went to an Oxbridge uni render the out-come of your degree meaningless? Or is it just as easy/hard to get a 2:1 compared to other universities?

I think it's virtually impossible to quantify the difficulty unless you've studied at Oxbridge and another university for undergrad, which very few people can say they've done. However, whilst it's undeniable that an Oxbridge degree is a lot of work, it's not unmanageable. (Disclaimer: I'm not a NatSci.)

I wouldn't say that the Oxbridge name opens every door for you, but I can certainly see that having attended the university has been beneficial. I've had a lot of exposure to influential people, and - more importantly - it's taught me to think in a way that perhaps isn't the case at other universities. Oxbridge focuses quite heavily on the principles underpinning things, which I found very frustrating at times - but with the benefit of hindsight I can see that this "wax on, wax off" approach has taught me how to approach unfamiliar problems and generally reach the right result. It's not so much the volume of stuff which has been helpful, but rather the way in which I now process it which has given me the edge over some of my peers in what I'm doing now.

I'm sure a lot of people would love the chance of experiencing this learning style, however it seems pretty stifling to me. I'm a very independent learner and tend not to benefit from supervision or group discussion. Would this mean I'd struggle with Oxbridge learning?

I think you misunderstand the nature of supervisions/tutorials - they're not to "teach" you per se, but to give you the opportunity to raise any queries that you had during the reading assigned as part of your independent study. The closest analogy I can draw is with Newsnight; in order for the guests to be able to speak intelligently about the issues they must've done their own "research" beforehand. They're not a good source for the average TV viewer to learn about the points underpinning the debate, but they act as useful food for thought for people who are looking for something a bit more analytical (than the pure facts), if you see what I mean.

Reply 9

Blackacre

12

Original post by RainPoncho

Ahhh right, that sounds a lot more beneficial, thanks for clearing it up. There was an Oxbridge conference a few months ago and one of the Professors speaking there made it sound like the seminars were competitive and stifling. He said something along the lines of "everyone will be onto you if you're struggling" and it sounded more like a threat than a good thing. Guess he was just one of the more eccentric Professors.

Yeah, I think you have to take comments like that with a pinch of salt. All I can infer that he meant is you can't get away with blagging your way through supervisions (believe me, I'm speaking from experience!). That said, you're not at school any more - short of a bad supervision report there's not really any other "sanction" for it. :p:

Reply 10

Original post by RainPoncho

I understand where you're coming from and totally agree. However I have heard that it's a lot harder to get a good grade from Oxbridge universities compared to less competitive ones. Surely it's easier to get a job with a 2:1 degree from an average university than a 3rd degree from Oxbridge, or am I just completely underestimating Oxbridge's prestige? Does the fact you went to an Oxbridge uni render the out-come of your degree meaningless? Or is it just as easy/hard to get a 2:1 compared to other universities?

No it's clearly better to get a 2:1 from an average university than a 3rd from Oxbridge, but their 1 to 1 system makes that very unlikely. I think you're overestimating how much harder achieving a 2:1 from Oxbridge is in comparison to any other well ranked university, it's very unlikely someone who could get a 2:1 at LSE for example would've achieved a worse grade at Oxbridge if they attended there instead.

Reply 11

Original post by RainPoncho

Hear me out please! I'm considering applying to Cambridge to study Computer Science. I have the right predicted grades so far and the work ethic needed for Oxbridge. My 6th form has pushed me towards applying to Cambridge because "if you can get the grades you should", but looking further into the whole process, going to a prestigious university such as Cambridge seems like a waste of time.

Take the Natural Sciences course for example. I'm hardworking and enjoy the subjects I study but the hours needed for the course per week, such as many other sciences, seem absurd. Surely 3-4 years of a demanding course like that would be painful?

Also it seems much harder to get a decent degree (2:1 for example) at Oxbridge compared to other universities, begging the question: why bother?

I'd rather have a decent work :tongue:

lay balance, have good teaching and end up with a 2:1 degree in a subject I enjoy. To be honest, who wouldn't? So why is there such a hype about going to Oxbridge? I'm not making jabs at both universities, I'm honestly confused about the merits in studying at them.

Please enlighten me, I'm from a state school in the North East with very few Oxbridge hopefuls so I haven't had much more information about Oxbridge other than the entry requirements. What I've stated here is gathered from internet research so correct me if I'm wrong.

All of the points you have raised are valid. From what you've posted in this thread so far it seems to me that you would probably be best off going with your instinct and applying elsewhere. I'm thinking especially of the post where you say that you do not enjoy group discussion, which suggests that you would not benefit much from Oxbridge's trademark supervision/tutorial system.

If you're looking for positives though I would say firstly prestige/reputation/employment prospects, secondly the pleasure of working closely with academically brilliant peers (although could be considered a negative...), and finally in your third/fourth years there will be good opportunities to make contacts with some of the leading academics in the country.

Reply 12

letsbehonest

15

This is the exact reason why I didn't apply to Cambridge. I visited the uni so many times, liked it but I prefer a more relaxed environment.. and people that aren't so stiff looking.

Reply 13

Original post by GeogBerry

No it's clearly better to get a 2:1 from an average university than a 3rd from Oxbridge, but their 1 to 1 system makes that very unlikely. I think you're overestimating how much harder achieving a 2:1 from Oxbridge is in comparison to any other well ranked university, it's very unlikely someone who could get a 2:1 at LSE for example would've achieved a worse grade at Oxbridge if they attended there instead.

One-to-one supervisions are the exception rather than the rule -- most are in groups of 2-4. I think you're overstating the benefit of the supervision/tutorial system too. They serve as a useful supplement to lectures but they certainly don't grant one immunity to a bad grade in the end-of-year examinations, as you seem to be implying.

Reply 14

Original post by Ashnard

One-to-one supervisions are the exception rather than the rule -- most are in groups of 2-4. I think you're overstating the benefit of the supervision/tutorial system too. They serve as a useful supplement to lectures but they certainly don't grant one immunity to a bad grade in the end-of-year examinations, as you seem to be implying.

No I'm saying if you're having issues, it's much easier to access tutors ect. than if you were at a university with 20 students for each academic staff. What I'm saying is that university life at Oxbridge is not magically different to every other university and just because it has this stigma that all degrees there will require every minute of your attention is a complete lie. In reality a degree at Oxbridge is unlikely to be much harder than anywhere else (within reason) otherwise the % of people getting 2:1s and firsts wouldn't be around average, although clearly there are exceptions

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

Original post by GeogBerry

No I'm saying if you're having issues, it's much easier to access tutors ect. than if you were at a university with 20 students for each academic staff.

This is true but again I argue that this doesn't offer a massive amount of protection against a sub-2.1 result at the end of the year. The shear volume of information that needs to be learned for Oxbridge end-of-year exams is vast, and so having a few one-hour supervisions/tutorials among 2-4 people in examination term doesn't really make much of a dent in the material that has to be covered. I'd argue that students who feel that they have to rely upon their supervisors to pass exams are pretty much fighting a losing battle anyway.

What I'm saying is that university life at Oxbridge is not magically different to every other university and just because it has this stigma that all degrees there will require every minute of your attention is a complete lie.

Well not much to say here except that this jars with my personal experiences. I hate to be rude, but I'm really wondering how you can feel confident making these claims that you are making as a 17-year-old, who presumably hasn't even started university yet?

In reality a degree at Oxbridge is unlikely to be much harder than anywhere else (within reason) otherwise the % of people getting 2:1s and firsts wouldn't be around average, although clearly there are exceptions

Assuming that your statistical claims are true, this would actually argue for the exact opposite conclusion because Oxbridge has higher entrance requirements than other universities (e.g. A*AA A-level, >7 A*s GCSE etc), so if the difficulty of degrees were similar between different universities then we would expect to see a higher proportion of firsts and 2.1s among Cambridge graduates. The presence of a similar grade distribution between a university with an A*/A undergraduate intake and that with an A/B undergraduate intake would suggest that former has more difficult degrees than the latter, for example.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 16

Scott.M

12

-Prestige
-Easier to get a job
-More likely to actually get a job in your chosen subject field
-More likely to get a higher paid job and meet a partner who will get a highly paid job (i.e. more likely to become wealthy)
-More likely to meet a partner in general (oxbridge shows to girls that you are intelligent and hard-working, basically that you aren't a daft LAD who will waste their time)
-Unique experience
-Old, traditional uni buildings
-Nice city

Those are the pros, the cons are what you have mentioned. I'd say go to an open day. :tongue:

And also you sound like you're like me in that you come from a less privileged area/school (compared to where most people who'd go to a uni like that would come from). I'd say grasp the opportunity as you're likely making your own way in life without a rich mammy and daddy who own their own company/have contacts in high places to fall back on like a lot of private school kids do.

You're building up any potential wealth you may have from scratch, so ask yourself, without going to oxbridge (dental school in my case), how would you get a job as highly paid as oxbridge could get you? There aren't that many highly paid jobs out there in England for those who don't have at least one of the following: contacts, parents in high places, medicine/dentistry/oxbridge/LSE degree.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

Original post by Ashnard

This is true but again I argue that this doesn't offer a massive amount of protection against a sub-2.1 result at the end of the year. The shear volume of information that needs to be learned for Oxbridge end-of-year exams is vast, and so having a few one-hour supervisions/tutorials among 2-4 people in examination term doesn't really make much of a dent in the material that has to be covered. I'd argue that students who feel that they have to rely upon their supervisors to pass exams are pretty much fighting a losing battle anyway.

I'm basing all my opinions of UCL (which is my firm) with a similar system. The tutorial systems seems very similar and also helpful. I think you're taking my point far to seriously, I meant if you have such contact time, it's less likely you'll be left unknowing or unready for things as you'll likely have more of your questions answered. My sister did maths at Birmingham and said her issue was she never had time to ask specific questions as the tutors were always with other people.

Well not much to say here except that this jars with my personal experiences. I hate to be rude, but I'm really wondering how you can feel confident making these claims that you are making as a 17-year-old, who presumably hasn't even started university yet?

I have friends who study at Oxford and I'm hopefully starting at UCL in a year. As I know multiple people studying to same degree but at different places, I know in general that what you study isn't majorly different and or impossible to achieve well in.

Assuming that your statistical claims are true, this would actually argue for the exact opposite conclusion because Oxbridge has higher entrance requirements than other universities (e.g. A*AA A-level, >7 A*s GCSE etc), so if the difficulty of degrees were similar between different universities then we would expect to see a higher proportion of firsts and 2.1s among Cambridge graduates. The presence of a similar grade distribution between a university with an A*/A undergraduate intake and that with an A/B undergraduate intake would suggest that former has more difficult degrees than the latter, for example.

I was specifically talking about Biology at UCL in comparison to Oxford and Cambridge. They have similar entrance requirements (although UCL is obviously slightly lower) and almost identical % of firsts, 2:1s, ect, suggesting they are of similar difficulty.

My main point was people go to these places to have the greatest opportunities, there are similar opportunities elsewhere and that the courses aren't going to be impossible. The one-to-one thing was literally just a passing comment, not the main argument at all

Reply 18