What's honestly so good about Oxbridge?

That being said, the actual course at Cambridge is not for me. 3 years of theory only with no clinical work didn't appeal to me at all. I also didn't really like the style of the professor giving the lecture.

Do I have to do A2 if I want to apply to Oxibridge?

I wasn't actually suggesting that chance of getting a good job is a reason for going to Oxbridge. And as someone else has pointed out its hard to distinguish correlation from causation. I don't really think the Oxbridge brand necessarily has that much of an effect (except maybe in certain domains like law), but the fact that Oxbridge tends to attract very intelligent, hard-working students aiming for grad jobs means that there's a higher likelihood of employment. For example, in highly competitive grad schemes where selection is university-blind (Civil Service Fast stream comes to mind) Oxbridge grads have a significantly higher chance of being accepted - that's not the brand working.

Great post

If that were true then why not just move to Oxbridge and mingle in the pub with future nobel prize winning students?

Only place where you have to put your sausage in a pig to get into Prestigious Clubs/Societies (*cough* David Cameron *cough*). Still, better than doing a test, am I right?

Hypothetically the education itself could have made some difference though, right? Now I know very little about civil service fast stream or whatever, but there might be some transferable skills - critical reading, evidence analysis, or even just the hard-workingness you allude to - that may have contributed to at least a part of the difference.

The evidence I'm more familiar with is from medicine. Its an interesting case because all med schools require AAA or higher so whilst the pre-uni academic standards are still slightly higher for Oxbridge, its about as close as you'll get to an even starting place. Oxbridge still blows all the others out of the water.

The notion that Oxford might offer better teaching is not based on heresay. It spends far more money, has much closer involvement of senior academics, and works its students harder on average.

I'm just hypothesising that that is not entirely wasted and that applying to Oxbirdge because you want a good job is not unfounded.

Though obviously the individual is the more important variable.

Do I have to do A2 if I want to apply to Oxibridge?

...yes, there probably are, but it doesn't make the statement (which some people try to cast aspersions on in these sorts of threads) any less true.



Well no, not maybe. It's a statistical fact, whether you like it or not.

Very altruistic of you. You're right: getting into Oxbridge isn't a guarantee of a great job. In most cases, though, it gives you an edge.

I wasn't actually suggesting that chance of getting a good job is a reason for going to Oxbridge. And as someone else has pointed out its hard to distinguish correlation from causation. I don't really think the Oxbridge brand necessarily has that much of an effect (except maybe in certain domains like law), but the fact that Oxbridge tends to attract very intelligent, hard-working students aiming for grad jobs means that there's a higher likelihood of employment. For example, in highly competitive grad schemes where selection is university-blind (Civil Service Fast stream comes to mind) Oxbridge grads have a significantly higher chance of being accepted - that's not the brand working.

I chose Oxford because I liked the look of the course and I wanted to be challenged in a tutorial setting. Yes, the prestige was a nice factor, but I think the most valuable thing I got out of it was the ability to deal with vast amounts of work efficiently and being able to defend your ideas to authority. Nothing like Oxford Finals to make normal working life feel pretty easy.

I'm not saying that Oxbridge is the be all and end all, and there are loads of reasons why other universities will suit other people better.

Great post

That's what I mean, it's not because of 'Oxbridge' that their graduates earn more on average. It's because the people who get into Oxbridge are as you say: hard working, intelligent, driven etc. These qualities are innate to the type of students who get into Oxbridge and I'm confident they would do well regardless of whether their degrees read Oxford/Cambridge or not.

That's why it's important to not get trapped into formulaic 'x degree from y uni = z salary equations most young people on TSR function off of when choosing courses/unis. It's not only inaccurate, but it's dangerous because it sets an 'expectation' for them which, if unattained, would be disastrous to their sense of worth.

If only you would take your own advice on IB forums...

Why are people on this site and to a lesser extent so obsessed with Cambridge and Oxford like they're heaven on earth? I've not seen Oxford but from what I saw of Cambridge it was basically a small town, with the colleges making it feel like some weird cross between a private boarding school and a sixth form. There's like no clubs and the ones which are there are supposedly . You'll basically be wasting the best 3 years of your life doing nothing but studying. Come at me Oxbridge fanboys.

That's completely different though.. The idea of the 'target and semi-target' university is real, you can see it in the attention the firms give to each school, and in the intake numbers for each firm. When 6 unis make up 70%+ of an intake, you better believe there's something more going on than just student ability.

I've never been one to say 'it's impossible' to make it into IB outside of the de facto univerities (and frankly, after seeing a London Southbank grad get Barclays IBD, I don't think I ever will), but there is no doubt that going to a target/semi-target significantly boosts one's chances. Across all careers? Not necessarily, no. In FO IB? Yes, definitely. Anybody giving advice re:IB will mention which schools are seen more favourably, not to show face but because it's a genuine aspect of the selection process.

That's fine, I was rather talking about the pay scales. The reality is that pay doesn't progress in such a structured fashion as you present it. And they aren't so high.

I know a UBS director on the ETF trading desk that was earning just under £200k. Not the low seven figures I often see reported.

That's completely different though.. The idea of the 'target and semi-target' university is real, you can see it in the attention the firms give to each school, and in the intake numbers for each firm. When 6 unis make up 70%+ of an intake, you better believe there's something more going on than just student ability.

I've never been one to say 'it's impossible' to make it into IB outside of the de facto univerities (and frankly, after seeing a London Southbank grad get Barclays IBD, I don't think I ever will), but there is no doubt that going to a target/semi-target significantly boosts one's chances. Across all careers? Not necessarily, no. In FO IB? Yes, definitely. Anybody giving advice re:IB will mention which schools are seen more favourably, not to show face but because it's a genuine aspect of the selection process.

To anyone wondering who he's talking about, it's this guy:
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ahmed-adebayo-09346936
He doesn't look very happy though lol

It's easier for non-whites and females to get in due to positive discrimination policies, isn't it?

I've not seen Oxford but from what I saw of Cambridge it was basically a small town, with the colleges making it feel like some weird cross between a private boarding school and a sixth form.

It's easier for non-whites and females to get in due to positive discrimination policies, isn't it?