What advantages does going to Oxbridge actually bring?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I wasn't commenting on your music grads in finance stuff, I meant the other points you made :yes:

I doubt the royals got in on merit either but I believe that Miliband got the grades that were required at the time, or that he did well enough on the entrance exam to get in anyway. I don't know what the exact system was, since I'm too young for it. Maybe nulli tertius would be able to comment further :yes:

Have definitely read stuff on this very forum about the Miliband brothers which implied they got in on merit though :yes:

Original post by dugdugdug

Whatever the criteria was back then, I doubt Charles and Edward got in on merit.

Miliband MIGHT have got the 2Es offer, though I can't say for certain.

Exceptions occur to present day.

I was quoting exceptions like music grads in finance.

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

If you look on Wikipedia and the related article, the case of how Miliband got into Oxford wasn't to do with either of those things anyway by the looks of it :smile:

Plus if The History Boys is anything to go by, it can't have just been the rich that managed the whole seventh term thing :p:

Back in the Cretaceous Age when dinosaurs roamed Port Meadow there were seven methods of admission to Oxford:-

1 Early Offers: Unconditional/no exam offers to exceptional post-A level applicants. You could not apply for an early offer. This was a boon from on high to 7th term exam applicants. Very rare.

2 7th term exam: A proper entrance exam offered in ten subjects but subject ten (Modern Studies) differed from the rest. Everyone but mathematicians did General Paper 1, three or four essays over three hours from a wide choice of subjects of social/political/general interest and a variable number of generally three hour subject specific papers. Modern Studies had 6 papers of its own, politics, philosophy, economics, English and foreign history, General Paper II (precis) and General Paper III (logic). Candidates had to offer General Paper II plus two other papers either drawn from the other five modern studies papers or anywhere else in the exam apart from maths and music. Succesful candidates received an unconditional offer as either a commoner, exhibitioner or scholar. All offers were made by specific colleges. There were no open applications, no pooling and no open offers. A system of trumping was in operation so that a candidate might be offered a commoner's place by their first choice Merton, an exhibition by their 5th choice Corpus and a scholarship by St Annes which they hadn't chosen at all. That person could either accept St Annes or apply again the following year. They could not go to either Merton or Corpus. Most 7th termers were private school pupils. By the 1980s the state system had largely attained its present form with about 180 irregularly spaced grammar schools and the rest a mix of comprehensive VIth forms, VIth form colleges and FE colleges

3 4th term exam: The key point is that this wasn't a separate exam from the 7th term exam. One sat exactly the same papers but they were marked to different standards. Moreover, in a subject like history or English there might be in excess of 50 different A level syllabuses and the exam had to be designed to be capable of being taken by people who were doing any of them. In the arts subjects most papers were 3 hour essay papers. General II and III were shorter as may have been the unseen translation papers. I think the maths papers were "do as much as you can" 3 hour papers. Commoners received UCAS conditional offers to satisfy matriculation requirements (normally EE at A level unless someone still had an outstanding O level matriculation requirement to meet in which case that would be added). Exhibitioners and scholars received unconditional offers. Trumping applied.

4 Conditional offers: No exam. Only available to pre-A level applicants. Only commoner places awarded. Mostly undertaken by state school pupils but still a small minority of those. Most common Oxford offer AAB (Cambridge was AAA) but offers ranged both higher and lower and very significant numbers were offered ABB.

5 Matriculation offers: Also known as the Hertford Scheme: No exam. Pre-A level candidates only. Earlier, more detailed interviews. Originally only Hertford but subsequently extending through about a third of the university, with between 10-33% of places offered this way. Aimed at but not limited to state school applicants. Had resulted in dramatic increase in Hertford's performance in the Norrington Table. The criticism was that it was being used to attract and cherry-pick stronger state school candidates, leaving other colleges with weaker independent school candidates. Offers resulted in commoner places (and thus EE offers) only. Succesful candidates invited to sit entrance exam with a view to securing scholarshp or exhibition. Not clear how many did, since it would leave candidate vulnerable to trumping.

6 London Scheme: Only for pupils of Inner London Education Authority. There were two schemes, one for physical sciences and the other for PPE. This wasn't generally advertised. I knew one person who did it. It involved sitting the entrance exam centrally and possibly interviews in London. The scheme is now being misrepresented for political purposes. It was more of an outreach scheme and an administrative convenience than a separate method of entrance. At one time there was also a Yorkshire Scheme.

7 Scottish Scheme: Another not generally advertised scheme for applicants doing scottish highers only. I know very little about it.

Prince Charles' time in Cambridge was long before my time but I don't think it was perceived as inappropriate at the time any more than that someone should be admitted on his cricketing or rowing ability. Moreover it was clear that he was to be taught statecraft by Rab Butler Master of Trinity. Prince Edward's admission was seen as much less acceptable. I don't think it has ever been revealed whether and to what extent he went through a normal admissions process. He was certainly a pre A-level applicant. Goodness knows whether he sat the entrance exam. There is a complication in that he was a Royal Marines sponsored student. Whether that, rather than his royal status, meant automatic admission, again I don't know.

David Miliband was a London Scheme applicant for PPE. I don't know whether the London scheme included conditional or matric candidates but I suspect not. As such he would have done 4th term exam. It looks like Miliband deferred his place for a year. Sources refer to him leaving school in 1983. That is consistent with his July 1965 birthday. However, he seems to have gone up in Michaelmas 1984. It is very difficult to see him how he could have been a post A level candidate on the London Scheme, which suggests he deferred for a year. The word Kibbutz comes to mind.

(edited 12 years ago)

Original post by curnock

You have a very warped/prejudiced idea of what Oxbridge is like :lol:

Reply 163

qwertyuiop1993

Original post by curnock

I haven't got the time of day for anyone that thinks they are guaranteed to 'make it' in 'life' because of the reputation of their education.
If you go to oxbridge, yes you'll have a degree from a uni with the best position in the league tables but I'm sure there's plenty of downsides.

- The degree may get you a job but its certainly not going to get you friends or a life. If you mention you're an oxbridge student/graduate every time you meet someone I'm sure they will just think your a pretentious **** who's head is up in the clouds.

I don't think a degree from any uni will get you friends...that's a totally different matter to the education you received. Also, you're assuming that many Oxbridge graduates automatically mention that they went to Oxbridge so they don't get friends, which is a bit of a dubious statement.

- Going to Oxbridge isn't going to do much for your social life. The courses there are taught at a much faster pace which means you have to spend 3 years with your head in books.

Err, the courses do go at a faster pace but that doesn't really impact the social aspect. People find time for socialising and the cliché of work hard, play hard actually holds true for many people. Like at any uni you will find many bookish types, probably a greater percentage, but that in no way means that going to Oxbridge = death of socialising.

Your not allowed part time jobs in Oxbridge meaning many graduates come out at 21 with no experience in a working environment what so ever because mummy and daddy have always funded them.

There is something called a summer holiday you know, which is the perfect time to get some work experience in...

The 'mummy and daddy paying for everything' stereotype is a tired and inaccurate portrait of what is a pretty diverse student body. I certainly am not wealthy enough to have everything paid for and I know many people who have found jobs in the holidays. The really wealthy types are around, but even then your point of lacking work experience isn't really valid seeing as those who are really wealthy often have had work experience through family contacts.

- Your drinking skills will be rubbish from going to Oxbridge and even by 21 years old you'll probably still be drunk off 2 pints.

Because not honing your drinking skills is a major disadvantage to an educational establishment... :rolleyes:

So if your content with spending your life being born, doing 13 years in school, followed by 3 years of an intense degree, working and then dying, then yes Oxbridge is a good choice.

Or, if you want to take an opportunity to study a subject you love in detail with like minded people, then Oxbridge is a good choice.

If you'd rather be down to earth, skilled, sociable and have a life while still coming out with a degree in exactly the same subject then go somewhere else.

Once again the tired stereotypes come out. Down to earth, skilled and sociable people exist in Oxbridge, it's the Oxbridge of your imagination that is made up entirely of toffs who do nothing but work. A degree in the same subject in no way means you have learnt exactly the same things...

I also like how you mentioned dying while describing Oxbridge to make it all seem doom and gloom but then conspicuously leave it out when describing the other option, as if avoiding Oxbridge is going to magically grant you immortality.

Thank you for reeling off many stereotypes that don't actually address the question of this thread, which is asking about real benefits of going to Oxbridge, of which 'making it in life' is obviously not one that is actually taken seriously by most people who actually go there.

Of course there are disadvantages to going to Oxbridge, but the one's you point out are a bit flimsy...