Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

hotminute.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 446 posts

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#381

Post by growse »

wulfstan wrote: post #330
growse wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parents in state schools don't put in even half of the effort on average. I wondered how long it'd be before we'd see "parents who can't afford private education just aren't putting the effort in".

The truth is that if you have an intelligent child, independent school is a complete waste of money. In the UK you will be spending in the vicinity of £200k over a child’s education to finish a levels, and although they will get better a levels on average, their results at university do not reflect their a level achievements. This is why independent schools find themselves downgraded in university offers. This isn’t…

I agree with a lot of this.

> My experience of Cambridge students (I live in Cambridge) is that I have seen many burn out.

100%. I "burnt out" (actually, I think I discovered there was more to life than the academic slog I'd spent my entire schooling immersed in) and despite 6 A levels came 94/97 in my third year.

It happens a lot, and my suspicion is that the burnout is caused by the whiplash of going from a high intensity/pressure school environment (where you're likely told you're the smartest person in the room), to a more adult, self-driven one (where it's clear you're not).

> You also end up with a very narrow program of study which for children with broader interests forces them into a box very early.

This depends on the course I think. I did natural sciences which is extremely broad, and allows much later specialisation. Other courses are far narrower d think.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#382

Post by eszed »

saghm wrote: post #357
nine_k wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, fair. On the other hand, an MIT or Stanford graduate is more likely to be immediately hired by Google, or NVidia, or Barclays, or something else top-notch, without having to make intermediate career steps.

My perception is that the further you get from the time of graduation, the less it makes a difference where someone went to school. A year or two, I felt like where I got my degree might have made a difference in terms of my ability to find jobs, but coming up on a a decade since I graduated (which is a pretty small portion of what I expect will be a decades-long career), it might as well be entirely irrelevant. Amus…

Tech might be the only high-paying (or, hell, reliably middle-class white-collar) field where this is true.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#383

Post by andmikey »

krisoft wrote: post #324
andmikey wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was also my observation but in the reverse direction. I turned down a place at Cambridge to do my undergrad at Edinburgh a few years ago (for various reasons, not relevant here). It was only the top n% of students in the cohort who'd turn up for tutorials (prepared, or indeed at all), do assignments without cheating, ask questions in lectures, etc. Getting high grades in exams was mostly a memorization game. The…

> This was also my observation but in the reverse direction. I don’t see the “reverse direction” part. What you are describing and what owlbite is describing is the same thing seemingly. What do you mean by “reverse direction”?

As in, having observed the UG experience at Edinburgh first-hand but at Cambridge only second-hand. Whereas the GP did the reverse.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#384

Post by foldr »

varispeed wrote: post #315
foldr wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attendance is not checked and lectures are a sham. Formal tracking of attendance at lectures is a fairly new thing in British universities (introduced around 2015 when I was teaching at one).

Actually, the Home Office / UKVI does require universities sponsoring international students to monitor attendance and engagement, and to report non-attendance. This has prompted many universities to formalise attendance tracking (barcode check-ins, attendance apps etc.), especially for visa-holding students. Whether they actually do it, is another question.

Yes, but it is not till quite recently that this implied formal attendance tracking of student attendance at individual lectures. For example, here is how UCL interpreted the requirements as recently as 2015:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/oct/ucl-international-studen...

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#385

Post by atoav »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #359
rm445 wrote: post #124

I am a Durham graduate, still somewhat involved with the university via some voluntary roles, and a bit of a 'booster' in the sense that I'll sing its praises to anyone. I also have a postgrad degree from Cambridge and did a little teaching while there. So, I'm quite familiar, and while I'm happy to see Durham get some love, this is bunk. There is a gulf in undergraduate teaching between Oxbridge and the pack. The su…

These are rankings by "national student survey", which is - how can I put this politely? - possibly not the most rigorous way to measure merit. Oxford has long had a reputation for being a dual university - a raw academic track for smart people, and a political/establishment track for people with money, connections, ambition, and the kind of entitled self-assurance that comes from easy privilege. "Political" doesn't…

As someone who works and teaches in academia, it is surprising how relative student happiness is. Our university for example, has within its own field (arts) one of the best collection of workshops of all mayor european universities. Yet students complain and feel there is not enough — that is, until they went to an exchange after which they tend to sing high praises about how good we have it here.

Another problem is that students are very often totally uninformed about their own institutions, despite their institutions informing them. During my time here I have seen multiple instances of students demanding a thing that already existed for years, was mentioned in the beginners brochure, could be found on the official website with a simple google search and so on.

So as much as I dislike saying it as a former student, but the mayority of students opinion is not necessarily a reflection of the institution itself, more of the mood within the student body. And this may or may not correlate with the value of the education received there.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#386

Post by callamdelaney »

fatfox wrote: post #206
cs02rm0 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did international student income drop with Brexit, when the UK now have 4-600k student visas granted in each of the last few years vs 2-300k pre-Brexit?

I’m not sure where you’ve got the stats from, but student visas granted dropped since 2022, acc to UK gov (-5% in 2023, -14% in 2024).[0] Combined with universities' increasing reliance on international student income (over the last years) and issues accessing research funding, this can get universities into trouble. [0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

Research funding isn't a cash cow to keep universities financially viable, it should be used for genuine research. It all to often is not.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#387

Post by xyzzy123 »

saghm wrote: post #357
nine_k wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, fair. On the other hand, an MIT or Stanford graduate is more likely to be immediately hired by Google, or NVidia, or Barclays, or something else top-notch, without having to make intermediate career steps.

My perception is that the further you get from the time of graduation, the less it makes a difference where someone went to school. A year or two, I felt like where I got my degree might have made a difference in terms of my ability to find jobs, but coming up on a a decade since I graduated (which is a pretty small portion of what I expect will be a decades-long career), it might as well be entirely irrelevant. Amus…

The difference is that if you have a prestigious degree you have good odds of dropping into a fast track starter role.

If you don't it may take you a decade of career time to "prove yourself" and network to the point where you could apply for something similar.

Or you might _never_ get the chance to do that because you are stuck in jobs at "normal" companies where you spend all your time on low impact stuff.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#388

Post by DiscourseFan »

eszed wrote: post #382
saghm wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perception is that the further you get from the time of graduation, the less it makes a difference where someone went to school. A year or two, I felt like where I got my degree might have made a difference in terms of my ability to find jobs, but coming up on a a decade since I graduated (which is a pretty small portion of what I expect will be a decades-long career), it might as well be entirely irrelevant. Amus…

Tech might be the only high-paying (or, hell, reliably middle-class white-collar) field where this is true.

Not true tbh. Tech was the first place where that was the case, but increasingly high-paying professional jobs don't require an undergraduate degree, since its losing its value as an indicator of ability.

Postgrad degrees still have a lot of value, and open a lot of doors. There are things I learned in my Master's that I probably wouldn'tve been able to get at a deep level working in industry, and for that same reason I want to go for a PhD (even if it might be ill-advised in these times).

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#389

Post by patanegra »

growse wrote: post #379
patanegra wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you as a parent, basically get your 9-year-old, work as many hours per year, as a full-time employed adult, so your child reaches its full potential, you expect, that this possibility will continue in all levels of education. Anyway. If Oxford is going to pass on those kids, who are often multiple years ahead of the average, some other university will accept them. And then, this university will likely beat…

I'd be extremely wary of asserting that privately educated kids are any more successful at university than state-educated kids (on the same course) when there's no evidence to bear this out. If, however, you want to convince yourself that the amount of money you've spent on your child's education means they're smarter than the rest, go right ahead and believe that. Universities don't select for whether a candidate ha…

It depends on how you measure it. A kid from independent school with AAA is going to be worse than a state school AAA kid. But state school AAA kid might be 3-A* kid in independent school and might do better.

For smarter. My narrative is more prepared, used to working harder. And also, it's self-selection. If you are not made for that type of education, you are going to leave.

No matter if universities select for potential, or operating near it. Both would be nice. Now, it is increasingly also how they will shape the society if they accept student A instead of student B. And they want to shape society in a way that discriminates against certain kids for who their parents are.

Re: Oxford loses top 3 university ranking in the UK

#390

Post by arethuza »

rm445 wrote: post #124

I am a Durham graduate, still somewhat involved with the university via some voluntary roles, and a bit of a 'booster' in the sense that I'll sing its praises to anyone. I also have a postgrad degree from Cambridge and did a little teaching while there. So, I'm quite familiar, and while I'm happy to see Durham get some love, this is bunk. There is a gulf in undergraduate teaching between Oxbridge and the pack. The su…

"the selection effect of every bright child in the UK having Oxford or Cambridge as their first university pick"

When my son and I visited St. Andrews a few years back we were informally told that they really only select people who make that university their first pick - and given that St. Andrews doesn't seem to have any problems attracting students then I would question whether everyone puts Oxbridge first. I certainly knew people when I was applying to university (40+ years ago) who were very bright but who didn't even think about applying to Oxbridge because of the perceived snobbery.

I've also met quite a lot of rather unimpressive Oxbridge graduates in my career - so I wouldn't automatically assume that they get the brightest and the best.

Post reply on HN