[Waterstorm]

(Original post by babygirl110)
Good job doesn't really tell much, it's all subjective.

lol, he didn't even mention the word 'good', just said got a job. And that's what you initially seemed to not agree on - that you can get a job, not what type.

[Cowzo]

Do people actually care about being at a Russell Group uni?

Go where you think is good. Almost everyone in my class at uni has a job lined up after graduation.

[swbp]

Don't let it phase you, I did the same - I firmed Sussex over Sheffield.

Let me just get one thing clear - The Russell Group is not the Ivy league. The 1994 group and Russell Group are equal, it's just that the RG is for large research intensive universities and the 1994 for smaller institutions. So many people on TSR are deluded about this concept.

[babygirl110]

(Original post by brabzzz)
That maybe be true (we all know it is, to some extent), but...
1) An anecdotal sample of 2 does not prove that, or anything for that matter
2) It is largely irrelevant to the OP, who obviously has a major hard on for actuaries rather than consultants!

I reiterate; I did not mention those two people to prove a point that only people from top uni's get jobs at McKinseys.

I mentioned those two people to respond to that guy who said I probably don't know anyone who works at Mckinseys. Can you please separate the two issues in your head.

[Cll_ws]

(Original post by Irrelevance)
In short, not all ex polys suck balls. The one I went to actually did () but I've still come out pretty well from it.

People who have never been to them only think they do because of the league tables.
The top universities are high in the tables due to the amount of time they've been around, they'd cemented their places as the best universities before ex-polys were even universities, that and through research.
But overall that means nothing in regards to how good the university is, sure right now due to the way we look at it, the higher ones will be more respected, whether you've been educated better or not, you may have a slight advantage. But every year you can see certain ex-polys rising in the tables.

Truth of it is, you can't group a whole load of universities together, they have to be based on an individual basis. Whilst many traditional universities do have some top quality teaching in particular subjects, this masks the fact that they can be awful in other subjects.
Ex-polys very often offer a lot more support to their students and better prepare you for when you leave through a mixture of networking and work experience during your degree. And most of the time they will have much much better facilities, which always helps.
But then some subjects at ex-polys can be a bit of a joke, it really depends on what you're doing.

I've been to both a traditional uni, and an ex-poly.

[cambio wechsel]

(Original post by swbp)
Let me just get one thing clear - The Russell Group is not the Ivy league. The 1994 group and Russell Group are equal, it's just that the RG is for large research intensive universities and the 1994 for smaller institutions. So many people on TSR are deluded about this concept.

This is right except for the bit about the Ivy League. Because the Russell Group is in important ways similar to the Ivy League, a grouping formulated for one set of reasons that has been misconstrued as having been put together for another. The Ivy League was a sports conference for institutions in the North Eastern United States, is why it doesn't include, say, Stanford or Caltech, though these plainly beat the pants off Dartmouth and Cornell. The fact that Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are included leads people to misunderstand the factors determining entry to the group (here historical social cachet and geographical location).

The Russell Group was formed as a lobbying organisation for the universities which atttracted the most research funding in 1993, and this as a brute sum, not per head of staff. For this reason there is no sense in the "does X deserve to be in the RG?" arguments had on here - it's just an objective measure. That this was the criterion meant that the universities included were the big schools with departments that attract money: pharmacy, robotics, medicine, etc. The geographical distribution mentioned earlier in the thread is no accident, either - companies in Northern Ireland will be more inclined to give their money to QUB while a company in London can choose between Imperial and others.

But, you're right in the main. A breakaway Trinity College Cambridge, biggest and perhaps fanciest of all Oxbridge colleges, would not qualify for admission to the Russell Group, and that only for its not being big enough.

[Tomatochuckers]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Picked Actuarial Science at Heriot-Watt over Economics at Edinburgh.



Reassure me that I'm sane

If you are certain that you want to be an actuary then that is the definitely the right choice. Why spend 3 years doing an econ degree and then an extra 3-7 years to pass the exams in order to qualify as an actuary.

HW was the better choice for your career, Enjoy!

[bishbash72]

That **** cray

[EffieFlowers]

(Original post by babygirl110)
I was merely asking questions out of curiosity and from a position of ignorance. I wasn't suggesting that they don't.

Oh, sorry.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Interesting that people seem to think I did this out of short term thinking.


Heriot- Watt has more hours work per week(16 as opposed to 12)


A harder course.

Further from the city centre


And higher salary levels for Actuaries than economics graduates.



Obviously I'd go to Edinburgh if it offered Actuarial Science.

[Alexandra's Box]

You're sane.

[M1011]

(Original post by M1011)
Lol you think you need a Russell Group uni to get a job? If that's what you're insinuating then you are completely, utterly, entirely wrong.

(Original post by babygirl110)
How do you know he's wrong?

(Original post by babygirl110)
But what sort of jobs do they get?

Do they also get into big 4 consultancies? Do they get into top 10 consultancies?

Do they get into good internship and graduate schemes?

(Original post by hassi94)
...

I've only read the first page, so not sure if this argument developed further, but as I posted the original comment I thought I'd weigh in

I went to Aston (so not Russell Group) and I doubt you can name a big company where someone from Aston didn't have an internship. Furthermore I got offers on 4 graduate schemes and will be joining Deloitte in September. Plenty of people from Aston get good jobs, because every business student at Aston gets experience (industrial placement year).

I'm not saying the Uni you go to doesn't matter, it does. But there's a hell of a lot of other factors and to imply people outside of the Russell Group can't get a good job is borderline moronic

[babygirl110]

(Original post by M1011)
I've only read the first page, so not sure if this argument developed further, but as I posted the original comment I thought I'd weigh in

I went to Aston (so not Russell Group) and I doubt you can name a big company where someone from Aston didn't have an internship. Furthermore I got offers on 4 graduate schemes and will be joining Deloitte in September. Plenty of people from Aston get good jobs, because every business student at Aston gets experience (industrial placement year).

I'm not saying the Uni you go to doesn't matter, it does. But there's a hell of a lot of other factors and to imply people outside of the Russell Group can't get a good job is borderline moronic

I'm not so concerned about uni's Russell Group status. I'm more curious about unis such as former polys and those that rank very low in the league tables.

I understand Aston to be a good university with a decent ranking. Is it a former poly?

[M1011]

(Original post by babygirl110)
I'm not so concerned about uni's Russell Group status. I'm more curious about unis such as former polys and those that rank very low in the league tables.

I understand Aston to be a good university with a decent ranking. Is it a former poly?

Well no it's not, but nor is Heriot-Watt?

Can't really speak for the lower Universities as I haven't been there

[FatboyGinger]

(Original post by brabzzz)
I take it you have studied at both, applied for the same line of work from both and have experienced recruitment within the Actuarial profession in order to be able to say that? Or recruitment experience in any profession. Or, well, any noteworthy experience...? Or are we taking friend of a friend told me...? Gotta love TSR

Note to TSR, this is what's called an 'Ad Hominem' logical fallacy, where Brabzzz is attempting negate the truth of my argument by criticising me as a person, not my argument. It is of course, ridiculous.

Anyway, go look at the graduate job prospects for the two course and two universities in any of the ranking guides. You will see a huge gap between them. The OPs decision could cost him his dream job and hundreds of thousands of pounds over his career.

My credentials if you must

Spoiler:

Show

I originally applied to study economics at uni, and looked into actuarial. I have applied for many actuarial jobs. I did a summer internship in my 1st yearin Audit at Santander and am about to do another one this year at Ernst and Young Tax. So yes, I do have relevant experience. But as I state above, that is irrelevant.

[brabzzz]

(Original post by FatboyGinger)
Note to TSR, this is what's called an 'Ad Hominem' logical fallacy, where Brabzzz is attempting negate the truth of my argument by criticising me as a person, not my argument. It is of course, ridiculous.

Anyway, go look at the graduate job prospects for the two course and two universities in any of the ranking guides. You will see a huge gap between them. The OPs decision could cost him his dream job and hundreds of thousands of pounds over his career.

My credentials if you must
I originally applied to study economics at uni, and looked into actuarial. I have applied for many actuarial jobs. I did a summer internship in my 1st yearin Audit at Santander and am about to do another one this year at Ernst and Young Tax. So yes, I do have relevant experience. But as I state above, that is irrelevant.

1) I am criticising you as a person, specifically your lack of experience and therefore credibility.

2) Job prospects? Ranking guides? You do realise any notion of 'expected earnings' is statistical, right? HW's bell curve might well be lower than E's, in terms of expected lifetime earnings, but if OP wants be be an actuary, does an actuary course, does well and isn't a complete feckwit - the likely outcome is that his expected lifetime earnings will mirror those of the actuary population - not graduates of HW or E more broadly. Until you kids start work (ANY graduate job), you don't realise that nobody gives a toss about your degree after you have a couple of year's experience, except some snobby banks and consultancies (and not everyone shares that dream). After 7ish years, NOBODY gives a toss, or even looks at your degree specifics...or. likely, whether you even have one. It's all about the experience.

3) Wow. Audit and tax internships whilst at university. Please excuse me for not being impressed, and refer back to point 1)