[Txi]

(Original post by Arianto)
Can comment on specifically Edinburgh's situation with regard to doorways into the finance/banking careers?
Also interested to hear what effect it's position as a Scottish university has on anything (i.e. 4 year degree structure/MA degrees as opposed to Msc) compared to all the English Uni's mentioned?

I'll be studying Accountancy and Finance, though might shift around to include Economics/Business Studies when I start.

Do classics or languages or English

[Regent]

(Original post by Txi)
ABB for A+F @ LSE ?

Must have been a few years back

2006-07

[Aquinas]

(Original post by TomasK)
Actually, I'm not defending Manchester, so your above opposition seems a bit awkward. E.g. http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...nkings?o=Entry arranged by tariff points, don't see Manchester being totally out of order and the list seems like a fairly reasonable representation of the 'top' institutions with a few odd inflated ranks. But the overall top 10-20 picture is fairly right, at least in my opinion.

Yup, I've actually told this Txi guy that even University admin etc believe this to be one of the only reliable indicators of quality (I read one of the transcripts) but seemed to have none of it.

Let's see: What's more reliable? The average grades of actual entrants or the supposed dissatisfaction of a minority of students who haven't had it all their own way? I know what I'd say.

Also people would do well to note that I'm not exactly defending UoM to the ends of the earth, I'm saying that rankings provide a largely unreliable indicator.

When you look at The Guardian's rankings you see that there's a column called 'value added'. Now, I'm not exactly sure how that works or its methodology but it does seem a little bit suspect. Along with it's student satisfaction weightings that means that very good universities like Bristol and Kings College appear very low on the list - mid-20s and mid-30s respectively. Seems like something a bit wrong there. Also, when Manchester comes 40th in some subjects, below universities of far less repute who have less-reputable lecturers and departments, you know that there's something a bit wrong about those rankings. FWIW I think the rankings you posted are potentially one of the most accurate.

[Whiskey]

(Original post by Aquinas)
Yup, I've actually told this Txi guy that even University admin etc believe this to be one of the only reliable indicators of quality (I read one of the transcripts) but seemed to have none of it.

Let's see: What's more reliable? The average grades of actual entrants or the supposed dissatisfaction of a minority of students who haven't had it all their own way? I know what I'd say.

Also people would do well to note that I'm not exactly defending UoM to the ends of the earth, I'm saying that rankings provide a largely unreliable indicator.

When you look at The Guardian's rankings you see that there's a column called 'value added'. Now, I'm not exactly sure how that works or its methodology but it does seem a little bit suspect. Along with it's student satisfaction weightings that means that very good universities like Bristol and Kings College appear very low on the list - mid-20s and mid-30s respectively. Seems like something a bit wrong there. Also, when Manchester comes 40th in some subjects, below universities of far less repute who have less-reputable lecturers and departments, you know that there's something a bit wrong about those rankings. FWIW I think the rankings you posted are potentially one of the most accurate.

I agree with you on your former post. Actually, if you don't choose subjects, and just want to get into some famous unis,you can do it with low ucas points. So most of the companies basically require 340 UCAS points and a 2.1 degree to pass cv screening Some unis like manc, the average ucas tarrif is not very high, but it has the largest number of students who have AAB or above, so that is why it is the most targeted.
For career things, it would be better to talk about which university can make you good rather than which university is a good university.

[Aquinas]

(Original post by Whiskey)
I agree with you on your former post. Actually, if you don't choose subjects, and just want to get into some famous unis,you can do it with low ucas points. So most of the companies basically require 340 UCAS points and a 2.1 degree to pass cv screening Some unis like manc, the average ucas tarrif is not very high, but it has the largest number of students who have AAB or above, so that is why it is the most targeted.
For career things, it would be better to talk about which university can make you good rather than which university is a good university.

Agreed. Manchester isn't the highest for people who want to be taught. Instead in tutorials etc, it's more like a discussion of equals in a way. Tutors expect us already to know most of the stuff we talk about and to have understood it from the reading. In a way I think that's good because it gives you an incentive to really try and understand what's being asked of you and the content, but for some people they just expect more, which I suppose is fair enough. I think UoM could do with striking a balance more between what students look for in terms of teaching and the independent side of it, and as I've said in a thread on the UoM forum, I believe that in the SAHC they're doing that at the very least. Someone who's in an undergraduate committee also posted to say they're upping contact time to around 15 hours aswell, whereas at the moment it stands at about 9. So we should see the University improve in respect to a university which can make you good, along with it being a good university.

Also, I'd like to say that from my experience, I think I've progressed faster by learning with people from my course, in discussions etc. and having to discover things and work slightly more by myself, than I would have done had I been shown the way as it were, but I realise that everyone is different in that respect.

Some people, on the other hand, just take league tables indiscriminately and think: big uni, too far too walk, won't get spoon-fed information, north west, not top-6 ranked oh dear must be rubbish. Wrong

[Txi]

(Original post by Aquinas)
Yup, I've actually told this Txi guy that even University admin etc believe this to be one of the only reliable indicators of quality (I read one of the transcripts) but seemed to have none of it.

LOL, so now you are university admin ?

if you don't like ranks then don't look at them - is someone putting gun to your head ?

[Aquinas]

(Original post by Txi)
LOL, so now you are university admin ?

if you don't like ranks then don't look at them - is someone putting gun to your head ?

You are hilarious. Keep it up mate and you might get noticed.

[Txi]

(Original post by Aquinas)
You are hilarious. Keep it up mate and you might get noticed.

The SD vs mean of a very large sample size will be much less effected by outlying scores, the opposite applies to a smaller sample.

Thus UoM's entry standards are inflated to simply by it being the largest Uni by student numbers in UK.


Do you not know what range/ dispersion and mean analysis is ? Have you not done Basic stats.

[Aquinas]

(Original post by Txi)
The mean of a very large sample size will be much less effected by outlying scores, the opposite applies to a smaller sample.

Thus UoM's entry standards are inflated to simply by it being the largest Uni by student numbers in UK.


Do you not know what range/ dispersion and mean analysis is ? Have you not done Basic stats.

Yeah, sure, I understand that but that doesn't mean the scores are inflated. Outlying scores could be either significantly lower or significantly higher. The advantage of a smaller institution in this sense, then, would be that if a course requires, say, A*AA to get into whereas the mean of the rest is about AAB, then the outlying scores of those candidates who are admitted for this 'elite' course would bring the mean scores up higher than that of a large university? Edit... It follows also that it could be a disadvantage of course.

Swings and roundabouts.

[Txi]

(Original post by Aquinas)
Yeah, sure, I understand that but that doesn't mean the scores are inflated. Outlying scores could be either significantly lower or significantly higher. The advantage of a smaller institution in this sense, then, would be that if a course requires, say, A*AA to get into whereas the mean of the rest is about AAB, then the outlying scores of those candidates who are admitted for this 'elite' course would bring the mean scores up higher than that of a large university? Edit... It follows also that it could be a disadvantage of course.

Swings and roundabouts.

NO NO NO.

Your distribution is skewed, a SND must be assumed.

Goog standard normal distribution - and btw if you goog it and don't understand it, please don't ask, I am not here to explain basic stats where the other person implies that he understands it.

You'd better get back to those 200+ people lectures of yours and see if you can fight off the other 199 and ask your lecturer.

[Aquinas]

(Original post by Txi)
NO NO NO.

Your distribution is skewed, a SND must be assumed.

Goog standard normal distribution - and btw if you goog it and don't understand it, please don't ask, I am not here to explain basic stats where the other person implies that he understands it.

You'd better get back to those 200+ people lectures of yours and see if you can fight off the other 199 and ask your lecturer.

Ah, okay, I think I see what you mean now. Apologies. That's what I get for dropping Maths and not doing Stats eh. :P

[I smell like maths]

(Original post by erklam)
I disagree. I go to King's, we had HSBC, RBC, Goldman Sachs, etc at our careers fair and King's is not a target. They might have been there to recruit for operations/technology? (Even though this soudns awful!)

I also go to kings and do maths, yes all the IB's came to our careers fair. The mathematics students were targeted by Deutsche Bank, we had a talk from their employees including former kings students who are working there now and doing trading & ib, Front Office stuff.

i wouldn't take the target uni stuff to heart, everyone has to work hard on their apps and get work experience etc. no-one gets SW's/SI's handed to them even if they're at a 'target uni'.

Don't be intimidated by this target uni stuff, go to the careers office and bang out a slammin CV/ cover letter, and organise some work exp. to go with it. To show you're passionate, you need to know the company well and some technicals about the division you're applying to.

this is the bare minimum, good luck

PS. f*** LSE, their mathematics dept. is a joke

im outty

[erklam]

Also, going to a non-target uni does not mean that you cannot get into IB from there. It only means, that IBs don't think that many students there wanna go into IB/or that these students might be of lower calibre on average, and therefore IBs do not spend on marketing at that uni.

Consequently, fewer grads will go into IB from there. But this is not necessarily because it's harder for them to get in.
When 500 students apply to Goldman Sachs from LSE and 5 get in, it's a 1% acceptance rate. If there is only one person from Uni X, it might be because only 100 applied. But we'll never know. And yes, I just made up these numbers.

[Baxus2010]

I recently had the opportunity to chat with a director at an IB in London regarding FO roles.

He mentioned these schools when I asked about targets:
LBS, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Warwick, Cass and Manchester. (He went to Manchester)

He also said that, if he could do it all over again and for prospective students, that it is better if you can go to London bases uni as it makes it so much easier for him to call you for a fast interview because he doesn't have time to make it happen for you if you are in the middle of nowhere.


This is based on opinion of ONE person!

[JWz]

(Original post by Baxus2010)
I recently had the opportunity to chat with a director at an IB in London regarding FO roles.

He mentioned these schools when I asked about targets:
LBS, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Warwick, Cass and Manchester. (He went to Manchester)

He also said that, if he could do it all over again and for prospective students, that it is better if you can go to London bases uni as it makes it so much easier for him to call you for a fast interview because he doesn't have time to make it happen for you if you are in the middle of nowhere.


This is based on opinion of ONE person!

Hmm, interesting. CASS has been improving in recent years, anyone know the prospects for FO after an Undergraduate at CASS? I am considering applying for CASS as a backup for LSE as UCL only accept people with a language at GCSE...

[khorus]

hey i am an international student from hong kong. I may probably study Bachelor of International Management in Warwick next year. Is there a chance for me to get into IB?? since i think management isn't much relevant to the IB operations that I have heard before. Anyone can help??? Thanks a lot

[Baxus2010]

(Original post by JWz)
Hmm, interesting. CASS has been improving in recent years, anyone know the prospects for FO after an Undergraduate at CASS? I am considering applying for CASS as a backup for LSE as UCL only accept people with a language at GCSE...

I myself might go to Cass next year! I think it is a pretty good school and you will have your chance. But, I think you'll need to network a lot more and put more effort in getting interviews then people from LSE, LBS, Oxford etc. When you interview, then the school stop to matter. I've changed couple of employees within financial industry in two different countries and as soon as I start doing interviews we barely talk about school.

[Zweihander]

Just wanted to mention to the people deliberating over relative standings of X university, that after the core 6 UK targets the most represented unis in FO banking are continental unis like Bocconi, SSE, HEC, St Gallen. Those unis + 6 targets make up like 80-85% of FO recruitment.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[panda1093]

is Birmingham very bad to get into IB? I'm interested in risk management

[Regent]

(Original post by panda1093)
is Birmingham very bad to get into IB? I'm interested in risk management

Risk Management is middle office.

Assuming you're asking about Front Office IB, Birmingham isn't too bad. Cousin is there. Him and most of his mates (the ones which applied) managed to get internships somewhere.