[Cythreill]

I've been having another look at the tables, and from what I can see, some of the higher ranked universities have disproportionately low graduate prospects for their subject ranking.

I'm applying to Essex and Heriot Watt (insurance), so I was most interested in these numbers.

Essex R20, Prospects at 56
H.Watt R34, Prospects at 76

It's not just these two, it seems I could pick many pairings and the 'worse' university would have significantly higher graduate prospects.

So, since Essex is my firm and Heriot Watt is my insurance, how worried should I be? I'm now thinking I made a bad choice.

I have one more question.

When I was choosing my universities, I had a tough time choosing between Kent and Essex. Kent seemed slightly better overall but Essex was ahead in Economics. That seemed true for all the years up until 2013. In the CUG, Kent went from 24 to 13 while Essex went from 22 to 33. So it went from Essex being slightly ahead to being far behind.

I'm slightly concerned about that, what does everything think about this? And has anything similar happend to you?

Thanks

[wanderlust.xx]

'Graduate prospects' means little in the grand scheme of things. Get a good class in a well known degree and the world is your oyster. Don't worry about marginal differences in negligible areas on a league ranking that is widely debated.

[I'mBadAtMaths]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
'Graduate prospects' means little in the grand scheme of things. Get a good class in a well known degree and the world is your oyster. Don't worry about marginal differences in negligible areas on a league ranking that is widely debated.

Graduate prospects is a purely quantitative measure though.

[fl4mers]

It's less about your university than how you present yourself to future employers. If you can spin your life story and experiences into a positive light and make yourself look like a great fit for a job then the place you went to study will mean very little really. As long as you got good grades at your university it's just a matter of getting and passing your interview.

[chrislpp]

(Original post by fl4mers)
It's less about your university than how you present yourself to future employers. If you can spin your life story and experiences into a positive light and make yourself look like a great fit for a job then the place you went to study will mean very little really. As long as you got good grades at your university it's just a matter of getting and passing your interview.

Although there are employers out there that look at university first, see which ones they recognise and then read the rest. You'd need to be gleaming on paper if your uni is not well known.

[Smack]

Graduate prospects can vary heavily depending on how well that year's cohort can present themselves to employers, how well connected they are, how they interview etc. They don't affect your individual prospects and I certainly wouldn't perform as deep an analysis as you have done on league table positions.

[edjunkie]

The reported post employment rates could also reflect that the students are too busy in their post university life to fill in the university survey. Or that they obtained a position after survey window. Or that they have a job which is not considered graduate level. Or that they didn't bother responding for whatever reason.

No matter where you go, if securing your first job post graduation quickly is important to you, find out what the university careers services can do for you. Seek out relevant work placements to enhance your CV and network.

If Essex and Heriott Watt offer the course you want do, don't worry about post employment rates, if that is where you want to go. In the 3-4 years of your degree, they will probably improve their stats collection methods, if this the cause of the less than stellar statistics. But it has no impact if you are one of the ones that gets a job. Going somewhere with a 92% graduate employment rate, is no good if you are one of the 8% who didn't get a job.

Potential employers are not looking at post employment metrics when considering your application. They will be looking at your educational history, work experience and the overall quality of your application.

[ninja-lewis]

It also depends on the locality - I believe Robert Gordons scores highly on graduate prospects because of connections with the local oil industry in Aberdeen.

Another explanation is that many graduates from the top universities will go for the elite highly competitive graduate schemes where there is a greater chance of losing out and they end up working in a pub/shop until they get another chance to apply. Whereas students at RGU, Heriot Watt and like often go straight into the less competitive but still good graduate schemes and thus have a graduate job at survey time. It is, after all, a quantitative measure!

Also these universities often offer (or have a larger proportion of students studying) the more practical, vocational courses - science, engineering, teaching, accountancy, etc - which come with a clearer career path afterwards compared to Arts students.

[Smack]

(Original post by ninja-lewis)
Another explanation is that many graduates from the top universities will go for the elite highly competitive graduate schemes where there is a greater chance of losing out and they end up working in a pub/shop until they get another chance to apply. Whereas students at RGU, Heriot Watt and like often go straight into the less competitive but still good graduate schemes and thus have a graduate job at survey time. It is, after all, a quantitative measure!

I completely disagree with your explanation. It's not secret that RGU and HW graduates tend to go after the oil jobs, but would I call these "less good"? Not if you want to earn lots of money and travel the world.

[poony]

General rule of thumb, get into one of the top 100 uni. get a min. of 2:1, then you will not be auto filtered out for application and have a chance for your CV to be read by a human being.

[Mbob]

(Original post by Cythreill)
When I was choosing my universities, I had a tough time choosing between Kent and Essex. Kent seemed slightly better overall but Essex was ahead in Economics. That seemed true for all the years up until 2013. In the CUG, Kent went from 24 to 13 while Essex went from 22 to 33. So it went from Essex being slightly ahead to being far behind.

University league tables are, at best, a very rough guide to the quality of University courses. They involved selecting an arbitrary groups of metrics (chosen for how easy they are to measure rather than relevance), and then applying arbitrary weightings to them in order to come up with a single score.

The fact that Universities jump up and down the rankings from year to year only goes to show how meaningless they are. The quality of a even a single course clearly does not alter dramatically from year to year, except in some very extreme circumstances such as departments closing. Changes are usually due either to changes in methodology, or Universities targeting the metrics in order to improve their positions.

The other thing to realise is that University league table are designed to re-enforce what their authors think we all know. No-one would design a league table methodology that did not put Oxford and Cambridge at or near the top, because everyone would laugh at it. It therefore becomes an exercise in making up numbers to confirm qualitative opinions.

If a University is consistently ranked top for a course and another is consistently ranked bottom, then that is probably going to tell you something about the comparative quality. A course suddenly jumping a dozen places from one year to the next tells you something different - that the league table is rubbish.

[ninja-lewis]

(Original post by Smack)
I completely disagree with your explanation. It's not secret that RGU and HW graduates tend to go after the oil jobs, but would I call these "less good"? Not if you want to earn lots of money and travel the world.

I never called them "less good" - I called them "less competitive" (in terms of applications v jobs available). I think you're actually agreeing with me.

We just have to look at the number of posters on TSR chasing after Investment Banking/Big 4 London schemes while the oil industry (which in quite a few cases offers far better pay, prospects and everything really as you say) is crying out for more graduates.

[yothi5]

Lower ranked universities tend to have better connections with employers and offer students placement/sandwich years. I'm not sure if these employers/companies are prestigious but in the long term and in general, an employer would rather employ students but good universities.

[Smack]

(Original post by ninja-lewis)
I never called them "less good" - I called them "less competitive" (in terms of applications v jobs available). I think you're actually agreeing with me.

We just have to look at the number of posters on TSR chasing after Investment Banking/Big 4 London schemes while the oil industry (which in quite a few cases offers far better pay, prospects and everything really as you say) is crying out for more graduates.

Okay, that's true, but I know many oil companies can fill their graduate intake many times over. It'd be interesting to see where applications for these schemes are coming from - I'm currently interning at one such company and everyone I've spoken to is from a select few Scottish universities, yet positions were advertised nationwide on popular careers sites.

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by Cythreill)
I've been having another look at the tables, and from what I can see, some of the higher ranked universities have disproportionately low graduate prospects for their subject ranking.

I'm applying to Essex and Heriot Watt (insurance), so I was most interested in these numbers.

Essex R20, Prospects at 56
H.Watt R34, Prospects at 76

It's not just these two, it seems I could pick many pairings and the 'worse' university would have significantly higher graduate prospects.

So, since Essex is my firm and Heriot Watt is my insurance, how worried should I be? I'm now thinking I made a bad choice.

I have one more question.

When I was choosing my universities, I had a tough time choosing between Kent and Essex. Kent seemed slightly better overall but Essex was ahead in Economics. That seemed true for all the years up until 2013. In the CUG, Kent went from 24 to 13 while Essex went from 22 to 33. So it went from Essex being slightly ahead to being far behind.

I'm slightly concerned about that, what does everything think about this? And has anything similar happend to you?

Thanks

I go to Essex and the Uni/SU make a complete song and dance about graduate prospects. Let me assuage your fears:

1) 40% of Essex consists of foreign students, mostly Asian, especially in economics. These are rarely counted in the statistics. Therefore you've wiped out a huge demographic already, often, alas, the best students.
2) Essex is uncompetitive. This doesn't make it easy. It's not hugely difficult to get in to, but I've found the services available to you good.
3) It is in Colchester. Colchester is a heavily consumption-based town. I have lived here all my life and it has always been a joke that you're either a supermarket worker or a soldier. Therefore there are not many local businesses that you can get internships in or jobs afterwards; with economics you might be fine with the relatively short commuting distance to London.
4) A large proportion seem to go into study afterwards.

As others have said, don't read too much into it. I study history and politics; humanities and social sciences even from the best Unis have relatively poor prospects. But I can't help but feel this is more the quality of individual students rather than the quality of the institution. For me, the market is saturated by humanities students with 2:1 history degrees and the only work experience is drunk. So that's why you get a first and an internship and you work. This doesn't cure the problem for you, but it definitely gives you a head start.

Anyway, come to Essex. Economics is a good degree and don't be told otherwise. Work hard, get a first, get an internship (Essex offers loads, always paid) during the holidays or term time. Look at societies, become the treasurer or trustee for the SU. Hell - do some book keeping for charities! The options are there for you, and whilst it doesn't mean a golden ticket to a graduate job it sure puts you streets ahead of the vast majority.

Also, on the last bit: yeah, Essex often plummets in the table then rises suddenly. When I applied history was 18th or something, now it's somewhere in the 40s. I wouldn't take much notice.