This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- University Choices
- Ranking the top HCI courses in the UK
- Confused about uni for employability
- University of Bristol vs QMUL vs Newcastle University for CS
- computer science- worth it?
- Nottingham vs Manchester
- Help me choose Uni and Course !
- Confused about which uni to go to
- Loughborogh university ranking
- Help me pick: Swansea BEng vs Birmingham Aston MEng or Heriot-Watt BEng?
- is LSE better than Durham
- Masters
- Does a university's prestige really matter? Trying decide between Durham and Exeter.
- Rank these for me please
- UCL vs KCL Politics/ IR
- applying to Russel group unis if my undergrad is from a non Russel group
- Does university rep matter for Aeronautical Engineering? (UCL Ranking)
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- University Choice dilemma
- Offer Decision: QMUL OR SURREY for Mech Engineering
Do employers care about University rankings?
Scroll to see replies
In short yes, but not the varying from year to year mroe so the traditional reputation. Strategy / management consultancy / banking / training contracts / barrister jobs / top tech companies (Google, Apple, etc) / even accountancy firms all very much care where one went to uni. Working and having worked in both Strat / MC I can say within the UK we really only hire from Oxbridge / Imperial / LSE / UCL / Warwick / Edinburgh / St Andrews / Durham / Bristol. Literally aside from the odd King's graduate and one Nottingham graduate (though the latter has an MBA from LBS), I cannot think of anyone at my firm who went to any other universities. While the ranking on these unis varies and others certainly rank above / between them on occasion, it doesn't mean firms will hire from them.
Even mid-tier companies, or small firms will still hire an Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Durham, etc graduate over one from say London met, Westminster, etc, unless they have a personal stake or history with the lesser university.
Even mid-tier companies, or small firms will still hire an Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Durham, etc graduate over one from say London met, Westminster, etc, unless they have a personal stake or history with the lesser university.
As has been touched on already (by The Polymath and one or two others) it's not really university ranking you should be concerned with. I prefer "brand name" or reputation. Employers invariably don't use league tables if that's what you mean, and won't care is university x is ranked 5th and university y is 22nd. LEague tables are relatively new with the current newspaper rankings coming up to twenty years old. Employers have been employering graduates for many years, long before league tables existed.
That said, there are an increasing number of graduates and filters need to be put into place. This is why A-level filters are used. Even when it comes to showing a preference for certain universities it may not be basd on general reputation, it could be a regional bias, or the employers may prefer certain universities that have produced prominent graduates in the field (for example which universities offer particularly well regarded specialist courses or which tend to produce the strongest graduates) and this doesn't necessarily correlate with the general rankings.
"Law firm" is very broad. Do you mean a high street firm of perhaps five solicitors (where university brand name has little to no importance for most) A regional firm with perhaps 25 solicitors and five partners? A national firm or Magic Circle firm? All of these will vary in terms of how much they care as I'll explain.
That's not quite true. Besides, look at the universities that aren't in the top 20. There are still lots of well targeted universities outside the top 20 (or borderline top 20) such as Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpoool, Leeds and Birmingham.
For regional firms there's often a regional bias and common to find solicitors, including partners, from, say, Hull in Humberside, Northumbria in Tyneside, Manchester Met in Manchester.
It may be harder for a graduate from, say, a non-Russell or 1994 Group university to get to a Magic Circle firm, but it's not impossible. I know of graduates from Hull, Northumbria, UWE and Nottingham Trent who've been successful. At the provincial bar there are often a decent number of graduates from former polytechnics, some of whom have reasonably respected law departments.
My point here isn't that some universities are targeted more than others in law. This is a fact. University . But to say you don't stand a chance if you come from a non-top 20 (or even non-Russell/1994 Group university) is misleading.
I have never seen a job specificy that the applicant must have a degree from a "top 20" university. Even if they do, it's unlikely they are aware of the exact top 20. It's just used as shorthand for "good" university in the same way that "Russell Group" is. This doesn't mean to say they won't consider applications from modest universities.
Also, keep in mind that the top 20 can change on an annual basis, and does vary across league tables. There are also well targeted universities, including about half of the Russell Group, not in the top 20 at this moment in time. Manchester ranks quite modestly, for example.
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
That said, there are an increasing number of graduates and filters need to be put into place. This is why A-level filters are used. Even when it comes to showing a preference for certain universities it may not be basd on general reputation, it could be a regional bias, or the employers may prefer certain universities that have produced prominent graduates in the field (for example which universities offer particularly well regarded specialist courses or which tend to produce the strongest graduates) and this doesn't necessarily correlate with the general rankings.
Original post by PrivateWealth
Wouldn't necessarily agree with that. If you want to work for a law firm, finance or any other high flying job, uni ranking makes a massive difference.
"Law firm" is very broad. Do you mean a high street firm of perhaps five solicitors (where university brand name has little to no importance for most) A regional firm with perhaps 25 solicitors and five partners? A national firm or Magic Circle firm? All of these will vary in terms of how much they care as I'll explain.
Original post by The Polymath
If you're applying for the most competitive banking/legal training contracts, if you don't come from what they see as a top 20 uni, then you don't stand a chance in hell.
If you're applying for the most competitive banking/legal training contracts, if you don't come from what they see as a top 20 uni, then you don't stand a chance in hell.
That's not quite true. Besides, look at the universities that aren't in the top 20. There are still lots of well targeted universities outside the top 20 (or borderline top 20) such as Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpoool, Leeds and Birmingham.
For regional firms there's often a regional bias and common to find solicitors, including partners, from, say, Hull in Humberside, Northumbria in Tyneside, Manchester Met in Manchester.
It may be harder for a graduate from, say, a non-Russell or 1994 Group university to get to a Magic Circle firm, but it's not impossible. I know of graduates from Hull, Northumbria, UWE and Nottingham Trent who've been successful. At the provincial bar there are often a decent number of graduates from former polytechnics, some of whom have reasonably respected law departments.
My point here isn't that some universities are targeted more than others in law. This is a fact. University . But to say you don't stand a chance if you come from a non-top 20 (or even non-Russell/1994 Group university) is misleading.
Original post by newts2k
a lot of them state top 20 but it depends, are you looking to go into something particular and where are you going?
I have never seen a job specificy that the applicant must have a degree from a "top 20" university. Even if they do, it's unlikely they are aware of the exact top 20. It's just used as shorthand for "good" university in the same way that "Russell Group" is. This doesn't mean to say they won't consider applications from modest universities.
Also, keep in mind that the top 20 can change on an annual basis, and does vary across league tables. There are also well targeted universities, including about half of the Russell Group, not in the top 20 at this moment in time. Manchester ranks quite modestly, for example.
Original post by stefl14
Trust me, university ranking does matter for a lot of jobs. It isn't a coincidence that the majority of the top jobs in society are held by Oxbridge graduates or at least graduates from very prestigious universities. Want to get into banking? - VERY difficult if you haven't gone to Oxbridge or LSE and to a lesser extent Warwick, UCL, Imperial, Durham etc. Same applies for law. It matters for other industries too - just not as much as some make out. I don't care what anyone says here employers don't see a first from Cambridge as equal to a first from Liverpool.
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
Original post by River85
As has been touched on already (by The Polymath and one or two others) it's not really university ranking you should be concerned with. I prefer "brand name" or reputation. Employers invariably don't use league tables if that's what you mean, and won't care is university x is ranked 5th and university y is 22nd. LEague tables are relatively new with the current newspaper rankings coming up to twenty years old. Employers have been employering graduates for many years, long before league tables existed.
That said, there are an increasing number of graduates and filters need to be put into place. This is why A-level filters are used. Even when it comes to showing a preference for certain universities it may not be basd on general reputation, it could be a regional bias, or the employers may prefer certain universities that have produced prominent graduates in the field (for example which universities offer particularly well regarded specialist courses or which tend to produce the strongest graduates) and this doesn't necessarily correlate with the general rankings.
"Law firm" is very broad. Do you mean a high street firm of perhaps five solicitors (where university brand name has little to no importance for most) A regional firm with perhaps 25 solicitors and five partners? A national firm or Magic Circle firm? All of these will vary in terms of how much they care as I'll explain.
That's not quite true. Besides, look at the universities that aren't in the top 20. There are still lots of well targeted universities outside the top 20 (or borderline top 20) such as Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpoool, Leeds and Birmingham.
For regional firms there's often a regional bias and common to find solicitors, including partners, from, say, Hull in Humberside, Northumbria in Tyneside, Manchester Met in Manchester.
It may be harder for a graduate from, say, a non-Russell or 1994 Group university to get to a Magic Circle firm, but it's not impossible. I know of graduates from Hull, Northumbria, UWE and Nottingham Trent who've been successful. At the provincial bar there are often a decent number of graduates from former polytechnics, some of whom have reasonably respected law departments.
My point here isn't that some universities are targeted more than others in law. This is a fact. University . But to say you don't stand a chance if you come from a non-top 20 (or even non-Russell/1994 Group university) is misleading.
I have never seen a job specificy that the applicant must have a degree from a "top 20" university. Even if they do, it's unlikely they are aware of the exact top 20. It's just used as shorthand for "good" university in the same way that "Russell Group" is. This doesn't mean to say they won't consider applications from modest universities.
Also, keep in mind that the top 20 can change on an annual basis, and does vary across league tables. There are also well targeted universities, including about half of the Russell Group, not in the top 20 at this moment in time. Manchester ranks quite modestly, for example.
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
That said, there are an increasing number of graduates and filters need to be put into place. This is why A-level filters are used. Even when it comes to showing a preference for certain universities it may not be basd on general reputation, it could be a regional bias, or the employers may prefer certain universities that have produced prominent graduates in the field (for example which universities offer particularly well regarded specialist courses or which tend to produce the strongest graduates) and this doesn't necessarily correlate with the general rankings.
"Law firm" is very broad. Do you mean a high street firm of perhaps five solicitors (where university brand name has little to no importance for most) A regional firm with perhaps 25 solicitors and five partners? A national firm or Magic Circle firm? All of these will vary in terms of how much they care as I'll explain.
That's not quite true. Besides, look at the universities that aren't in the top 20. There are still lots of well targeted universities outside the top 20 (or borderline top 20) such as Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpoool, Leeds and Birmingham.
For regional firms there's often a regional bias and common to find solicitors, including partners, from, say, Hull in Humberside, Northumbria in Tyneside, Manchester Met in Manchester.
It may be harder for a graduate from, say, a non-Russell or 1994 Group university to get to a Magic Circle firm, but it's not impossible. I know of graduates from Hull, Northumbria, UWE and Nottingham Trent who've been successful. At the provincial bar there are often a decent number of graduates from former polytechnics, some of whom have reasonably respected law departments.
My point here isn't that some universities are targeted more than others in law. This is a fact. University . But to say you don't stand a chance if you come from a non-top 20 (or even non-Russell/1994 Group university) is misleading.
I have never seen a job specificy that the applicant must have a degree from a "top 20" university. Even if they do, it's unlikely they are aware of the exact top 20. It's just used as shorthand for "good" university in the same way that "Russell Group" is. This doesn't mean to say they won't consider applications from modest universities.
Also, keep in mind that the top 20 can change on an annual basis, and does vary across league tables. There are also well targeted universities, including about half of the Russell Group, not in the top 20 at this moment in time. Manchester ranks quite modestly, for example.
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
I have seen a few state top 20
It doesn't matter one bit. The only factor that matters is your grade. This is why it should be encouraged that students shop around and research different universities based on how easy the course is rather than prestige and the like. You should look on different departmental websites and see which courses offer a) the minimum amount of content to allow you to be awarded a degree and b) how easy the exams/assessments are. You should make sure the university you go to has the easiest exams possible. This should all be to maximise your chance of getting a top grade.
Original post by newts2k
I have seen a few state top 20
A few isn't a lot though.
And, as mentioned, it doesn't mean that they care about rankings (which is the OP's question) more that, due to the large number of graduates there now are now (and large number of universities), and perhaps concerns about the standards at certain universities, they are using it as a short-hand for "good university". This may discourage certain applicants, thus working as an effective pre-filter. Ir doesn't mean they care about rankings or are even aware of what the top 20 is.
Just to re-iterate, some of the most targeted universities are outside the top 20.
Original post by The Polymath
'Rank' doesn't matter that much. It's just prestige, basically.
If you're applying for the most competitive banking/legal training contracts, if you don't come from what they see as a top 20 uni, then you don't stand a chance in hell.
For most jobs, though, it doesn't matter. Get a 2.1 or a 1st from any respectable uni and you should find jobs. Obviously, the better the uni (to an extent, if the reputation is marginal no one will care) the higher employers will regard you before they interview you, but no sane employer is going to care if you got a 1st from Bristol instead of UCL, or Manchester instead of Liverpool.
Remember, in this day and age hundreds or even thousands of applicants will apply to each job, and companies don't interview them all. It's so easy for them to filter by university, class etc.
If you're applying for the most competitive banking/legal training contracts, if you don't come from what they see as a top 20 uni, then you don't stand a chance in hell.
For most jobs, though, it doesn't matter. Get a 2.1 or a 1st from any respectable uni and you should find jobs. Obviously, the better the uni (to an extent, if the reputation is marginal no one will care) the higher employers will regard you before they interview you, but no sane employer is going to care if you got a 1st from Bristol instead of UCL, or Manchester instead of Liverpool.
Remember, in this day and age hundreds or even thousands of applicants will apply to each job, and companies don't interview them all. It's so easy for them to filter by university, class etc.
marginal is a subjective word.
the difference between UCL / Bristol vs Manc and L'pool is not marinal at all, it's a wide gap.
The basic question is stupid anyway, of course they look at rankings, just cause the HR dept. would not be doing their job if they didn't .
Original post by Zenomorph
marginal is a subjective word.
the difference between UCL / Bristol vs Manc and L'pool is not marinal at all, it's a wide gap.[
the difference between UCL / Bristol vs Manc and L'pool is not marinal at all, it's a wide gap.[
In quality there certainly isn't. In rankings it may appear that there is but this is because the majority of the Russell Group are, broadly comparable standard anhd the very purpose of league tables is to suggest that a is better than b which is better than c which wi better than d....Higher Education isn't like that. These are large universities with different strengths and weaknesses but many are broadly comparable. Some may have problems which will result in a low student satisfaction score, and this therefore affects the ranking. It is of interest to an undergraduate student but not an employer.
The basic question is stupid anyway, of course they look at rankings, just cause the HR dept. would not be doing their job if they didn't .
It's not stupid at all (or, if it is, not for the reasons you think it is).
You don't think that employers, through considerable experience, are already aware of what "good" and "bad" universities are? OR what universities are well represented in their own area? You think they actually sit there year and year studying league tables, which have only been in existence for a relatively few years, and make such fine distinctions?
You also don't realise that the extent to which university brand name matters varies considerably through career sectors and even each individual employer?
Do employers in psychology field care about University rankings?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
As I'm on a board that looks into the statistics which go towards university rankings I can quite confidently say that the ranking is essentially useless. What is important, as River pointed out earlier, is the brand, or reputation, that comes with particular universities. Often the better reputations coincide with higher ranks, but that doesn't mean that higher rank > better reputation; it is very much better reputation > higher rank.
So it isn't whether or not employers care about rankings, but rather they care about reputation. In regard to postgraduate study it isn't so much the university brand that they look at but rather the specific department's reputation.
So it isn't whether or not employers care about rankings, but rather they care about reputation. In regard to postgraduate study it isn't so much the university brand that they look at but rather the specific department's reputation.
I personally think that if you're at a 1994 group or a Russell group university, most companies will consider you on pretty much level ground (with a bit of variance obviously for Oxbridge, UoL, Warwick etc). I don't think any company would be thinking, we must have this person because he's from Warwick and not the other person because he is from Surrey etc. Any universities out of these groups I think may be at a slight disadvantage to a RG or 1994 group applicant.
Original post by samegreeneyes
I would think that as long as you have a degree, it wouldn't matter the rank of your university. But would your employer take it into account if your uni was say 80th? Obviously if it was from Oxbridge or the top 5 then its impressive, but what about the rest?
A BA (Oxon / Cantab) in toenail clippings is favoured over a PhD in Quantum Physics from Harvard, if you want to work in the House Of Commons, MI5 or BBC.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
The pie chart doesn't say that at all. The pie chart doesn't make much sense at all as a pie chart.
The pie chart doesn't say that at all. The pie chart doesn't make much sense at all as a pie chart.
Whatever you say, it makes sense to me and most people on here. It's just a joke, I highly doubt the person who made it actually analysed statistical information when he created it.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by River85
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
With respect why should I trust you when your profile says you're 18? I assume you haven't even been to university yet let alone in graduate employment. I'm 27 and a graduate yet even I don't pretend to know everything especially about career sectors I have no experience of. There are others in this site with more experience that I have. There are even graduate employmenrs (people involved in recruitment).
As has already been mentioned these are still a small number of total jobs. Even within law the university attended is of only little to no importance for a number of high street firms. There are a number of graduate schemes, including some very well regarded and popular ones, where university name has no importance whatsoever.
I don't understand your logic. If we accept that "top jobs" in society are held by those from prestigious universities this still doesn't mean that the majority of employers care for university "ranking" or reputation. You're making an assumption. These graduates, being among our strongest and most able, are inevitably going to dominate the top jobs. Graduates from these universities are largely middle or upper class, therefore may have greater aspirations and connections. These graduates are also more likely to have higher A-level grades whereas graduates from the former polytechnics in particular may be filtered out of many graduate schemes due to their grades. There are also a large number of vocational courses offered at certain universities so these graduates will enter such professions (e.g. pharmacy, physiotherapy). This isn't the case at the universities you mentioned, particularly somewhere like Durham (which, being my alma mater, I know well), where courses are largely traditional science and humanities with the only vocational courses being medicine, law and engineering).
There are many reasons. It doesn't mean employers favour them just for the brand name/ranking. Unless you've actually taken a comprehensive survey of a range of career sectors, which I'd be astounded if you have, then I won't trust you.
To reinforce your point (I'm only 19 myself so I'm no expert!
) when I worked at a Manchester law firm they even said the university you attended didn't matter, as long as you had the required qualifications and necessary experience. It's not as important for law as some people are led to believe unless you're looking to work for a Magic Circle firm where it's going to be trickier and more competitive.Original post by SpicyStrawberry
Agreed.
AMEN!
Mostly no. Most are aware of the difference between say Oxford and say Bedfordshire - they know that not all University degrees are the same, but no, the vast majority wouldn't know a Russell group Uni as such.
Obviously for certain professional careers like Law, Medicine, Banking it will make a difference (as much for the old boys network as actual academic clout), but for the vast majority of job interviews no-one will actually care where you did your degree unless its quite obviously at an FE college etc. Once you are two or three jobs down the track, it becomes increasingly irrelevant and your work experience becomes the critical factor.
Obviously for certain professional careers like Law, Medicine, Banking it will make a difference (as much for the old boys network as actual academic clout), but for the vast majority of job interviews no-one will actually care where you did your degree unless its quite obviously at an FE college etc. Once you are two or three jobs down the track, it becomes increasingly irrelevant and your work experience becomes the critical factor.
"A BA (Oxon / Cantab) in toenail clippings is favoured over a PhD in Quantum Physics from Harvard, if you want to work in the House Of Commons, MI5 or BBC."
Utter rubbish frankly. My degree was from Sussex - I worked at the BBC. Best friend got a First from the OU and now works for Hansard at HoC. Another friend has high ranking job within diplomatic security - he went to Oxford Brookes. Cousin works as a top legal consultant for the Border Agency - law at Leicester.
There are those who think that you get some sort of magic handshake when you go to Oxbridge - but oddly enough, out here in the real world few are actually astonishingly impressed.
Utter rubbish frankly. My degree was from Sussex - I worked at the BBC. Best friend got a First from the OU and now works for Hansard at HoC. Another friend has high ranking job within diplomatic security - he went to Oxford Brookes. Cousin works as a top legal consultant for the Border Agency - law at Leicester.
There are those who think that you get some sort of magic handshake when you go to Oxbridge - but oddly enough, out here in the real world few are actually astonishingly impressed.
Original post by nulli tertius
I would hate for you to miss this.
Thank you
unfortunately I've been without internet for the last few days.It might horrify some people on this website, but if some companies do use league tables, they are not in highly rigorous order many insist upon here but a much more 'general' idea of things. One legal firm I did some admin work for, replied when I said I went to York 'oh yeah that's about as good as Warwick and Sussex isn't it?' - associated by their foundation date rather than the latest Good University Guide. Similarly at another legal firm (a Scottish one* this time) when I mentioned I was at York, they compared it to Durham - this time city similarities above anything else. This may horrify some people here, who have staked their entire reputation on getting into 'x' or 'y' university to feel superior, but it makes sense. League tables are relatively new and not always the best indication of ability. At other institutions I've worked for - namely a bank on a summer scheme and a couple of national newspapers - the university I attended and the subject I studied was secondary to my actual ability in the professions itself. There was very little name-dropping and nepotism in either profession, though I'm told it's especially bad at some of the more egalitarian broadsheets, and i was in a different type of journalism to the sort most grads are applying for.
Last year I got to the final round of a graduate scheme for a large corporation that have put out advertisements saying 'top 20/russel group only'. I didn't get it** but from snooping around a bit and getting feedback I do know I came second to someone from the University of Portsmouth - a university in neither of the two groups specified above. This leads me to think that these 'only x types need apply' is a way of culling the volume of applications, rather than definitively imposing a limit.
And as for the sectors that do say they exclusively recruit - well to misquote, they would say that wouldn't they? If you want to show that you take on the best-of-the-best, then insinutating you only take the tip-top (British education being so devalued, darling) adds the aurora of exclusivity. I know enough people working in investment banking, who have graudated since the financial crisis, not from the so-called target universities to not believe much of what is said on this website
*Incidentally that firm valued grads from Strathclyde over other scottish universities because of Strath's excellent reputation for the GDL.
**And my university was at the time in the 94 group, which goes to show these rules are played fast and loose.
(edited 11 years ago)
Related discussions
- University Choices
- Ranking the top HCI courses in the UK
- Confused about uni for employability
- University of Bristol vs QMUL vs Newcastle University for CS
- computer science- worth it?
- Nottingham vs Manchester
- Help me choose Uni and Course !
- Confused about which uni to go to
- Loughborogh university ranking
- Help me pick: Swansea BEng vs Birmingham Aston MEng or Heriot-Watt BEng?
- is LSE better than Durham
- Masters
- Does a university's prestige really matter? Trying decide between Durham and Exeter.
- Rank these for me please
- UCL vs KCL Politics/ IR
- applying to Russel group unis if my undergrad is from a non Russel group
- Does university rep matter for Aeronautical Engineering? (UCL Ranking)
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- University Choice dilemma
- Offer Decision: QMUL OR SURREY for Mech Engineering
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
