What is the point in 'lower ranked unis'?

As has already been pointed out, the vast majority of employers don't care what ranking your university had, because realistically rank has very little to do with the kind of employee you'll be. All the rank of the university tells the employer is "this person got good A Level results and had sufficient circumstances in their life at this time to go to this university". That's it. To anyone who thinks employers should hire someone based on the rank of their university, you're essentially saying that the employer should hire someone based on their A Level results. They don't. A Levels mean almost nothing at the level a 'graduate employer' is looking for. They give a broad indication that you worked hard at school, and there's a correlation between ability and good grades, but in the grand scheme of things it's a loose correlation. It's more down to specific mindset at that age, ability to memorise, motivation and teaching quality. None of which are relevant to your actual ability when you're in your 20s.

A lower-ranked university may introduce a glass ceiling in terms of internships and interview offers. In most (but not all) cases CVs are first handled by recruiters who care little about your alleged ability and determination. They only see the piece of paper that you've produced and if it a low-ranked uni with absence of proper internships (which will most likely the case) then you are just not going into the final stack that is up for the interview. If you are ambitious then a top uni is a must and sorry excuses like "it doesn't reflect my ability" don't cut it for a recent graduate as very few are interested in what kind of person you are before you make it to the interview. This may be harsh, but this is the reality.

I've not chased this discussion back to its opening post, but if you're saying, as someone else on this page has suggested, that uni exams do not differ in difficulty, you could scarcely be further wrong.

Like, I struggle to believe that you actually believe that. Just compare how much work people at different uni's do to get a given grade (let's say a 2.i.). The 2.i. rate isn't any higher at top ranked uni's than at bottom ones. The people at the top uni's do way more work, as a rule. Unless you're going to say either (a) that people at top uni's are generally less intelligent or less efficient, or (b) that the teaching at top uni's is substantially worse, I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that exams at top uni's are more difficult.

Well that is nice, but this is not my opinion. This is fact.

Universities aren't ranked by the difficulty of their exams.... Please go educate yourself.

I'm done here, complete waste of time.

Some unis that rank lower overall, have specialist strengths, in more vocational subjects such as Optometry and Physiotherapy.

Just the quality of the lecturers and their research, and the better lecturers will be better teachers, yet somehow the lower uni's, who let people in with worse A level results, and have worse lecturers, mange to achieve the "same" degree and results?
That is impossible is it not?

A private sixthform with better quality of teaching, A **** sixth form with crap quality of teaching. Private sixth form kid gets AAA, **** sixth form kid gets AAA.

Its possible.

Opinion?

Yet they sit the same exam after studying the same syllabus.
Why do you think this is the same at unis ? You do know that it is the uni that sets the exam, not an external board?

student a, aqa, student b, ocr. yh they're different.

Does the average student really do more work at Oxbridge than at another top 10 uni?

Erm, yeah, very much so; save for some specific courses, and with the obvious qualification that the degree to which it's true will differ depending upon the other "top ten" uni in consideration. I'm not going to regale you with tales of the conversations I've had with friends at other uni's on which I'm basing this conclusion, though, because that's obviously not going to change anything.*

As for the other thing you said, that's news to me, and I'd like to see a source if you have one.

edit:* although comparing the syllabuses of the Cambridge and KCL maths courses provides one piece of evidence. I only know about this because I know someone who missed their Cam offer and went to King's. The Cambridge course goes through a great deal more material.

Kings is more focused on humanities and medicine, not sciences.

Just the quality of the lecturers and their research, and the better lecturers will be better teachers, yet somehow the lower uni's, who let people in with worse A level results, and have worse lecturers, mange to achieve the "same" degree and results?
That is impossible is it not?

The lecturers at research intensive unis are hired as researchers and then forced to lecture. They might be good at both lecturing and researching but being good at one is no guarantee of being good at the other. The lecturers at teaching universities are hired to teach.

either way undergrad teaching isn't a spoonfeeding process - you need to do your own work... for undergraduate purposes a high quality tutor is by and large one who turns up to appointments and gets your feedback returned in good time. Members of faculty being able to pull Higgs bosons out of their butts doesn't help the undergrad much.