University rank is unimportant

They are both accredited by the relevant engineering institute therefore they both ahve the exact same core material necessary for chartership. No difference apart from there's a higher workload at one purely because they "have an image to maintain". I just told you over and over again that the recruitment team at one of the biggest engineering companies in the world said that they don't care at all. The aim of this wasn't to say you're all wasting your time at top universities which is why I think everyone is going on the defensive, It's to say that there's nothing wrong with attending a lwoer ranked university so long as it's good for your course. You still have every chance of getting the same job as an Imperial grad so long as you work hard and network.

My teacher used to work for Atkins. He said to me during their employment process, they selected all the "top ranking" applicants and put them in one pile, such as Bristol, oxbridge, imperial etc.
Now I wonder what they did with the other pile

Implying that university doesn't matter is a bit ridiculous though and is not a sustainable view. For example, an Cambridge economics graduate typically earns about £40k upon graduation, and some earn quite a bit more. An economics graduate from a non russel group uni will be lucky to earn half that. Facts are facts. I know correlation does not imply causation but the magnitude of the differences speak for themselves. Whether you believe it or not, a lot of the top level jobs are virtually closed if you don't attend a top university and some firms virtually only hire from Oxbridge (very few I admit). Also, on the thing about discrimination against theoretical engineers - I know plenty at Cambridge and none of them have struggled getting a job, be it in engineering or finance.

Probably burnt there CVs or used it on bonfire night

That engineering company is potentially hiring me as an apprentice. If I complete it I will be doing the exact same job as a graduate. That shows that you don't even need a bloody degree to do the job let alone one from a top university.

Why are you going on about economics? Yes we all know that that is an old boys network. In other more pragmatic jobs like engineering where they just want anyone that can do the job it's not a big deal.

Threads like these make me wish peoples ages were displayed; seems like lots of young people who have never worked before talking about about things they know very little about.

Me too; seems like a lot of older people like chatting about things and a time when it was easy and where the pressure on younger folk is not realised.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Please just shut up about Oxford and Cambridge. They don't care how hard your degree is, they care that you know the material. There is actually not a massive correlation between going to a top university and intelligence, there is however a much bigger correlation between wealth and going to a top university. Are public school kids really smarter than state school kids? Because by your logic that explains why half of Oxbridge is public schooled. Employers know this and therefore don't narrow their net to the top universities only in the search for talent. In short someone at a lower ranked university isn't necessarily less smart than someone at a top university. It is because of old boys clubs. Is journalism a super tough career? Why then is most of the Guardian from Oxbridge? A UCL law degree for example isn't exactly mickey mouse yet the Oxbridge one is massively favored.

That engineering company is potentially hiring me as an apprentice. If I complete it I will be doing the exact same job as a graduate. That shows that you don't even need a bloody degree to do the job let alone one from a top university. You go in knowing the basics and they get you up to speed on the job. If LSBU was **** then why would that company spend millions sponsoring their employees to go there? You're all completely brainwashed.

It's not that where you go doesn't matter, but the mistake made by some on TSR is in supposing that employers' (or anyone's) interest in the fine-grained rankings business is as keen as on here.

What perhaps matters in the real world of jobs, and the unreal and deathless world of dinner parties, is something that would be better styled 'university regardings' and is subject to sorting about every twenty years or so, not changing overmuch even then. On this working-metric, institutions of higher education are split into about 5 or 6 broad groups, if as many as that, and that's the whole of it.

But on this site, the necessarily endless wrangling for Bath>Exeter or Warwick>Durham. It is nonsense.

I very much agree with this. It's pretty much

Oxbridge

LSE/Imperial/Warwick/Durham/UCL etc

Other Russel group universities

Non Russel group universities

Nice move there ... everyone who is reading can slot their own university into the etc and be happy

I certainly did

Do you mean Manchester? I'm not sure that is in the same ranks as Durham, Warwick, Imperial, St. Andrews, UCL, LSE, etc.

I guess the humour struggled to get through the screen

I think you have to remember, the pinch points were different in the past.

Look at this father's account of his daughter's difficulties in becoming a solicitor from 1988.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/becoming-a-solicitor

Things were so bad she was thinking of throwing it all up and going to the bar instead.

As much as I want to believe you, I'm not taking that chance. Anyone else can if they want...

I think you have to remember, the pinch points were different in the past.

Look at this father's account of his daughter's difficulties in becoming a solicitor from 1988.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/becoming-a-solicitor

Things were so bad she was thinking of throwing it all up and going to the bar instead.