masters decision - funding v no funding (yet)

Scroll to see replies

No there isn't. If I already know an applicant no matter from where, than I will favor him, because I know, how he behaves, what motivates him and how dedicated he is and I am not dependant on how he behaves in an interview. Which university he attended becomes secondary, as soon as I know the applicant already. At the end you want to work with him, not necessarily add another name on your list from a well-known university. You can rolleyes, but that is my experience.

Ah, I see, you were being quite literal, in the sense of actually knowing someone. How well do you suppose that works for big companies that employ thousands of people, where applicants can often go through an interview process that involves at least two or three different people and often a number more than that? Even companies that only employ a couple of hundred often have many people involved in interviewing. That type of thing might get someone through the door for an interview, but it certainly won't get them the job.

And let me ask you further, so you play football with person A who has a BSc in economics from some unknown uni. You know this person and you think he's fantastic. From what you said above, and now I have to take this literally, you will favour him. So the fact that the job is an economics jobs and there are applicants with MSc's from the LSE will not matter to you because "you know him" and somehow that is a better qualification to do the job? How about the fact that it is likely no females are on your football team? Maybe your approach works for a couple of people in some provincial setting, or if you live in some country where nepotism and cronyism determine who get jobs, but it is terribly bad anywhere else.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 21

JusticeSeeker

Original post by arguendo

i am toying between two masters offers. one is cambridge, which has my dream course, a great faculty for my department, and has the oxbridge cache that would definitely help my non-academic career prospects, and which i suspect would help my academic career prospects too. the other is top 10 RG for my subject and has offered me a full-fee scholarship. (to provide context, there are hardly any departmental or faculty scholarships for my field/course of study, as it's taught postgrad and not research-based.)

so far, i've been unsuccessful in all my cambridge scholarship applications, and i'm still waiting to hear back on one (a bit of a hail mary pass).

until today i'd ruled out the second university completely and had prepared myself to take out a huge loan to finance cambridge, or to not do postgrad this year.

i'm still very much in shock and completely unsure what to do. i love one course and have my heart set on it, but another is funded, reducing my debt substantially. thoughts from those who have been in similar positions?

Go for the one which is funded. I'm doing a Master's this year at a Uni I was sure you enable me to get a job, UCL, and in fact it hasn't helped me at all in my job applications. In fact, in my career orientation, Masters are negatively regarded, i.e. you did a masters because you can't get a job....

Reply 22

poohat

Original post by Nathanielle

As well as a lot of PHD will go to the student having already worked together with the professor before and not to somebody from outside, who might have gone to a better university, but is unknown to the professor.

No there isn't. If I already know an applicant no matter from where, than I will favor him, because I know, how he behaves, what motivates him and how dedicated he is

Both of these points are correct and are yet another reason why going to a more prestigious university is generally better - the networking opportunities are superior.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 23

Nathanielle

Original post by sj27

And let me ask you further, so you play football with person A who has a BSc in economics from some unknown uni. You know this person and you think he's fantastic. From what you said above, and now I have to take this literally, you will favour him. So the fact that the job is an economics jobs and there are applicants with MSc's from the LSE will not matter to you because "you know him" and somehow that is a better qualification to do the job? How about the fact that it is likely no females are on your football team? Maybe your approach works for a couple of people in some provincial setting, or if you live in some country where nepotism and cronyism determine who get jobs, but it is terribly bad anywhere else.

Yeah, because:
a) if the job demands you being from a special university, I very likely was at LSE, too and am already biased towards LSE. Simply because I know the curriculum and know exactly which Professor is the difficult one, I know the other Alumni, I know what is taught and which course from LSE , ... So choosing someone because he is from LSE is not more nepotism, than choosing someone for other reasons.
b) Yeah, knowing someone is extremely important and exactly what HR is trying to find out with various steps. You have to work with your colleagues, get the information from them, communicate with them etc. ... the ability to fill out some Excel files and learn stuff, which is often under what you had to learn for an exam, is secondary, indeed or better said: you don't need to go to LSE for that. You go to LSE for the name, the networking, so much more, than just because of the education.
c) Someone living in the UK with an extremely elitist system, very expensive Master courses and a high percentage of privately educated pupils should be not as quick, to regard others as provincial or nepotistic. As I already said, choosing LSE just for the networking and reputation has nothing to do with going to LSE, because the courses there would be more difficult and the education outstanding.

Of course it is not the best way to choose someone (that is not what I've said), but that is how is often works at the end, even at large multinational companies. You simply prefer employ someone, you already know and/or who will fit in the team. And the end you spent as much time with them, as you spent with your family, or even more time. It is the same reason, why you have an advantage having already done an internship in the same company when applying.

Reply 24

sj27

Original post by Nathanielle

Well done on contradicting yourself.

Also You still seem to have a complete inability to understand that it is very seldom that one person decides to recruit someone for a company. Particularly for positions that matter. You don't seem to understand that there are jobs that require smart insightful people, not just congenial mates who can input data into a spreadsheet.

I could also ask you to explain for example why someone who has his entire university education in the US likes to recruit from LSE in the UK. There is no old boys club at work here. Could it be that he is actually just impressed by the quality of the graduates? But I don't think I will ask that because I will probably just get another long non-answer contradicting something that went before.

I hope that one day you are senior enough to be helping decide on who to recruit, and that when you do, you have the decency to blush when you remember this exchange. I'm done here.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 25

boyinthebox

Original post by sj27

Academic employers will care about being funded. Private sector employers won't. They will care more about what uni the person graduated from than how they funded it.

Thanks for your reply.

The thing you said is not true. I had an undergrad scholarship from my university and when I went to my assessment centre at Deloitte they valued it greatly and kept asking me about it. And by the way, out of 8 applicants, there was a girl from Oxford who was rejected. So your university reputation matters during the first few stages of application. Later on its all on your ability. If you have a 2.2 from Oxbridge your application will not be taken into account at top employers (unless you have some excellent work experiences and recc). Employers judge you by your ability, not by your university reputation.

Reply 26

Cora Lindsay

Original post by Nathanielle

Most of what you describe here is completely illegal in the UK under anti-discrimination legislation. The "special university" point you make is specifically highlighted in our recruitment training as an example of indirect discrimination. That is not to say these things don't happen, insidiously, but large organisations with robust HR processes take great care to ensure they don't.

As has previously been said, there are often two or three rounds of assessment, most conducted by more than one person, so personal contact or "working with the professor" have little weight in the overall process. Indeed, personal knowledge can actually count against an applicant- a friend on the panel may feel obliged to be silent because of conflict of interest.

I am no HR professional but I recruit my own postdocs, technicians and PhD students, and have also been part of recruitment for academic and professional postions in my own institution, as well as being involved as an independent in recruitment panels and assessment centres for UK Government and industry, and other universities. I would be appalled if I saw anything along the lines you describe, and I never have.

Reply 27

Kasa

Original post by arguendo

I would defer a year and work the money up for Cambridge! Master's funding is rare and winning it is an achievement, but it is not enough to disregard a course that you love and a university that will bring substantial gravitas to your CV for the rest of your life.

All the best, but from what I have read, you won't need it!