.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The_Blade
This was in the late 80s/ early 90s so they must have stopped doing it since then
Original post by nulli tertius
I think the same point can be made about the air force.
Maybe for most, idk i don't though. When I think RAF i don't just think fighter pilots, I think ground crew, maintenance crew, transport pilots etc. I think the reason is that while consultants are the revenue generators for Mckinsey and are often the ones working the longest hours, fighter pilots do only a small part of the job for the RAF. Most of the time, the planes are being maintained by people and most of the time the RAF is doing transport missions.
But tl:dr i see your point completely.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Nichrome
Although your Physics degree at Salford is much easier and less rigorous than Physics degrees at top unis, don't despair. Most people will just look at the grade and not care too much where you got it from, so doing well at an easy course is far more advantageous than doing badly at a harder course. I wouldn't worry.
Original post by Olderandwiser23
My partner employs grads. He openly admits he'd take a 2:1/2:2from a top tier uni than a 1st from anywhere else.
So yes prestige still means a lot if you want to earn a lot.
ps he did physics at Oxford ( a long time ago)
So yes prestige still means a lot if you want to earn a lot.
ps he did physics at Oxford ( a long time ago)
He employs people based purely on that? I'd rather do a bit more work on finding the people who will benefit my business best than just to rely on a university to have thought about that.
It's really quite lazy and probably explains why groupthink is so prevelant (and damaging) in areas such as IB.
Original post by ChemistBoy
He employs people based purely on that? I'd rather do a bit more work on finding the people who will benefit my business best than just to rely on a university to have thought about that.
It's really quite lazy and probably explains why groupthink is so prevelant (and damaging) in areas such as IB.
It's really quite lazy and probably explains why groupthink is so prevelant (and damaging) in areas such as IB.
Obviously not solely based on that lol but he puts preference on those people with Oxbridge/imperial/ucl/lse on their cvs than those with eg Westminster on it lol and he's more likely to interview the them rather than the worse uni grads.
Smarter people= benefits the business= worth interviewing. He has to whittle down people some how and if he hasn't met them it's purely based on their CV's.
Original post by Olderandwiser23
Obviously not solely based on that lol but he puts preference on those people with Oxbridge/imperial/ucl/lse on their cvs than those with eg Westminster on it lol and he's more likely to interview the them rather than the worse uni grads.
Smarter people= benefits the business= worth interviewing. He has to whittle down people some how and if he hasn't met them it's purely based on their CV's.
Smarter people= benefits the business= worth interviewing. He has to whittle down people some how and if he hasn't met them it's purely based on their CV's.
As for doing more work to find the people... Time is money. A recruiter finds the "suitable" candidates and then it's up to him to choose who he interviews.
Original post by Olderandwiser23
As for doing more work to find the people... Time is money. A recruiter finds the "suitable" candidates and then it's up to him to choose who he interviews.
Presumably your husband studied Physics with Edmund Halley if he takes such an old fashioned approach to recruitment! His approach shows a distinct lack of engagement with universities to get the kind of graduates he wants to employ. Clearly, whoever he works for is so irrelevant to universities' careers services that they have no interest in making a connection with him and he has to rely on a vague knowledge of university league tables and out of date prejudices when he looks for new hires. Out of curiosity, how long do his new hires actually last?
The point your husband doesn't seem to grasp is that a person's choice of university is not necessarily an indication of their intelligence; grades are a more reliable indicator although even they can't tell you much about a candidate's motivation or initiative. These are some of the examples your husband immediately writes off for someone with a desmond from a red brick (who have only been awarding their own degrees for about 45 years longer than the ex-polytechnics):
1) Mature students who may have originally chosen to leave full time education at A-Level. Ex-polytechnics are far more likely to offer distance learning;
2) Poorer students who chose to study at the institution closest to home. Whilst there is generally a university high in the league tables and commutable in most parts of the country, this doesn't apply in, for example, Cornwall and also if you live in say, Oxford, you might struggle to get into the highest placed university in your area more than someone living in, say, Cardiff (no disrespect to Cardiff, great institution but the entry requirements are lower). So your options become limited (and in Cornwall, distance learning is the only real option).
3) Those from orthodox religions who are expected to stay at home (especially women). They have the same problems as those in 2).
4) People who were not informed of this fascination in league tables and simply chose the university they liked best when they visited.
I don't think anyone in these categories should be written off for someone who got a 2:2 at a higher placed institution, not least because I know how little work needs to be done to get a 2:1 in those places (and how much harder it is to get a first someone lower down the table).
Original post by Olderandwiser23
As for doing more work to find the people... Time is money. A recruiter finds the "suitable" candidates and then it's up to him to choose who he interviews.
So what is he paying the recruiter for if he does his own selection afterwards? Why is he not communicating his real requirements to the recruiter properly to save himself time? Seems a bit inefficient to me.
I've interviewed a lot of UK grads for a major international corporation and I've found that there is a lot of 'noise' in CVs and beyond setting minimum standards they are pretty useless at finding the best candidates (that is what I presume your husband wants). Interviews are much, much better and almost without exception each set I've been involved with have produced some surprises worth investing the extra time in.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Frenspan14
I'm just curious as to why you're only "cheesed off" now...did you not think about it or ask anyone about it before you started your course?
haha, how snide, don't often see that on the student room!
It's a perfectly reasonable feeling to be having. OP has demonstrated ability in an institution of education but due to a failing system is unable to make a full representation of himself. The problem arises from the fact that the system purports to standardise degrees across institutions, but is widely recognised to have failed.
This means both that high achieving undergraduates in poor universities may be penalised, and similarly, underachieving undergraduates in top universities. In the former case, because the university is taken too greatly into account, in the latter, because it is not taken into account enough.
There are examples of both. In top level financial services companies you are not going to get in without a red-brick name. Typically the institutions are from the US and lean heavily towards the 'old boys club' vibe. Some pick specifically from Oxbridge / London.
In a lot of mid-level companies the HR software removes 2.2s despite academics reporting the particular universities course being significantly harder.
Either way undergraduate degrees are chosen on the basis that they can be directly compared, and OP is frustrated that this is not the case. Also, as this thread is making clear, it is not easy to compare even with this knowledge.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AW1983
Presumably your husband studied Physics with Edmund Halley if he takes such an old fashioned approach to recruitment! His approach shows a distinct lack of engagement with universities to get the kind of graduates he wants to employ. Clearly, whoever he works for is so irrelevant to universities' careers services that they have no interest in making a connection with him and he has to rely on a vague knowledge of university league tables and out of date prejudices when he looks for new hires. Out of curiosity, how long do his new hires actually last?
The point your husband doesn't seem to grasp is that a person's choice of university is not necessarily an indication of their intelligence; grades are a more reliable indicator although even they can't tell you much about a candidate's motivation or initiative. These are some of the examples your husband immediately writes off for someone with a desmond from a red brick (who have only been awarding their own degrees for about 45 years longer than the ex-polytechnics):
1) Mature students who may have originally chosen to leave full time education at A-Level. Ex-polytechnics are far more likely to offer distance learning;
2) Poorer students who chose to study at the institution closest to home. Whilst there is generally a university high in the league tables and commutable in most parts of the country, this doesn't apply in, for example, Cornwall and also if you live in say, Oxford, you might struggle to get into the highest placed university in your area more than someone living in, say, Cardiff (no disrespect to Cardiff, great institution but the entry requirements are lower). So your options become limited (and in Cornwall, distance learning is the only real option).
3) Those from orthodox religions who are expected to stay at home (especially women). They have the same problems as those in 2).
4) People who were not informed of this fascination in league tables and simply chose the university they liked best when they visited.
I don't think anyone in these categories should be written off for someone who got a 2:2 at a higher placed institution, not least because I know how little work needs to be done to get a 2:1 in those places (and how much harder it is to get a first someone lower down the table).
The point your husband doesn't seem to grasp is that a person's choice of university is not necessarily an indication of their intelligence; grades are a more reliable indicator although even they can't tell you much about a candidate's motivation or initiative. These are some of the examples your husband immediately writes off for someone with a desmond from a red brick (who have only been awarding their own degrees for about 45 years longer than the ex-polytechnics):
1) Mature students who may have originally chosen to leave full time education at A-Level. Ex-polytechnics are far more likely to offer distance learning;
2) Poorer students who chose to study at the institution closest to home. Whilst there is generally a university high in the league tables and commutable in most parts of the country, this doesn't apply in, for example, Cornwall and also if you live in say, Oxford, you might struggle to get into the highest placed university in your area more than someone living in, say, Cardiff (no disrespect to Cardiff, great institution but the entry requirements are lower). So your options become limited (and in Cornwall, distance learning is the only real option).
3) Those from orthodox religions who are expected to stay at home (especially women). They have the same problems as those in 2).
4) People who were not informed of this fascination in league tables and simply chose the university they liked best when they visited.
I don't think anyone in these categories should be written off for someone who got a 2:2 at a higher placed institution, not least because I know how little work needs to be done to get a 2:1 in those places (and how much harder it is to get a first someone lower down the table).
Everything you've written is just as much of an assumption as the man you're trying to discredit. Presumably if he's been hiring on a regular basis he actually has a very good impression of what's valuable and what is not. You do put forward some very good points with regard to why someone would choose a weaker university, but no empirical information on how the standards differ.
Academics in every institution will tell you that standards vary, and it is not difficult to come to this conclusion, the problem is determining to what extent this is the case, and this is practically impossible. Experience in HR is all you can really go on.
What if you did your bachelors at a low ranked uni and got a first class degree and went on to do your masters at a top uni?for instance Cambridge etc.
Original post by FreddyG
Everything you've written is just as much of an assumption as the man you're trying to discredit. Presumably if he's been hiring on a regular basis he actually has a very good impression of what's valuable and what is not. You do put forward some very good points with regard to why someone would choose a weaker university, but no empirical information on how the standards differ.
Academics in every institution will tell you that standards vary, and it is not difficult to come to this conclusion, the problem is determining to what extent this is the case, and this is practically impossible. Experience in HR is all you can really go on.
Academics in every institution will tell you that standards vary, and it is not difficult to come to this conclusion, the problem is determining to what extent this is the case, and this is practically impossible. Experience in HR is all you can really go on.
There's as much chance of the degree of variance you're talking about that there is by choosing different subjects or even electives at the same university. There's also no guarantee if there is a difference that the big 'brands' are best. Of course, many RG universities got their reputation by offering University of London degrees; whether the reputation has ever been deserved since they went it alone is anyone's guess. I have faith the QAA would keep varying standards to a minimum anyway.
There are a lot of reasons why a small variance in standard wouldn't matter, not least the fact that there is a lot of difference in a student that gets a mark average of 60% to one that gets 69% but they both get a 2:1 at the end of it; that's probably bigger than differences in institutions. Who knows, maybe someone from Central Lancashire might have got 64% instead of 65% if they went to Lancaster! Second is how little teaching time you actually get. Next to none one to one; a few hours a week in small groups and about 10 hours in lecture that aren't interactive and could frankly be filmed and broadcast anywhere. There is a myth that perpetuates that students at RG universities go bursting with enthusiasm to all their seminars and create a real atmosphere of learning. I'm suppressing the laughter as I write. Maybe at Oxbridge, but everyone I know who went to an RG university or equivalent, including myself, spent most seminars hung over watching the tutor desperately trying to achieve the most minimal level of engagement.
Perhaps though the most compelling reason it doesn't matter is because the recruiter's cull of CVs was so arbitrary in the first place. They just have to make the number of applications humanly possible to read. If that means culling a few 2:2s from Oxbridge well, I imagine the attitude is 'they should have studied harder shouldn't they!'
Original post by Olderandwiser23
My partner employs grads. He openly admits he'd take a 2:1/2:2from a top tier uni than a 1st from anywhere else.
So yes prestige still means a lot if you want to earn a lot.
ps he did physics at Oxford ( a long time ago)
So yes prestige still means a lot if you want to earn a lot.
ps he did physics at Oxford ( a long time ago)
My uncle plays a part in employing grads as well. He takes actual relevant experience over whether or not they have been to oxford or not. It depends entirely on who is doing the employing.
Original post by AW1983
There's as much chance of the degree of variance you're talking about that there is by choosing different subjects or even electives at the same university. There's also no guarantee if there is a difference that the big 'brands' are best. Of course, many RG universities got their reputation by offering University of London degrees; whether the reputation has ever been deserved since they went it alone is anyone's guess. I have faith the QAA would keep varying standards to a minimum anyway.
Interestingly, people who have studied at multiple universities seem to think that the standards can vary quite a lot.
Eg, see this post: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2723568&page=15&p=48466655&highlight=#post48466655
I've studied with Lancaster, Manchester and the Open University. Lancaster did have the highest expectations of the three whilst the Open University expected similar standards in essays and exams but were more helpful in recommending the best reading materials. But really the difference was inconsequential and maybe the difference was another 1% was obtainable with the OU. I've found Manchester the easiest of the three but it might be because it's in collaboration with the International Compliance Association and in a different subject (History, in my view, is much more rigorous than management and compliance subjects).
I've also studied professional qualifications, which are unquestionably harder than anything you will do at undergraduate level.
I've also studied professional qualifications, which are unquestionably harder than anything you will do at undergraduate level.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Interestingly, people who have studied at multiple universities seem to think that the standards can vary quite a lot.
Eg, see this post: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2723568&page=15&p=48466655&highlight=#post48466655
Eg, see this post: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2723568&page=15&p=48466655&highlight=#post48466655
Interesting link but the argument is flawed. Here's a guy who's slowly grappling with Physics and then the penny drops and his marks start to rise. Of course, it could be for numerous reasons, for example the teaching at UCL might be better than Cambridge. Also, the percentage mark differences he talks about are not huge between UCL and Royal Holloway given that he took the RH one later on.
And his assumption about ex-Polies is just that, and uncorroborated.
Original post by AW1983
There's as much chance of the degree of variance you're talking about that there is by choosing different subjects or even electives at the same university. There's also no guarantee if there is a difference that the big 'brands' are best. Of course, many RG universities got their reputation by offering University of London degrees; whether the reputation has ever been deserved since they went it alone is anyone's guess. I have faith the QAA would keep varying standards to a minimum anyway.
There are a lot of reasons why a small variance in standard wouldn't matter, not least the fact that there is a lot of difference in a student that gets a mark average of 60% to one that gets 69% but they both get a 2:1 at the end of it; that's probably bigger than differences in institutions. Who knows, maybe someone from Central Lancashire might have got 64% instead of 65% if they went to Lancaster! Second is how little teaching time you actually get. Next to none one to one; a few hours a week in small groups and about 10 hours in lecture that aren't interactive and could frankly be filmed and broadcast anywhere. There is a myth that perpetuates that students at RG universities go bursting with enthusiasm to all their seminars and create a real atmosphere of learning. I'm suppressing the laughter as I write. Maybe at Oxbridge, but everyone I know who went to an RG university or equivalent, including myself, spent most seminars hung over watching the tutor desperately trying to achieve the most minimal level of engagement.
Perhaps though the most compelling reason it doesn't matter is because the recruiter's cull of CVs was so arbitrary in the first place. They just have to make the number of applications humanly possible to read. If that means culling a few 2:2s from Oxbridge well, I imagine the attitude is 'they should have studied harder shouldn't they!'
There are a lot of reasons why a small variance in standard wouldn't matter, not least the fact that there is a lot of difference in a student that gets a mark average of 60% to one that gets 69% but they both get a 2:1 at the end of it; that's probably bigger than differences in institutions. Who knows, maybe someone from Central Lancashire might have got 64% instead of 65% if they went to Lancaster! Second is how little teaching time you actually get. Next to none one to one; a few hours a week in small groups and about 10 hours in lecture that aren't interactive and could frankly be filmed and broadcast anywhere. There is a myth that perpetuates that students at RG universities go bursting with enthusiasm to all their seminars and create a real atmosphere of learning. I'm suppressing the laughter as I write. Maybe at Oxbridge, but everyone I know who went to an RG university or equivalent, including myself, spent most seminars hung over watching the tutor desperately trying to achieve the most minimal level of engagement.
Perhaps though the most compelling reason it doesn't matter is because the recruiter's cull of CVs was so arbitrary in the first place. They just have to make the number of applications humanly possible to read. If that means culling a few 2:2s from Oxbridge well, I imagine the attitude is 'they should have studied harder shouldn't they!'
You're still making assumptions. I take your point that the learning experience is vastly the same, except perhaps for Oxbridge, but given this is the case, entry standards would make a huge difference. Given this is the case, we should see the bottom universities getting mostly thirds, those in the middle 2.1s and 2.2s, and the ones at the top, mostly firsts. There would of course be variance, but given the size of the sample, and the relatively extensive application processes we would expect to see these results far more uniformly than is currently the case.
You are completely right that courses will introduce similar amounts of disparity, but that doesn't detract from the original points.
Again, I don't think the culling is arbitrary, experience is valuable when we have to have these discussions full of assumptions. Of course it is ridiculous; anyone who has got a first, wherever from, should be considered - they couldn't have done any better.
I hesitate to use anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know who went to Oxbridge and continued to do a masters breezed a merit at minimum. Most got distinctions. There are several posts on this website with similar conclusions: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2723568&page=15&p=48466655&highlight=#post48466655
(Arguing that someone 'should have tried harder' when results are awarded based on their performance relative to their year group fundamentally misunderstands the issues here.)
I don't think that 2.2 at a redbrick is necessarily better than even a 2.2 at an expoly, I'm just trying to make the point that it is clear the standards aren't uniform, and there is a lot to take into consideration.
Original post by AW1983
Interesting link but the argument is flawed. Here's a guy who's slowly grappling with Physics and then the penny drops and his marks start to rise. Of course, it could be for numerous reasons, for example the teaching at UCL might be better than Cambridge. Also, the percentage mark differences he talks about are not huge between UCL and Royal Holloway given that he took the RH one later on.
And his assumption about ex-Polies is just that, and uncorroborated.
And his assumption about ex-Polies is just that, and uncorroborated.
I don't understand how you can explain that 'the penny dropped' at exactly the same moment that he transferred to UCL. If it was down to the teaching being worse at Cambridge, everyone would have been affected equally there too. If the cohorts were indeed of similar ability, there would be no way he'd go from the 2.2/2.1 at Cam to a top 1st at UCL almost instantaneously.
I'm in a London university myself now, doing an (ostensibly) rigorous and competitive Masters programme, having come from an undergrad at Cambridge. The difference is unbelievable - it is so, so, so much slower, with so much more time given to exposition. The best way I can put it is that I, in common with a very great majority of my coursemates at Cambridge, was never able to properly follow more than 50% of the material in a Cambridge lecture before getting lost (and the median amount was probably 25%). At London, it is 90-100%, in every lecture. It feels surreal.
It is also absolutely clear that the Oxbridge grads on my course are finding the course relatively easy and fun so far, while the non-Oxbridge grads find it extremely difficult and most have already dropped the 'hard' options (the most attractive ones, which almost everybody doing my course signed up for initially). This dichotomy is so apparent that I'm almost able to tell what university someone on my MSc is from simply by the fact that they're doing the 'hard' options, and certainly by what percentage of the assignments they are able to complete.
I'm not out to try and big up Oxbridge. I graduated years ago, I've worked in industry for some years, and I have no particular reason to try and discredit my current institution for the sake of my undergraduate institution. I say the above simply because many people seem to really want to believe that there's not all that much difference between university degrees, and that is patently a false statement.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Skill Twix
What if you did your bachelors at a low ranked uni and got a first class degree and went on to do your masters at a top uni?for instance Cambridge etc.
Then you use top uni
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 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 3 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 ?
