The Student Room Group

.

..
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I wouldn't necessarily say my course is 'easier'. I was only allowed to transfer if my course 'mapped onto' the one I wanted to transfer to. I got offers from York, King's and Royal Holloway.
What Nichrome said. If you can go to RHUL or Kings and still get a First, I'd say you should do that. Generally speaking though, it's better to have a First from a supposedly-lesser university than a lower classification from a top uni :yes:
My mum did chemical engineering at Salford and she got a job at a top company above graduates from Cambridge. I think you should be ok :smile:
Reply 4
Nah a better grade is better than the uni's reputation.
Original post by xylem3
I was wondering what is more important, the prestige of a university or your overall grade? I am in line for a first class degree in physics from the university of Salford but I'm having a real problem right now. I can either complete my third year and graduate next year, or I can defer this year and transfer to Royal Holloway University of London next year and complete my degree there. Many people have told me I can do a masters at a better university but lets be realistic, places like Imperial have said they would accept me but it would cost a fortune, plus what use is an MSc in physics in the general job market? Surely a good first degree is the most important thing? Are my prospects now lowered because I did not study at a top university? Does this mean that if I went to a top university and received only a 2:1, my job opportunities as a graduate is greater? I feel really cheesed off right now, to be honest. This degree has been tough but I feel like I've wasted my time at Salford.


Stick with it. You may not get a great job first time round, but after a few years of work nobody cares about which Uni you went to. They only care what you've achieved in the work place.

I've worked with some right dead heads who came out with firsts from Russel group universities who I wouldn't trust to change a light bulb.

I've worked with some stars who went to lesser universities, and quite a few who never went to university, who are really doing well for themselves.
Original post by xylem3
How about the University of Surrey? I can still go there this year, it would save me taking a year out. Is Surrey on a par with RHUL and King's?


I wouldn't personally say so, but I am not a science student, so I can't tell you in your situation whether it would be :dontknow:
Royal Holloway is better, but I don't think it'd matter that much at all.
Grades indicate your most recent accomplishment, your uni choice was 3 years ago so employers usually prefer to use the most recent accomplishments.
Reply 9
Original post by MatureStudent36
Stick with it. You may not get a great job first time round, but after a few years of work nobody cares about which Uni you went to. They only care what you've achieved in the work place.

I've worked with some right dead heads who came out with firsts from Russel group universities who I wouldn't trust to change a light bulb.

I've worked with some stars who went to lesser universities, and quite a few who never went to university, who are really doing well for themselves.

I doubt they were dead heads...it's probably just that you didn't like them. Were they introverts?
Original post by Okorange
Grades indicate your most recent accomplishment, your uni choice was 3 years ago so employers usually prefer to use the most recent accomplishments.


^Also, if it really came to it in an interview, I'm sure you could use this fact to get you through.
Next year the rankings will be shuffled up again, but a first will still be a first.
Original post by Nichrome
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 The_Lonely_Goatherd
What Nichrome said. If you can go to RHUL or Kings and still get a First, I'd say you should do that. Generally speaking though, it's better to have a First from a supposedly-lesser university than a lower classification from a top uni :yes:


I disagree. 2.1 or 1st from Russell group generally beats 1st from lower ranked. 2.2 from Russel group is generally worse than even 2.1 from lower ranked (you have to do quite badly to get a 2.2 these days).

After a couple of years, you won't even put your degree class on your CV, but where you studied will stay.
Original post by cole-slaw
Next year the rankings will be shuffled up again, but a first will still be a first.


In a few years, everyone will get 2.1 or 1st because of grade inflation so your classification will be less meaningful.

Rankings do change a bit, but some things stay the same: Oxbridge > London Met and so on.
Original post by chazwomaq
In a few years, everyone will get 2.1 or 1st because of grade inflation so your classification will be less meaningful.

Rankings do change a bit, but some things stay the same: Oxbridge > London Met and so on.


I wish grade inflation would **** off, I've got 2 firsts, one was with the top 8% of graduates getting a first, and the other was with the top 3% of graduates, but now it looks less impressive now that like 85% of Cambridge maths students get a first or something stupid. it should definitely be limited to the top 10% at most.
Original post by nohomo
I doubt they were dead heads...it's probably just that you didn't like them. Were they introverts?


No. I can spot an oxygen thief from a hundred metres.

People get hung up on 'the better the university the better the person.'

Not so in the real world. It's how adaptable they are in the workplace.
Reply 16
Original post by MatureStudent36
No. I can spot an oxygen thief from a hundred metres.

People get hung up on 'the better the university the better the person.'

Not so in the real world. It's how adaptable they are in the workplace.


Out of interest, what's your educational history?
I would say that a First Class graduate from Salford is in a stronger position, employment-wise, than a 2:1 graduate from RHUL.

It would be a different story if it was First Class from Salford vs. high 2:1 from Oxbridge. This only really applies to the very tip-top unis: Oxbridge and possibly the likes of UCL and Imperial.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by chazwomaq
I disagree. 2.1 or 1st from Russell group generally beats 1st from lower ranked. 2.2 from Russel group is generally worse than even 2.1 from lower ranked (you have to do quite badly to get a 2.2 these days).

After a couple of years, you won't even put your degree class on your CV, but where you studied will stay.


Bang on, this for me. There's a big gap between Russell and post-1992 universities. And if you go abroad as well, a undergrad/postgrad from one of the "better" universities will really be sought after.
Original post by chazwomaq
I disagree. 2.1 or 1st from Russell group generally beats 1st from lower ranked. 2.2 from Russel group is generally worse than even 2.1 from lower ranked (you have to do quite badly to get a 2.2 these days).

After a couple of years, you won't even put your degree class on your CV, but where you studied will stay.



If you don't put your degree class, it means you got a third or an ordinary. Or at least, that is what people will assume.

Quick Reply

Latest