Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?

i’m not saying if you don’t go to a Russell group uni you won’t get a job, but i’m pretty sure going to Nottingham will put you ahead of other graduates who didn’t go to a Russell group university.

I'm looking to go back to university after a year of career related work to do a masters in Civil Engineering. I have the option of going to Nottingham Trent for £7,500 (Discount for also doing undergrad) or University of Nottingham for £10,500.

The lower cost looks really inviting but I was wondering how much less likely I am to land that graduate scheme role after I graduate If I go to the less prestigious University. As I assume the next thing to compare after grades, work experience and Interview skills will be which Uni you went to. And with how competitive an engineering grad scheme will be in nottingham...

Have you graduated from a Russell Group university and can back up your experiences? If not I am presuming that you are a sixth form student who has no experience of the real world, therefore your experience is not relevant. I know friends who are still doing minimum wage jobs years after graduating from Russell Groups yet know people who went to low ranking universities who moved into work straight after graduation.

I would absolutely take the savings by going to Trent, it will do you wonders in the long run.

So i’m not sure if what i said offended you, but I’m not in sixth form. This is just advice I was given from others ahead of me. If this was America then sure, it wouldn’t matter what university you go to. But if you have no plans to move abroad and you’re trying to get into a competitive field in the UK, I would highly suggest going to a Russell group university.

Did you go to a Russell group uni? I get this feeling you didn’t, but nowadays I see a lot of companies that are hiring specifically ask for graduates from Russell group universities or an equivalent, eg: Bath, Loughborough... Some don’t state it but will definitely consider it. If you can afford it, please go, it’s better to be safe than sorry, but if the cost will affect you in any way then stick with NTU. Just do a bit more research then make your decision.

Please find me a job advert that states Russell Group only.

People have been saying RuSELLL GRWOUP IS IMPORWANT11111!!!!!!!!! On TSR since I joined ten years ago and I have found no evidence of this unelss you wanna go into some very niche and specialist careers, engineering not being one of them.

No job advert will explicitly state it but I know for a fact many white collar job companies, including engineering, will recruit exclusively from RG or equivalent; at the very least they get priority. Either you're disingenuous or you're not as informed about how the world works as you claim.

How does it benefit them to field applications from people they won't consider? A uni isn't a protected chracterisic they have to be shifty about being selective about.

I'm sure someone working in recruitment would know that some RG unis are naff for engineering.

Because they operate on the expectation that you know the rules already and there is no upside to them looking elitist. For jobs worth having, companies get significantly more applications than they have positions. Recruiters need to rule out people somehow and doing so based on what uni is a quick and easy way to thin the pack. No it's not fair and rules out candidates who could do the job, but if you have 30 applicants, 1 job and 10 mins to decide on who you're going to interview, you are delusional if you don't think the uni has any bearing.
In many of the places I have worked they use standardised weighted categories, the person with the most points gets the job. One of the categories is always university attended, i.e. 3 points for oxbridge 2 points for RG or equivalent, 1 for everywhere else.
Posters on this site who claim it makes no difference where you go are doing a disservice to young people who are taking on crazy levels of debt without the full picture.

The issue I have with that is that if you are recruitment to something that is already massively oversubscribed, you are making your job more difficult by not saying "from a well-ranked Engineering programme" or somesuch. IE. A lot of candidates are not going to read between the lines and you giving yourself more candidates to sift.

I've seen few posters insist that RG is no advantage for every field. But for most grads (by volume) it's going to to play little or no bearing. Or certainly a similar amount of bearing as having a decent placement or connections to industry. Obviously if you are looking at a competitive grad scheme they might have weightings based on experience but a blanket "all RG unis are worth a bonus point over non-RG" is not helpful to them. I don't think that's quite what you're saying given the bit I've bolded which must surely cover unis known for decent Engineering progs outside the RG.

I work in RG admissions and closely with the careers team. Honestly it would make my job a lot easier if I could tell people "RG = better employment chances" but it's more nuanced than that.

No job advert will explicitly state it but I know for a fact many white collar job companies, including engineering, will recruit exclusively from RG or equivalent; at the very least they get priority. Either you're disingenuous or you're not as informed about how the world works as you claim.

Because they operate on the expectation that you know the rules already and there is no upside to them looking elitist. For jobs worth having, companies get significantly more applications than they have positions. Recruiters need to rule out people somehow and doing so based on what uni is a quick and easy way to thin the pack. No it's not fair and rules out candidates who could do the job, but if you have 30 applicants, 1 job and 10 mins to decide on who you're going to interview, you are delusional if you don't think the uni has any bearing.
In many of the places I have worked they use standardised weighted categories, the person with the most points gets the job. One of the categories is always university attended, i.e. 3 points for oxbridge 2 points for RG or equivalent, 1 for everywhere else.
Posters on this site who claim it makes no difference where you go are doing a disservice to young people who are taking on crazy levels of debt without the full picture.

Thanks for your good reply. I think they don't included phrases like "from a well-ranked Engineering programme" because they don't want to miss out on excellent candidates from the non RG or equivalent (RGoE) if they excel in other areas. If they have fantastic experience or have demonstrated excellence in other areas then agreed the uni brand doesn't matter so much.
Agreed, no one is disadvantaged by attending the likes of Bath or Loughborough, but these are the minority outside of RG. My point is that all things being equal, uni attended is a very common way of selecting candidates who often look very similar to each other and not attending a RGoE immediately puts you on the back foot. Many grad schemes "exclusively recruit" from RGoE on the basis that they get so many excellent applications from that group the others don't really get a look in.
Completely agree that the debate is more nuanced but I do get frustrated watching people post that RG means nothing without explaining that it doesn't mean the uni you go to has no bearing on future outcomes. Kids are sometimes making very expensive life choices based on comments on here that aren't always representative of the real world.