is LSE better than Durham

Tier 1: Oxbridge

Tier 2a: LSE and Imperial
Tier 2b: UCL

Tier 3a: Edinburgh and KCL
Tier 3b: St Andrews, Durham, Bristol and Warwick

Tier 1: Oxbridge

Tier 2a: LSE and Imperial
Tier 2b: UCL

Tier 3a: Edinburgh and KCL
Tier 3b: St Andrews, Durham, Bristol and Warwick

I do want to do a masters (preferably international relations atm)

These rankings are largely meaningless, especially near the top. In practice places like Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL and Durham are on par prestige-wise and your employment opportunities are not going to be noticeably impacted by going to one of these over the other.

The earnings data for Politics grads from Durham and LSE are pretty much the same

After 15 months: Durham 28k, LSE 30k
After 3 years: Durham 33k, LSE 32k
After 5 years: Durham 42k, LSE 42.5k

I was talking about salaries across all courses.

Apart from just brand prestige, I think if you look at earnings figures of LSE, Imperial and UCL graduates, you will realise Durham is not in that league.

So those rankings are not totally meaningless, but they do have some subtle impact on employment opportunities and outcomes. The situations where they have large impact is when you look across like 3 to 4 tier differences.

Broad, general salaries mean little because that will be comparing vastly different fields. And when you start work you realise no one gives a sh!t about what uni you went to and its prestige.

Yes, top universities tend to be very good and have reputation in vastly different fields.

When you grow up and have many years of work under your belt, you will realise the university you attended (and, in the UK context, even the high school you attended) plays a big part in the types of top jobs available to you and your income.

The stats are there for you to see, and you need to jump on BBC iPlayer to watch a show about the Class Ceiling by Amol Rajan; so you can then stop giving jejune, liberal, everyone-feel-good, dismissive arguments that "it does not matter".

Reality and life will hit you out of your feel-good delusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey

"Average household income of elite households in 2011 was £89,000; average house price was £325,000 and above. Few are ethnic minorities; many are graduates, and over half come from families who were also in the elite class. Graduates of elite universities are over-represented, in particular from Oxford, Cambridge, King's College London, University College London, the London School of Economics, Durham University, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Bristol, Imperial College London and City University of London."

'When you grow up and have many years of work under your belt'
- Joined TSR 2017.
- Credibility out the window.

Yes, top universities tend to be very good and have reputation in vastly different fields.

When you grow up and have many years of work under your belt, you will realise the university you attended (and, in the UK context, even the high school you attended) plays a big part in the types of top jobs available to you and your income.

The stats are there for you to see, and you need to jump on BBC iPlayer to watch a show about the Class Ceiling by Amol Rajan; so you can then stop giving jejune, liberal, everyone-feel-good, dismissive arguments that "it does not matter".

Reality and life will hit you out of your feel-good delusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey

"Average household income of elite households in 2011 was £89,000; average house price was £325,000 and above. Few are ethnic minorities; many are graduates, and over half come from families who were also in the elite class. Graduates of elite universities are over-represented, in particular from Oxford, Cambridge, King's College London, University College London, the London School of Economics, Durham University, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Bristol, Imperial College London and City University of London."

You do realise I was talking about top universities, don't you? All of the ones I listed were top unis. I didn't say you could generally expect the same prospects from, say, going to LSE or London South Bank. So please actually read what I'm posting before attacking a strawman. Unless you're in a firm that exclusively hires from Oxbridge or something (never heard of such a thing and if they exist they must be rare) then it is 100% true that once you're working no one is going to care whether you went to UCL over Durham, or Imperial over Oxford. What uni you went to might be the ice breaker convo you get when you first join the company and meet people but after that uni is practically never mentioned again. What employers will care about is whether you can perform the job to a high standard. And uni will matter even less the further you get into your career because you by far do the most growing and learning on the job, not at uni.

And what I am telling you is that people do care. It will be a subconcious decision on certain occasions once you are working like job interviews and promotion.

Even in the tier below Oxbridge, there are still general tiers and Durham, as good as it is, is below LSE, Imperial and UCL.

People subconciously stereotype you based on your gender, race, height, looks, subject you studied and university you attended. That is the real world!!!

I’ve read your posts in this thread and came to the conclusion that you are someone who has not left the confines of education yet. Then I see you are telling other people about reality.

I’ve give you some advice about the world of work: an employer is interested in your competency for the role, not your university. They aren’t recruiting your university, they are recruiting you.

A small part of my job involves sifting graduate applications. We score them exclusively on relevant skills and the institution name is hidden because it is not deemed relevant.

The error some people make is they believe their university reputation will carry them into a job. It won’t. So rather than obsessing over university reputation and making up tier lists, focus on obtaining the skills and relevant experience that allow to demonstrate you are competent.

When people start working and people get to know each other and the universities attended, these subconciously stereotype will slip back in as the batch get closer to the top. A worker from a less reputable university than another worker will have to perform clearly x multiple times better than the latter to win the senior promotion. He can't just be doing almost similar.

If a Lancaster grad worker is performing at similar/undistiguishable levels to an Oxford grad worker, the Oxford grad worker will be more likely to get the vacant position above. It is a phenomena of social proof.

Being stereotyped isn't going to help you get through the interview processes required for most jobs, in which it's your skills and knowledge that are the most important, not the uni name on your CV

You have the gall to accuse others of delusion when you post crap like this lmaoo. You appear to know nothing about how the world of work actually operates.