If you are an employer, which would you choose?

Let's say everything else is the same, would you choose a person with

MSc International Business Management (Merit) - University Manchester

or

MSc International Business Management (Distinction) - Manchester Metropolitan University

Going to get negged for saying that but it's true, if someone gets a first from a below par uni it's no more impressive than a 2.1 from a top institution.

Evidence?

If everything else is the same, which in reality wouldn't happen, I would pick the person with the best record; the person with the Distinction. Guess work about whether a Merit and Distinction are worth different things to different universities wouldn't come into it because there's no evidence for it.

I mean in my opinion. I don't find it impressive to get a first from an ex-poly at all. People seem to think on here that institution doesn't matter at all if you have a higher mark and of course it does, would you choose a 2.1 from a top uni like Manchester or a first from Man Met? Honestly?

Well I actually attend MMU so I will be biased. I am on track for a First, but it would be unfair to compare the quality of someone's work from one institution against another because the courses are completely different and require different things from you. On that basis I would prefer someone with a First - everyone and their dog has a 2.1 now, a first is more distinguishable (if everything else is identical which as I said before wouldn't actually happen in reality). Just because you attended a lower-ranked institution does not indicate your academic ability either; the course I study wasn't offered at Manchester but I have the grades for the majority of their courses, so that needs to be considered if you're going to base your decisions on a brand name over academic attainment.

Ah I see. That makes a lot of sense. A 2.1 from MMU is not the same as a 2.1 from Manchester though, so I don't see why you'd 'prefer' a first from MMU. If anything that would give you the same standing as someone with a 2.1 from Manchester, which is why I said they're roughly equivalent. If you had high A level grades and chose that course it would be different, which is why I stated I'd want to see undergraduate degree and A levels too. For graduate schemes etc most companies say they want AAB minimum in A levels and won't negotiate on that, so usually (not in your situation presumably) if you had gone to MMU that would indicate you got lower than AAB A levels. In which case for most companies/graduate schemes a distinction in a Masters from MMU would not help you anyway.

Different entirely if you had higher grades and chose to go there. What course do you study that top unis don't offer?

Yeah I got AAB for A-level, but I disagree about a 2.1 not being the same as a 2.1 from UoM, I don't know how you can say that without evidence?

I wanted to study combined honours Psychology but UoM didn't offer the combination I wanted, so I decided to go to MMU instead. However, this thread is about Masters degree courses, so regardless of the undergraduate degree classification a Distinction is better than a Merit.

I would disagree. Institution matters, I think you are underestimating its importance. Manchester is in the Russell Group which actually means top unis for research, which is usually what Masters degrees entail. So for that reason, a merit from a better research uni would benefit you more than a distinction from a less respected institution. Especially in a competitive industry like business where thousands of people apply all the time from top institutions.

Out of interest, does your aunt recruit for the NHS Graduate Schemes such as NHS Manager or for the vocational jobs within the NHS such as Physio, Radiographer, Pharmacist ect.

I don't understand how you could think they are the same really...why do you think the course has lower entry requirements? Presumably it's less rigorous. I've also been speaking with graduate recruitment for schemes after uni/law firms recently and lots of them have said they acknowledge that a 2.1 from a good uni is not the same as a 2.1 from an ex-poly.

[e] My aunt is head of HR for the three nearest hospitals to me back home. She told me they bin the CVs with an ex-poly on.

I would disagree. Institution matters, I think you are underestimating its importance. Manchester is in the Russell Group which actually means top unis for research, which is usually what Masters degrees entail. So for that reason, a merit from a better research uni would benefit you more than a distinction from a less respected institution. Especially in a competitive industry like business where thousands of people apply all the time from top institutions.

I think it boils down to what it is you'd like to do in the long run. Certainly for Law it is extremely competitive and so the best graduates will be chosen for the top legal firms which is understandable, but in the field I wish to pursue it is not important which uni you attended. I worked for a law firm in Manchester two years ago and they said the university for their solicitors did not matter, but they specialised in employment law and PPI claims; it may vary depending on the sector you are interested in and where you want to work.

Not even just for law, companies also. That's really the point of the UCAS point requirement, they know that the large majority of students who get AAB or higher will go to a uni which requires AAB or higher. So while you can apply from any old uni, they are already vetting it somewhat.

Obviously I don't know what field you are intending on going into but in my opinion it's still better to have gone to a better uni. Someone might think you didn't have the choice of a higher uni as opposed to you choosing not to go. Plus as I said, even the NHS grad schemes throw away ex-poly CVs. For business which is probably equally as competitive as law, where you go for your degree is very important. Unless there is something particularly interesting about the MMU business Masters that you want to do instead I still think Manchester is the wiser choice for a competitive area, especially if you HAVE that choice of going there.

Good job I'm not aiming to work for the NHS or in business then It's down to personal preferences, people have their reasons for not going to the 'better' uni in the same area and each person will have their own varying skills and experience. I think it's very unfortunate that your aunt bins CVs based on a university brand name, what with the current speculation over the quality of NHS employees at the moment it might be better to consider their skills and experience instead of ignoring people based on the building they studied in. Vocational courses that applicants to NHS jobs study are relatively standardised and some lower ranked institutions are better for subjects allied to Medicine than their Russell Group counterparts; not even giving them a chance is a mistake.