Russell Group 1st vs Oxbridge 2:1/1st

I remember reading that Paul Jeffreys, the Senior Wrangler at Cambridge in 2007, was offered a starting salary of £95,000 as one of the executive directors of UBS.

Firstly, I'm sorry for posting this. Probably done to death. I also have a pretty good idea what the answer is.

However, I fall into one of these camps and therefore felt like stirring the debate.

To clarify, I mean - say QMUL 1st vs Cambridge 2:1 for law...
Exeter 1st vs Oxford 2:1 for English

Not high end Russell Group like LSE or UCL...but good in the relevant subject.

Cheers!

Did he take it?

Yes.

He had 10 A's at A-Level and a First Class Honours degree in Economics from the Open University before he'd even started at Cambridge, so there's little surprise he was offered a job like that, to be honest.

Which is in fact as rare as people make out, last year only 6 people from Harvard made it into hedge funds/private equity straight out of graduation

In all honesty, most people attending Harvard will either be going into academia or starting their own companies. Most people that I am aware who have walked into such jobs have come from UCL and Imperial, not sure why that is though.

If I were in his position, I might have had a go at academia...but perhaps he judged that he couldn't make the sort of contributions he'd like to to academia, or just loves money

The reality with these threads is the people discussing the answer are largely students that have never had a proper graduate job let alone employed anybody so how can they give you an accurate answer? All they can do is speculate.

Its like saying whats the best way to have sex with a supermodel. Ask that on TSR and you will get a range of answers some of whom assert their complete confidence in being right, but don't expect that it will be an accurate and informed answer it will just be speculation.

I think the same thing and I made the thread.

I guess in part I wanted to see if people are still as snobby and deluded as they were years ago on here.

This thread is even more tragic than I thought it would be.

A 2:2 from Oxbridge is essentially useless and embarrassing - as is a 2:2 from anywhere. Imperial is about as good as Oxbridge for many of the sciences, arguably better, arguably not.

However there is a gulf between Oxford and say, Exeter or Manchester. The reality is employers usually prefer the first in most circumstances...that having been said, I made this thread to a degree because I acknowledge that the gulf between the two in terms of prestige and employment prospects is not overwhelmingly different.

The answers are horrendous. I was not this ill-informed when I was 21 odd years old! I think I've posted at a bad time in the wrong place and there are mostly sixth form students commenting. I'd encourage informed speculation, and whilst I'd expect the odd silly comment, the fact that the thread has quickly turned into a ridiculous commentary about non-existent job salaries is very disappointing.

It's a very banal question anyway.

The answers are horrendous. I was not this ill-informed when I was 21 odd years old! I think I've posted at a bad time in the wrong place and there are mostly sixth form students commenting. I'd encourage informed speculation, and whilst I'd expect the odd silly comment, the fact that the thread has quickly turned into a ridiculous commentary about non-existent job salaries is very disappointing.

It's a very banal question anyway.

For who?

I'm a Management Consultant at a top firm and nobody cares at all where anyone went to university.

It might vaguely matter in academia, but most of the more prestigious strategy houses wouldn't pick someone from Oxbridge over someone from LSE/ Imperial just because they went to Oxbridge and if all things were equal it would come down to their gut instinct.

A 2:2 from Oxbridge is essentially useless and embarrassing - as is a 2:2 from anywhere.

Is your mum an employer? If so, where?

For who?

I'm a Management Consultant at a top firm and nobody cares at all where anyone went to university.

It might vaguely matter in academia, but most of the more prestigious strategy houses wouldn't pick someone from Oxbridge over someone from LSE/ Imperial just because they went to Oxbridge and if all things were equal it would come down to their gut instinct.

1. At age 18 (or whenever they applied) you were regarded as amongst the most talented of your peer group, as you got in through a competitive admissions process

2. You were able to handle a pressured and challenging environment like you will find working at that employer

Whilst you have expressed this in a harsh way and it will probably provoke some people you have it right. When people on here say stuff like "a 2:2 from Oxbridge is better than a 1st anywhere else" they are clutching at straws.

The main advantage from Oxbridge or another elite university like LSE, Imperial etc is the signalling value to top end employers.

If the employer knows that working for them involves working very long hours, making big sacrifices in your life, being under pressure and expected to perform well, in an environment where your peers are all driven, high achievers, then being from Oxbridge or LSE/Imperial etc is a good signal because it shows two things:

1. At age 18 (or whenever they applied) you were regarded as amongst the most talented of your peer group, as you got in through a competitive admissions process

2. You were able to handle a pressured and challenging environment like you will find working at that employer

Of these, the second is more important than the first. The Oxbridge value is that it replicates a challenging environment similar to working in investment banking, top end of law, strategic consulting etc, so it shows how individuals can handle that sort of environment.

If you have a 2:2 or 3rd then the second signal disappears and Oxbridge on your CV says that you were regarded amongst the most talented of your peer group when you applied, but when put in that environment you slipped behind your peers and were one of the weaker performers.

If someone has a 1st from a Russell Group university then its a different signal. People know the Russell Group isn't as demanding or cutthroat an environment as Oxbridge but they also know its an environment where students are left to their own devices more and have to be individually self-motivated to do well. So a 1st from there says you weren't regarded as highly at age 18 as the Oxbridgers but you've done pretty well in a different environment and you might be a high flier that slipped through the net earlier on. You haven't been tested in a pressured competitive environment in the same way as the Oxbridgers (so they might want to see other things on your CV that can signal that) but you've done as well as you could and there's always the chance that you're an undiscovered diamond. The ones who have 2:2s or 3rds from Oxbridge have been tested in that environment and the employer knows the answer: they struggle at that level. If they accompany it with stories about special circumstances....well they know at least they are good at making excuses.

To use a footballer analogy think of guys like Henrik Larsson at Celtic and Luis Suarez at Ajax. When Barca/Liverpool were looking to sign them they knew they had banged in a lot of goals and been very successful but in leagues that weren't Europe's elite. So there was a bit of a question mark but their potential buyers saw enough to think its worth the gamble that they are undiscovered diamonds that will thrive in a more competitive league. If on the other hand those clubs had been looking at a guy that had already played in La Liga or the Premier League and struggled (the equivalent of an Oxbridge 2:2) they would be less excited about signing him.

There will be some Larsson/Suarez type people out in the graduate job market and the top employers will want to pick them up. The logic from some on TSR would have said stuff like well El Hadj Diouf would be preferable to sign than Suarez at that point because being mediocre in the Premier League is better than being a top performer in the Dutch league.

Are we talking MBB? And if so what is the honest proportion of UK non-Oxbridge grads to Oxbridge ones?

I'd go further than that - I'd say that in some industries that have an acknowledged system of hierarchical employers (such as consulting and law) there's a 3:

3. Employing largely or exclusively from top flight universities sets your brand apart as premium, and allows you to charge a premium rate for your service.

Hence top strat firms, the magic circle and top chambers do tend to be very Oxbridge centric, whereas other industries where there is less of a small elite of top firms are not.

Haha fair response. So people who aim to work in a high end investment bank or a hedgefund are more likely to be those from Oxbridge rather than any other Uni's. For instance, one of the filters they use at Goldman Sachs is the 'Oxbridge' filter just because the have such a surplus of applicants.