I am not going to a Redbrick/Russel group Uni.

If you are not happy with your results and you feel that Hull is not the university that best suits your demands or intellectual capacity, then retake and reapply for 2015/16. Furthermore claiming that going to a given university will end affecting your employment opportunities negatively and that the higher in the league table, the better is a load of bullsh*t. A good university student not only has to exceed academically, but also demonstrate the ability to perform in extracurricular activities (say, part-time jobs, working experience acquired during the summertime of your course, etc). If you get a 1st, whether it is at Oxbridge and the Russell Group or at University of East London, that's it, you are in the national 10% of degrees awarded and I doubt any graduate entry job or MA would push you back solely because you went to Hull and not University College, Oxford.

I am going to use myself as an example. I am currently starting a BA in History and Archaeology at Birkbeck, University of London. I'd admit that it is not a particularly well known university, as it usually caters to the needs of people who are already working, who are looking to improve their working opportunities, and it only began offering full-time courses back in 2010. Very well, I am not an Oxbridge student. But I don't want to be one and neither I aspire to become such a thing, as once you look deeper you'll see they have one of the strongest History departments in the UK and it usually ranks among the 50 best in the world. Furthermore, it also allows me the opportunity take additional intercollegiate modules at the likes of LSE, RHUL UCL or King's, as they are within the Institute of Historical Research scheme. So you see, it is not where you study but whether you are the best at it and the one who was actually smart enough to follow all the opportunities provided throughout the course.

I am not ashamed of saying where I am studying. Think on the following for a second: you have gotten farther than 50% of the school leaving population. Solely because of that, you must be extremely proud of yourself. Congratulations on getting into Hull and really, if someone dares mocking and dissing you solely based on where you went they are probably tw*ts.

Actually, they might. The education at Hull is not as good as the education at Oxford, so someone with a 1st from Hull will likely be less skilled at their subject than someone with a 1st from Oxford. This isn't to say Hull isn't worth going to, but there's a reason Oxbridge is more desirable to universities - the education is better there.

Actually, they might. The education at Hull is not as good as the education at Oxford, so someone with a 1st from Hull will likely be less skilled at their subject than someone with a 1st from Oxford. This isn't to say Hull isn't worth going to, but there's a reason Oxbridge is more desirable to universities - the education is better there.

...how do you know this? It would be great if you could link some research/evidence....

In a Magic Circle law firm, maybe, but even then it doesn't matter whether you went to Oxford or Hull to do a Law LL.B. As I said before, combining both the expertise and experience needed to achieve a 1st with extra-curricular activities (working in law firms during the summertime, mooting, etc) in Law is of an utmost importance and the same happens to the rest of the subjects whether they are STEM-based or a social science. Furthermore, my sister is in Oxford and I know first hand how much work she has to put into it. Not only there's skill, but there is also an awful lot of hard work and dedication as well as opportunities which otherwise you would not find in other universities excluding Oxbridge and a few belonging to the Russell Group. They invest on the best teaching body they can arrange and even that does not mean that a student will deliver accordingly. In fact, there are an awful lot of Oxford graduates who achieve either 2:1s, 2:2, 3rds or even Pass on their degrees.

Furthermore, you are claiming that the student who did not make it into Oxbridge is less capable than one who did. How do you even know that? There are very bright students out there who spend most of their school years bored out of their minds and who deliver mediocre results because they can't just be bothered, or alternatively there are students who perform worse than what they truly could because they spent years being bullied and have no esteem whatsoever. You need to get out of your high horse and learn a little more humility. Not all students are the same, not all the students have the same opportunities and most certainly the university they are studying at in a given moment does not determine their capabilities.

Well, as an anecdote (which I know doesn't prove it happens often, but does prove it happens sometimes) my mums company and those of her competitors - they're economic consultants - only really hire people from certain high ranking universities. She hired someone who'd been to Coventry, because he gave good (though rare) performance at interview and he couldn't cope with the work. She said his base education was poor, even though he got a first. They've hired some people from many different unis over the last 15 years and she says she's had education issues with most of them so now they tend to choose people from higher ranking unis.

Also my friends brother got a job after his degree (working in marketing and management for Abercrombie) and they were only accepting applicants from Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter.

Well, as an anecdote (which I know doesn't prove it happens often, but does prove it happens sometimes) my mums company and those of her competitors - they're economic consultants - only really hire people from certain high ranking universities. She hired someone who'd been to Coventry, because he gave good (though rare) performance at interview and he couldn't cope with the work. She said his base education was poor, even though he got a first. They've hired some people from many different unis over the last 15 years and she says she's had education issues with most of them so now they tend to choose people from higher ranking unis.

Also my friends brother got a job after his degree (working in marketing and management for Abercrombie) and they were only accepting applicants from Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter.

Many people get the whole university reputation thing wrong.

It's not so much that your uni's reputation makes you a better candidate.

It's that high reputation unis have higher entry standards, therefore the people they teach will be smarter, therefore they will be taught more and or more complex stuff. And it's that better base quality and teaching that makes them better candidates. The institutional reputation is therefore a heuristic shortcut to a candidate's quality.

But if you grades aren't good enough for a course, then it's a good thing that you don't go there as you will struggle compared with more able students.

I
1) The quality of education at lower ranked universities greatly outweighs that of higher ranked universities.
2) Degrees are harder at higher ranked institutions.
3) A Levels aren't a reliable indicator of academic ability.

No one in the real world really ever cares about 'Russell group'. When I first went to uni in 2007 I didn't even know it was a thing. There was oxbridge then there were all the other unis. I went to Swansea which isn't a great uni in any respect but I had a great time, got a good degree and actually went on to do further study at a Russell group. It really doesn't matter, it's how you apply yourself that alters what you get out of it.

I think option 2 is the most plausible one.

You're probably right, although I think it would be short-sighted to conclude that everyone who ends up at an ex-poly is less intelligent or less capable. It's more complicated than that.

Oh sure, statistics and averages and measurement precision and all that.

Out of topic but did you like Swansea uni?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you think if classifications were standardised it would improve the quality of university education?

Perhaps. At least the true differences between candidates would be thrown into stark relief. I should think that anyone who got a 2.1 where I was an undergrad would easily get a 1st where I teach now.

But to do that, the syllabus would have to be standardised, and a key feature of university teaching is that it is set internally, and different departments will focus on different things. So I don't think it's practical or desirable to expect to lose the unique flavour of each department.

The other option would be for independent markers to mark from different universities blind. I quite like the idea, but most universities would not want to lose the ability to control their own marks, so I shouldn't think it would happen. Would be interesting for a research study though.

Do you think it differs between departments at university too? I really felt that when I was an undergrad - I pulled an all nighter and wrote an essay for a module in a different department. I didn't think it was any good at all but it was my highest mark for that semester.

I like this idea, too. It does frustrate me that the difference means that capable people at lower ranking universities aren't pushed to perform at a higher level.