Article: How important is uni prestige?

This is changing. Deloitte is removing the university name from application forms. I'm sure others will follow suit.

Firm 'hides' university when recruits apply - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34384668



Posted from TSR Mobile

The RG students had such a sense of superiority that made them unpleasant. When I am recruiting, I look favourably upon ex-poly graduates with good results. These students are likely to be just as able as their RG counterparts and will be more humble and willing to learn.

Well you can't be sure that other places will follow suit. Also, if you're being headhunted then they will be looking at your university on LinkedIn, for example, you wont be hiding it! And if you are hiding it, for whatever reason, then ther headhunter would probably ask you what uni you went to.

To stress again - you can still do very well off a non-RG degree, but RG is probably still worth aiming for if you're going for certain jobs.

I also went to an ex-poly for my degree and a good RG uni for my masters. Everything was better at the ex-poly. The class sizes were smaller, the lecturers actually cared about teaching rather than it being an inconvenience and my lecturers were just as respected in their field.
I found the students much better at the ex-poly too. The RG students had such a sense of superiority that made them unpleasant. When I am recruiting, I look favourably upon ex-poly graduates with good results. These students are likely to be just as able as their RG counterparts and will be more humble and willing to learn.
I think the results at an ex-poly would be worse but that is because they are taking on many students who are less academically able. A good student is likely to perform better at an ex-poly than RG because the lecturers at the RG really don't seem to care about their students. Remember, it's only your own results that you need to worry about, not the overall results of the institution.
I would say that the only disadvantage of the ex-poly was that the careers service was far less active and progression to post-graduate study was not actively encouraged. The careers service at the RG constantly bombarded you with information about graduate employment schemes and PG study options. I would have found this useful as an undergrad.

I'm not saying that all graduate jobs are poo but my point is this: the definition of success is subjective so I'm not quite sure how any such survey can succeed to measure this.

He is my proof that RG is only as important as you make it.

This is changing. Deloitte is removing the university name from application forms. I'm sure others will follow suit.

Firm 'hides' university when recruits apply - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34384668



Posted from TSR Mobile

You asked for evidence for employers' preference and people have given you that. You either ignored them or rationalise the information. The numbers don't represent every single graduate? Have you the concept of 'exceptions'? Statistics never need to be about absolutely every single person because there are always going to be extreme cases that don't apply to most people. If I hire someone purely due to his good looks, still doesn't mean I don't prefer Oxbridge applicants.

The quoted here is absolutely a divertion. Totally irrelevant. Whether you consider anything a success has nothing to do with whether employers prefer anyone. Are you really that insecure about going to Liverpool Hope or whatever?

Dude your last sentence is a bit personal. I'm proud to have Liverpool Hope on my cv. It was a pleasure to study there and I would be keen to do so again given the chance.

I'm not trying to diss rg unis at all. I just think it's a shame that all stats only give half a story. It is quantitative rather than qualitative data. I think it's a massive shame that eighteen year olds feel pressured to make such a big decision on the basis of half a story. If x uni ranks at y place in a league table, what is it *really* telling us? I would argue that there are too many anomalies and variables for such information to be fully and holistically useful (and I say that as someone who took this data pretty seriously at eighteen when choosing to go to an rg uni for undergraduate).

It's an objective fact that employers in general prefer RG graduates and that these graduates earn more both from the get-go and in the long-term earn more money. There is, of course variation - Oxbridge have a more exaggerated effect, and Queen Mary is not going to give you more than what St Andrews or Bath can give you, but in terms of RG v non-RG, the answer is clear.

It's of course up to you whether to believe the facts - you're either (intentionally) misunderstanding the nature of statistics or are delusionally suggesting that the majority of these RG graduates have family connections or slept with their interviewers to get the jobs. Salary, enjoyment rate, and targeted status tell the story for most people, just like how life expectancy, something that's supposed to be even more about the individual, can.

The only way these numbers will not tell us about employers' preference is if there are substantial polarising extremes within both groups. There's isn't one for RG, whilst for non-RG, the universities make up of the upper end are too few. To add on that, I doubt applicants are choosing between Queen Mary and St Andrews on whether to go for RG - people most likely would chose St Aud and if they do choose QMUL, it's probably because it's in London. When people think RG v non-RG, they are thinking mid-RG up to before Oxbridge and ex-polies.

It's an objective fact that employers in general prefer RG graduates and that these graduates earn more both from the get-go and in the long-term earn more money. There is, of course variation - Oxbridge have a more exaggerated effect, and Queen Mary is not going to give you more than what St Andrews or Bath can give you, but in terms of RG v non-RG, the answer is clear.

It's of course up to you whether to believe the facts - you're either (intentionally) misunderstanding the nature of statistics or are delusionally suggesting that the majority of these RG graduates have family connections or slept with their interviewers to get the jobs. Salary, enjoyment rate, and targeted status tell the story for most people, just like how life expectancy, something that's supposed to be even more about the individual, can.

The only way these numbers will not tell us about employers' preference is if there are substantial polarising extremes within both groups. There's isn't one for RG, whilst for non-RG, the universities make up of the upper end are too few. To add on that, I doubt applicants are choosing between Queen Mary and St Andrews on whether to go for RG - people most likely would chose St Aud and if they do choose QMUL, it's probably because it's in London. When people think RG v non-RG, they are thinking mid-RG up to before Oxbridge and ex-polies.

If you don't go to a RG or a select few of good non RG unis, you are wasting your time.

Making a statement without qualifying it seems like a waste of time too.

I wasn't really bothered qualifying it, thats just my opinion.

But in my experience (i'm talking about grad schemes here), Uni prestige is a huge part.

It would depend on a few factors including what kind of grad schemes and what your overall CV/experience looks like.

I'm not saying that what you say is one hundred per cent not true but a lot of it seems a bit generalised.

Personally I have yet to apply for graduate jobs purely on the basis that even by my late twenties, every job I have wanted to do has just happened to be non graduate.

I think it's very linear to work on the basis of "go to rg uni, walk into great graduate job with ease, sorted". It is my belief that no matter what the job is, sometimes it takes a killer covering letter and being mad enough to do it that gets you in the door. For example many graduate jobs require you to live away from home and this can diminish their appeal. I'm not saying graduate jobs aren't great, maybe they are, but either way it will take more than a rg uni to get someone the job on the basis that employers want to know stuff that doesn't relate: where are you based? Do you seem keen to stay with the company? Do we think we can get on with each other in the workplace etc?. A rg uni on the cv is not an invincibility cloak if you can't assure potential employers of other things.

In terms of immediate graduate jobs, there may be little difference, but in the long-term, if you are aiming high in certain professions, then there may be a difference.

Of course other factors matter far more the majority of the time, but sometimes whether you've been to an RG uni or not may be the difference between you getting a very prestigious job and you not getting a highly prestigious job (but you may not want such a job in the first place or that particular company may not care about RG, but it could still be a differentiating factor and (according to my headhunter mum, though apparently no-one else) some companies do expect people to have been to one for certain roles).

For me personally, I just want to do PPE at a university. I've visited a few but ultimately I dont really care where so I'm aiming for RG in case it ever matters. Better safe than sorry.