This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Oxford MSc in Financial Economics - honest admission chances
- Picking a course
- British Medical degree vs Irish Medical degree
- What is Digital Marketing like at uni?
- What would be the better option after bad a level results?
- UK vs. US dental degree
- How bad is an MSc "Pass"? Is it worth it?
- Oxford DPhil college preference
- Foundation Programmes at Kingston University
- What should I apply to for an aspirational uni choice with a Mid UCAT score
- Scottish Legal/Law Diploma, Uni of Edinburgh, or Glasgow?
- GDL course in uni of law
- Law with business employability?
- Is an Eng Lit and Creative Writing joint honours degree good for employability?
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- Advice on choosing degree??!?
- London Met Uni Official Student Rep - here to help
- international student choosing oxford college
- Masters funding
- Second undergraduate in law at Cambridge?
Does it matter where you get your undergraduate degree?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jneill
We don't know enough about the applicants and their qualifications. Sussex also has a good success rate (40%), but I doubt Chaos would view it "highly"... (I may be wrong).
The point is, your undergrad university won't, per se, prevent (or enable) you to do well in your postgrad or in your career. It's up to you what you do with your degree and how well you succeed at that.
Employers, and academics, don't hire universities - they look for good people wherever they are.
The point is, your undergrad university won't, per se, prevent (or enable) you to do well in your postgrad or in your career. It's up to you what you do with your degree and how well you succeed at that.
Employers, and academics, don't hire universities - they look for good people wherever they are.
Of course your undergraduate university won't completely stop you from getting the job or career that you want, at the end of the day it is more about the person applying and their experiences, grades, etc. I don't think that was Chaos's point though (we may have interpreted it completely differently). Although your university won't define where you work or study, having studied at a more prestigious university is obviously a huge bonus when applying for any type of job or further qualification. If 2 people apply for the same job/Master's and have similar experience, grades and personalities, but 1 went to Cambridge and 1 went to Lancaster then the person from Cambridge would be chosen 100% of the time.
So although your undergraduate university isn't the be all and end all of your career, having gone to a supposedly better university can be a boost in your C.V. , at least that's how I interpreted what was said
. Simply saying that you won't get a job because you went to x university is obviously *******s.
Original post by tomtjl
If 2 people apply for the same job/Master's and have similar experience, grades and personalities, but 1 went to Cambridge and 1 went to Lancaster then the person from Cambridge would be chosen 100% of the time.
Nope.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
Original post by jneill
Nope.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
You can't just simply say "nope" and expect a decent reply. Of course hypotheticals like this happen irl. When you have any post-graduate job or degree that has an applicant to intake ratio of 20:1 or higher then per 1 person you have to look at 20 people, some of these people will of course be very similar in experience and the university will make a massive difference. If you're applying for very competitive places (some post-grad schemes have a ratio of 50:1 or even 100:1) then you have to get rid of a lot of applicants very, very quickly and the easiest way to do this is to sort by university.
Your uni won't make or break your career, but to say that it is completely irrelevant in terms of job prospects is just stupidity.
Original post by tomtjl
You can't just simply say "nope" and expect a decent reply. Of course hypotheticals like this happen irl. When you have any post-graduate job or degree that has an applicant to intake ratio of 20:1 or higher then per 1 person you have to look at 20 people, some of these people will of course be very similar in experience and the university will make a massive difference. If you're applying for very competitive places (some post-grad schemes have a ratio of 50:1 or even 100:1) then you have to get rid of a lot of applicants very, very quickly and the easiest way to do this is to sort by university.
Your uni won't make or break your career, but to say that it is completely irrelevant in terms of job prospects is just stupidity.
Your uni won't make or break your career, but to say that it is completely irrelevant in terms of job prospects is just stupidity.
I'm a senior manager of 30+ years experience and I've *never* made a hiring decision based in any way on 2 candidates prior university.
Original post by Mistletoe
Do employers or admissions for Masters/PhD people even care where you got it?
Employers do care - it's a good indication of intelligence, but there are obviously exceptions. That gets you an interview more easily. However, its importance diminishes with experience. After a few years, the type of work that someone has been doing can be more telling - those that aren't doing interesting and challenging work are probably not the ones you want.
There is another aspect - international reputation. If you want to work abroad, it's best to go to a university that is known worldwide.
Original post by jneill
Nope.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
Hypotheticals like this DO happen in real life: I've had pretty much that choice of people to hire.
Original post by tomtjl
Your uni won't make or break your career, but to say that it is completely irrelevant in terms of job prospects is just stupidity.
Your uni won't make or break your career, but to say that it is completely irrelevant in terms of job prospects is just stupidity.
jneill has a particular view on this, one which is not shared by high end employers. As you say, it will rarely be the factor, but it will often be a factor early in your career.
Original post by chazwomaq
jneill has a particular view on this, one which is not shared by high end employers. As you say, it will rarely be the factor, but it will often be a factor early in your career.
My view is it may be a factor, but other aspects are significantly more important.
In general, your university really doesn't matter too much. It's a bit of a 'TSR myth' which only holds true for careers as a lawyer/investment banker etc.
What many people believe is that a good degree from a good university will guarantee you a job... it will not.
Plenty fail to realise that employers are very interested in the skills you've picked up, and the activities you've partaken in whilst at university. For example, learning a programming language will be a significant skill, as we now live in an age of vast computer usage in many work environments across the entire job market.
What many people believe is that a good degree from a good university will guarantee you a job... it will not.
Plenty fail to realise that employers are very interested in the skills you've picked up, and the activities you've partaken in whilst at university. For example, learning a programming language will be a significant skill, as we now live in an age of vast computer usage in many work environments across the entire job market.
Original post by chazwomaq
Hypotheticals like this DO happen in real life: I've had pretty much that choice of people to hire.
And did you choose the applicant that attended a "more prestigious " university solely because of the university?
I've sat on a number of interview panels where we've had no clear favourite choice - but the differences between candidates never comes down to university as much as how a candidate's skill set and experience match the role. Not to mention the massive factor about enthusiasm for the role.
Whenever I shortlist if we've got two similar applicants then we ALWAYS bring them both in for interview. It's unfair recruitment practice to shortlist one but not the other. Once you've got people in to interview the differences are clear.
Original post by PQ
And did you choose the applicant that attended a "more prestigious " university solely because of the university?
I've sat on a number of interview panels where we've had no clear favourite choice - but the differences between candidates never comes down to university as much as how a candidate's skill set and experience match the role. Not to mention the massive factor about enthusiasm for the role.
Whenever I shortlist if we've got two similar applicants then we ALWAYS bring them both in for interview. It's unfair recruitment practice to shortlist one but not the other. Once you've got people in to interview the differences are clear.
I've sat on a number of interview panels where we've had no clear favourite choice - but the differences between candidates never comes down to university as much as how a candidate's skill set and experience match the role. Not to mention the massive factor about enthusiasm for the role.
Whenever I shortlist if we've got two similar applicants then we ALWAYS bring them both in for interview. It's unfair recruitment practice to shortlist one but not the other. Once you've got people in to interview the differences are clear.
Not solely no, but nobody is arguing that are they?
It's one of several important factors, especially early in one's career.
As an aside, interview are actually very poor at discriminating between candidates as they have low predictive validity. Not that I expect that practice to change any time soon.
Original post by chazwomaq
Not solely no, but nobody is arguing that are they?
It's one of several important factors, especially early in one's career.
As an aside, interview are actually very poor at discriminating between candidates as they have low predictive validity. Not that I expect that practice to change any time soon.
It's one of several important factors, especially early in one's career.
As an aside, interview are actually very poor at discriminating between candidates as they have low predictive validity. Not that I expect that practice to change any time soon.
That's what I thought you were saying when you disagreed with @jneill that "all things being equal" never happens.
I'd say interviews have a place in the recruitment process. More so for jobs than for university entrance - it's the best way to test a candidates enthusiasm for the role and it's also useful to testing for capabilities required in the role especially if the interview includes some tasks/tests (presentation, quick analysis, understanding of the background knowledge required etc) that are likely to be required. I've had shortlists of 10 people who all claimed excel expertise in their application forms - a short test proved that only 2 of them were able to complete tasks at the level required for the job (and that was for a job description/person spec that specifically mentioned the functionality they'd be tested on
).Original post by jneill
I'm a senior manager of 30+ years experience and I've *never* made a hiring decision based in any way on 2 candidates prior university.
That's great, but not really relevant without further information. If you were the senior manager of a chain of McDonald's and you had to hire people, you wouldn't base that on somebody's university either. But if you were hiring at KPMG, then you might. Additionally, nobody in this thread has ever suggested that you are hired solely on the base of your university, if you read any of my posts then that is clearly not what I'm saying, so what this point is trying to prove is beyond me.
Original post by jneill
My view is it may be a factor, but other aspects are significantly more important.
Which is basically what everyone else is saying, yet you continue to argue?
It's also a well established fact that Oxbridge students earn £7k more per year than those who graduate from a Russell Group university, which is around £7k per year higher than non-Russell universities. The figures change, of course, but it is a consistent fact that Oxbridge students earn more, so clearly university does have some influence in your ability to get a good career.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tomtjl
Additionally, nobody in this thread has ever suggested that you are hired solely on the base of your university, if you read any of my posts then that is clearly not what I'm saying, so what this point is trying to prove is beyond me.
You said:
Original post by tomtjl
If 2 people apply for the same job/Master's and have similar experience, grades and personalities, but 1 went to Cambridge and 1 went to Lancaster then the person from Cambridge would be chosen 100% of the time.
Which I am saying is wrong.
Original post by Mistletoe
Do employers or admissions for Masters/PhD people even care where you got it?
Some employers do, the majority don't. Some postgraduate admissions committees do, most don't
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
Nope.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
Hypotheticals like this don't happen irl; and if it did and you have two otherwise perfect candidates why would their alma mater be a valid differentiator? It isn't.
This x100000000
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
You said:
Which I am saying is wrong.
Which I am saying is wrong.
I said that, yes, which states that if you have 2 identical candidates other than university, and university is a factor that is considered for a job application, then the person who went to the better university would be chosen.
P1: The 2 candidates are identical other than the university they studied at
P2: University is a factor that is considered during the application process
C: The person who went to the more prestigious university would get the job.
You've already agreed that university is a factor, so I fail to see how you can fault that argument?
EDIT: There is also a second argument here, in that somebody who is educated at Cambridge is likely to have received a better education than the person at Lancaster (just using these 2 universities because they were suggested earlier). They also probably had more access to better techniques (for example in the medical and scientific field there a lot of pieces of equipment only available at certain universities) and as such would come out of their university experience a significantly more qualified individual. That way, when reading their CV or interviewing them, their university itself may not make the decision for you but the education they received shaped them and thus the university did have a massive effect on their ability to get a job.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tomtjl
I said that, yes, which states that if you have 2 identical candidates other than university, and university is a factor that is considered for a job application, then the person who went to the better university would be chosen.
P1: The 2 candidates are identical other than the university they studied at
P2: University is a factor that is considered during the application process
C: The person who went to the more prestigious university would get the job.
You've already agreed that university is a factor, so I fail to see how you can fault that argument?
P1: The 2 candidates are identical other than the university they studied at
P2: University is a factor that is considered during the application process
C: The person who went to the more prestigious university would get the job.
You've already agreed that university is a factor, so I fail to see how you can fault that argument?
PQ answered this too. IRL you'd call them for interview. There are always more important differences than their university.
CEO of a £1+ billion company (business services) says to me, did you hire that new person?
- Yes I did.
On what basis?
- It was tricky, but it came down to because they went to Cambridge.
...?!
Doesn't happen.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tomtjl
It's also a well established fact that Oxbridge students earn £7k more per year than those who graduate from a Russell Group university, which is around £7k per year higher than non-Russell universities.
Whilst there are exceptions, the quality of university that you got into is a good indicator of how intelligent you are. Intelligence isn't the only quality that you need to be successful in a job, but it is important IMO.
I've worked in the software industry for 25 years. I've interviewed and hired throughout that time. A good university increases your chances of getting an interview, but any experience that you have also needs to be interesting and challenging.
Original post by tomtjl
The figures change, of course, but it is a consistent fact that Oxbridge students earn more, so clearly university does have some influence in your ability to get a good career.
The selection that universities perform is similar to that required for a job, so it's not surprising.
However, I've hired and worked with people who didn't go to top universities, but were quite brilliant. That's why it's important to judge a CV as a whole. My interviews are in-depth, and the university that you attended makes no difference to what you get asked, or the required quality of the answers.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by #ChaosKass
For a Masters/PhD, of course - if you have to decide between someone from Cambridge and someone from (say) Lancaster, you're not going to give it to the person from Lancaster, are you?
For a job, however, it's work experience/extra curriculars that are the most important.
For a job, however, it's work experience/extra curriculars that are the most important.
Excuse me but landaster is 8th on the league tables and even lower for specific subjects
Related discussions
- Oxford MSc in Financial Economics - honest admission chances
- Picking a course
- British Medical degree vs Irish Medical degree
- What is Digital Marketing like at uni?
- What would be the better option after bad a level results?
- UK vs. US dental degree
- How bad is an MSc "Pass"? Is it worth it?
- Oxford DPhil college preference
- Foundation Programmes at Kingston University
- What should I apply to for an aspirational uni choice with a Mid UCAT score
- Scottish Legal/Law Diploma, Uni of Edinburgh, or Glasgow?
- GDL course in uni of law
- Law with business employability?
- Is an Eng Lit and Creative Writing joint honours degree good for employability?
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- Advice on choosing degree??!?
- London Met Uni Official Student Rep - here to help
- international student choosing oxford college
- Masters funding
- Second undergraduate in law at Cambridge?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 minute ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianPosted 2 minutes ago
Take over ensuite room at Angel Lane, London, King's College ResidenceLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1163
Last reply 5 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
is it possible to still become a doctor if you study biomedical?Last reply 7 minutes ago
Politics and international relation’s Birmingham V NottinghamTrending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
