The Student Room Group
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Voting for TSRs Ultimate Study Playlist is NOW OPEN >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Does it matter where you get your undergraduate degree?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jagwar Ma
Why would you of failed achieve a 2:1 at a better university?


Well from what everyone else here is saying, they are much harder to get. I actually have a place on a masters at notts, which is better than derby, for 2017, so i will soon find out if this is true!
From experience of being a software engineer and doing interviews/recruiting for an actual software engineering firm, university does to some extent matter. Some employers specifically target certain universities because they know they teach certain modules which are very beneficial specifically to their business case. League tables have nothing to do with it though, our company just knows that certain universities do modules which we want so we can more easily assume a knowledge of certain technologies. So yeah, what matters is what you actually learn at university, not how high it appears on the Times Education guide or whatever other nonsense people here are pedalling.
Reply 162
Avatar for WhiteX
WhiteX
7
Original post by jneill
Yep, but not on mobile... I'll dig it out later. There's a whatdotheyknow foi request about it.

Edit
UCL 37%
Edinburgh 40%

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4207500#post66451582


Posted from TSR Mobile


What about Queen mary students will they have a chance to do their master's in MIT or Cambridge ?
Original post by Princepieman
Stockbroking =/= high finance. It is a field for those who are born with a strong liver and a gift for the gab - think Essex barrow boys.

Posted from TSR Mobile


PRSOM. That was a funny image :lol:

Original post by Yaboi
Brokers are glorified salesmen.
So are bankers :biggrin:
Here is an extreme example

Person A is a white male ages 25
Went to London south banks
Got a 1st in mathematics.
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subjects area

Person B is a white male aged 25
Went to oxford
Got a 1st in mathematics
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subject area.

Who do you choose
Original post by niteninja1
Here is an extreme example

Person A is a white male ages 25
Went to London south banks
Got a 1st in mathematics.
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subjects area

Person B is a white male aged 25
Went to oxford
Got a 1st in mathematics
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subject area.

Who do you choose


You're assuming that recruiting works by lining up a bunch of candidates and picking the best one, which is very often not the case. And even if it was, if both got an interview then both would have a completely equal chance at the job.
Original post by coldplasma
Some employers specifically target certain universities


This is essentially the most important consideration, I think: A lot of the time, top companies will recruit at the university and therefore give precedence to those students over those who apply though the usual open online application process, etc.

The question asked is whether it matters. Of course it does, though perhaps not as much as most people ought to worry about.
Original post by coldplasma
You're assuming that recruiting works by lining up a bunch of candidates and picking the best one, which is very often not the case. And even if it was, if both got an interview then both would have a completely equal chance at the job.


Yes my point is they got the interview and the only difference is university
Original post by niteninja1
Here is an extreme example

Person A is a white male ages 25
Went to London south banks
Got a 1st in mathematics.
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subjects area

Person B is a white male aged 25
Went to oxford
Got a 1st in mathematics
Didn't do any outside hobbies relating to the subject area.

Who do you choose


depends on the interviews and the references. Oxford really isn't all that i'm afraid!
Original post by niteninja1
Yes my point is they got the interview and the only difference is university


have you ever heard of the term 'agency'?
Original post by john2054
depends on the interviews and the references. Oxford really isn't all that i'm afraid!


I agree but if they were matched on everything oxford would win
Original post by niteninja1
Yes my point is they got the interview and the only difference is university


It would literally not be a consideration post-interview. I have never experienced the scenario you are proposing. No two candidates are ever the same in how they do in an interview.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by niteninja1
I agree but if they were matched on everything oxford would win


i guess you are right, but if the one from London really wants the job, whereas the oxford grad, just takes it in his or her stride, this could easily be flipped.

Again going back to the notion of 'agency'!
Original post by coldplasma
It would literally not be a consideration post-interview. I have never experienced the scenario you are proposing. No two candidates are ever the same in how they do in an interview.


Consider the scenario where your interviewer is an alumnus of the university you attended. Would that increase your chances?

Given there is often a a systematic university filtration of the applications before the interviews, as an arbitrary way to split otherwise equal candidates, the likelihood of this happening is greater than you might expect.
Original post by WhiteX
What about Queen mary students will they have a chance to do their master's in MIT or Cambridge ?


Of course.

Specifically a 27% Masters offer rate at Cambridge
Original post by niteninja1
I agree but if they were matched on everything oxford would win


Original post by Athematica
Consider the scenario where your interviewer is an alumnus of the university you attended. Would that increase your chances?

Given there is often a a systematic university filtration of the applications before the interviews, as an arbitrary way to split otherwise equal candidates, the likelihood of this happening is greater than you might expect.


I already said above that a candidate's university does affect the filtration to a small extent, since the specific modules taught at some universities are just not appropriate for our business. For example, we need people who are very familiar with database technologies, scripting languages, and with knowledge of software engineering practices, and some universities (like the university that I am from) has a lot of modules that deal with those areas. Other universities (including top 10) however may not even do any of that, but that doesn't make them less equal, it just makes them specialized in other areas that are not useful specifically to our company.

If, however, a candidate gets to the interview stage, university will not factor even slightly into whether they are acceptable for the job or not, because that's what the interview is for. If we were to rely on univesity 'prestige' to make the judgement call, then that shows a woeful failure in our interview process.
Original post by coldplasma
If, however, a candidate gets to the interview stage, university will not factor even slightly into whether they are acceptable for the job or not, because that's what the interview is for. If we were to rely on univesity 'prestige' to make the judgement call, then that shows a woeful failure in our interview process.


My point is different to this.

In sectors where prestige has been used as a yardstick previously, the likelihood of an alumnus of a certain university being your interviewer is increased If you also attended a prestigious university, this, I think, increases your chances of a successful application, especially if it is the same one that they went to or one with a very similar culture. The issue isn't prestige per se but that you have the same cultural background as other employees which they would like. At the stage of the interview, in fact, we might argue that cultural fit is often the most important consideration, since applicants are otherwise generally equally qualified.
Reply 177
Avatar for Yaboi
Yaboi
17
Original post by WhiteX
What about Queen mary students will they have a chance to do their master's in MIT or Cambridge ?


MIT no idea, Cambridge most definitely.
Original post by Athematica
My point is different to this.

In sectors where prestige has been used as a yardstick previously, the likelihood of an alumnus of a certain university being your interviewer is increased if you also attended a prestigious university. This, I think, increases your chances of a successful application. The issue isn't prestige per se but that you have the same cultural background as other employees which they would like. At the stage of the interview, in fact, we might argue that cultural fit is often the most important consideration, since applicants are otherwise generally equally qualified.


No, you are completely misunderstanding why that happens. That happens because employers do target universities, but they definitely do not do it for the reasons you think they do. They do it because it's cheaper to hire someone who already has all the specialised knowledge they need, rather than having to spend money training them on the job.
(edited 7 years ago)
I think only very few people recognised a point in the previous discussions...

The assumption that two candidates who went to Cambridge and Lancaster (No offence, just using them as examples as mentioned in above) have the same skill set/ability does not stand.

Many people said that it wouldn't matter where did you go to university when finding a job as employers "do not care", it's all about your ability. However, we should be reminded that the courses in Cambridge are more difficult, have a higher workload and have a better quality of teaching so they can prepare you for your future career better. One who studied in Cambridge is likely to gain more knowledge and become more prepared for a job.

That is why universities do matter. Not because of prestige, but because usually the more prestigious unis have a better quality of teaching (which is what their prestige is made up of). As a result, graduates from more prestigious unis are likely to have better job prospects as they are better equipped.

Edit: But of course, if you're talking about the abstract title "RG uni", then of course this title itself won't be able to benefit you by any means. Some non-RG unis like Bath, Lancaster or St Andrews are far better than those weak RGs like Cardiff, Liverpool etc. In the end it's the quality of teaching/difficulty of course that matters.
(edited 7 years ago)

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you