If you don't go to Oxbridge or a Russel group you've wasted over £30'000
Scroll to see replies
The way I see it, I could get into Cambridge for theology if I really wanted to but what is the point? I would much rather apply to a far lower down university like Glasgow or Edinburgh for Mathematics or the sciences than Theology in Cambridge because no-one gives a damn if you have done theology. Also, if you go to a really high ranking university (Oxford for example) then you will find yourself under more stress to perform to a high standard and your university experience will be one of constant stress and pressure. The reality of university for many people nowadays is just a means to an end in itself, most of the job market is occupied by jobs that require/ prefer those with university degrees that show commitment to your studies and a good attitude.
Original post by Doonesbury
Hold on, so there's no recent RG grads at Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 (winners of 4 consecutive F1 Constructors Championships)?
Let's see: hmm... 17 recent grads are listed at Mercedes of which 50% are RG (including Oxbridge).
They employ good people, not just grads of "newer unis".
Posted from TSR Mobile
Let's see: hmm... 17 recent grads are listed at Mercedes of which 50% are RG (including Oxbridge).
They employ good people, not just grads of "newer unis".
Posted from TSR Mobile
Technical Directors of Formula One Teams:
-> Mercedes (UK) - James Allison - Cambridge
-> Red Bull (UK) - Adrian Newey - Southampton
-> McLaren (UK) - Tim Goss (ICL) / Neil Oatley (Loughborough) / Pete Prodromou (ICL)
-> Force India (UK) - Andy Green - Portsmouth
-> Williams (UK) - Paddy Lowe - Cambridge
-> Renault (UK) - Bob Bell - Queen's Belfast
-> Haas (US/UK) - Rob Taylor (?) / Ben Agathangelou (Southampton)
-> Ferrari (Italy) - Mattia Binotto - EPFL (Laussane)
-> Toro Rosso (Italy) - James Key - Nottingham
-> Sauber (Switzerland) - Jorg Zander - Cologne
On reflection, it's not all an Oxbridge old boys club. A few years ago there were a lot of Cambridge Engineering alumni at the top of F1, but that's changed somewhat more recently. That said, the most respected designers among this bunch (Newey, Allison, Lowe, Prodromou) do tend to have particuarly excellent degrees.
E: By the way, if this isn't a massive billboard for Southampton Aerodynamics I don't know what is.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by LandoNorrisWDC
Technical Directors of Formula One Teams:
-> Mercedes (UK) - James Allison - Cambridge
-> Red Bull (UK) - Adrian Newey - Southampton
-> McLaren (UK) - Tim Goss (ICL) / Neil Oatley (Loughborough) / Pete Prodromou (ICL)
-> Force India (UK) - Andy Green - Portsmouth
-> Williams (UK) - Paddy Lowe - Cambridge
-> Renault (UK) - Bob Bell - Queen's Belfast
-> Haas (US/UK) - Rob Taylor (?) / Ben Agathangelou (Southampton)
-> Ferrari (Italy) - Mattia Binotto - EPFL (Laussane)
-> Toro Rosso (Italy) - James Key - Nottingham
-> Sauber (Switzerland) - Jorg Zander - Cologne
On reflection, it's not all an Oxbridge old boys club. A few years ago there were a lot of Cambridge Engineering alumni at the top of F1, but that's changed somewhat more recently. That said, the most respected designers among this bunch (Newey, Allison, Lowe, Prodromou) do tend to have particuarly excellent degrees.
-> Mercedes (UK) - James Allison - Cambridge
-> Red Bull (UK) - Adrian Newey - Southampton
-> McLaren (UK) - Tim Goss (ICL) / Neil Oatley (Loughborough) / Pete Prodromou (ICL)
-> Force India (UK) - Andy Green - Portsmouth
-> Williams (UK) - Paddy Lowe - Cambridge
-> Renault (UK) - Bob Bell - Queen's Belfast
-> Haas (US/UK) - Rob Taylor (?) / Ben Agathangelou (Southampton)
-> Ferrari (Italy) - Mattia Binotto - EPFL (Laussane)
-> Toro Rosso (Italy) - James Key - Nottingham
-> Sauber (Switzerland) - Jorg Zander - Cologne
On reflection, it's not all an Oxbridge old boys club. A few years ago there were a lot of Cambridge Engineering alumni at the top of F1, but that's changed somewhat more recently. That said, the most respected designers among this bunch (Newey, Allison, Lowe, Prodromou) do tend to have particuarly excellent degrees.
Good research. Except the poster I was answering would say that it's the very recent hires that are significantly different. I don't doubt that universities like Oxford Brookes and Loughborough can be excellent for budding F1 engineers. What I do doubt is that RGs don't also provide good F1 engineers too.
And, by no means every engineer wants to work in F1 anyway...
Original post by Doonesbury
Good research. Except the poster I was answering would say that it's the very recent hires that are significantly different. I don't doubt that universities like Oxford Brookes and Loughborough can be excellent for budding F1 engineers. What I do doubt is that RGs don't also provide good F1 engineers too.
And, by no means every engineer wants to work in F1 anyway...
And, by no means every engineer wants to work in F1 anyway...
I live and breathe for motorsport and it is absolutely my goal to try and get into the industry after graduating, but I can completely understand why F1 (or any international racing series) would be unappealing for an engineering graduate. If you can live without the passion, the adreneline, and the hyper-competitiveness, then desigining footpaths for the Surrey County Council is probably a better gig in almost every other measurable way!
Original post by Wired_1800
If I had mentioned the Big 8 and added certain TSR-loving universities like Warwick, Bristol or St. Andrews, there would be applause. Now these universities are not among, there is anger that the metrics might be wrong.
Original post by Wired_1800
Warwick has been destroyed on many threads for being a bit overrated. If you remove Maths and Economics, many folks seem to agree that Warwick is just a bog-standard university.
Warwick is a hideously overrated university.
TSR is an echo chamber comprising a very specific demographic. It seems to be mainly new money(ish) middle-class but state-educated 17 year olds, who are good at Maths and interested in finance, but don’t particularly appreciate things like history or tradition, hence the enormous Warwick-bias on here (a good Maths uni with absolutely no character). There's also a bias for other universities provided they are at least semi-IB targets.
It's worth mentioning that Warwick is not particularly respected amongst those from top private schools/public schools or the upper-classes. Newcastle, on the other hand, is very popular with the upper-classes. You'd probably find that Newcastle is actually more respected than Warwick amongst this demographic (which is not surprising if you google it).
The majority of TSR are high achievers from relatively lower-middle class backgrounds whose parents didn't go to university (there is a poll from another thread somewhere which supports this), which might explain why the traditional redbricks aren't particularly creamed over on this forum. Let me explain. In the days when there were only about 40 universities in the country, the redbricks were usually considered the 'proper' universities outside of Oxbridge, whereas the plate glass ones were often viewed as 'lesser' since they were much newer and less traditional. Around 7-10% of the population went to university, so it was more exclusively for those who went to private/grammar schools. Their children who are applying to university now (I guess you could call this demographic ‘old money middle-class’?) probably have more enthusiasm towards the traditional redbricks, because their parents received a very good education from them and did well for themselves. This demographic is also more likely to be aware that league table reputation doesn't matter, because their parents went to university before league tables existed and they realise league tables are just an 'invention'.
Whereas TSR seems to be a forum full of academically able 17 year olds from less traditional/non-academic backgrounds, who haven’t even started university yet, and are more likely to get their information from their school’s careers advice department, league tables, and other people on TSR.
What TSR thinks is hardly reputable advice, or a sufficient cross section of people’s perceptions of UK education (far from it). It’s a very specific demographic of a very impressionable age group.
Original post by beatles17
Warwick is a hideously overrated university.
TSR is an echo chamber comprising a very specific demographic. It seems to be mainly new money(ish) middle-class but state-educated 17 year olds, who are good at Maths and interested in finance, but don’t particularly appreciate things like history or tradition, hence the enormous Warwick-bias on here (a good Maths uni with absolutely no character). There's also a bias for other universities provided they are at least semi-IB targets.
It's worth mentioning that Warwick is not particularly respected amongst those from top private schools/public schools or the upper-classes. Newcastle, on the other hand, is very popular with the upper-classes. You'd probably find that Newcastle is actually more respected than Warwick amongst this demographic (which is not surprising if you google it).
The majority of TSR are high achievers from relatively lower-middle class backgrounds whose parents didn't go to university (there is a poll from another thread somewhere which supports this), which might explain why the traditional redbricks aren't particularly creamed over on this forum. Let me explain. In the days when there were only about 40 universities in the country, the redbricks were usually considered the 'proper' universities outside of Oxbridge, whereas the plate glass ones were often viewed as 'lesser' since they were much newer and less traditional. Around 7-10% of the population went to university, so it was more exclusively for those who went to private/grammar schools. Their children who are applying to university now (I guess you could call this demographic ‘old money middle-class’?) probably have more enthusiasm towards the traditional redbricks, because their parents received a very good education from them and did well for themselves. This demographic is also more likely to be aware that league table reputation doesn't matter, because their parents went to university before league tables existed and they realise league tables are just an 'invention'.
Whereas TSR seems to be a forum full of academically able 17 year olds from less traditional/non-academic backgrounds, who haven’t even started university yet, and are more likely to get their information from their school’s careers advice department, league tables, and other people on TSR.
What TSR thinks is hardly reputable advice, or a sufficient cross section of people’s perceptions of UK education (far from it). It’s a very specific demographic of a very impressionable age group.
TSR is an echo chamber comprising a very specific demographic. It seems to be mainly new money(ish) middle-class but state-educated 17 year olds, who are good at Maths and interested in finance, but don’t particularly appreciate things like history or tradition, hence the enormous Warwick-bias on here (a good Maths uni with absolutely no character). There's also a bias for other universities provided they are at least semi-IB targets.
It's worth mentioning that Warwick is not particularly respected amongst those from top private schools/public schools or the upper-classes. Newcastle, on the other hand, is very popular with the upper-classes. You'd probably find that Newcastle is actually more respected than Warwick amongst this demographic (which is not surprising if you google it).
The majority of TSR are high achievers from relatively lower-middle class backgrounds whose parents didn't go to university (there is a poll from another thread somewhere which supports this), which might explain why the traditional redbricks aren't particularly creamed over on this forum. Let me explain. In the days when there were only about 40 universities in the country, the redbricks were usually considered the 'proper' universities outside of Oxbridge, whereas the plate glass ones were often viewed as 'lesser' since they were much newer and less traditional. Around 7-10% of the population went to university, so it was more exclusively for those who went to private/grammar schools. Their children who are applying to university now (I guess you could call this demographic ‘old money middle-class’?) probably have more enthusiasm towards the traditional redbricks, because their parents received a very good education from them and did well for themselves. This demographic is also more likely to be aware that league table reputation doesn't matter, because their parents went to university before league tables existed and they realise league tables are just an 'invention'.
Whereas TSR seems to be a forum full of academically able 17 year olds from less traditional/non-academic backgrounds, who haven’t even started university yet, and are more likely to get their information from their school’s careers advice department, league tables, and other people on TSR.
What TSR thinks is hardly reputable advice, or a sufficient cross section of people’s perceptions of UK education (far from it). It’s a very specific demographic of a very impressionable age group.
I agree that TSR seems to be an echo chamber of specific "values" or aspirations. There are a handful of universities, where a fair number of students fervently worship.
From my experience on here, Warwick seems to be one of the choices, probably because of the points you alluded to in your comments.
My point on the so-called "Big 8" universities seem to be a very controversial topic. This is because people would either doubt the metric used or bring their own to defend why their university should be there. Others argue against it being done at all.
The irony of this situation is that my sister studied Economics at Warwick, but folks think i may have a bias against them. Someone once accused me that i may have applied to Warwick and did not get in.
Anyway, your comments are very good and adds a dimension to TSR conversations. In the end, to each his own.
(edited 6 years ago)
> good Maths uni with absolutely no character
Sorry to say it, but this was exactly my impression visiting Warwick. The fact that the University is viewed as considerably better for Maths than practically any other subject seems to have driven a wedge between the maths students and faculty and the rest of the university. Even the professors there seemed to propogate a particular brand of aloofness - as if they viewed the Maths department as wholly distinct from the rest of the institution.
Sorry to say it, but this was exactly my impression visiting Warwick. The fact that the University is viewed as considerably better for Maths than practically any other subject seems to have driven a wedge between the maths students and faculty and the rest of the university. Even the professors there seemed to propogate a particular brand of aloofness - as if they viewed the Maths department as wholly distinct from the rest of the institution.
Original post by liquidconfidence
I've heard a lot of people, especially teachers, slyly voice this opinion.
Usually in year 12 everyone swears that they're definitely going to a Russel Group or Oxbridge. Then the reality of mock exams hits home and most people end up going to London Met.
Is it true that you're doomed if you don't go to a prestigious institution and will people look down on you eek
Usually in year 12 everyone swears that they're definitely going to a Russel Group or Oxbridge. Then the reality of mock exams hits home and most people end up going to London Met.
Is it true that you're doomed if you don't go to a prestigious institution and will people look down on you eek
I think this can be split into two very different questions:
1) Are you better off going to a Russel Group uni?
2) Are you better off going to a good uni?
1) The Russel Group includes some unis that are relatively low ranking and so the answer is no. The Russel Group is all to do with research and not to do with the quality of education, graduate prospects, etc.... Many of them are highly ranked, which is why people sometimes conflate "good uni" with "Russel Group".
2) I think people at more highly ranked universities generally do better but this is possibly because, to get a place at these unis, you are probably pretty clever and/or hardworking, which obviously employers want. I know people from my college who got A*AA and went to the VERY low ranking local university purely because they didn't want to leave home. I also know people who scraped a place at Liverpool (a Russel Group uni) with relatively poor grades through clearing. I think the former would be more employable, assuming they keep up their hard work and good grades.
Also, to add to the above, some relatively low ranking universities are world leaders in specific subjects (for example, more niche subjects), therefore, the reputation of that department may give you better graduate prospects than another uni that is more highly ranked as a whole.
Original post by J-SP
Even with law and consulting, the idea that they come from a small group of unis is just a poor myth that is constantly perpetuated.
Law and Consulting (and even IB) are actually really broad sectors within themselves. It might be true of a small fraction of employers at the very top end of the profession, but they are a minority within a sector, and then are a minority because of the wider set of sectors they sit within.
Law and Consulting (and even IB) are actually really broad sectors within themselves. It might be true of a small fraction of employers at the very top end of the profession, but they are a minority within a sector, and then are a minority because of the wider set of sectors they sit within.
not really, if you look at consulting, 60% of employees are oxbridge
I mean look at it this way, if someone did a primary teaching degree at a non-Russel group univeristy, they'd still get a job as a primary teacher , just not in a huge prestigious private school. That goes for all careers as well, unless it's the kind of career that requires Russel group like if you want to be a Lord etc
Original post by J-SP
Only if you look at top end strategy consulting. Consulting is much broader sector than the big name elite firms within strategy.
It honestly really annoys me when people call universities "bad". Some people would absolutely KILL to get into even a "bad" univeristy!
You guys don't know how lucky you are! Speak to a cleaner, ask them if they would turn down an unconditional offer at a "bad" univeristy, I'm telling you now, they'd accept that offer with open arms.
You guys don't know how lucky you are! Speak to a cleaner, ask them if they would turn down an unconditional offer at a "bad" univeristy, I'm telling you now, they'd accept that offer with open arms.
Original post by Samendra
strat consulting
So assuming this will remain the case in the short/medium term... what % of the grad population is this actually relevant to? i.e. how many grad vacancies do they have a year?
Original post by liquidconfidence
I've heard a lot of people, especially teachers, slyly voice this opinion.
Usually in year 12 everyone swears that they're definitely going to a Russel Group or Oxbridge. Then the reality of mock exams hits home and most people end up going to London Met.
Is it true that you're doomed if you don't go to a prestigious institution and will people look down on you eek
Usually in year 12 everyone swears that they're definitely going to a Russel Group or Oxbridge. Then the reality of mock exams hits home and most people end up going to London Met.
Is it true that you're doomed if you don't go to a prestigious institution and will people look down on you eek
Different universities are different. The Russel Group status may affect whether you want to go there or not, but I highly doubt employers have a list of which universities are RG or not while they look through your application. It'd only affect their opinion if they were biased themselves, which they may be, but as people have pointed out above, there are many more relevant things to an employer than which uni you attended. Increasingly, experience is becoming one of the most important aspects of your application as so many people come with degrees, and obviously your attitude towards work including how you apply what you've learnt from your degree and your experience to your application and your work will have the most major impact.
While there are lots of red brick universities which aren't RG that are just as prestigious as some other people mentioned, the bias against ex-polys is still pretty ridiculous. I certainly haven't wasted my time or money by coming to one - as well as advancing my knowledge of my course I've grown incredible amounts as a person, I've been able to take great opportunities in terms of work experience, and I've definitely got a lot more prepared for the future than I would've been if I'd left education after A-level and gone into whatever job I could find. Some positives of ex-polys that I've experienced (more specifically Sheffield Hallam) is that the course content is extremely modern and up to date, flexible in regards to our own interests, and practical in terms of developing our academic and employability skills within the course. Most courses here have optional placements, which (for reasons above) are invaluable when applying for a job afterwards, and we have an incredible employability rate thanks to those things as well as our student support services where we can get all sorts of help with anything we need, including things like getting a career mentor, getting placements, part-time or graduate work, work experience, etc.
From what I've heard, some of the most prestigious universities don't give their students the same amount of care or structured support that some of the smaller/newer universities do, and the courses are often more traditional and academic (not that that's terrible, but imo they might not prepare you for the future as well).
Your school just wants to be able to say they had so many people going to the top universities. But you should do what's best for you, and not let their pressure get to you! Look into the courses and the structures and the other things that the universities offer and find out where you'll suit most. Doing what appeals to you and what you know you'll grow and benefit from will never be a waste.
Good luck,
Ellie
Original post by J-SP
But it isn't reflective of the whole profession and will only be a small fraction of consulting opportunities at the very top end.
It might be "where it's at" but it's a very skewed view of the whole sector. Technology consulting would be a much fairer sample group given the size of vacancies it has within the consultancy sector.
It might be "where it's at" but it's a very skewed view of the whole sector. Technology consulting would be a much fairer sample group given the size of vacancies it has within the consultancy sector.
True im saying that aswell, your uni doesnt determine anything unless you are interested in consultuing/IB/law
Original post by Doonesbury
So assuming this will remain the case in the short/medium term... what % of the grad population is this actually relevant to? i.e. how many grad vacancies do they have a year?
True im saying that aswell, your uni doesnt determine anything unless you are interested in consultuing/IB/law
Original post by Samendra
True im saying that aswell, your uni doesnt determine anything unless you are interested in consultuing/IB/law
No. Unless you are interested in a very small part of consultuing/IB/law.
There's plenty of well remunerated lawyers and consultants who didn't go to RG universities never mind Oxbridge.
Original post by Doonesbury
No. Unless you are interested in a very small part of consultuing/IB/law.
There's plenty of well remunerated lawyers and consultants who didn't go to RG universities never mind Oxbridge.
There's plenty of well remunerated lawyers and consultants who didn't go to RG universities never mind Oxbridge.
lmao, i was talking about strat consulting, high end law and IB where more than 70% come from the 'top 6'
Original post by Doonesbury
No. Unless you are interested in a very small part of consultuing/IB/law.
There's plenty of well remunerated lawyers and consultants who didn't go to RG universities never mind Oxbridge.
There's plenty of well remunerated lawyers and consultants who didn't go to RG universities never mind Oxbridge.
for example I know of a pension fund that doesn't even look at people's CVs unless they are from oxbridge,lse,imp
Original post by Samendra
lmao, i was talking about strat consulting, high end law and IB where more than 70% come from the 'top 6'
You didn't say that. And what % of total UK grads do they hire?
Original post by Samendra
for example I know of a pension fund that doesn't even look at people's CVs unless they are from oxbridge,lse,imp
Who? And how many grads do they hire per year?
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How to get over not applying to Oxbridge.
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- In which universities (UK & USA) can I apply with 4A in AS levels (CIE)?
- Rank these for me please
- Russel Group vs Bath
- University Choices
- Do some unis say no if they think you’ll get in somewhere else?
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- Applying at Oxford, Cambridge and Russells group
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- how will my gcse results affect my university choices
- Is it worth doing a masters at a Russek group uni
- NCS or Brampton Manor 2023??? Help...
- 2023 Results Day
- Help me pick: Swansea BEng vs Birmingham Aston MEng or Heriot-Watt BEng?
- Should I turn down LSE to reapply for Oxford?
- Results day nightmare
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- University - finance
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
