Turning down a prestigious uni for a lower-ranking one?

Yes, but OP is not comparing the Russell Groups with all non-Russell Groups. OP is looking at Edinburgh against Aberdeen, which the research does not address.

Yes, but OP is not comparing the Russell Groups with all non-Russell Groups. OP is looking at Edinburgh against Aberdeen, which the research does not address.

Suit yourself.

BAe Systems, Astrium, Airbus Industries, Lockheed Martin, Thales, Aerospatiale, MBDA, Raytheon, Boeing, SAAB, MBB, Finmeccanica, Hughes Aircraft Corporation, MoD, USDoD, ADM..........I think the point is made.

It's still just anecdotal evidence of the handful of engineers that you happen to have worked with. Doesn't really mean anything tbh.

Well sunshine must be lacking where your head is.

OP is making a grave mistake, we must prevent.

I call on all fellow RG aspirants and students!
This blasphemy must stop...

Aberdeen???

There are exceptions to every rule. Two people being successful doesn't prove anything. Plus one of them studied engineering and then made their success in business so if anything that only supports my point.

Those studies are from America and since the system is very different there, it doesn't necessarily apply to the UK.

University definitely makes a difference. A first from a Russell group is worth much more than a first from an ex-poly. Think about it logically. For example, some universities accept students with AAA and some accept students with BBC. The number of firsts etc. from each university doesn't vary so unless you honestly believe that the ones who accept BBC somehow magic their students to the same level as the ones who accept AAA, then the degree is clearly worth more from the one that accepts AAA.

Perhaps not specifically, but it does examine the wider notions idea of "elite" institutions in the UK.

The fact is that overall the study classifies both Edinburgh and Aberdeen as part of a 2nd tier of universities. Of course a student should examine particulars about each course and university, as the OP has done, but there is no serious, evidence-based reason I can think of to suggest the OP won't be just as successful whether they go to Edinburgh or Aberdeen.

What’s wrong with Aberdeen? It’s a good uni.

the proper question is, whats better about aberdeen then Edinburgh.... all the kids who attend it, wanted to go to Edinburgh surely, or at least Glasgow.

Edinburgh is:
Better known
ranked so much higher it isnt funny
will make connections with some of the most successful people from scotland and globally for future contacts.
Better facilities
Better employment prospects
Better... City more of an experience
Its not only a Russell group but its an ancient university!

Obviously they do but this was a private conversation had with them. They're my family, they want what's best for me. They're hardly going to lie to me. University prestige is important because better universities have a better calibre of students, their professors are better, their research is better and a first from them is better.

Well for a start they were both engineering grads, neither of whom went to what would be regarded as "prestigious" universities. How exactly does it support you point? They were successful in spite of not going to a prestigious uni.

You reasoning is fallacious. A person who gets an AAA will likely do just as well, post-graduation, whether they attend a RG university or an ex-poly. Additionally, it's well known that universities in the Russell group accept a wide range of grades. I know for a fact that people have gotten in to RG unis (namely QUB and Liverpool) with A-Levels of BBC and BBB, respectively. They are not isolated cases either. So in fact it does occur that universities can and do "magic" their students up to 1sts. I've been working in the tech sector for over a decade, and regularly interview students that have had BBB/C in their A-Levels, who attended RG unis, who came out with 1sts. Same as students who went to the same places with AAA or AAB.

What's weakening your position here is you are offering nothing but anecdotal, subjective opinions on the matter rather than providing any credible evidence to support your position. You haven't offered any credible arguments to dismiss the peer reviewed research that's been provided. What factors precisely do you think excludes the research, and why do you think, for instance, if Dale and Kurger ran their experiment in the UK that their results would be very different?

Oxbridge aside, there exists no strong evidence that Russell Group universities are any better than some other, non-RG unis in the UK. Be it for engineering or anything else. If you have peer reviewed literature on the matter, and would like to provide it I'm happy to read it and if it's good research I'm also happy to change my mind. The research available, and my own experience recruiting and mentoring RG and non-RG grads, tells me that it doesn't really matter that much where you attend university.*

Having more capable students certainly makes a difference overall but this is a factor which is not dependent on the university itself. Better research isn't necessarily particularly relevant to those who want to work in industry, and it's something like less than one in twenty engineering grads who go into research/academia. Overall the vast majority of the knowledge and skills you'll gain and use in your engineering career will have been learnt on the job, which makes some sort of systematic bias towards the universities that TSR typically considers prestigious quite unlikely.

the proper question is, whats better about aberdeen then Edinburgh.... all the kids who attend it, wanted to go to Edinburgh surely, or at least Glasgow.

Perhaps it is better regarding some things, but the way you put it in your other post is as if OP was suggesting to go to London Met over Edinburgh like come on. Aberdeen and Edinburgh are both ancient universities, Aberdeen is in fact older than Edinburgh. As a user previously mentioned, OP would probably end up just as succesful if he/she went to either one of those universities. They are both excellent.

No, it only refers to the status of clusters. It tells us nothing about individual constituents of the cluster.



Well, take the Dale and Krueger paper you mentioned (here). It is talking about US higher education and consequent employment. It is not talking about the UK, which has a significantly different higher education culture. Your whole approach, I feel, is back to front. You are attempting to prove X and in doing so have found A, B and C which loosely corresponds with your conclusion. As for Edinburgh and Aberdeen, I am not saying that there is a prestige difference; I am simply saying your points do not prove that there isn't.

Talking about eliteness, which was your specific rebuttal: Edinburgh has a 57% offer rate, 503 average UCAS points. Aberdeen has a 95% offer rate, 458 average UCAS points. Average earnings by uni show Edinburgh grads earn quite a bit more. I would use subject-specific, which are nearly identical, but the samples are small and generally unreliable. To be clear, I am not saying this will affect OP's future career; they should study where they will be happy and enjoy the time. Indeed, OP's future career will not be determined exclusively by their uni. But it is quite wrong to suggest that Edinburgh is essentially the same as Aberdeen because of cluster analysis and because you studied at RG and non-RG.

I agree that most skills are learnt on the job. But you have to get the job first.

Which is dependent on how good you are as a candidate; not the university you attended's research output or how well it is regarded by (certain) TSR posters.

First of all, thank you very much for taking this approach to the question. I really appreciate it. All too often on TSR it's a case of "no I'm right because I say so".

I cannot view the article in the Economist but I will take you word for it. Can I ask does it break it down by specific sectors? For example, does a CompSci, Medicine, Business etc...? I can't comment more on it until I read it I'm afraid.

I will concur that you cannot draw too much from Dale and Kruger due in part to the geographical reasons. The original point I would make though is that simply because a university is marketed as "prestigious" does not always mean it results in more success, post-graduation. It wasn't intended that this be specifically used to dispute the differences between Aberdeen and Edinburgh. I could've articulated that better.

Of course no 2 universities will be exactly the same, but the idea that one university is automatically "better" because it happens to be a member of a certain group has no serious evidence to support it.

He was successful in business, not engineering. His degree was irrelevant. He could've been just as successful without the degree.

QUB and Liverpool are considered to be the bottom end of RG and aren't considered especially prestigious in engineering. Most RGs do not accept grades that low. You haven't regularly interviewed students in that situation because the truth is most RGs don't accept grades that low. Obviously there are some exceptions but it's far from the norm.

You honestly think people who's job it is to turn out the most hirable candidates don't know what employers are looking for?

The American system is very different. Going to university in your own state is much cheaper than going to university in another state. And this affects students decisions about where to go, meaning that it isn't necessarily about prestige and more about money.

Why do RG unis have higher entry requirements then? Surely if it makes no difference then all universities would recruit students equally and have the same requirements. The fact is that non-RGs aren't as good so they have lower entry requirements in order to try and get students to apply there.