Does it matter where you get your undergraduate degree?

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.

I am thinking of jobs in banking or consulting or law where this is not the case. And more generally so in 'general' graduate jobs in management and the like. It is not normal that your university education prepares you with a specialist skillset that applies to specific jobs. This is certainly not representative of the landscape as a whole.

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!

Okay, I'm referring to basically all STEM disciplines, where it is definitely representative.

Besides engineering disciplines, I think it is still incorrect. Give me an example outside of professional engineering degrees that do have specialist courses that are targeted specifically because it is a niche or in software engineering where this might be something that happens also for computer scientists.

Give me one that does not.

No, no. You made a discrete claim and so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate. Russell's Teapot is an axion you might want to read up on. You might claim there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the the earth and mars but it isn't on me to prove it doesn't exist.

Oh I get it you're going to plagiarise a bunch of logical fallacies to distract from the point you're avoiding arguing. Well, okay, here's one. Physics, which can be highly specialised depending on the university you go to, and companies/organisations definitely do target certain universities because of those specialties.

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.

Better equipped for what?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Better equipped with the skill sets that are required for a job.

Better equipped with the skill sets that are required for a job.

Who and where?

No distraction. You said all STEM subjects. I'm challenging your assertion.

Which skillset and which jobs

Posted from TSR Mobile

Most degrees aren't actually designed to equip you directly for work. They aren't vocational.

I know that specifically, from my university, graduates have been sought out by the likes of CERN because of the heavy emphasis placed on particle physics at Southampton. I can't think of a single STEM degree that does not have some kind of specialty like that that is emphasised at universities. Do you think any company in the field of say Computational Biology, either private or public, is going to hire graduates who know nothing about that field? No, they will target the universities that do specialise in that. I mean, literally the only way for me to prove my point is to enumerate through every single STEM degree and specialty which you know full well is not reasonable or practical. But, I have provided you with some examples, so feel free to provide a 'general type STEM degree without special knowledge'.

It is generally graduate level courses that are sought after. Scientists are notoriously difficult to hire in their industries as undergraduate degree holders. The particle physicists I'm sure will have been MSc and not BSc.

But thank you for the elaboration. I had hoped maybe you have data to back your claims. I could be talking to anybody about anything here. It is not convincing.

Fair enough. I am a Engineering applicant so my view is based on STEM subjects as well. For subjects like Arts or Humanities, you may have a point.

And specifically for engineering the university "prestige" definitely matters little. If anything, some engineering employers are known not to favour Oxbridge applicants...

Posted from TSR Mobile

And specifically for engineering the university "prestige" definitely matters little. If anything, some engineering employers are known not to favour Oxbridge applicants...

Posted from TSR Mobile

And specifically for engineering the university "prestige" definitely matters little. If anything, some engineering employers are known not to favour Oxbridge applicants...

Posted from TSR Mobile