If you are an employer, which would you choose?

Scroll to see replies

Graduate schemes. I think it's different for the vocational ones as obviously a lot of ex-poly unis do offer the radiography course, physio course etc and it's more standardised because the exact same topics are often taught in those.

I guess this mean it does not matter when it comes to vocational courses although there are differences in the difficulty of degrees between the same vocational courses at two different universities?

Reply 21

username944192

Original post by Freiheit

I guess this mean it does not matter when it comes to vocational courses although there are differences in the difficulty of degrees between the same vocational courses at two different universities?

Well I'm of the opinion that it's best to go to the best uni you can, although my Aunt said before that St Georges is really good for the courses it does even though it doesn't rank particularly high in the league tables because it's a specialised uni. It doesn't matter as much for things like nursing etc but there are still good unis which do those courses, e.g. you can do nursing at southampton and nottingham, you can do physiotherapy at southampton, I don't think there are any ex-poly unis which do actual medicine, etc. So I would still choose the better uni because there is the option of the better uni if you see what I mean. But because it's more standardised and each student will have a very similar depth of knowledge on most of the topics on those degrees, it doesn't matter as much where you go. It'll be very similar if not identical content whether you went to nottingham or an ex-poly uni for those courses. You wouldn't get your CV binned, basically, for doing an NHS funded course at a lower down uni.

Also worth bearing in mind that the polytechnics were set up to run vocational courses. So you may even find that for those courses the ex-poly unis are better because that's what they were intended for.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 22

Freiheit

Original post by infairverona

Ok. The major difference I'm seeing so far is it's much easier to enter consulting/banking ect from the university I am at although the course is vocational . Maybe the key difference is having access to a wider range of options.

Reply 23

TheMagicRat

When you say everything else is the same, do you mean personalities as well? Or just the CV stuff? I would need more information with regards to their personalities. I'd be looking for way more than what's written on a piece of paper.

Based on the information I have, though, I'd probably edge towards the one with the distinction.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 24

username944192

Original post by Freiheit

What do you study/what uni? Banking takes the institution into account massively so if you've got the uni right you're on the right track tbh

Reply 25

Freiheit

Original post by infairverona

What do you study/what uni? Banking takes the institution into account massively so if you've got the uni right you're on the right track tbh

Yeah, I didn't know the extent until I started uni. I'm studying a vocational science.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 26

username927016

It's a tough one as you'd have to compare the difference between the standard of Uni with the difference in the qualifications & decide which one is bigger before coming to a suitable conclusion.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 27

gemmatovey

Original post by DKDarkKnight

Let's say everything else is the same, would you choose a person with

MSc International Business Management (Merit) - University Manchester

or

MSc International Business Management (Distinction) - Manchester Metropolitan University

Manchester Met! People always rave on about how going to a good uni is so important, but at the end of the day, it's the grade that's important.

Reply 28

username927016

Original post by TheMagicRat

When you say everything else is the same, do you mean personalities as well? Or just the CV stuff?

He probably means what he's actually saying.

Reply 29

tazarooni89

The impression I get is that a person who gets a good grade at a top institution would easily be able to get the same grade (or better) at a lesser institution. Whereas a person who gets a good grade from a lesser institution would not necessarily be able to get the same grade at a top institution. I would assume that it is easier to get a Distinction at Manchester Met than at the University of Manchester

There are two main reasons that I think this:

I studied Maths - and I've seen Maths exam papers from my own university, and from other universities, where at each one, you need to get 70% of the raw marks available in order to get a First. And it's quite clear to me that some universities consistently set harder exams than others, where it is more difficult to get 70% of the marks. So it follows that it is harder to get a First at those universities. It tends to be the universities with the better reputation that set the harder exams.

Also, I get this impression judging by many people I know who have gone to different universities, the grades they have achieved and the relative academic ability of each one. For example, I know someone who got a 2:2 in Law from Cambridge, and another person who got a 2:1 in Law from Queen Mary's. If you had known both of these people at school, there is no way you would have ever expected the Cambridge one to get a lower result than the Queen Mary's one, if they were taking exams of equal difficulty. And there are several other instances like this.

Reply 30

GeneralOJB

First obviously. A fail from Manchester is better than a distinction/first for MMU, cause at least you managed to get in to a russel group.

Reply 31

Sweaty Tramp

There is barely any difference do you think employers really scrutinize that much where you got your degree? i seriously doubt they have bigger fish to fry fair enough its obvious there is a quality gap between leeds met and oxford but as long you have the credentials for the type of work the employer is providing who cares? it does annoy me when people get so wrapped up in the my unis better than yours arguement its so childish you should choose a degree on the basis of future career prospects and course content not the institution where you got it from.

It can actually work against you if you choose to attend a snobby university because more often than not the courses are very academic and not linked to vocational practices and the whole regime tends to push people into postgraduate study which can be very damaging indeed. Whereas most ex polytechnic universities prefer using sandwich courses which actually give you some real world job experience to put on your CV which is better than oooo look at me i went to Oxford University so you should be flinging a job at me.

Just to put this into context lets say candidate A has a 2.1 in biomedical science with a years lab placement in a working laboratory from sheffield hallam university candidate B has a 1st in biomedical science from the university of sheffield now if i was an employer in a pathology lab i would go for the hallam graduate everytime because they would know how to use equipment such as microtomes centrifuges PCR machines etc whereas candidate B looks good on paper but it doesnt really mean anything if you know tons of academic knowledge but not know much in the way of applying real world techniques and knowledge.

You get my point real world experience wins everytime.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 32

Sweaty Tramp

Original post by GeneralOJB

First obviously. A fail from Manchester is better than a distinction/first for MMU, cause at least you managed to get in to a russel group.

You obviously dont live on planet earth do you?

Reply 33

deedee123

Original post by GeneralOJB

First obviously. A fail from Manchester is better than a distinction/first for MMU, cause at least you managed to get in to a russel group.

I wouldn't go that far :tongue:

but people who think that university reputation has absolutely no impact on employment prospects are lying to themselves.

Reply 34

lubus

I'd never hire someone without interviewing them. However, if i had to make a choice based on uni, UOM ofcourse. you might as well not go to uni if you're studying in MMU...

but then again i might be slightly biased

Reply 35

SirHas

Any employer will go for the higher grade, I would think so anyway. For that reason I will go for the second one.

Reply 36

SirHas

Original post by lubus

Slightly is a bit of an understatement okay the Met university is not the best, regardless the person got a higher grade.

Reply 37

MJYoung

Really depends on the employer. I have recently been shadowing a local Councillor (Who attended Cambridge UG and UCL PG) and got onto the subject of University prestige. He essentially said that instead of going somewhere like the London Met or Southampton Solent a school leaver is better looking for apprenticeships or other vocational courses that lead to real world experience. At the same time I know someone who worked for the U.N for over 10 years in a senior position where-in they would often be responsible for interviewing or picking candidates for their roles, they said that there looks played more import than the University they attended. This might seem shocking at first but there are several thousand university/Colleges, instead of learning the position and reputation of each institution she simply checked the University was accredited and their classification attained. The fact is some employers will place immense value on the institution you attended, particularly on the national level. Others may only care that you attended an official registered institution and the actual grade obtained.

One thing that has been overlooked however is that students are graded against each other on a grading curve. Somewhere like Oxford where students are likely to hold at the very least 3 A's at A-Level will be much harder to attain a 1st or distinction solely on the fact that your peers will be of a much higher academic caliber than say students at Oxford Brookes (Not the best example as its actually a decent University). Of course again are employers going to necessarily have an understanding of the internal marking systems used by Universities, and if so, will they have an understanding enough to compare institutions.

Anyway, personally I say its a tough one. Like many employers my knowledge of both Universities is weak beyond UoM is the better of the two. A Distinction suggests a student achieved the best they could within their course, should that achievement be reduced just because of the university they attended. Whose to say that same student would not also go on to achieve a Distinction in UoM. At the same time a Merit from UoM is probably harder to achieve than an equivalent grade in MMU. Honestly id probably pick the UoM graduate if all else was the same.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 38

41b

I've been told that a first from Oxford is the same as a first from anywhere else, because external markers look over everything to see all is marked to the same standard.

It seems plausible, and I was talking to a girl who graduated from Aston with a first and went on to Oxford for her postgrad.

I think the key difference between MMU will be that Manchester will (theoretically) have better teaching, but in my experience the teaching here is somewhat poor.

Reply 39

ChemistBoy

Original post by MJYoung

One thing that has been overlooked however is that students are graded against each other on a grading curve. Somewhere like Oxford where students are likely to hold at the very least 3 A's at A-Level will be much harder to attain a 1st or distinction solely on the fact that your peers will be of a much higher academic caliber than say students at Oxford Brookes (Not the best example as its actually a decent University).

Unfortunately that simply isn't true. Universities like Oxford award far more firsts and 2:1's as a percentage of cohort than places like Oxford Brookes.