Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    PQ answered this too. IRL you'd call them for interview. There are always more important differences than their university.

    CEO of a £1+ billion company (business services) says to me, did you hire that new person?
    - Yes I did.
    On what basis?
    - It was tricky, but it came down to because they went to Cambridge.
    ...?!

    Doesn't happen.
    This reply only addresses the first part of my post and has nothing on the second part (unsure why but maybe you didn't refresh after I edited).

    Regardless of this, what you have posted is not an upgrade on anything you've said previously and it also doesn't address anything I said in my post in terms of logical fallacies. You're current argument seems to be that you've never seen this happen in your experience and so it mustn't be true, which may well be an acceptable argument if we were talking face to face as one could verify your 30+ years of experience in the field and where you have worked (as I said, recruitment at McDonald's is slightly different to a top tier firm), but that doesn't really work on the internet. We've already stated that the 2 candidates are identical and so would perform identically well in an interview (obviously you don't just base your decision on a CV). There may well be more important factors than the university, but these 2 candidates are IDENTICAL. We are dealing in hypotheticals here, of course in the real world you would never have 2 identical candidates and so the decision would be based on a collective of things (including university) but we can't model that.

    EDIT: You've also failed to explain to me why Oxbridge graduates earn significantly more than their Russell Group counterparts if university isn't a major factor.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Whilst there are exceptions, the quality of university that you got into is a good indicator of how intelligent you are. Intelligence isn't the only quality that you need to be successful in a job, but it is important IMO.

    I've worked in the software industry for 25 years. I've interviewed and hired throughout that time. A good university increases your chances of getting an interview, but any experience that you have also needs to be interesting and challenging.

    The selection that universities perform is similar to that required for a job, so it's not surprising.

    However, I've hired and worked with people who didn't go to top universities, but were quite brilliant. That's why it's important to judge a CV as a whole. My interviews are in-depth, and the university that you attended makes no difference to what you get asked, or the required quality of the answers.
    And I don't disagree with anything you have said in this post, Sir. I agree with all of it. The fact of the matter is that the university where you study will not hinder you no matter which field you want to go in to (unless you studied at, say the uni of Abersytwyth and you wanted to get a graduate job at a top tier law firm or such, in which case you'd have little to no chance), However, my point is simply that the university which you study most definitely is a factor when applying for jobs or graduate opportunities. Nothing more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Possible Conclusion: There are not enough graduates in any given field for it to be significant a factor.
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    CV Helper
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    Possible Conclusion: There are not enough graduates in any given field for it to be significant a factor.
    Except there are demonstrably too many graduates in almost all sectors, which is why he competition for genuine graduate level jobs is so high and many graduates who can get employment are in non-graduate roles.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    I said that, yes, which states that if you have 2 identical candidates other than university, and university is a factor that is considered for a job application, then the person who went to the better university would be chosen.

    P1: The 2 candidates are identical other than the university they studied at
    P2: University is a factor that is considered during the application process
    C: The person who went to the more prestigious university would get the job.

    You've already agreed that university is a factor, so I fail to see how you can fault that argument?

    EDIT: There is also a second argument here, in that somebody who is educated at Cambridge is likely to have received a better education than the person at Lancaster (just using these 2 universities because they were suggested earlier). They also probably had more access to better techniques (for example in the medical and scientific field there a lot of pieces of equipment only available at certain universities) and as such would come out of their university experience a significantly more qualified individual. That way, when reading their CV or interviewing them, their university itself may not make the decision for you but the education they received shaped them and thus the university did have a massive effect on their ability to get a job.
    Actually no.

    But then unlike the OP who's clearly experienced in the world of work, you are talking out of your inexperience.

    TSR folks may be obsessed with RG unis but not every body in the world of work share the same distorted views.

    I can think of a lot of reasons why prestige of the uni wouldn't be the reason why a person gets hired - respect for colleagues, being a team player, having relevant skills and work experience for the job would be more important.

    Having an RG sized ego would be off putting to employers. It'd be like hiring Jose Mourino to work for you. Except he'll only work for himself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    Except there are demonstrably too many graduates in almost all sectors, which is why he competition for genuine graduate level jobs is so high and many graduates who can get employment are in non-graduate roles.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Competition for jobs can be based on other factors such as the number of applications sent per applicant (which is not necessarily strictly correlated to the number of graduates, 10 graduates could send 2 applcations, 3 graduates could send 3,000).
    Furthermore, graduates accepting a non-graduate role is in no way indicative of the number of graduates in any sector.
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    CV Helper
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    Competition for jobs can be based on other factors such as the number of applications sent per applicant (which is not necessarily strictly correlated to the number of graduates, 10 graduates could send 2 applcations, 3 graduates could send 3,000).
    Furthermore, graduates accepting a non-graduate role is in no way indicative of the number of graduates in any sector.
    Seriously? Have a think about the logic behind those statements

    You can find any single anomaly you like in the hiring process, but at it's heart it is a rational, economic, supply and demand process. The attempt to increase the number of degree holders to 50% of school leavers has simply meant a load of weaker degree courses and weaker graduates in the jobs market. There simply aren't as many genuine graduate jobs as there are graduates, therefore the competition has got significantly tougher. One of the things you can do to improve your chances in this competition (but guarantee nothing), is to get your degree in a subject and from a university that has the strongest possible track record and reputation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    Actually no.

    But then unlike the OP who's clearly experienced in the world of work, you are talking out of your inexperience.

    TSR folks may be obsessed with RG unis but not every body in the world of work share the same distorted views.

    I can think of a lot of reasons why prestige of the uni wouldn't be the reason why a person gets hired - respect for colleagues, being a team player, having relevant skills and work experience for the job would be more important.

    Having an RG sized ego would be off putting to employers. It'd be like hiring Jose Mourino to work for you. Except he'll only work for himself.
    And yet, despite your flawless logic, you've managed to miss the point entirely. And you only registered on TSR 3 days ago, great :rolleyes:.

    If you manage to actually read what I wrote instead of just blazing in here saying I'm some RG elitist, you'll see that my argument was that if 2 candidates are identical in all ways except for the university they graduated from, then the person from the most prestigious university will be the one who gets the job. This, as a hypothetical thought experiment, shows that university is indeed a factor in deciding who to hire for a certain position, no matter how small that factor is.

    Now, for the rest of your post, I completely agree. There are many far more important factors when hiring somebody than the university they went to. Just because somebody goes to Oxford doesn't necessarily make them more intelligent, nor more of a fit for the position being recruited. Having a degree at all isn't really relevant as long as you have the skills required (though of course the degree is necessary nowadays).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    Actually no.

    But then unlike the OP who's clearly experienced in the world of work, you are talking out of your inexperience.

    TSR folks may be obsessed with RG unis but not every body in the world of work share the same distorted views.

    I can think of a lot of reasons why prestige of the uni wouldn't be the reason why a person gets hired - respect for colleagues, being a team player, having relevant skills and work experience for the job would be more important.

    Having an RG sized ego would be off putting to employers. It'd be like hiring Jose Mourino to work for you. Except he'll only work for himself.
    Yeah, I spoke to a grad recruitment team a few weeks ago and they said something like 0.9% of the employers they recruit for ask for specific top-tier uni graduates.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    And yet, despite your flawless logic, you've managed to miss the point entirely. And you only registered on TSR 3 days ago, great :rolleyes:.
    Thanks for the condescension. I've read your posts on this topic, and fully expected you to as snotty to me as the previous posters. Joining TSR 3 days ago does not disqualify anyone from having a view. Or do posters now require to have attended grammar school and an RG uni b4 they're worthy to post?

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    If you manage to actually read what I wrote instead of just blazing in here saying I'm some RG elitist, you'll see that my argument was that if 2 candidates are identical in all ways except for the university they graduated from, then the person from the most prestigious university will be the one who gets the job. This, as a hypothetical thought experiment, shows that university is indeed a factor in deciding who to hire for a certain position, no matter how small that factor is.
    Other posters are not talking hypothetically. In real life you won't get 2 people exactly the same, or jobs exactly the same, as others has pointed out. You chose to ignore the quite sensible points raised (esp jneil's posts) to insist on your superior wisdom. Your responses to the other folks leads me (and others) to think you are a RG elitist.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Now, for the rest of your post, I completely agree. There are many far more important factors when hiring somebody than the university they went to. Just because somebody goes to Oxford doesn't necessarily make them more intelligent, nor more of a fit for the position being recruited. Having a degree at all isn't really relevant as long as you have the skills required (though of course the degree is necessary nowadays).
    On this I agree with you. A mate of mine failed his degree but still got a job as a stockbroker for a top US company (when normally only Ivy League types get a look in).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    Except there are demonstrably too many graduates in almost all sectors, which is why he competition for genuine graduate level jobs is so high and many graduates who can get employment are in non-graduate roles.
    Not in IT or other STEM areas. There's an shortage so bad they're hiring from EU and as far afield as India.

    If Brexit happens and hiring abroad is banned, the companies will just relocate out of UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on the industry, but generally speaking, no.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hamo2509)
    Yeah, I spoke to a grad recruitment team a few weeks ago and they said something like 0.9% of the employers they recruit for ask for specific top-tier uni graduates.
    Yup. This is true even in highly specialized areas where they hire only graduates. The content of the degree, the candidate's work experience, and personality is more important. Sometimes even the degree or its classification doesn't matter. E.g the guy (in my post before this one) who got a Ivy League grad job, despite failing his (RG degree) and dropping out of uni.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    Yup. This is true even in highly specialized areas where they hire only graduates. The content of the degree, the candidate's work experience, and personality is more important. Sometimes even the degree or its classification doesn't matter. E.g the guy (in my post before this one) who got a Ivy League grad job, despite failing his (RG degree) and dropping out of uni.
    Stockbroking is not an ivy league job btw, in fact it's as far from one as you can get.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Stockbroking is not an ivy league job btw, in fact it's as far from one as you can get.
    I take it you work in the area to know this, then? (i'm really curious)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    Thanks for the condescension. I've read your posts on this topic, and fully expected you to as snotty to me as the previous posters. Joining TSR 3 days ago does not disqualify anyone from having a view. Or do posters now require to have attended grammar school and an RG uni b4 they're worthy to post?



    Other posters are not talking hypothetically. In real life you won't get 2 people exactly the same, or jobs exactly the same, as others has pointed out. You chose to ignore the quite sensible points raised (esp jneil's posts) to insist on your superior wisdom. Your responses to the other folks leads me (and others) to think you are a RG elitist.



    On this I agree with you. A mate of mine failed his degree but still got a job as a stockbroker for a top US company (when normally only Ivy League types get a look in).
    The condescension is in direct reply to yours, if you don't want to be treated as such then do not treat others similarly. Also, sarcasm =/= snottiness, just FYI. The fact that you joined 3 days ago doesn't disparage your argument at all, but you have to realise that most of the people on TSR (or so it seems, anyways) make multiple accounts so you having registered 3 days ago (around the time the thread was made) makes it initially suspicious, nothing more.

    I understand that other posters are not talking about hypotheticals, but that is beside the point. Jneil completely ignored the argument that university does have at least some weighing when considering who to hire (and ignored most of the points I raised in favour of his "I have hired people before so I must be right" approach) and so I was using a hypothetical scenario to prove my point. The scenario I showed proves that the university be at least a small factor when hiring a new person (unless you can fault the logic, in which case I will withdraw my argument, but everyone else so far has ignored it).

    I also did not at all ignore Jneil's points, I addressed them all. The fact is that they had nothing to do with the argument I was proposing. We do all actually agree in our opinions - that university is a factor but unless you are applying for extremely competitive positions then there are much more important factors involved. I've said this is every post I've posted in this thread. For some reason, nobody seems capable of admitting that we all actually agree.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    The condescension is in direct reply to yours, if you don't want to be treated as such then do not treat others similarly. Also, sarcasm =/= snottiness, just FYI. The fact that you joined 3 days ago doesn't disparage your argument at all, but you have to realise that most of the people on TSR (or so it seems, anyways) make multiple accounts so you having registered 3 days ago (around the time the thread was made) makes it initially suspicious, nothing more.
    I think that applies more to you than me. You've treated the other posters in this manner. Why would I expect different when I join in the discussion?

    I'm not sure how someone who joined 3 days ago = someone opening multiple accounts. It indicates to me that you jump to conclusions without considering all the facts, even when other posters repeatedly point it out to you.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    I understand that other posters are not talking about hypotheticals, but that is beside the point.
    It is not beside the point. Hypotheticals are not reality.

    I can come up with a hypothetical problem and create a mathematical model to solve it. But the mathematical model won't exactly fit reality, because real life is much more complex. It would be supreme arrogance on my part if I insisted the model fit even when reality tells me different. It would be like me deciding someone is guilty based on my mathematical model while ignoring the actual evidence that proves he's innocent.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Jneil completely ignored the argument that university does have at least some weighing when considering who to hire (and ignored most of the points I raised in favour of his "I have hired people before so I must be right" approach) and so I was using a hypothetical scenario to prove my point. The scenario I showed proves that the university be at least a small factor when hiring a new person (unless you can fault the logic, in which case I will withdraw my argument, but everyone else so far has ignored it).
    Jneill has hired people. Therefore he has a greater understanding of the reality of the job market. Your hypothetical scenario can't prove that something happening in real life is wrong. You'd need a counter argument based on the reality of the job market.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    I also did not at all ignore Jneil's points, I addressed them all. The fact is that they had nothing to do with the argument I was proposing. We do all actually agree in our opinions - that university is a factor but unless you are applying for extremely competitive positions then there are much more important factors involved. I've said this is every post I've posted in this thread. For some reason, nobody seems capable of admitting that we all actually agree.
    But don't think you addressed it, more ignored it. You can't get agreement by rubbishing other people's views, and by extension, the people themselves.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    I think that applies more to you than me. You've treated the other posters in this manner. Why would I expect different when I join in the discussion?

    I'm not sure how someone who joined 3 days ago = someone opening multiple accounts. It indicates to me that you jump to conclusions without considering all the facts, even when other posters repeatedly point it out to you.



    It is not beside the point. Hypotheticals are not reality.

    I can come up with a hypothetical problem and create a mathematical model to solve it. But the mathematical model won't exactly fit reality, because real life is much more complex. It would be supreme arrogance on my part if I insisted the model fit even when reality tells me different. It would be like me deciding someone is guilty based on my mathematical model while ignoring the actual evidence that proves he's innocent.



    Jneill has hired people. Therefore he has a greater understanding of the reality of the job market. Your hypothetical scenario can't prove that something happening in real life is wrong. You'd need a counter argument based on the reality of the job market.



    But don't think you addressed it, more ignored it. You can't get agreement by rubbishing other people's views, and by extension, the people themselves.
    Exactly how have I treated anyone in a condescending manner? All I've done is explain my views and that's that. Also, I didn't say you were a multiple account, but many people do create dupes to troll or agree with themselves - pointing this out doesn't mean I leap to conclusions, I'm just considering all of the information available.

    Whether or not you can mathematically model an issue is irrelevant. The hypothetical here is to prove one aspect of the model, not the model itself, which is easily feasible in any real world environment. It's when you try to model many factors that it becomes unreasonable. My logical argument simply proved that university is a factor. No more, no less. You yourself have agreed that it is a factor, as has Jneil, so why are you both arguing with me? I never said it was the most important factor (and have actively said otherwise) but simply that it is a factor. Also the second half of your paragraph is fairly irrelevant because I've still yet to be shown evidence (logical or empirical) that the logic doesn't fit in with the real world.

    Jneil may well have hired people, but as I said, unless he works in a very competitive field then he cannot simply say that it is never a factor and when I stated this he declined to comment, so there is no real evidence there (and anecdotal evidence isn't really sufficient anyway).

    I never rubbished anybody's views. I have responded to them and critiqued the arguments they have put forward for them, as anybody in a debate does. I never flat out said "your views are rubbish and so are you", because I'm not a ****, despite what you and others on this topic might think.
    Offline

    17
    Out of curiosity, what are the views of those reading this of the value or prestige of receiving a First or a strong 2:1 undergraduate degree from The University of Manchester or Nottingham, or Durham or UCL? I would personally say of those four choices Nottingham is overall the least reputable one, by a fraction under Manchester. Obviously Nottingham is a great university. Would getting a strong degree from Manchester or Nottingham be incomparable to the (yes, fairly incorrect) Lancaster or Cambridge Bachelor's > Cambridge Master's analogy made by someone earlier? I mean to say is a great grade from a university like Manchester or Nottingham pretty prestigious, and would possibly put you in a good place for postgraduate study at Oxbridge?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    I take it you work in the area to know this, then? (i'm really curious)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Exactly how have I treated anyone in a condescending manner? All I've done is explain my views and that's that.
    I think you need to reread the posts replying to your posts. The reactions of the posters and your posts to them leads me to draw the same conclusion.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Also, I didn't say you were a multiple account, but many people do create dupes to troll or agree with themselves - pointing this out doesn't mean I leap to conclusions, I'm just considering all of the information available.
    I'm afraid you haven't done that (considering all the information). You've picked up the negs -- that is jumping to conclusions.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Whether or not you can mathematically model an issue is irrelevant. The hypothetical here is to prove one aspect of the model, not the model itself, which is easily feasible in any real world environment. It's when you try to model many factors that it becomes unreasonable.
    It is not irrelevant. The model must fit the reality. Hypothetical situations does not prove anything by itself. It has to be tested first. You merely asserted an opinion as fact. You've given no supporting evidence from real life (e.g. how hiring is actually done), and you expect your opinion to be considered over another poster who works in recruiting staff?

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    My logical argument simply proved that university is a factor. No more, no less. You yourself have agreed that it is a factor, as has Jneil, so why are you both arguing with me? I never said it was the most important factor (and have actively said otherwise) but simply that it is a factor. Also the second half of your paragraph is fairly irrelevant because I've still yet to be shown evidence (logical or empirical) that the logic doesn't fit in with the real world
    Your argument is not logical, it is an opinion. I have agreed it is a factor based on what I know happens in real life, but you haven't proved it. Calling something logical does not make it logical.

    If you make an assertion, it is up to you to prove it is correct. In my world (science) this is called 'peer review'.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    Jneil may well have hired people, but as I said, unless he works in a very competitive field then he cannot simply say that it is never a factor and when I stated this he declined to comment, so there is no real evidence there (and anecdotal evidence isn't really sufficient anyway).
    Jneil has hired people. Therefore he knows more than you about hiring people. He declined to comment because you clearly don't get it, so the busy man isn't going waste his time. After all, he's got a lot of hiring to do.

    (Original post by tomtjl)
    I never rubbished anybody's views. I have responded to them and critiqued the arguments they have put forward for them, as anybody in a debate does. I never flat out said "your views are rubbish and so are you", because I'm not a ****, despite what you and others on this topic might think.
    You've rubbished people's views repeatedly. The reactions of the other posters makes this clear. You have not looked any of the arguments presented at all. There's no counter arguments with any evidence, examples, situations in any of your posts.

    I've noticed you used words like logical, empirical, critique..but your posts show that you don't know what they mean.

    Have you ever written a dissertation or thesis?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,256

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  2. University of Bolton
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  3. Bishop Grosseteste University
    All Courses Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.