Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I think there are several reasons.

    Firstly, St Andrews can be quite a trek to get to if you're not based around the area, and lots of the employers in the aforementioned aren't. Secondly, it has a fairly limited subject choice, especially in more vocational areas. And lastly, it has a small number of students.

    If you're one of the "top 100", i.e. you're a well known brand name seeking to recruit large numbers of graduates, going to St Andrews doesn't give you as much bang for your buck as many of the large city universities, because it's difficult getting there, and when you arrive you'll only be able to reach out to a relatively small amount of students. I believe that Strathclyde has the biggest careers fair in Scotland, and as a university it is quite the opposite of St Andrews (large, in a city and with lots of students studying subjects favoured by employers).

    Thus, I don't really think that the ranking of "targets" with the "top 100" graduate employers correlates much with employer reputation, if such a thing could ever be derived.
    I think it is an important performance indicator for a university nevertheless. Both Nottingham and Manchester take these kinds of league tables very seriously, and their Vice Chancellors discuss them passionately. About 60% of the students at St Andrews are from a state school background, and the majority of these will need a well paid job as soon as they graduate. Even when you take all the excuses into account, one would expect St Andrews to be ranked a bit higher than it is, top 20 as with Durham and Exeter at least.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    I think it is an important performance indicator for a university nevertheless. Both Nottingham and Manchester take these kinds of league tables very seriously, and their Vice Chancellors discuss them passionately. About 60% of the students at St Andrews are from a state school background, and the majority of these will need a well paid job as soon as they graduate.
    Well obviously both Nottingham and Manchester take seriously the league tables which happen to put them at the top :rofl:

    They aren't 'important performance indicators' at all, quite simply for the reasons Smack pointed out - it has little to do with the performance of universities.

    I don't know whether you're actually a Nottingham-grad, or whether you're actually here solely to promote for the university with any nonsense argument - either way, what you're currently doing doesn't put Nottingham in a good light at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Well obviously both Nottingham and Manchester take seriously the league tables which happen to put them at the top :rofl:

    They aren't 'important performance indicators' at all, quite simply for the reasons Smack pointed out - it has little to do with the performance of universities.

    I don't know whether you're actually a Nottingham-grad, or whether you're actually here solely to promote for the university with any nonsense argument - either way, what you're currently doing doesn't put Nottingham in a good light at all.
    Stating the facts and the truth is all that matters.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    Stating the facts and the truth is all that matters.
    The fact is that on that table Nottingham and Manchester are at the top. The truth of the matter actually is that table isn't a league table and is largely based on laughable factors such as the size of the pool of current students, and how "off the beaten track" the university is location wise. Just because a report was published with a ranking of universities based on how many employers they attract at career fairs, it doesn't automatically mean it should be used as a league table of how good universities are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    The fact is that on that table Nottingham and Manchester are at the top. The truth of the matter actually is that table isn't a league table and is largely based on laughable factors such as the size of the pool of current students, and how "off the beaten track" the university is location wise. Just because a report was published with a ranking of universities based on how many employers they attract at career fairs, it doesn't automatically mean it should be used as a league table of how good universities are.
    I believe I used the QS World Rankings to gain some insight into how Nottingham was performing, not the top 100 graduate employer league table. Likewise, Nottingham uses the QS World Rankings as one of their preferred performance indicators. The Vice Chancellor even stated in his 2010-2015 strategic plan that he wanted the university to be UK top 10 and World top 50 by the end of 2015, and they are not too far from that goal (currently 14th and 75th respectively).

    I think the point has now been made a dozen times that Nottingham is a top 11-15 university in the UK and World top 75 as things stand, and that in the near future it could break into the UK top 10 again, back where it belongs. So it will now be laid to rest.

    The thread topic was about which universities have the poshest students. That has to be Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol, as they draw in the most students from the top 10% of private schools and colleges. LSE, UCL and Imperial must also be there or there abouts. The likes of Nottingham, KCL, Exeter, Edinburgh Manchester, Leeds etc pick up a fair amount of the next tier of private school kids in droves.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Not at all, it is a indicator of size and nothing else, large ( including down market ) employers will seek large universities.

    Called economies of scale.

    This does not correlate with quality.

    face it - you are clutching at straws



    (Original post by Mansun)
    I think it is an important performance indicator for a university nevertheless. Both Nottingham and Manchester take these kinds of league tables very seriously, and their Vice Chancellors discuss them passionately. About 60% of the students at St Andrews are from a state school background, and the majority of these will need a well paid job as soon as they graduate. Even when you take all the excuses into account, one would expect St Andrews to be ranked a bit higher than it is, top 20 as with Durham and Exeter at least.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nonsense.

    You started with the 100list and I debunked that as a feeder process for the Iceland's of this world. You lost that one.

    Now you are trying to switch to the QS which has zero to do with poshness as well.

    Even if you are talking quality then explain how this incredible university is not even in the top 20 in any UK table and something like 153 in the THES ( a table of real repute )



    (Original post by Mansun)
    I believe I used the QS World Rankings to gain some insight into how Nottingham was performing, not the top 100 graduate employer league table. Likewise, Nottingham uses the QS World Rankings as one of their preferred performance indicators. The Vice Chancellor even stated in his 2010-2015 strategic plan that he wanted the university to be UK top 10 and World top 50 by the end of 2015, and they are not too far from that goal (currently 14th and 75th respectively).

    I think the point has now been made a dozen times that Nottingham is a top 11-15 university in the UK and World top 75 as things stand, and that in the near future it could break into the UK top 10 again, back where it belongs. So it will now be laid to rest.

    The thread topic was about which universities have the poshest students. That has to be Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol, as they draw in the most students from the top 10% of private schools and colleges. LSE, UCL and Imperial must also be there or there abouts. The likes of Nottingham, KCL, Exeter, Edinburgh Manchester, Leeds etc pick up a fair amount of the next tier of private school kids in droves.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is a " target " for quantity; which university has the most students to feed the Icelands of the world.

    it's a list of companies with the most vacancies not the best companies or the best vacancies.

    Nothing to do with quality, in fact a reverse correlation could be inferred, that's why LSE, Durham and St Andrews are outside this particular top 10.

    These are smaller sized universities which corroborates my point



    (Original post by Mansun)
    St Andrews is ranked outside the top 25 for being a target university with the top 100 graduate recruiters, which you can see in my earlier post. But there may be some reasons to this lack of presence in the top 25, in that many of the students who go to St Andrews are from very rich families, and have attended Eton or Harrow previously. They will take their time on the aftermath of university life. Not everyone has that luxury.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are students at Royal Holloway posh? The place looks like a dream palace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I think there are several reasons.

    Firstly, St Andrews can be quite a trek to get to if you're not based around the area, and lots of the employers in the aforementioned aren't. Secondly, it has a fairly limited subject choice, especially in more vocational areas. And lastly, it has a small number of students.

    If you're one of the "top 100", i.e. you're a well known brand name seeking to recruit large numbers of graduates, going to St Andrews doesn't give you as much bang for your buck as many of the large city universities, because it's difficult getting there, and when you arrive you'll only be able to reach out to a relatively small amount of students. I believe that Strathclyde has the biggest careers fair in Scotland, and as a university it is quite the opposite of St Andrews (large, in a city and with lots of students studying subjects favoured by employers).

    Thus, I don't really think that the ranking of "targets" with the "top 100" graduate employers correlates much with employer reputation, if such a thing could ever be derived.
    Agreed. It's not just that employers can't be bothered travelling to some universities, it's also that students in the south, particularly those in London, have very easy access to lots of employers. They can attend interviews relatively easily and are ideally placed to gain work experience or take up internships. All of which makes them more employable without the university having to do much at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    I think it is an important performance indicator for a university nevertheless. Both Nottingham and Manchester take these kinds of league tables very seriously, and their Vice Chancellors discuss them passionately. About 60% of the students at St Andrews are from a state school background, and the majority of these will need a well paid job as soon as they graduate. Even when you take all the excuses into account, one would expect St Andrews to be ranked a bit higher than it is, top 20 as with Durham and Exeter at least.
    You really take league tables way too seriously. You've clearly spent a great deal of time analysing them and finding statistics to support your (somewhat biased) argument.

    Of course every university who does well in league tables likes to use this to promote their university. Not hard it work out why. Other universities (Imperial for example) spend huge amounts of money and effort to keep themselves high in the tables, especially those considered by international students.

    League tables are unreliable as a way of assessing the quality of a university for undergrads. They do not reflect the quality of experience you will have and are not even necessarily a good indicator of how employable you will be. The "student satisfaction" statistic might be considered useful but this is the most manipulated statistic of all. Many universities work hard to ensure their students tick the right box. This ranges from psychological (telling people constantly for three years how great the university is, how lucky they are to be there etc. - trust me, ask the psychologists, it works) to blackmail "Tick the right box. Get your university a good rating so it's high in the league tables. If we drop down the table, your degree will be worth less." Manchester are particularly good at this one.

    All in all league tables should be used as a guide but not in isolation. You need to like your department. You should like the options offered and the structure of your course. You should like the city you are choosing to spend your time (and money) in for 3 years.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    I think it is an important performance indicator for a university nevertheless.
    I don't. Important performance indicators of a university would be, but not limited to, teaching scores, research performance, student satisfaction, facilities spending, etc., none of which employers particularly care about. As I said, when choosing which campuses to visit, most employers are mainly concerned with going somewhere that's at least half decent and isn't a hassle to get to, where they can reach out to a large amount of students preferably with the relevant skills they're looking for.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I assume you are talking about generic employers and not banks and accountants ?


    (Original post by Smack)
    I don't. Important performance indicators of a university would be, but not limited to, teaching scores, research performance, student satisfaction, facilities spending, etc., none of which employers particularly care about. As I said, when choosing which campuses to visit, most employers are mainly concerned with going somewhere that's at least half decent and isn't a hassle to get to, where they can reach out to a large amount of students preferably with the relevant skills they're looking for.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrkl)
    I assume you are talking about generic employers and not banks and accountants ?
    What's a "generic" employer?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Just your general large company: retail , food , construction, retail banking, sales, consumer goods etc.

    Yo know all the big high st. names


    (Original post by Smack)
    What's a "generic" employer?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I have closed this thread as it is now just insults and rants. It is no longer constructive.

    On review, I don't think this thread is salvageable. If you have any further questions please go to Ask A Moderator.

    Neostigmine
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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