Ridiculous university choices Watch

This discussion is closed.
T. Hereford
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#101
Report 10 years ago
#101
(Original post by flugestuge)
Not much difference between those universities.
It is not like choosing London Met instead of Oxford.
Now THAT would be rather foolish

What do u mean there's not much difference between them?:confused: There's a huge difference between East Anglia and Portsmouth and there's a huge difference between Kingston and Bristol. :confused:
0
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#102
Report 10 years ago
#102
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
ranking for subjects is almost utterly irrelevent
ranking of the uni is, largely, irrelevent. the 6th uni wont be looked apon much differently from the 9th.

BANDING on the other hand, is extremely important. If your university is top band, it makes a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of difference when trying to find a competative job, and you can use ranks to guess at band.

LSE and Durham are both top flight top band unis, so tbh it makes little difference.

If youd dropped one or other to go to sussex, then you would have a legitimate argument.
Ranking of subjects are valued by employers. For example, Nottingham University is not targeted by Investment banks on the whole, but the economics department is as it has quality students (highest tariff entry of any subject at the university after Medicine/Vet Med, and the tariff is comparable to several other top instituions), and thus it is sponsored by a few of the top financial companies.
0
flugestuge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 10 years ago
#103
(Original post by T. Hereford)
What do u mean there's not much difference between them?:confused: There's a huge difference between East Anglia and Portsmouth and there's a huge difference between Kingston and Bristol. :confused:
They are all equally semi-obscure third tier universities.
On the other hand, the difference between Oxford (famous first tier university ) and London Met ( a notorious sixth tier university ) is VAST.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#104
Report 10 years ago
#104
Has this snobbery not stopped yet?
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#105
Report 10 years ago
#105
(Original post by flugestuge)
They are all equally semi-obscure third tier universities.
On the other hand, the difference between Oxford (famous first tier university ) and London Met ( a notorious sixth tier university ) is VAST.
Where did you get the tier-system from? This isn't America.
0
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#106
Report 10 years ago
#106
(Original post by jismith1989)
Has this snobbery not stopped yet?
Its not snobbery, I live and work in London as do the vast majority of my peers, in a wide cross section of financial services-based careers.

I do despair that on TSR realism is branded snobbery, and I'd love to be able to respond with "ha well you are in for a shock when you try to get a job" but of course the people braying the loudest are all from decent highest tier universities where holding such a perverse opinion can cost them nothing.
0
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#107
Report 10 years ago
#107
(Original post by jismith1989)
Where did you get the tier-system from? This isn't America.
Common sense and experience

Jj, rather than argue with us, why not just pick a high-end career, phone the HR department in a london firm in the top 10 for it, and ask them what selection criteria they apply to applicants and whether university is important.

Im telling you right now, that for a lot of jobs, they will simply NOT BOTHER to read applications from people who went to a university below a certain cut-off point (usually first or second tier, sometimes third)
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#108
Report 10 years ago
#108
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Its not snobbery, I live and work in London as do the vast majority of my peers, in a wide cross section of financial services-based careers.

I do despair that on TSR realism is branded snobbery, and I'd love to be able to respond with "ha well you are in for a shock when you try to get a job" but of course the people braying the loudest are all from decent highest tier universities where holding such a perverse opinion can cost them nothing.
What does where you live or work have to do with anything?

Getting a first from anywhere is a very good thing -- and therefore we can't judge people who may very well do this, just because they went to a university which is ranked 40th or 50th in league tables, for example.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#109
Report 10 years ago
#109
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Common sense and experience

Jj, rather than argue with us, why not just pick a high-end career, phone the HR department in a london firm in the top 10 for it, and ask them what selection criteria they apply to applicants and whether university is important.

Im telling you right now, that for a lot of jobs, they will simply NOT BOTHER to read applications from people who went to a university below a certain cut-off point (usually first or second tier, sometimes third)
You are assuming now that everyone wants a 'high end' career. Many people, as you would define it, simply do not. I would hate to be an investment banker. However, my personal career goal is quite ambitious: I would like to become either a human rights barrister or a Classics tutor. Many people are happy doing 'lesser' jobs though, and why should we mock them for having such independent aims? Money isn't everything, and nor therefore is university.
0
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#110
Report 10 years ago
#110
(Original post by jismith1989)
What does where you live or work have to do with anything?

Getting a first from anywhere is a very good thing -- and therefore we can't judge people who may very well do this, just because they went to a university which is ranked 40th or 50th in league tables, for example.

Whatever. HR departments + Recruitment Consultants in London see it differently. I'm done trying to explain this to people on TSR, they'll see for themselves if they ever end up here, which of course anyone who listens to the advice when picking a uni, wont.
0
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#111
Report 10 years ago
#111
(Original post by jismith1989)
You are assuming now that everyone wants a 'high end' career. Many people, as you would define it, simply do not. I would hate to be an investment banker. However, my personal career goal is quite ambitious: I would like to become either a human rights barrister or a Classics tutor. Many people are happy doing 'lesser' jobs though, and why should we mock them for having such independent aims? Money isn't everything, and nor is university.

Why would anyone ask for career advice when picking a uni unless they want to do something mildly competative.

This does NOT simply apply to investment bankers, it applies to more or less any decently paid (25k+ starting) white collar job that I've come across.

Also you would have pretty much 0 chance of becoming a HR barrister with a degree from anywhere outside the top tier of universities, which luckily you appear to have.

This advice given on TSR on this subject is so often deeply flawed and unhelpful. Most people are at least a little ambitious. If they want a job where their university is not important as a selection criteria, one must question why they went to uni in the first place, is the fun/experience really worth the debt if the qualification means little to your career?


Face it. Most people who post on here want to do something which is reasonably competative. The very USE of this forum generally implies aspiration.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#112
Report 10 years ago
#112
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Why would anyone ask for career advice when picking a uni unless they want to do something mildly competative.

This does NOT simply apply to investment bankers, it applies to more or less any decently paid (25k+ starting) white collar job that I've come across.

Also you would have pretty much 0 chance of becoming a HR barrister with a degree from anywhere outside the top tier of universities, which luckily you appear to have.

This advice given on TSR on this subject is so often deeply flawed and unhelpful. Most people are at least a little ambitious. If they want a job where their university is not important as a selection criteria, one must question why they went to uni in the first place, is the fun/experience really worth the debt if the qualification means little to your career?


Face it. Most people who post on here want to do something which is reasonably competative. The very USE of this forum generally implies aspiration.
I am aware that for some jobs, certain universities are given precedence.

However, in this thread, no-one has asked for career advice! It is simply a thread made to laugh at people who have chosen, perhaps for good reasons, to go to supposedly lesser universities. For example, someone may choose to go to Lancaster to study English (with offers at 'better' universities) as they feel that they will enjoy the course modules on offer there and 'only' want to become a librarian thereafter -- what's wrong with that?
0
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#113
Report 10 years ago
#113
You are correct, in the extremely limited set of possible circumstances, your advice would not be misleading.


However I am talking about TSR as a whole, not just this thread; when people ask if which university they choose will affect their career prospects, the correct answer is;

For the vast majority of competative careers, the tier of university you go to will be extremely (vitally) important as a first-stage selection criteria. Once you get to interview, it becomes less important. If you want to do something uncompetative, it will rarely matter.

Rather than currently where people will blanketly say stuff like;

"obviously oxford looks better than lancaster, but apart from that it doesnt really matter, go where you think youll have most fun", which, though nice to believe, is simply wrong and could screw over a lot of people.
0
Ekpyrotic
Badges: 13
#114
Report 10 years ago
#114
(Original post by flugestuge)
They are all equally semi-obscure third tier universities.
Bristol is not a semi-obscure third tier inversity.
flugestuge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 10 years ago
#115
(Original post by Ekpyrotic)
Bristol is not a semi-obscure third tier inversity.
Nobody outside the UK has heard of Bristol University.
It is as obscure as Tokei University.
0
hobnob
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#116
Report 10 years ago
#116
(Original post by flugestuge)
Nobody outside the UK has heard of Bristol University.
It is as obscure as Tokei University.
Few people outside the UK have heard of the LSE (unless they happen to be interested in economics-y subjects, obviously). Does that make it an obscure and/or bad university?
0
flugestuge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 10 years ago
#117
(Original post by hobnob)
Few people outside the UK have heard of the LSE (unless they happen to be interested in economics-y subjects, obviously). Does that make it an obscure and/or bad university?
Most non-UK academics have heard of LSE. Most non-UK academics have not heard of Bristol University. Virtually every issue of the major international economics journals have an article by a faculty member or an ex-alumnus of LSE. As for Bristol.... perhaps they publish in the bristle magazines ?
0
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#118
Report 10 years ago
#118
Could you care to tier the universities then?
0
hobnob
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#119
Report 10 years ago
#119
(Original post by flugestuge)
Most non-UK academics have heard of LSE. Most non-UK academics have not heard of Bristol University. Virtually every issue of the major international economics journals have an article by a faculty member or an ex-alumnus of LSE. As for Bristol.... perhaps they publish in the bristle magazines ?
I did say non-economists.:rolleyes:
Anyway, sorry, I didn't realise you were actually talking about foreign academics (as opposed to random foreigners on the street). In that case, though, I'd argue that most of them will at least have heard of Bristol. They may not know very much about the university or think of it as particularly "prestigious" or otherwise, but they will be familiar with the name at least and they'll have some idea of which (if any) leading academics for their particular subjects are currently teaching there.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#120
Report 10 years ago
#120
(Original post by flugestuge)
Most non-UK academics have heard of LSE. Most non-UK academics have not heard of Bristol University. Virtually every issue of the major international economics journals have an article by a faculty member or an ex-alumnus of LSE. As for Bristol.... perhaps they publish in the bristle magazines ?
Bristol is a leading university. And, at least for Classics, it publishes important research frequently.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (125)
39.06%
No - but I will (17)
5.31%
No - I don't want to (20)
6.25%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (158)
49.38%

Watched Threads

View All