Turn on thread page Beta

The Official top 20 Most targeted universities for 2010 reccruitment watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Shouldn't this take account of uni size as if you have to target Manchester you're approaching twice as many students as say cambridge or oxford and if its the UoLondon its almost 10 times as many! So of course you're going to spend more time there as there are more potential candidates so you need to hold more events to get your message across. Which makes it not surprising places like St Andrews don't feature (quite apart from it being in the middle of nowhere :p: )
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Is there any link between the graduate prospects in the leagues table and this? Because Manchester is pretty low but it's the most targeted uni..
    I'm screwed if I want to go to Exeter then..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Ah on review of the specific article it makes more sense now, it's not in proportion to university size, hence there's an inherent bias to larger universities (Manchester, Leeds), while smaller universities (Durham, York) ultimately end up ranked lower, because they don't have the same amount or range of graduates to offer.

    Where did you find out the government mandates this?

    There are other ways of 'targeting' universities, namely when you're not going to them, on-campus promotion is just one of many.
    So you don't consider LSE or Bath small then or specific in their focus? York is famous for having bad grad prospects (as is St Andrew's) and Durham ranked 7th the previous year so hardly out of sorts for Durham. Manchester is famously liked by employers, it may seem strange but it is and it has topped this survey for the last 3 years. It is a very goos university afterall.

    People say why clump London together - well they are all much of a much ness and used to be one university (UoL) and as for Kings, why would they bother going there when they could go to UCL which teaches the same courses and has a better calibre of student. There would be no point spending money going to both.

    The government sanctions high flers to do alot of their research on graduate employment becuase they are the leaders in the field.


    If you actually read the article you will find that on campus recruitment is the 'main' choice for recruiters. Yes there are others but that is the method companies find the most useful and use the most. You will find that this is how many find their jobs because of its ability to network.

    I dont get what you are arguing (and others). The table is not mine and it doesn't proclaim to anything it's not. It is simply the largest 100 grad recruiting companies and where they are 'targeting' this year. You can make of it what you will - if you think it is a bad measure then fine. I just think it is interesting and im sure many others do to
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Lol at leeds being ahead of Durham
    Not really that funny or surprising. Durham homes a lot (not all) of those Oxbridge rejects that are very academically sound but are lacking a huge amount of common sense and social skills.

    Students at Redbricks such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham have students that have the capacity for both academic excellence and common sense, that employers are enthusiastic to find.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidcy147)
    Not really that funny or surprising. Durham homes a lot (not all) of those Oxbridge rejects that are very academically sound but are lacking a huge amount of common sense and social skills.

    Students at Redbricks such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham have students that have the capacity for both academic excellence and common sense, that employers are enthusiastic to find.
    Common sense is not always useful. I would perhaps agree but frame it more as a disparity in social skills rather than a 'common sense' one although I suppose you could say they overlap.

    This very much depends on ones definition of excellence but fair enough =]

    Edit: I see you are at leeds - aside from the obvious bias, you are better placed to comment on the academic ability of your peers than I =]
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AfghanistanBananistan)
    So you don't consider LSE or Bath small then or specific in their focus? York is famous for having bad grad prospects (as is St Andrew's) and Durham ranked 7th the previous year so hardly out of sorts for Durham. Manchester is famously liked by employers, it may seem strange but it is and it has topped this survey for the last 3 years. It is a very goos university afterall.

    People say why clump London together - well they are all much of a much ness and used to be one university (UoL) and as for Kings, why would they bother going there when they could go to UCL which teaches the same courses and has a better calibre of student. There would be no point spending money going to both.


    The government sanctions high flers to do alot of their research on graduate employment becuase they are the leaders in the field.


    If you actually read the article you will find that on campus recruitment is the 'main' choice for recruiters. Yes there are others but that is the method companies find the most useful and use the most. You will find that this is how many find their jobs because of its ability to network.

    I dont get what you are arguing (and others). The table is not mine and it doesn't proclaim to anything it's not. It is simply the largest 100 grad recruiting companies and where they are 'targeting' this year. You can make of it what you will - if you think it is a bad measure then fine. I just think it is interesting and im sure many others do to
    Off the top of my head the BBC, The Civil Service, defence firms and investment bankers have all targeted QMUL and held events on our campus in this academic year. If they're targetting QMUL, I'm pretty damn sure they're targetting KCL aswell. The University of London isn't just UCL/LSE and then the dregs...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibs137)
    thats my mum you know!! :mad:
    :no:

    we never met... :creep:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AfghanistanBananistan)
    So you don't consider LSE or Bath small then or specific in their focus? York is famous for having bad grad prospects (as is St Andrew's) and Durham ranked 7th the previous year so hardly out of sorts for Durham. Manchester is famously liked by employers, it may seem strange but it is and it has topped this survey for the last 3 years. It is a very goos university afterall.

    People say why clump London together - well they are all much of a much ness and used to be one university (UoL) and as for Kings, why would they bother going there when they could go to UCL which teaches the same courses and has a better calibre of student. There would be no point spending money going to both.

    The government sanctions high flers to do alot of their research on graduate employment becuase they are the leaders in the field.


    If you actually read the article you will find that on campus recruitment is the 'main' choice for recruiters. Yes there are others but that is the method companies find the most useful and use the most. You will find that this is how many find their jobs because of its ability to network.

    I dont get what you are arguing (and others). The table is not mine and it doesn't proclaim to anything it's not. It is simply the largest 100 grad recruiting companies and where they are 'targeting' this year. You can make of it what you will - if you think it is a bad measure then fine. I just think it is interesting and im sure many others do to
    I'm not arguing, i'm pointing out a flaw in its methodology, presenting anomalies hardly removes the fact size is certainly a determinant of how many recruiters a university attracts. I think anyone would recognise the Oxbridge tag is more impressive than attendance of Manchester, which size accounts for to some degree (of course being a good university as well).

    York & St.Andrews famous for bad grad prospects? Where did you even get that from?

    (Original post by davidcy147)
    Not really that funny or surprising. Durham homes a lot (not all) of those Oxbridge rejects that are very academically sound but are lacking a huge amount of common sense and social skills.

    Students at Redbricks such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham have students that have the capacity for both academic excellence and common sense, that employers are enthusiastic to find.
    Rubbish, social skills to a degree maybe, common sense, no.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    All my 5 choices are there, so yeah, that's good.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Common sense is not always useful. I would perhaps agree but frame it more as a disparity in social skills rather than a 'common sense' one although I suppose you could say they overlap.

    This very much depends on ones definition of excellence but fair enough =]
    I'd argue that common sense is more useful than you may think. For example in a situation at work which is slightly out of the ordinary from "textbook" practice, using common sense to apply what you know already from a similar situation can result in a much more successful result.

    For someone with limited/no common sense, this situation would be very alarming and difficult and the fact that the individual is unable to cope in this situation, by adapting already gained knowledge would be very inefficient for an employer.

    Thus, why an employer may favour one university to another, despite rankings.

    Social skills, as you agree, is imperative to a employer as any single employee in the presence of a new client is representative of the company.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    surprising that manchester has come ahead of UoL - I suppose that says something good about it. we have the best careers service in the country, maybe that has something to do with it. it's no massive surprise that somewhere like manchester has ranked above say, exeter or st.andrews though, is it?

    ah well, whatever this table means I suppose it's good news for me - if employers are coming to us, it should be easier for me to find a job.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Rubbish, social skills to a degree maybe, common sense, no.
    Can you justify why? Rather than just stating an opinion without reason.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Remember the bigger the university the more likely employers are to target it - greater volume of students passing by their little booth things or turning up to their lunch talks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AfghanistanBananistan)
    Here we go again, this is a list of the top 20 most targeted universities by the top 100 companies for 2010. This means the universities/students the recruiters visit most and actively target in these difficult economic climes (it came out on 13 January 2010). It is interesting becuase it provides an alternative to league tables, since im sure most of us are greatly concerned about our employment prspects when we graduate. High fliers by the way is the leading graduate recruitment body. Take from it what you will as no list of anything is perfect, but i guess no one has a better idea of which universities employers 'respect' enough to spend money on visiting.

    Top 20:

    1) Manchester
    2) London (meaning Imperial, LSE and UCL according to the survey)
    3) Warwick
    4) Cambridge
    5) Oxford
    6) Nottingham
    7) Bath
    8) Bristol
    9) Leeds
    10) Birmingham

    11) Durham
    12 Sheffield
    13) Loughborough
    14) Edinburgh
    15) Southampton
    16) Newcastle
    17) Cardiff
    18) York
    19) Liverpool
    12) Lancaster


    No real suprises in the top 15 (judging by league tables as a comparison), although it does show that again the smaller universities like York, St Andrew's and Exeter are not favoured by employers despite ranking higher than some in the top 20(backed up by % employed rates in rankings as well). The blurb to go with it is interesting and touches on this:

    ''The top five universities targeted by the largest number of leading employers during the 2009-2010 recruitment round are Manchester, London (which includes Imperial College, the London School of Economics and the University of London), Warwick, Cambridge and Oxford. These universities have each attracted the largest number of top employers for campus careers fairs, local presentations or other university recruitment promotions. Other popular institutions with employers include Nottingham, Bath, Bristol, Leeds and Birmingham.
    It is interesting to compare this list with the rankings from the latest edition of The Times Good University Guide 2010, the league table of leading universities compiled from data including entry standards, teaching performance, academic research, student funding and graduates’ career prospects. In it, Oxford and Cambridge are ranked in 1st and 2nd place with Imperial College, University College London and the London School of Economics in 3rd, 5th and 7th places respectively. Manchester – the top choice for employers for the last three years – fails to make the top twenty and is ranked in 24th place. However, neither St Andrews or Exeter – which are ranked fourth and ninth respectively in The Times Good University Guide 2010 – appear within the top twenty universities most-targeted by the UK’s leading employers''.

    Here is the link: http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GM10Report.pdf
    meaning UCL LSE Imp or INCLUDING UCL LSE Imp?

    And the non-appearance of Exeter is hardly a surprise to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Seems to me you would expect universities with large medicine, dentistry, law, economics departments etc to come out well in these surveys. Redbricks also do well, I suppose because they don't vary so much in league tables and there's a certain amount of benefit of the doubt for them imo.

    It's annoying they haven't treated London unis seperately though. I'd imagine there's a fairly large difference between how much their graduates are sought after, even among the top three.

    I always wondered if there are employers that don't really rate oxbridge so highly. I don't think I would, whilst they're amazing unis it can seem similar in approach to how some students just go to university because they think they should - as in, if people can get in, they often use it as their firm without really considering if they might prefer the experience or course somewhere else. That's certainly the impression I get from my oxbridge applicant friends. Don't know why I just brought this up.
    Offline

    15
    Go Nottingham !
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Edit: I see you are at leeds - aside from the obvious bias, you are better placed to comment on the academic ability of your peers than I =]
    :p: I am simply defending my home ground.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidcy147)
    I'd argue that common sense is more useful than you may think. For example in a situation at work which is slightly out of the ordinary from "textbook" practice, using common sense to apply what you know already from a similar situation can result in a much more successful result.

    For someone with limited/no common sense, this situation would be very alarming and difficult and the fact that the individual is unable to cope in this situation, by adapting already gained knowledge would be very inefficient for an employer.

    Thus, why an employer may favour one university to another, despite rankings.

    Social skills, as you agree, is imperative to a employer as any single employee in the presence of a new client is representative of the company.
    My problem with the term 'common sense' is that, by definition, if it's common than it does very little to set you apart. Similarly, as it is essentially diachronic, it says more about the way you have been bought up etc. Academic excellence is achieveable by many, intelligence cannot be taught - but someone can learn the best ways to function within a company, irrespective of their command of 'common sense' how ever one defines it.

    You may well be right that people from red bricks, in general, are more well rounded than the average person from an 'Oxbridge reject' uni (I honestly don't know) but I dont think that common sense will be paramount ahead of intelligence and ability.

    I think someone already pointed out that this list is misleading anyway.

    I have a hugh headache and stingy eyes though so If anything I am saying is worded terribly or deviates from cogency, I apologise.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidcy147)
    :p: I am simply defending my home ground.
    Of course, I would do the same =D.

    Leeds is a decent uni, I wasn't trying to say it was bad - just that I don't consider it to be as good as Durham =]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    whats the point of putting london in second? It doesn't tell you anything about the popularity with employers of each individual uni under that blanket.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 17, 2010
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.