Does a University's prestige carry the same weight with postgraduate study?

You know what's funny, if you look on the departmental websites the admissions seems far more cut throat. The applications/place ratio for humanities seems far higher than is in the admissions stats you just quoted.

In terms of the admissions process, its difficult to say whether its harder to get in at undergraduate or postgraduate level. At undergraduate level, at the top universities, the numbers are so big that there is much more of a lottery element, which means high quality candidates are more likely to be missed at undergraduate level than they are at postgraduate. It is difficult to discriminate between 18 year olds who have just done A levels or IB so things like GCSEs will come into play which aren't necessarily the best predictor of how good somebody will be on an undergraduate course. For example a bright but not outstanding kid who is organised and motivated, can relentlessly accumulate A*s at GCSE level and have them on their UCAS form, whilst a kid with raw intellectual talent who was a bit distracted during their GCSE years and ended up with more As before getting their finger out at A level, will be behind the game when it comes to applying to the top five unis. Not saying there is anything unfair in that, just it's how bright kids get missed. There are also bright kids who have seemingly ticked all the boxes, who get rejections from top five unis for undergrad, just because of the numbers involved and the fact its a bit of a lottery choosing the best candidates on limited information.

At postgraduate level admissions, it is less of a lottery and more of a meritocracy, because the admissions tutors have got some hard evidence on which to discriminate between candidates - ie university level transcripts which show how a candidate can cope with university level work and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The kid with raw talent who slacked a bit at GCSE and was rejected by the top five for undergrad, but has been focused through uni and has a first class degree, is much more likely to get accepted at postgrad.

The numbers at postgrad are much lower (although overseas students enter the mix more because many who couldn't afford 3 years of international fees can afford 1) and also many of the best undergraduate performers don't bother with postgrad study as they get top jobs straight after finishing uni.

The big barrier for postgraduate study at the top unis is finance, if you are doing a Masters only, which is not attached to a PhD, then in most subjects there is next to no chance of being funded, perhaps in some science subjects there is chance but not the arts, humanities or social sciences. The fees at the top universities are very expensive for Masters, you are looking at five figures for fees and will need to fund your full living costs as their Masters courses are too intense to work part time through them.

As regards prestige, I would regard the prestige of attending a top uni as being equal whether you went to it for undergrad and postgrad and would imagine employers in most fields would feel the same. In academia, you would probably get more prestige for going to a top uni at postgraduate level than undergraduate level (if you want research/academic positions, they kind of ignore your undergraduate study to an extent, its where you went for Masters/PhD that counts more).

One word of warning I would say though, is if you want to work in the City, it might be that a postgrad at a top uni doesn't carry as much weight as an undergrad there would be. I saw this discussed on an investment banking forum once and the general consensus seemed to be that as most of the people working in the City went to top five unis for undergrad, if you get somebody who went to a redbrick and then did a year Masters at LSE etc, it might get their CV through the HR filters rather than being autofiltered out, but they would regard the person as somebody who wasn't good enough at undergrad level but then had money behind them so could afford to fund themselves through a Masters - for sure they'd be respected if they got an MSc from a top institution, but the ones who had done undergrad there might always look slightly down on them.

One question regarding the last paragraph - what if say for instance the candidate went to a Russell Group/1994 Group university that was in the top 10 in the subject tables for the subject being studied later at one of the elite universities post-grad. Would this be looked down on?

Considering you've gone from a very good uni (overall and for the relevant department) to a great uni, I don't see why this should be frowned upon.

in the ultra-closed-shop-old-school-tie-snobbish world of the City

No it wouldn't be frowned upon and most people would think this was excellent. However in the ultra-closed-shop-old-school-tie-snobbish world of the City, where most of the others there would have done their three years at Oxford/Cambridge at undergrad, they might see you as a bit of a wannabe who had to stay on and pay £20000 to do a Masters at Oxbridge, not quite the effortless geniuses that they were. Still as I said, it would get your CV past the HR filters, which if you'd just been to a Russell Group/1994 Group uni for undergrad with no Masters, it might well have fallen foul of the autofilter.

Nothing funny about it. All it shows is that an awful lot of offer-holders don't end up taking up their offers, which is hardly a secret (although you can hardly expect faculties to dwell on this on their website)... Some people change their minds and decide they don't want to go to Oxford after all, some people miss their offers - and, most importantly, a lot of people meet their offers and want to go but fail to secure funding, which means that they can't. Particularly in the humanities.
But that still doesn't mean that the people who apply aren't of a high standard or that it's quite impossible not to get an offer.

Through my brother, who's in that set (I'm not) I personally know two guys who work for JPMorgan who get paid a ridiculous amount, and they both got 2.1s from Bristol and Durham in languages and politics respectively.

I sometimes wonder at the extent of Oxbridge dominance, or even of these filters. Through my brother, who's in that set (I'm not) I personally know two guys who work for JPMorgan who get paid a ridiculous amount, and they both got 2.1s from Bristol and Durham in languages and politics respectively. They're around 30 now though so maybe it's got more competitive. My brother's also a barrister at a good London chambers and got a low 2.1 from Cambridge (62 average I think). How the **** does the world actually work?

But yeah, one of them told me that if I wanted to work in the City, which I don't, I'd be much better off getting work experience than going for postgrad.

But it is an anecdote which shows some of the thinking - especially in consulting firms, where they want Oxbridge grads as a marketing tool to attract clients, the view can be if they have staff profiles who are alumni of redbrick universities, then the blue chip clients may wonder why they weren't able to attract Oxbridge graduates to work for them, and whether the consulting firm was thus not quite worth the extortionate fees it wants to charge them for its advice!

Which shows you how ******* stupid some of the people who use management consultancy actually are. The mind boggles at some of the utter **** I've read from top management consultancies using Oxbridge graduates, and when you find out the price, the boggling doubles. I only have real respect for consultancies that give you experienced industry professionals to help you solve your problems, not know-it-all graduates who really don't have a clue.

I share your disdain, but you have to be careful to differentiate those that look at your watch for you (then charge you the price of the watch for doing so), and those that actually produce real products.
I used to work for a technical consultancy that produced advanced hardware and software that simply was not available elsewhere on the market. Client has a need -> consultancy identifies solution -> consultancy creates solution -> sells it to client.

I share your disdain, but you have to be careful to differentiate those that look at your watch for you (then charge you the price of the watch for doing so), and those that actually produce real products.
I used to work for a technical consultancy that produced advanced hardware and software that simply was not available elsewhere on the market. Client has a need -> consultancy identifies solution -> consultancy creates solution -> sells it to client.

IMO it's an example of people living in awe of the name of Oxbridge, thinking that people educated there are some sort of supreme beings who can impart their knowledge onto the rest of us.

How can a consultancy firm even justify having people fresh out of university acting as they can offer advice in a particular area of expertise to people who have been working in that area for decades? What can a 22 year old tell a 52 year old who has been in that profession for longer than the 22 year old has been alive?

I always thought that consultants were guys who had been in a particular industry for decades, and through experience and hard work had built up specialist knowledge that companies in that industry find very valuable, hence why they pay for advice; not a bunch of pretentious pricks straight out of university with no experience other than maybe a summer internship or two.

How can a consultancy firm even justify having people fresh out of university acting as they can offer advice in a particular area of expertise to people who have been working in that area for decades? What can a 22 year old tell a 52 year old who has been in that profession for longer than the 22 year old has been alive?

I always thought that consultants were guys who had been in a particular industry for decades, and through experience and hard work had built up specialist knowledge that companies in that industry find very valuable, hence why they pay for advice; not a bunch of pretentious pricks straight out of university with no experience other than maybe a summer internship or two.

How cheesy. I must've heard this from relatives at least three times already.

Things to consider :

1) a grad will never be staffed alone on a particular mission ; they're always be senior experts involved and interacting with the client, coming up with the ideas etc.

2) theoretical knowledge + that obtained through training can be valuable even to a seasoned entrepreneur

3) a fresh, neutral, outside look is valuable, especially when an overhaul/creativity are needed.

In technical consultancy specific skills and experience are critical so this can't happen.

None of that changes the fact that for some of the prices paid to these 'management consultancies' you'd be justified in expecting to have experienced professionals giving the advice.



One day I hope to be a consultant. Would doing a PhD in area (like, say, materials) help with becoming a consultant in this area?