Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine if you can a parallel universe where league tables weren't the be all and end all and employers looked at applicants rather than the prestige of the institutions they'd attended... outlandish?

    Salary premium from post-92s can trump that of bigger names


    Times Higher Education reports on a study by Parthenon Group showing that the geographic location and focus on employability at post 92 universities gives their graduates better starting salaries than those graduating from many of their more prestigious rivals, including some Russell Group members.

    Name:  table_p6.jpg
Views: 1132
Size:  265.9 KB


    I can't seem to access the original report - but if ferinstance London Met is turning out employable graduates who'll pay their loans back quickly (saving the exchequer money), perhaps the continual calls on TSR to shut it down are misdirected.

    also worth of note are some of the quotes from academics...

    He [VC of Surrey] added that it would be wrong if universities, after viewing such a league table, abandoned subjects of "national importance" such as nursing in favour of those that produced the best-paid graduates.

    What do you make of it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    What do you make of it?
    Wayyyyyyy [insert name of user's university] is/isn't [place in chart] - [emotion]

    Personally, the only thing that I really care about in terms of university rankings is how many UCAS points the average entrant achieved, as I can extrapolate that to imply that I have an above-average intelligence to bolster my fragile ego.

    Honestly though, I don't think any uni should be shut down or is worse than another - it depends on what you want to get out of it. The average entrant to London Met is a mature student who will already have a wealth of life experience so it's obvious they'd go on to earn a lot of money, their CV is already at a distinct advantage to your average 21 year old's CV.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Imagine if you can a parallel universe where league tables weren't the be all and end all and employers looked at applicants rather than the prestige of the institutions they'd attended... outlandish?

    Salary premium from post-92s can trump that of bigger names


    Times Higher Education reports on a study by Parthenon Group showing that the geographic location and focus on employability at post 92 universities gives their graduates better starting salaries than those graduating from many of their more prestigious rivals, including some Russell Group members.

    Name:  table_p6.jpg
Views: 1132
Size:  265.9 KB


    I can't seem to access the original report - but if ferinstance London Met is turning out employable graduates who'll pay their loans back quickly (saving the exchequer money), perhaps the continual calls on TSR to shut it down are misdirected.

    also worth of note are some of the quotes from academics...




    What do you make of it?
    'tis interesting, but a lot of these universities on here are extremely good. most are russel or 1994 group uni's (not that it really means much). its nice to see some post 1992 universities there though, and rightly so. most are hugely underrated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, this doesn't prove anything except what we all already knew. The marginal benefit (in salary) of attending a non-ex-poly falls dramatically once you get outside the top 15 or so unis.

    "Prestige" still matters; but not as much as some on TSR make it out to matter:

    "Status is clearly still a factor in terms of salary for the elite institutions such as Oxford or Cambridge, but once you get past roughly the top 10 to 15 institutions the picture becomes more mixed," he said.
    In other words, there are a collection of unis who are "elite" in employers' (perhaps wrong, outdated etc.) perceptions, and then the rest - an employer isn't really going to care if Wolverhampton Uni is ten places higher than London Met on some league table but they will care that UCL is a supposedly "more prestigious" university compared to, say, Cardiff University.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I still don't understand that table

    ?????
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hipster)
    Actually, this doesn't prove anything except what we all already knew. The marginal benefit (in salary) of attending a non-ex-poly falls dramatically once you get outside the top 15 or so unis.

    "Prestige" still matters:
    I suspect in those cases it's a relatively small number of people in Investment Banks etc doing a lot to warp the numbers - a few years back GS used to put a kink in the national salary statistics every bonus season.

    The mean (avg) might not be the message to the same extent across all unis... though it's hard to tell without seeing the report.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    I suspect in those cases it's a relatively small number of people in Investment Banks etc doing a lot to warp the numbers - a few years back GS used to put a kink in the national salary statistics every bonus season.

    The mean (avg) might not be the message to the same extent across all unis... though it's hard to tell without seeing the report.
    IB starting salaries aren't so obscene as to distort the data to such an extent.

    It simply reflects the economy/society. There has always been an elite professional class who are highly paid because their skills help to make a lot of money. And in today's global economy even more so: these elite class of people have skills that can't be outsourced so their relative pay is much greater (eg. bankers, lawyers, consultants, media producers).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where is manchester uni???? Its 3rd in the world for employbility after cambridge and harvard!!! and on par with MIT and yale ( on employbility) .guess this proves that this table is completely rubbish!!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well I think some ex-polys deserve more respect than they get. Afterall a polytechnic is a university anyway - always has been, as its a place where people go to do degrees. Some polytechnics like the Hong Kong Polytechnic, MIT, and Virginia Tech are some of the worlds best universities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The post 1992 universities appearing in this list are almost all in the south east - the reason they perform well on this measure is that many of the students will then head to find jobs in London, where employment tends to be more abundant. It's geography that is the key. London Met, for instance, may be higher up that list than Nottingham where I attended, but I don't think I'd really recommend people go to London Met over Nottingham. Prestige does still count - I certainly don't think I'd have achieved what I have having attended a newer uni.

    That said, it's heartening to see newer universities giving their graduates good futures - and I don't mean to pick on London Met specifically, so please don't get mad at me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's a 'value added' table - so it starts of with a certain set of assumption related to other measures of the university's quality. So the universities which do well in this table but don't normally have kind of punched above their weight, but I'm still more interested in those of the usual suspects which are up there because they have done enough to perform above the expectation that they'd do well. If you see what I mean....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Imagine if you can a parallel universe where league tables weren't the be all and end all and employers looked at applicants rather than the prestige of the institutions they'd attended... outlandish?

    ---

    What do you make of it?
    You're also assuming that salary is the only thing that matters. Take a physicist from Cambridge who leaves to become a junior academic on £20,000 a year, or less, and then goes on to earn a small amount more, but wins the nobel prize and revolutionises science. Then take a physicist from a post 92 university who gets a job in the city, starting on £50,000, and soon increasing to £100,000, but rarely, if ever, uses their degree. Which is the better university?

    You obviously can't tell from those two students alone, but it shows that salary isn't everything.

    I don't think London Met should be shut down at all, and it is certainly interesting as a table, but it's only one bit of the evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mixxy)
    That said, it's heartening to see newer universities giving their graduates good futures - and I don't mean to pick on London Met specifically, so please don't get mad at me
    You'd think london met graduates were automatically doomed from the comments directed at it's students by Tsr snobs. Tbh I'd say it's verging into cyber bully territory. However the mods seen more preoccupied with handing down warnings for tricking the swear filter.
    That's another rant.

    Wrt hipster's edited post... I think rather than their being a single employer perception across the board it's more likely that elite employers such as Investment banks, city law firms etc are very picky about elite universities but general graduate employers care very little.
    Why elite employers care so much is another interesting point, maybe they want driven people who got As in every exam they ever sat rather than their being some extra information in the elite uni courses making their grads more valuable?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    You're also assuming that salary is the only thing that matters. Take a physicist from Cambridge who leaves to become a junior academic on £20,000 a year, or less, and then goes on to earn a small amount more, but wins the nobel prize and revolutionises science. Then take a physicist from a post 92 university who gets a job in the city, starting on £50,000, and soon increasing to £100,000, but rarely, if ever, uses their degree. Which is the better university?

    You obviously can't tell from those two students alone, but it shows that salary isn't everything.

    I don't think London Met should be shut down at all, and it is certainly interesting as a table, but it's only one bit of the evidence.
    Ok it's not my report however it does challenge some tropes that are frequently repeated on TSR.
    People count beans because beans are quick and easy to count.
    You could do some more qualitative research on uni students... It'd be more difficult than crunching hesa and student finance numbers and probably noone would pay you to do it but it'd be worthwhile and interesting
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    im sorry but what exactly does your title say? cos i honestly thought it would only be 3 *'s????

    sorry but this is killing me, everything with 4 letters doesnt seem right! what is it???
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Es man)
    im sorry but what exactly does your title say? cos i honestly thought it would only be 3 *'s????

    sorry but this is killing me, everything with 4 letters.
    doesnt seem right! what is it???
    Lol.

    :console:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    that's great, but what it doesn't mention is the proportion of graduates which get a job in south-east england, where the average wage and cost of living is higher.


    is a 30k per year job in London any better than a 25k per year job in Glasgow (where many Scottish graduates will end up, but none are represented)?

    the former might pay more, but when that extra 5k goes straight to paying off living costs (an average one-bed flat in Glasgow city centre is about 500 per month rent, try finding similar in London will cost you way more than that extra 5k makes up for), is it really a better starting wage?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munn)
    that's great, but what it doesn't mention is the proportion of graduates which get a job in south-east england, where the average wage and cost of living is higher.


    is a 30k per year job in London any better than a 25k per year job in Glasgow (where many Scottish graduates will end up, but none are represented)?

    the former might pay more, but when that extra 5k goes straight to paying off living costs (an average one-bed flat in Glasgow city centre is about 500 per month rent, try finding similar in London will cost you way more than that extra 5k makes up for), is it really a better starting wage?
    Agreed.

    I still find it hard to believe that the table is truly representing what it claims to represent.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.