The difference between a 'golden triangle' degree and a durham/york/bristol degree

It has always been my intention to leave london to go to uni, and I dont think I'm quite oxbridge standard, so I am planning to apply to durham, york and bristol as my first choices. However people here have been saying that the degrees there are nowhere near as prestigious as ones at UCL, ICL or LSE and that the job prospects are leagues apart, can anybody tell me how true this is and whether it will really affect my job prospects that much?

Reply 1

kathryn16

Well considering Durham is 2nd in the country for History according to the Time Good University Guide, I cant see that being true. I hope its not anyway!

Reply 2

History_is...

6

Thats true, durham beat oxford in that table this year *cries* Lol, and york's degree looks amazing, I would have loved to have gone there under different circumstances. Unfortunately i think the prestige associated with the names of the golden triangle institutions may provide better opportunities on graduating generally, but for another top history uni i cant see it making that much difference!

Reply 3

Phil_D

preparationH

can anybody tell me how true this is and whether it will really affect my job prospects that much?

For a start, I wouldn't go off the newspaper league tables. Yeah, they are good as a rough guide as to the general standard of certain groups of Unis but I don't think you should be saying to yourself "Uni X is better than Uni Y because X is one place higher in league table Z".

As for York, Durham and Bristol - I think it's definately fair to say that Oxbridge and a couple of the London Unis do still have an advantage in terms of prestige - But I don't think it's as big an advantage as some people would have you believe. The "golden triangle" Unis are slightly better than the likes of York, Durham or Bristol in terms of pestige and reputation - but it's not a chasm. Far from it, i think. In fact, when i was applying to Unis I thought the extra time and stress of having an Oxbridge exam and interview just wasn't worth the "extra" prestige which I think is minimal.

Reply 4

preparationH

OP

thanks, it was this thread that worried me:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=210818

Reply 5

lizg

I wouldn't worry. Apply to universities that you WANT to go to, not that are specifically 'prestigious'. The four you mentioned are prestigious anyway and you're still likely to have good job prospects with a degree from one of them. I didn't apply to Oxbridge simply because I didn't want to - prestige wasn't a huge factor. I'm going to York in October and really looking forward to it! :biggrin:

Reply 6

Consie

15

MY brother, who does M and A for Goldman sachs and interviews graduates, says they rate more highly people from Durham than people from, say, LSE. He said most of the grads theyve had from LSE havnt really been upto scratch, and its getting a bit of a bad rep among his interviewer circle. I think Bristol is probably better than the london colleges too, at least for History. York isnt, its only good course is really history, its second tear on overall reputation. Durham only beat Oxford this year because of the bizarre enterance standards they've set in an attempt to rival Oxford. They may do on paper, but in terms or prestiege they're way behind. History form Durham is awesome though. The london colleges of LSE, UCL and KCL are still top notch unis though, and I'd say LSE was my 2nd choice after Oxford in terms of course quality, but third choice after OX and Bristol in terms of overall university prestige, which is waht really matters.

Reply 7

nettle7

^ Mmmmmh. I cannot imagine such miserable vacuous fools seeing a personality count for much in the sector that you describe...
People who bother with technicalities need to find other things to worry about. And yes, I can understand why those Oxbridge kids are highly sought after, but the way you fuss around about the exact places in the league table is just pathetic.

-York is not crap... but if I were an employer, I would not employ you .

Reply 8

belle_27

14

Originally posted by paintedfolk
-York is not crap... but if I were an employer, I would not employ you .

Would you employ me?

Reply 9

nettle7

I don't know :smile:

I'm not an employer. .

Reply 10

kathryn16

Aaaaargh all this talk of not getting a good job with a degree from Durham is worrying me. Ive worked so hard for this and cant bear the thougt of none of it being worthwhile. i hope that this is all talk because its just stupid.

Reply 11

belle_27

14

Originally posted by Consie
MY brother, who does M and A for Goldman sachs and interviews graduates, says they rate more highly people from Durham than people from, say, LSE. He said most of the grads theyve had from LSE havnt really been upto scratch, and its getting a bit of a bad rep among his interviewer circle. I think Bristol is probably better than the london colleges too, at least for History. York isnt, its only good course is really history, its second tear on overall reputation. Durham only beat Oxford this year because of the bizarre enterance standards they've set in an attempt to rival Oxford. They may do on paper, but in terms or prestiege they're way behind. History form Durham is awesome though. The london colleges of LSE, UCL and KCL are still top notch unis though, and I'd say LSE was my 2nd choice after Oxford in terms of course quality, but third choice after OX and Bristol in terms of overall university prestige, which is waht really matters.

I just looked up the Telegraph table of tables ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/graphics/2003/06/27/unibigpic.jpg;jsessionid=QPLC2AUKUIJ4JQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0 ), which I haven't viewed for a long time and is a few years old but it re-illiterated what you said about employers' view of LSE, which I thought was very interesting.

Reply 12

kathryn16

I rejected York n Manchester to go to Durham. I dont understand these league tables at all. Its supposed 2 b the best in the country for English. I think i shoud just stop looking at them. Its making me think spending all of this money to go to university wont b worth it. :eek:

Reply 13

Consie

15

Don’t worry about Durham, its a top uni and you’ll be fine getting a top job. I'm saying Oxbridge gives u a little bit extra, but you can’t argue really with going to any of the top 10.

I know I seem a bit pompous about all this reputation of unis stuff, and it is, but that’s how it worked in the high powered jobs, its all about reputation, egos and is very superficial.

Reply 14

belle_27

14

Originally posted by kathryn16
:eek:

I rejected York n Manchester to go to Durham. I dont understand these league tables at all. Its supposed 2 b the best in the country for English. I think i shoud just stop looking at them. Its making me think spending all of this money to go to university wont b worth it. :eek:

Look its just a league table, its statistics, they've taken an average result from all the answers they gained. Its not about where you went, its about the work you put in and the skills you gain, if you can show that you've got the skills employers want then thats all that really matters. You're really over-reacting.

Its like if you're in a class of people who can't be bothered to work, if the teachings good, which it is at Durham and you put the work in all that really matters at the end of it is YOU not the other people who have given off a different impression of the place. You're going to be applying for a job not Durham! Also like any other league table it should be taken with a pinch of salt. I just brought it up because of what Consie said about LSE as when I looked at the table it rang true.

Getting a job isn't all about the reputation and prestige of the place you go to so getting wound up about it really isn't worth it. Just because someone has a degree from Oxbridge doesn't mean when they apply for jobs companies immediately open the door to them because they went to Oxbridge. About seven years ago people used to say that those who had 1st's in their degree couldn't get jobs as companies had to pay them more than those who got 2:1s :rolleyes:

Reply 15

Consie

15

I disagree. Everyone who goes to university has largely same set of skills anyway, and the whole point universities got these reputations is because of the quality of people they're known for churning out. By gaining a reputation for quality, you attract more quality, and so it perpetuates. Oxford grads aren’t simply more likely to get a top job because they’ve got 'Oxon' after their Hons, its because Oxford is known for only producing the highest quality applicants, and by doing so already refines the selection process for top companies.

Reputations aren’t just some arbitrary factor attached to universities, they're earned, and employers go by this earned reputation as a reliable sign of quality. Getting a high score on a league table due to IT facilities and 'student satisfaction' is not a reliable indicator of quality. The same goes for the quality of history courses, Leeds Met might have a better course than Durham, but employers don’t give a **** what the course was like, they want to know what type of quality the establishment churns out as a whole. Universities don’t just teach you a subject, they shape you as a human resource.

Reply 16

Phil_D

Consie

I disagree. Everyone who goes to university has largely same set of skills anyway, and the whole point universities got these reputations is because of the quality of people they're known for churning out. By gaining a reputation for quality, you attract more quality, and so it perpetuates. Oxford grads aren’t simply more likely to get a top job because they’ve got 'Oxon' after their Hons, its because Oxford is known for only producing the highest quality applicants, and by doing so already refines the selection process for top companies.

Reputations aren’t just some arbitrary factor attached to universities, they're earned, and employers go by this earned reputation as a reliable sign of quality. Getting a high score on a league table due to IT facilities and 'student satisfaction' is not a reliable indicator of quality. The same goes for the quality of history courses, Leeds Met might have a better course than Durham, but employers don’t give a **** what the course was like, they want to know what type of quality the establishment churns out as a whole. Universities don’t just teach you a subject, they shape you as a human resource.

I totally agree with that.

However, all I would say in relation to the inital post is, York, Durham and Bristol still have very good reputations as Universities and are amongst the most prestigious in the country. Maybe not quite rivaling Oxbridge, but still considering the number of Unis in the country, you are still dealing with the very highest end of the scale with Unis like York, Durham and Bristol.

Reply 17

Consie

15

You're right. I'd still say York lags a bit behind Durham and Bristol though, but it’s still up there. I think of them as UEFA Cup whereas Durham and Bristol are Champions League.

Reply 18

Phil_D

Consie

You're right. I'd still say York lags a bit behind Durham and Bristol though, but it’s still up there. I think of them as UEFA Cup whereas Durham and Bristol are Champions League.

Nice metaphor. Yeah, maybe UEFA Cup for York but still definately top end of the Premier League. :biggrin:

Reply 19

banksy

1

The difference between a 'golden triangle' degree and a durham/york/bristol degree

Related discussions

Articles for you