Turn on thread page Beta

I am not going to a Redbrick/Russel group Uni. watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No one in the real world really ever cares about 'Russell group'. When I first went to uni in 2007 I didn't even know it was a thing. There was oxbridge then there were all the other unis. I went to Swansea which isn't a great uni in any respect but I had a great time, got a good degree and actually went on to do further study at a Russell group. It really doesn't matter, it's how you apply yourself that alters what you get out of it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluepimpernel)
    If you are not happy with your results and you feel that Hull is not the university that best suits your demands or intellectual capacity, then retake and reapply for 2015/16. Furthermore claiming that going to a given university will end affecting your employment opportunities negatively and that the higher in the league table, the better is a load of bullsh*t. A good university student not only has to exceed academically, but also demonstrate the ability to perform in extracurricular activities (say, part-time jobs, working experience acquired during the summertime of your course, etc). If you get a 1st, whether it is at Oxbridge and the Russell Group or at University of East London, that's it, you are in the national 10% of degrees awarded and I doubt any graduate entry job or MA would push you back solely because you went to Hull and not University College, Oxford.

    I am going to use myself as an example. I am currently starting a BA in History and Archaeology at Birkbeck, University of London. I'd admit that it is not a particularly well known university, as it usually caters to the needs of people who are already working, who are looking to improve their working opportunities, and it only began offering full-time courses back in 2010. Very well, I am not an Oxbridge student. But I don't want to be one and neither I aspire to become such a thing, as once you look deeper you'll see they have one of the strongest History departments in the UK and it usually ranks among the 50 best in the world. Furthermore, it also allows me the opportunity take additional intercollegiate modules at the likes of LSE, RHUL UCL or King's, as they are within the Institute of Historical Research scheme. So you see, it is not where you study but whether you are the best at it and the one who was actually smart enough to follow all the opportunities provided throughout the course.

    I am not ashamed of saying where I am studying. Think on the following for a second: you have gotten farther than 50% of the school leaving population. Solely because of that, you must be extremely proud of yourself. Congratulations on getting into Hull and really, if someone dares mocking and dissing you solely based on where you went they are probably tw*ts.
    Actually, they might. The education at Hull is not as good as the education at Oxford, so someone with a 1st from Hull will likely be less skilled at their subject than someone with a 1st from Oxford. This isn't to say Hull isn't worth going to, but there's a reason Oxbridge is more desirable to universities - the education is better there.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Actually, they might. The education at Hull is not as good as the education at Oxford, so someone with a 1st from Hull will likely be less skilled at their subject than someone with a 1st from Oxford. This isn't to say Hull isn't worth going to, but there's a reason Oxbridge is more desirable to universities - the education is better there.
    ...how do you know this? It would be great if you could link some research/evidence....
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Actually, they might. The education at Hull is not as good as the education at Oxford, so someone with a 1st from Hull will likely be less skilled at their subject than someone with a 1st from Oxford. This isn't to say Hull isn't worth going to, but there's a reason Oxbridge is more desirable to universities - the education is better there.
    In a Magic Circle law firm, maybe, but even then it doesn't matter whether you went to Oxford or Hull to do a Law LL.B. As I said before, combining both the expertise and experience needed to achieve a 1st with extra-curricular activities (working in law firms during the summertime, mooting, etc) in Law is of an utmost importance and the same happens to the rest of the subjects whether they are STEM-based or a social science. Furthermore, my sister is in Oxford and I know first hand how much work she has to put into it. Not only there's skill, but there is also an awful lot of hard work and dedication as well as opportunities which otherwise you would not find in other universities excluding Oxbridge and a few belonging to the Russell Group. They invest on the best teaching body they can arrange and even that does not mean that a student will deliver accordingly. In fact, there are an awful lot of Oxford graduates who achieve either 2:1s, 2:2, 3rds or even Pass on their degrees.

    Furthermore, you are claiming that the student who did not make it into Oxbridge is less capable than one who did. How do you even know that? There are very bright students out there who spend most of their school years bored out of their minds and who deliver mediocre results because they can't just be bothered, or alternatively there are students who perform worse than what they truly could because they spent years being bullied and have no esteem whatsoever. You need to get out of your high horse and learn a little more humility. Not all students are the same, not all the students have the same opportunities and most certainly the university they are studying at in a given moment does not determine their capabilities.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    ...how do you know this? It would be great if you could link some research/evidence....
    Well, as an anecdote (which I know doesn't prove it happens often, but does prove it happens sometimes) my mums company and those of her competitors - they're economic consultants - only really hire people from certain high ranking universities. She hired someone who'd been to Coventry, because he gave good (though rare) performance at interview and he couldn't cope with the work. She said his base education was poor, even though he got a first. They've hired some people from many different unis over the last 15 years and she says she's had education issues with most of them so now they tend to choose people from higher ranking unis.

    Also my friends brother got a job after his degree (working in marketing and management for Abercrombie) and they were only accepting applicants from Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluepimpernel)
    In a Magic Circle law firm, maybe, but even then it doesn't matter whether you went to Oxford or Hull to do a Law LL.B. As I said before, combining both the expertise and experience needed to achieve a 1st with extra-curricular activities (working in law firms during the summertime, mooting, etc) in Law is of an utmost importance and the same happens to the rest of the subjects whether they are STEM-based or a social science. Furthermore, my sister is in Oxford and I know first hand how much work she has to put into it. Not only there's skill, but there is also an awful lot of hard work and dedication as well as opportunities which otherwise you would not find in other universities excluding Oxbridge and a few belonging to the Russell Group. They invest on the best teaching body they can arrange and even that does not mean that a student will deliver accordingly. In fact, there are an awful lot of Oxford graduates who achieve either 2:1s, 2:2, 3rds or even Pass on their degrees.

    Furthermore, you are claiming that the student who did not make it into Oxbridge is less capable than one who did. How do you even know that? There are very bright students out there who spend most of their school years bored out of their minds and who deliver mediocre results because they can't just be bothered, or alternatively there are students who perform worse than what they truly could because they spent years being bullied and have no esteem whatsoever. You need to get out of your high horse and learn a little more humility. Not all students are the same, not all the students have the same opportunities and most certainly the university they are studying at in a given moment does not determine their capabilities.
    But we're not looking at why things are this way. I think there's massive inequality in the education system, mainly due to private schools (I went to a state school). Private schools are able pay smart teachers more money and state schools can't compete. But the state salary for a teacher is so low given how important the job they do is. No wonder lots end up moving to more privileged schools. So this leads to the best being at private schools, so the education is better.

    I'm not saying that there aren't unfair reasons why things end up like this and reasons why smart students might under perform in exams but the educations is better at Oxbridge and often it shows.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Well, as an anecdote (which I know doesn't prove it happens often, but does prove it happens sometimes) my mums company and those of her competitors - they're economic consultants - only really hire people from certain high ranking universities. She hired someone who'd been to Coventry, because he gave good (though rare) performance at interview and he couldn't cope with the work. She said his base education was poor, even though he got a first. They've hired some people from many different unis over the last 15 years and she says she's had education issues with most of them so now they tend to choose people from higher ranking unis.

    Also my friends brother got a job after his degree (working in marketing and management for Abercrombie) and they were only accepting applicants from Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter.
    Exeter's a bit random...
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    Well, as an anecdote (which I know doesn't prove it happens often, but does prove it happens sometimes) my mums company and those of her competitors - they're economic consultants - only really hire people from certain high ranking universities. She hired someone who'd been to Coventry, because he gave good (though rare) performance at interview and he couldn't cope with the work. She said his base education was poor, even though he got a first. They've hired some people from many different unis over the last 15 years and she says she's had education issues with most of them so now they tend to choose people from higher ranking unis.

    Also my friends brother got a job after his degree (working in marketing and management for Abercrombie) and they were only accepting applicants from Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter.
    Companies could also be biased against students who don't come from higher ranking universities, thus being more critical and less open towards them.

    I wonder how the companies would fare in a blind test...

    Of course, nobody really knows the answer to this question as none of it is measured. :dontknow:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Many people get the whole university reputation thing wrong.

    It's not so much that your uni's reputation makes you a better candidate.

    It's that high reputation unis have higher entry standards, therefore the people they teach will be smarter, therefore they will be taught more and or more complex stuff. And it's that better base quality and teaching that makes them better candidates. The institutional reputation is therefore a heuristic shortcut to a candidate's quality.

    But if you grades aren't good enough for a course, then it's a good thing that you don't go there as you will struggle compared with more able students.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Many people get the whole university reputation thing wrong.

    It's not so much that your uni's reputation makes you a better candidate.

    It's that high reputation unis have higher entry standards, therefore the people they teach will be smarter, therefore they will be taught more and or more complex stuff. And it's that better base quality and teaching that makes them better candidates. The institutional reputation is therefore a heuristic shortcut to a candidate's quality.

    But if you grades aren't good enough for a course, then it's a good thing that you don't go there as you will struggle compared with more able students.
    It's not necessarily a reflection of just how smart people are, but also (more?) of their circumstances and the quality of education they received up to and including A Level.

    Given that the average % of firsts awarded is pretty consistent across all institutions, I guess there are three options really:

    1) The quality of education at lower ranked universities greatly outweighs that of higher ranked universities.
    2) Degrees are harder at higher ranked institutions.
    3) A Levels aren't a reliable indicator of academic ability.

    Probably some combination of all three. :dontknow:

    Also think it's important to note that just because someone got a first at an ex-poly, it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be able to meet the demands of a higher-ranked institution if given the chance.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    I
    1) The quality of education at lower ranked universities greatly outweighs that of higher ranked universities.
    2) Degrees are harder at higher ranked institutions.
    3) A Levels aren't a reliable indicator of academic ability.
    I think option 2 is the most plausible one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LavenderBlueSky88)
    No one in the real world really ever cares about 'Russell group'. When I first went to uni in 2007 I didn't even know it was a thing. There was oxbridge then there were all the other unis. I went to Swansea which isn't a great uni in any respect but I had a great time, got a good degree and actually went on to do further study at a Russell group. It really doesn't matter, it's how you apply yourself that alters what you get out of it.
    Out of topic but did you like Swansea uni?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    I think option 2 is the most plausible one.
    You're probably right, although I think it would be short-sighted to conclude that everyone who ends up at an ex-poly is less intelligent or less capable. It's more complicated than that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    You're probably right, although I think it would be short-sighted to conclude that everyone who ends up at an ex-poly is less intelligent or less capable. It's more complicated than that.
    Oh sure, statistics and averages and measurement precision and all that.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Oh sure, statistics and averages and measurement precision and all that.
    Do you think if classifications were standardised it would improve the quality of university education?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutaud15)
    Out of topic but did you like Swansea uni?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think so... I mean I loved the place and the people and had the best time, but I think sometimes I thought the uni was run a little sloppily. Then again, we're talking 6/7 years ago so I can't really remember, so I'm just gonna go with yes.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    From one of televisions great series...

    Blackadder: "Remember when I probed you when I was talking about the great British Universities - Oxford, Cambridge...Hull...you failed to identify that only two of those are great universities!

    Melchett: That's right! Oxford's a complete dump!


    Blackadder: Well...quite.

    So fear not!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    Do you think if classifications were standardised it would improve the quality of university education?
    Perhaps. At least the true differences between candidates would be thrown into stark relief. I should think that anyone who got a 2.1 where I was an undergrad would easily get a 1st where I teach now.

    But to do that, the syllabus would have to be standardised, and a key feature of university teaching is that it is set internally, and different departments will focus on different things. So I don't think it's practical or desirable to expect to lose the unique flavour of each department.

    The other option would be for independent markers to mark from different universities blind. I quite like the idea, but most universities would not want to lose the ability to control their own marks, so I shouldn't think it would happen. Would be interesting for a research study though.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Perhaps. At least the true differences between candidates would be thrown into stark relief. I should think that anyone who got a 2.1 where I was an undergrad would easily get a 1st where I teach now.

    But to do that, the syllabus would have to be standardised, and a key feature of university teaching is that it is set internally, and different departments will focus on different things. So I don't think it's practical or desirable to expect to lose the unique flavour of each department.


    Do you think it differs between departments at university too? I really felt that when I was an undergrad - I pulled an all nighter and wrote an essay for a module in a different department. I didn't think it was any good at all but it was my highest mark for that semester.

    The other option would be for independent markers to mark from different universities blind. I quite like the idea, but most universities would not want to lose the ability to control their own marks, so I shouldn't think it would happen. Would be interesting for a research study though.
    I like this idea, too. It does frustrate me that the difference means that capable people at lower ranking universities aren't pushed to perform at a higher level.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    Do you think it differs between departments at university too? I really felt that when I was an undergrad - I pulled an all nighter and wrote an essay for a module in a different department. I didn't think it was any good at all but it was my highest mark for that semester.
    Yeah definitely. But there are also different styles and criteria, often not easy to work out unless you are familiar with the department. Many of my students fall foul of this when doing joint honours degrees or courses taught by another department.

    I like this idea, too. It does frustrate me that the difference means that capable people at lower ranking universities aren't pushed to perform at a higher level.
    Absolutely. I get quite a range of abilities. My inclination is to teach to the top students at the expense of the lower students (because much of that is due to lack of effort). But the university often wants to dumb down for these students so they can all walk away with 2.1s.

    This is the most important reason you should try to get into the best university you can. Otherwise you'll be stuck with slower learners.
 
 
 
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: November 9, 2014
The home of Results and Clearing

2,122

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.