This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Bath, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester or UCL for Architecture
- How much Uni Reputation matters?
- In terms of prestige and reputation for Law, Reading or Surrey?
- Durham or Manchester?
- Psychology at Bristol or Newcastle?!
- University of Sheffield V University Of Nottingham
- What would be the better option after bad a level results?
- Nottingham vs Manchester
- Which offer should I accept?
- Would going to Keele not be worth it?
- Missed my Oxbridge/Russell Group offer
- Are the stereotypes about Merton true?
- is LSE better than Durham
- Wish I ended up somewhere better than King's.
- Loughborough vs. Southampton for Mechanical Engineering
- marketing @ uni
- Goldsmiths Business Course Reputation???
- Does what university I go to matter for an Actuarial Science degree?
- TCD or UoM for Medicine?
- Warwick vs Exeter for a Finance BSc degree ?
How much does university reputation actually matter?
How much does university reputation actually matter?
A) Is a 2:1 from one university equal to any other university - i.e. will it have taken equal amount of work, and would someone who got a 2:1 from Warwick, get a 2:1 from Thames Valley University (when comparing the same subject of course)? Do degree classifications provide an equal appraisal of a student's ability wherever he went to university?
B) How much does university reputation actually matter in practice, as opposed to in theory? I know some top companies, such as Law companies will recruit from a small number of universities, but more generally, how much difference does it make?
A) Is a 2:1 from one university equal to any other university - i.e. will it have taken equal amount of work, and would someone who got a 2:1 from Warwick, get a 2:1 from Thames Valley University (when comparing the same subject of course)? Do degree classifications provide an equal appraisal of a student's ability wherever he went to university?
B) How much does university reputation actually matter in practice, as opposed to in theory? I know some top companies, such as Law companies will recruit from a small number of universities, but more generally, how much difference does it make?
Scroll to see replies
You will get different views and strong opinions on this one. Generally I would say this:
It depends on the subject area and the career you intend to follow. Some areas, like Law and Finance, are very bothered about where you went, others don't care so much.
Any degree is better than none.
If you are still choosing a university it makes sense to go for the "best" one you can get into - some employers do take notice of league tables. It would be silly to go to a second or third tier uni if you have the grades to go to a top tier one (although I did this myself so who am I to talk?)
It depends on the subject area and the career you intend to follow. Some areas, like Law and Finance, are very bothered about where you went, others don't care so much.
Any degree is better than none.
If you are still choosing a university it makes sense to go for the "best" one you can get into - some employers do take notice of league tables. It would be silly to go to a second or third tier uni if you have the grades to go to a top tier one (although I did this myself so who am I to talk?)
It matters to a certain extent but it's not the be all and end all. In theory, the better the University is the better your employment prospects will be, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're guaranteed a job. Here we could get into all the "is a 2.1 from Oxbridge better than a 1st from Warwick" debate but personally I'd pick the University which you want to go to, not which is better academically. Better to graduate from a "lower" university having had the best time of your life than graduated from a better one and been thoroughly miserable. Obviously there's a huge difference between Warwick and TVU but the individual students are what employers are really interested in. I believe that the most employable graduates come from every university, and are the ones who have made the most of their time at uni, have lots of transferable skills and have done lots of things with their time there, rather than just attended lectures, been the library's most frequent visitor and kept their heads down. Personality talks!
In theory, a 2.1 should be the same everywhere, but in reality, where someone with Es could get into TVU, whereas you need at least Bs to get into Warwick, the standard of students at Warwick is much higher and therefore the exams/coursework is harder to reflect that. So someone with a 2.1 from TVU would probably fail a degree at Warwick, whereas someone with a 2.1 from Warwick would probably get a 1st from TVU. That's a massive generalisation, I admit, but personally I'd respect a 2.1 from Warwick far more than one from TVU, and I suspect most people would agree. How much reputation matters depends what you want to do afterwards really. If you want to go into something uber competitive like investment banking or law, going to a top 10 uni will really help and you might struggle to get a top job in the City otherwise because they only recruit from certain unis. In most careers, it probably doesn't matter that much as long as you got a 2.1 or above, but if 2 people were competing for the same job and one went to Warwick and the other went to TVU, the Warick graduate would most likely get it.
kellywood_5
In theory, a 2.1 should be the same everywhere, but in reality, where someone with Es could get into TVU, whereas you need at least Bs to get into Warwick, the standard of students at Warwick is much higher and therefore the exams/coursework is harder to reflect that. So someone with a 2.1 from TVU would probably fail a degree at Warwick, whereas someone with a 2.1 from Warwick would probably get a 1st from TVU. That's a massive generalisation.
It is wrong if a degree in the same subject and of the same classification is not of equal worth if taken at two different universities. The workload would be much more at Warwick than TVU, that is, students would be instructed to read far more etc, as Warwick would expect the majority of its students to get 2:1s or 1sts, but I don't know if it is easier to get a 2:1 at a 'lesser' university in the same subject.
If you look at the Times Good University Guide 2007, it has a category showing 'Good Honours' (the percentage of students getting 2:1s or 1sts at each university), the fact that it is far higher at the top universities and very low at the bottom universities (reflecting the different abilities of the students at each type of university), surely shows that there is some standardisation? For example, at Oxford - 88.4%, East London - 39.6%. Of course, there are more Media Studies type degrees at the bottom universities than the top so the figures are distorted because of that (if they were removed the figures at places like East London would be even lower), but the point is still valid.
I just want to refer to another thread where this issue was touched upon, although it came to end before the matter was resolved (about standardisation across universities):
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8424696
'How can you possibly be still arguing this?'
Because my partner is a lecturer at Hull and has been an external for Bristol, Belfast, and Cambridge. One of my closest friends is a Reader at Oxford and has been an external for Hull, Scarborough and Aberystwyth (or however you spell it!). Because I am a postgrad at Oxford and my fellow students are from a range of different universities, and the Oxbridge ones do not write at a higher standard than the rest of us, did not as undergrads, are not getting higher marks, and seeing as it's a highly competitive course with over 400 applicants for 15 places, those of us who weren't at Oxbridge as undergrads beat a hell of a lot of people who were to get onto this course. Now, if our firsts were easier to come by than theirs, none of the above would make any sense.
Because my partner is a lecturer at Hull and has been an external for Bristol, Belfast, and Cambridge. One of my closest friends is a Reader at Oxford and has been an external for Hull, Scarborough and Aberystwyth (or however you spell it!). Because I am a postgrad at Oxford and my fellow students are from a range of different universities, and the Oxbridge ones do not write at a higher standard than the rest of us, did not as undergrads, are not getting higher marks, and seeing as it's a highly competitive course with over 400 applicants for 15 places, those of us who weren't at Oxbridge as undergrads beat a hell of a lot of people who were to get onto this course. Now, if our firsts were easier to come by than theirs, none of the above would make any sense.
Another point made in the thread i've linked to above was that, Plymouth (a former polytechnic) validates Bristol's (one of the best universities in the land) Psychology degree, and that the BPS validates most Psychology degrees, making sure they have a similar core content. The people arguing against the equal worth of degrees at different institutions mostly chose to ignore these points and the ones contained in the long quotation above.
Ah, yes I remember that debate quite well. I think it is a difficult debate because people need to realise the concept of a 'standard' as being abstract and seperate from course content, course workload, contact hours, etc. Each university has its own assessment culture, the point of the external examination system is to take an individual from another assessment culture and allow them to look at work based on their standards. This is about as good as standardisation gets in HE and it appears, from what I have seen, to be quite effective. Much of the criticism of the external examiner system is based on the potential worst case scenarios that don't seem to actually happen in reality.
In many areas postgraduate applications are incredibly competative and the fact that institutional bias is not observed suggests that it can't be justified. I think this fact does need to be taken more seriously than it is.
In many areas postgraduate applications are incredibly competative and the fact that institutional bias is not observed suggests that it can't be justified. I think this fact does need to be taken more seriously than it is.
That said, someone applying for a postgraduate degree at Oxford who did their undergraduate degree at, not TVU, but somewhere like Lancaster or Aberdeen, perhaps, will have their application looked at with equal consideration to someone who did their undergraduate degree at Oxford. Where the comparisons are strictly academic, it is very possible for a bright, hardworking candidate from a "lesser" university to get into a competitive MA or PhD course.
But there are some employers who don't care about or realise this, and there is still a bias towards graduates from Oxbridge and traditional redbrick universities over graduates from new or ex-polytechnic universities. This is more the case for very competitive graduate-entry careers such as investment banking or law, where you don't need to have a degree in any particular subject. If the subject of your degree is irrelevant, the institution probably won't be. That is why a degree in English literature from TVU won't be worth much, whereas a degree in something really specific from TVU might well be much more useful, because TVU could be really good at that certain niche course, but it sure as hell isn't for a traditional academic subject.
To be honest, once you've been working for several years, your degree will become irrelevant, as your working history will be much more important to future employers. But for the purposes of getting onto that career ladder in the first place, you'd be doing yourself a favour by going to the best university you can get into for your particular course.
However, it doesn't make sense to go to a slightly better university you don't actually like the look of above a slightly lesser one you love. Happiness counts for a lot, and unhappy people don't tend to do as well in their degrees as happy people. Employers will also be interested in your extra-curricular activities, not just your degree, so it's important to pursue lots of different things during your time at uni.
In short, it is better to go to the best university possible, especially if you think you might want to do something highly competitive afterwards, but personality, work experience, extra-curriculars and the like all matter too. And I think a first is bloody impressive, no matter which university you went to.
But there are some employers who don't care about or realise this, and there is still a bias towards graduates from Oxbridge and traditional redbrick universities over graduates from new or ex-polytechnic universities. This is more the case for very competitive graduate-entry careers such as investment banking or law, where you don't need to have a degree in any particular subject. If the subject of your degree is irrelevant, the institution probably won't be. That is why a degree in English literature from TVU won't be worth much, whereas a degree in something really specific from TVU might well be much more useful, because TVU could be really good at that certain niche course, but it sure as hell isn't for a traditional academic subject.
To be honest, once you've been working for several years, your degree will become irrelevant, as your working history will be much more important to future employers. But for the purposes of getting onto that career ladder in the first place, you'd be doing yourself a favour by going to the best university you can get into for your particular course.
However, it doesn't make sense to go to a slightly better university you don't actually like the look of above a slightly lesser one you love. Happiness counts for a lot, and unhappy people don't tend to do as well in their degrees as happy people. Employers will also be interested in your extra-curricular activities, not just your degree, so it's important to pursue lots of different things during your time at uni.
In short, it is better to go to the best university possible, especially if you think you might want to do something highly competitive afterwards, but personality, work experience, extra-curriculars and the like all matter too. And I think a first is bloody impressive, no matter which university you went to.
Apricot Fairy
That is why a degree in English literature from TVU won't be worth much, whereas a degree in something really specific from TVU might well be much more useful, because TVU could be really good at that certain niche course, but it sure as hell isn't for a traditional academic subject.
That is why a degree in English literature from TVU won't be worth much, whereas a degree in something really specific from TVU might well be much more useful, because TVU could be really good at that certain niche course, but it sure as hell isn't for a traditional academic subject.
The subject does matter enormously in determining the effect of the institution's reputation, you're right there. People who have graduated from former polytechnics in subjects like Accounting or Engineering can rest assured that a good job will probably be waiting for them, the Media Studies graduate however, should not be so certain.
I think for banking and such competitive professions it matters a great deal to get a interview then after that it depends on how much you can charm. However for slightly less competitive jobs such as big 4 etc maybe they will consider a majority of places outside the top 5-10 maybe stretching to top 20 in uk. However i think its alot more important to be on course for a 2.1 and have good all round skills and grades (alevels etc).
like people have said competitive areas like finance, banking and law the emphasis is heavier on your university, a lot of this is just stupid generalisations (i had a housemate told she wouldn't become a barrister as she didn't go to oxbridge by a careers person at a law fair-absurd) also its down to year per year uni grades with many of these competitive areas, you may end up with a 2.1 in your final year but applying to law school with your 2nd year 2:2 may be the deciding factor.
Again in graduate schemes, where your working experience may be small and places competitive your uni's reputation may play a part, as they have little to go on, although you would do an interview. At a grad fair I saw a lot of employers were requiring minimum UCAS's points as well, which indirectly points to higher rep unis (higher A levels->better unis etc)
in most areas your degree will be overshadowed by work experience, take a pgce, if you have a 2:2 from a middle road uni but a crapload of voluntary teaching/mentoring experience with good references you are instantly 2 steps up from some oxbridge dude with a 1st who never left their room. Most jobs will just ask for a "good" degree (2.1 etc) you can never tell how far your unis rep influences them and interviewers opinions of uni's may be more important than a general consensus, say if you went to the same uni, that might be a contributing factor as they would know far more of your standard than perhaps a higher rep uni.
just a few late night thoughts, i just graduated so all this is on my mind at the mo lol
Again in graduate schemes, where your working experience may be small and places competitive your uni's reputation may play a part, as they have little to go on, although you would do an interview. At a grad fair I saw a lot of employers were requiring minimum UCAS's points as well, which indirectly points to higher rep unis (higher A levels->better unis etc)
in most areas your degree will be overshadowed by work experience, take a pgce, if you have a 2:2 from a middle road uni but a crapload of voluntary teaching/mentoring experience with good references you are instantly 2 steps up from some oxbridge dude with a 1st who never left their room. Most jobs will just ask for a "good" degree (2.1 etc) you can never tell how far your unis rep influences them and interviewers opinions of uni's may be more important than a general consensus, say if you went to the same uni, that might be a contributing factor as they would know far more of your standard than perhaps a higher rep uni.
just a few late night thoughts, i just graduated so all this is on my mind at the mo lol
MattG
At a grad fair I saw a lot of employers were requiring minimum UCAS's points as well, which indirectly points to higher rep unis (higher A levels->better unis etc)
This is a really good point. Perhaps an important reason why there are less graduates from ex polytechnics in top careers compared to those from good unis is simply because the entry requirements are so much higher for the latter and not so much because the former have poor reputations. If a firm has a minimum entry requirement of AAB at A-level, the vast majority of applicants will be from top 30 unis because hardly anyone with AAB goes to the likes of TVU, LSBU, London Met etc etc.
MattG
like people have said competitive areas like finance, banking and law the emphasis is heavier on your university, a lot of this is just stupid generalisations (i had a housemate told she wouldn't become a barrister as she didn't go to oxbridge by a careers person at a law fair-absurd).
I don't see why that's grossly absurd. It's very difficult to get into a decent set of chambers without going to one of about 6 universities, and even then, it's massively better if you go to Oxbridge.
It's not a stupid generalisation. It's true.
kellywood_5
This is a really good point. Perhaps an important reason why there are less graduates from ex polytechnics in top careers compared to those from good unis is simply because the entry requirements are so much higher for the latter and not so much because the former have poor reputations. If a firm has a minimum entry requirement of AAB at A-level, the vast majority of applicants will be from top 30 unis because hardly anyone with AAB goes to the likes of TVU, LSBU, London Met etc etc.
Generally true, but more than you think go to lesser universities than they might, some people just don't want to move very far away from home or even leave home at all, and depending on where they live, they may only have middle-ranking/low-ranking universities nearby.
EDIT - and of course, some will decide that the quality of the department/course is more important to them than the general reputation of the university.
Yes thats obvious re ucas points. Like pwc for most of their programmes require a minimum of 340 (think 360 for strategy) which means most of the people who got this will be at a top 15 uni, i guess it also means they arent accused of being biased towards top unis as they can say no one else meets our requirements.
I think its also the realisation that a 2:1 degree doesn't really distinguish people as much as it used too. A levels are actually quite intense in their workload over a shorter period whilst uni work, at a much higher level, is more spaced out. Also it allows for people to be achknlowedged if they went to perhaps a low repped uni in general but on a course that has higher requirements than most subjects at that uni
AdamTJ
I don't see why that's grossly absurd. It's very difficult to get into a decent set of chambers without going to one of about 6 universities, and even then, it's massively better if you go to Oxbridge.
It's not a stupid generalisation. It's true.
It's not a stupid generalisation. It's true.
quite a few barristers did law at Reading, its far from true
MattG
quite a few barristers did law at Reading, its far from true
a) show me evidence
b) It's not difficult to become a barrister per se. It's difficult get to a top chambers where you can be in a position to make money. A barrister from Reading will not join a top chambers. Mark my words.
Related discussions
- Bath, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester or UCL for Architecture
- How much Uni Reputation matters?
- In terms of prestige and reputation for Law, Reading or Surrey?
- Durham or Manchester?
- Psychology at Bristol or Newcastle?!
- University of Sheffield V University Of Nottingham
- What would be the better option after bad a level results?
- Nottingham vs Manchester
- Which offer should I accept?
- Would going to Keele not be worth it?
- Missed my Oxbridge/Russell Group offer
- Are the stereotypes about Merton true?
- is LSE better than Durham
- Wish I ended up somewhere better than King's.
- Loughborough vs. Southampton for Mechanical Engineering
- marketing @ uni
- Goldsmiths Business Course Reputation???
- Does what university I go to matter for an Actuarial Science degree?
- TCD or UoM for Medicine?
- Warwick vs Exeter for a Finance BSc degree ?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Govt considers raising tuition fees and bringing back maintenance grants in EnglandLast reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.Last reply 3 months ago
Recognition of UK Universities in Germany - Anabin Database Inquiry
