Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    The resources and software used are not up to Industry standard - do they use CATIA yet? What CFD software are they using? Why don't they do better at Formula Student if they are being taught so well? When did they employ anyone whose actually designed a real engine? Ask how many get into industry hands-on design roles.

    Why do F1 teams not target Oxbridge for example?
    I'm fairly certain most of them would rather write their own software which runs three times as fast for their specific requirements and isn't reliant on some gimmicky GUI. Who cares if they designed a "real engine". That is a solved problem. There are far more interesting issues to consider in engineering research. Also the answer to that question is the entire Whittle Lab who do nothing but design, build, and test engines far beyond the capabilities (and needs) of mere racecars.

    I mean really, using formula student as a metric of engineering teaching quality is just...laughable, at best. The scope of engineering beyond formula student and F1 racing dwarfs that which is contained in such a niche area.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    Why do F1 teams not target Oxbridge for example?
    Paddy Lowe CTO Williams (after many years at Mercedes and McLaren), ex-Cambridge.

    19 ex-Cambridge alumni at McLaren Racing.
    Indeed the top 3 ranked universities for McLaren are:
    1. Imperial (21 current staff)
    2. Cambridge (19)
    3. Cranfield (14)

    16 Cambridge alumni currently at Mercedes F1
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Paddy Lowe CTO Williams (after many years at Mercedes and McLaren), ex-Cambridge.

    19 ex-Cambridge alumni at McLaren Racing.
    Indeed the top 3 ranked universities for McLaren are:
    1. Imperial (21 current staff)
    2. Cambridge (19)
    3. Cranfield (14)

    16 Cambridge alumni currently at Mercedes F1
    19 graduates from uni were recruited on ONE year from another uni - what about other teams?

    I give up - you are blinded by Oxbridge and not by real-life employment. Btw F1 generates a huge amount of national income - hardly a niche market.

    I'll just watch my ex-students walk into roles ahead of Oxbridge candidates year after year.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    The course content beyond the core material in the first two years is on the bleeding edge of engineering research, because the researchers employed by the university typically would rather teach what they do than "out of date theory".
    I think that's Muttley79's point. Much of what is on the "bleeding edge" of engineering research simply isn't relevant to those who want to work in industry, which is probably the vast majority of engineering undergrads.

    (Original post by Muttley79)
    The resources and software used are not up to Industry standard - do they use CATIA yet? What CFD software are they using? Why don't they do better at Formula Student if they are being taught so well? When did they employ anyone whose actually designed a real engine? Ask how many get into industry hands-on design roles.

    Why do F1 teams not target Oxbridge for example?
    To be fair, CATIA is only really used in the automotive and aerospace industries from what I have seen, because it can handle large and complex assemblies very well. SolidWorks is generally the industry standard for those who aren't in the above, with Autodesk Inventor also being used quite often too. Of course, Civil and chemical generally use AutoCAD because its the best for their applications.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I think that's Muttley79's point. Much of what is on the "bleeding edge" of engineering research simply isn't relevant to those who want to work in industry, which is probably the vast majority of engineering undergrads.



    To be fair, CATIA is only really used in the automotive and aerospace industries from what I have seen, because it can handle large and complex assemblies very well. SolidWorks is generally the industry standard for those who aren't in the above, with Autodesk Inventor also being used quite often too. Of course, Civil and chemical generally use AutoCAD because its the best for their applications.
    Lots of graduate jobs do want Solidworks [up-to-date version] but some want CATIA - you can learn both at some unis.

    Industry is about research too - new cars, new machines, new products ...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    19 graduates from uni were recruited on ONE year from another uni - what about other teams?

    I give up - you are blinded by Oxbridge and not by real-life employment. Btw F1 generates a huge amount of national income - hardly a niche market.

    I'll just watch my ex-students walk into roles ahead of Oxbridge candidates year after year.
    It's simply baffling you think F1 is actually a revenue generating area, much less "a huge amount of national income" when it's entirely funded by sponsorship deals. I'm pretty sure Easter Island has a higher GDP than most F1 team revenues if you set aside sponsorship money - and even if you don't it's not more than a tiny fraction of any developed countries GDP.

    You also seem to be incapable of grasping the fact that not everyone and in fact hardly anyone is interested in enough in such an area to specifically pursue an engineer career to work in that sector. I'm fairly certain the engineering graduates (from any university) at Shell, Lockheed Martin, Google, and so on and so forth, are not particularly fussed that they aren't working on F1 cars, regardless of whether your ephemeral "former students" are working those jobs or not.

    This is ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand, and regardless of the staggeringly inaccurate information you spew, the employability of Oxbridge engineers (and all STEM subject finalists there for that matter) remains higher than the national average and more than high enough to tempt thousands of students to apply to the courses between the two every year. The relevant information for the OP is that they're both good for any subject, there is a perception based in reality that Cambridge is "better" for STEM subjects but an undergraduate degree from either opens many doors and if they so wished, one of those would inevitably be into F1. It's likely they do not however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    X
    I know my post might spark controversy, but it's a reflection of my experience as a mechanical engineering graduate from a russel (non-oxbridge uni), and the experiences of some of my coursemates. My response is mainly relevant if you're looking at engineering. I'm currently in full time employment as a grad mech engineer on a grad scheme, but a good number of my classmates are either unemployed or employed but not in mech engineering.

    Now in response to your post, it all really depends on what you want to get out of the uni degree/experience.

    If it's purely love for the subject and trying to learn as much about it as you can, then defo go for an oxbridge degree. Especially at Cambridge where it's not just mech eng, but all engineering fundamentals mashed up in one big course. You can still live in student accomodation whilst in your hometown just to get the "student experience" if it's that high up your priorities.
    Similarly, if your point is to do research after your degree and/or stay in academia, then an oxbridge degree will be a huge plus to get into those. And will give you the right background to succeed in them.

    On the other hand, if your point from the degree is employability, and you're 100% sure you would like to become say a mechanical engineer working in industry, then don't go to oxbridge! Lower ranked unis are so much better for engineering employability. According to unis stats:
    Uni of Cambridge employability for MEng Engineering: 67%
    Uni of Oxford employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 55%
    Uni of Brighton employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 90%

    Engineering for the purposes of working in industry needs a lot less theory and more practice. So going to a lower uni gives you just enough theory that you need, and leaves you free time to go look for real life experiences in industry, which is what would make you more employable. On the other hand, an oxbridge degree is so heavy with theory - that you will use very little of, once on the job - that it eats up all the 4 yrs you spend at uni, and you'd never find time to look for job experiences and/or do them.

    I understand my post isn't directly related to your question, as is raising a different matter, but thought I'd share my personal experience.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    19 graduates from uni were recruited on ONE year from another uni - what about other teams?

    I give up - you are blinded by Oxbridge and not by real-life employment. Btw F1 generates a huge amount of national income - hardly a niche market.

    I'll just watch my ex-students walk into roles ahead of Oxbridge candidates year after year.
    When did I say F1 was niche?

    When did I say other universities aren't good for engineering? I'm a strong advocate for Loughborough for one. Oxford Brookes does a good job too.

    You just seem to think that Cambridge isn't a good place if someone wants to go into industry at all, or specifically F1. I just demonstrated it is certainly competitive.

    So of the F1 constructors significantly based in the UK
    McLaren - Cambridge is #2 for alumni amongst current staff
    Mercedes - #4 ranked with 16 staff
    Williams - #5 ranked with 7 staff
    Renault - 10 staff
    Red Bull Racing - 9 staff
    Force India - 5 staff

    If anything I think you are being "blinded" against Cambridge for some reason.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    It's simply baffling you think F1 is actually a revenue generating area, much less "a huge amount of national income" when it's entirely funded by sponsorship deals. I'm pretty sure Easter Island has a higher GDP than most F1 team revenues if you set aside sponsorship money - and even if you don't it's not more than a tiny fraction of any developed countries GDP.

    You also seem to be incapable of grasping the fact that not everyone and in fact hardly anyone is interested in enough in such an area to specifically pursue an engineer career to work in that sector. I'm fairly certain the engineering graduates (from any university) at Shell, Lockheed Martin, Google, and so on and so forth, are not particularly fussed that they aren't working on F1 cars, regardless of whether your ephemeral "former students" are working those jobs or not.

    This is ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand, and regardless of the staggeringly inaccurate information you spew, the employability of Oxbridge engineers (and all STEM subject finalists there for that matter) remains higher than the national average and more than high enough to tempt thousands of students to apply to the courses between the two every year. The relevant information for the OP is that they're both good for any subject, there is a perception based in reality that Cambridge is "better" for STEM subjects but an undergraduate degree from either opens many doors and if they so wished, one of those would inevitably be into F1. It's likely they do not however.
    F1 does earn at least 1% GDP for this country - I repeat if you want to go into industry avoid Oxbridge.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    When did I say F1 was niche?

    When did I say other universities aren't good for engineering? I'm a strong advocate for Loughborough for one. Oxford Brookes does a good job too.

    You just seem to think that Cambridge isn't a good place if someone wants to go into industry at all, or specifically F1. I just demonstrated it is certainly competitive.

    So of the F1 constructors significantly based in the UK
    McLaren - Cambridge is #2 for alumni amongst current staff
    Mercedes - #4 ranked with 16 staff
    Williams - #5 ranked with 7 staff
    Renault - 10 staff
    Red Bull Racing - 9 staff
    Force India - 5 staff

    If anything I think you are being "blinded" against Cambridge for some reason.
    Those numbers are small compared to Brookes - I just think people are blinded by Oxbridge and, for Engineering if you want to work in industry , it is better avoided

    I'd recommend Cambridge for Maths but not Engineering so not anti Cambridge at all
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mh_1992)
    On the other hand, if your point from the degree is employability, and you're 100% sure you would like to become say a mechanical engineer working in industry, then don't go to oxbridge! Lower ranked unis are so much better for engineering employability. According to unis stats:
    Uni of Cambridge employability for MEng Engineering: 67%
    Uni of Oxford employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 55%
    Uni of Brighton employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 90%
    Your 'employability' numbers are misleading, as they have the implicit assumption that people doing further study are not employable. They also ignore average salary - surely someone being paid more is more in-demand?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mh_1992)
    According to unis stats:
    Uni of Cambridge employability for MEng Engineering: 67%
    Uni of Oxford employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 55%
    Uni of Brighton employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 90%
    There's a difference between "employability" and being unemployed. The Oxbridge grads not in work are generally doing further study.

    Also Cambridge sample size is 185 students. Brighton is 15.

    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Your 'employability' numbers are misleading, as they have the implicit assumption that people doing further study are not employable. They also ignore average salary - surely someone being paid more is more in-demand?
    PRSOM

    According to the LEO study, after 5 years Cambridge engineering grads median salary is £41,900
    Brighton is £35,400

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-by-university
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mh_1992)
    I know my post might spark controversy, but it's a reflection of my experience as a mechanical engineering graduate from a russel (non-oxbridge uni), and the experiences of some of my coursemates. My response is mainly relevant if you're looking at engineering. I'm currently in full time employment as a grad mech engineer on a grad scheme, but a good number of my classmates are either unemployed or employed but not in mech engineering.

    Now in response to your post, it all really depends on what you want to get out of the uni degree/experience.

    If it's purely love for the subject and trying to learn as much about it as you can, then defo go for an oxbridge degree. Especially at Cambridge where it's not just mech eng, but all engineering fundamentals mashed up in one big course. You can still live in student accomodation whilst in your hometown just to get the "student experience" if it's that high up your priorities.
    Similarly, if your point is to do research after your degree and/or stay in academia, then an oxbridge degree will be a huge plus to get into those. And will give you the right background to succeed in them.

    On the other hand, if your point from the degree is employability, and you're 100% sure you would like to become say a mechanical engineer working in industry, then don't go to oxbridge! Lower ranked unis are so much better for engineering employability. According to unis stats:
    Uni of Cambridge employability for MEng Engineering: 67%
    Uni of Oxford employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 55%
    Uni of Brighton employability for MEng Mechanical Engineering: 90%

    Engineering for the purposes of working in industry needs a lot less theory and more practice. So going to a lower uni gives you just enough theory that you need, and leaves you free time to go look for real life experiences in industry, which is what would make you more employable. On the other hand, an oxbridge degree is so heavy with theory - that you will use very little of, once on the job - that it eats up all the 4 yrs you spend at uni, and you'd never find time to look for job experiences and/or do them.

    I understand my post isn't directly related to your question, as is raising a different matter, but thought I'd share my personal experience.
    However of those that continue to full time employment, 98% from Cambridge are in a professional or managerial role, with only 2% not, compared to 90 and 10 from Brighton. Furthermore nearly 20% are engaged in some form of further study from Cambridge - in general people don't pursue PhDs and so on because they can't find a job, it's an active choice to pursue that route. Presenting the statistics in this way is misleading. Not to mention Cambridge graduates command a higher average salary after graduation. The numbers for Oxford are even more skewed towards it's graduates continuing in some form of education - the still have better 6 month on prospects and salaries though by not the same margin as Cambridge.

    This doesn't mean that Oxbridge students are incapable of continuing successfully into industry, just that many choose to delay their entry in favour of further study. This is linked to better long term salaries and prospects, particularly for PhDs and EngDs going into industry, so isn't even remotely a negative aspect. Also I really don't understand where your conception of "theoretical" versus "practical" is coming from. This isn't 6th form "take a physics exam or spend 2 days a week tinkering with cars". To be an engineer in industry, and specifically achieve leading technical positions comparable with management tracks, you need an outstanding command of the technical underpinnings of the subject. Not to mention, laboratory and experimental work is prevalent throughout, and the opportunities for further practical experience and work are abundant at both universities.

    In France, Ecole Polytechnique, a similarly elite university, requires it's students to have mastered the equivalent of first to second year Mathematics degree content before entry - do you think they're likely to be using formal linear algebra and real analysis on a day to day basis in industry? No? You're probably right, but they are one of the leading providers of CEOs of global organisations. They could also better formulate and solve a complex integral to solve a given engineering problem in a much shorter amount of time, to boot - leading to more time being able to be spent on the implementation of a solution. This is just an example, but clearly "theoretical" knowledge is no hindrance to succeed in industry - or if it is, there is a bizarre history of students excelling in spite of it.

    edit: Wow 15 students a sample does not make. That's not even like...statistically valid to compare the two
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    F1 does earn at least 1% GDP for this country
    Taking MIA's £9bn (which isn't just F1 and also includes doublecounting which should be removed for GDP purposes)
    https://www.theguardian.com/business...lls-uk-economy

    And £2tn total UK GDP
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/

    We get a very generous 0.45%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although the point of my OP wasn't to start a debate, but more to contribute to the variety of information OP will get, I'll answer the following posts.
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    There's a difference between "employability" and being unemployed. The Oxbridge grads not in work are generally doing further study.

    Also Cambridge sample size is 185 students. Brighton is 15.



    PRSOM

    According to the LEO study, after 5 years Cambridge engineering grads median salary is £41,900
    Brighton is £35,400

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-by-university
    Unfortunnately, uni stats didn't have many brighton students get back to them in the national survey for this particular course. But I do know someone who had done that course, and they said that most people in their course were in full time employment straight out of uni. I only included the link to give some sort of evidence rather than just my word for it.
    I actually started looking at employment figures for my course in different unis after I've spoken to this friend. I have graduated from a Russel Group uni that was also in the top 5 rankings for mech eng in the year I graduated (2016). Brighton was ranked much further down, yet, there were many more unemployed at my uni than in my friend's!

    Also, being a research intensive Russel Group uni, my course was very theoretical and probably closer to what you'd get in Oxbridge than Brighton. So if anything, I should be more biased towards oxbridge. However, now that I'm in full time employment in industry and that I've noticed that all my bosses haven NOT graduated from Russel group unis or Oxbridge, it downed on me that something there wasn't as people would lead you to believe.



    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    However of those that continue to full time employment, 98% from Cambridge are in a professional or managerial role, with only 2% not, compared to 90 and 10 from Brighton. Furthermore nearly 20% are engaged in some form of further study from Cambridge - in general people don't pursue PhDs and so on because they can't find a job, it's an active choice to pursue that route. Presenting the statistics in this way is misleading. Not to mention Cambridge graduates command a higher average salary after graduation. The numbers for Oxford are even more skewed towards it's graduates continuing in some form of education - the still have better 6 month on prospects and salaries though by not the same margin as Cambridge.

    This doesn't mean that Oxbridge students are incapable of continuing successfully into industry, just that many choose to delay their entry in favour of further study. This is linked to better long term salaries and prospects, particularly for PhDs and EngDs going into industry, so isn't even remotely a negative aspect. Also I really don't understand where your conception of "theoretical" versus "practical" is coming from. This isn't 6th form "take a physics exam or spend 2 days a week tinkering with cars". To be an engineer in industry, and specifically achieve leading technical positions comparable with management tracks, you need an outstanding command of the technical underpinnings of the subject. Not to mention, laboratory and experimental work is prevalent throughout, and the opportunities for further practical experience and work are abundant at both universities.

    In France, Ecole Polytechnique, a similarly elite university, requires it's students to have mastered the equivalent of first to second year Mathematics degree content before entry - do you think they're likely to be using formal linear algebra and real analysis on a day to day basis in industry? No? You're probably right, but they are one of the leading providers of CEOs of global organisations. They could also better formulate and solve a complex integral to solve a given engineering problem in a much shorter amount of time, to boot - leading to more time being able to be spent on the implementation of a solution. This is just an example, but clearly "theoretical" knowledge is no hindrance to succeed in industry - or if it is, there is a bizarre history of students excelling in spite of it.

    edit: Wow 15 students a sample does not make. That's not even like...statistically valid to compare the two
    The reason I didn't include postgrads in employment figures is very much because like I said in my OP, my piece of advice would only be useful to OP if he's 100% sure he wants to go into industry. And that he/she should decide themself about that before picking which uni/course. In summary, and according to my experience, oxbridge and russel group unis tend to be better if they'd like to pursue postgrad/research after graduation. and lower unis work better (when coupled with relevant experience) to progress into industry straight after their undergrad.

    I think the median salary for oxbridge is higher because fewer people get a job to begin with! I'd rather have more people in a course get decent paying work, than a few select elite getting very high paying jobs whilst a good 1/3 of the class gets nothing after such long and difficult studies at say oxbridge!

    I also don't mean that engineering is all practical. Nowadays, publishing of theory has become so widespread thanks to the internet, with world reknown unis such as MIT publishing their lecture notes and other content for free to the public. So it became a case where you don't have to attend oxbridge to be able to read and learn the content they teach. However, real industrial experiences are not something you can just gain on the internet. So I'd say that the optimal thing to do is to go a lower uni which would give you a good theoretical base, whilst at the same time leaving you with some time to get as much experience as possible. You'd also still be able to learn in your own time via the internet.

    Some of my family lives in france and I have cousins born and raised there, so I actually happen to know a lot about the french education system! I'm familiar with prestigious french engineering grandes ecoles like ecole centrale, ENS (ecole normale superieur) and ecole des mines...etc. And I know that in the french system, they have 2 years of intense preparatory classes (lots of maths and physics) before being admitted to these schools after admission tests.
    What I also know is that the UK and France function in very different ways. One of them being that France values academia and degrees and elitist rankings etc a lot more than the UK, as well as valuing them in all sectors. Whilst in the UK, especially for engineering, experience is valued a lot more. and this is coming from someone who's currently working in industry and has spoken to colleagues with me at work about their backgrounds...etc.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mh_1992)
    I think the median salary for oxbridge is higher because fewer people get a job to begin with! I'd rather have more people in a course get decent paying work, than a few select elite getting very high paying jobs whilst a good 1/3 of the class gets nothing after such long and difficult studies at say oxbridge!
    That doesn't apply to the 5 year salary figure I quoted.

    And at that 5 year datapoint 10% of Brighton engineering grads have "no sustained destination" vs 5% of Oxbridge. (i.e. unemployed or claiming benefits in that tax year)

    Edit to add: just comparing with Southamption the 5 year median is £37,200 and a 4% no sustained destination (so that's better than Cambridge )
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mh_1992)
    In summary, and according to my experience, oxbridge and russel group unis tend to be better if they'd like to pursue postgrad/research after graduation. and lower unis work better (when coupled with relevant experience) to progress into industry straight after their undergrad.
    Your statistics fail to show that. Just because more people from one institution do further research / study does not mean that they are less suitable for industry - they just had more options. Indeed, industry needs research to compete.

    So I'd say that the optimal thing to do is to go a lower uni which would give you a good theoretical base, whilst at the same time leaving you with some time to get as much experience as possible. You'd also still be able to learn in your own time via the internet.
    Courses that push you to think, rather than just learn, are better for technology industries, where new techniques need to be rapidly understood and applied.

    Whilst in the UK, especially for engineering, experience is valued a lot more. and this is coming from someone who's currently working in industry and has spoken to colleagues with me at work about their backgrounds...etc.
    Really understanding a subject accelerates the gaining of experience.

    When I graduated, the top employment sector for Oxford Engineering Science graduates was accountancy . That could explain you seeing fewer Oxbridge graduates. Doing a degree at a top university makes it easier to study what you're interested in, but get a job job that only uses part of it. I know quite a few people in computing with unrelated degrees, e.g. PPE and Law.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Taking MIA's £9bn (which isn't just F1 and also includes doublecounting which should be removed for GDP purposes)
    https://www.theguardian.com/business...lls-uk-economy

    And £2tn total UK GDP
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/

    We get a very generous 0.45%.
    You are forgetting the other income from tourism, support companies etc.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muttley79)
    You are forgetting the other income from tourism, support companies etc.
    Show me the data
    (the £9bn includes 4500 companies, so support companies are definitely included)
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    5 year median salaries for Engineering grads.

    NB. Aberdeen, etc pre-O&G cyclical downturn.


    Name:  Engineering LEO Wonke.png
Views: 38
Size:  91.8 KB

    Sourced from Wonkhe, using data from https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-by-university
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Applying to uni

    All the essentials

    The adventure begins mug

    Student life: what to expect

    What it's really like going to uni

    Graduates celebrate

    How to write a good personal statement

    Expert PS advice from the people who will read it

    Uni match

    Uni match

    Can't decide where to apply? Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Two students working together

    A-Z of universities

    Read our guides to unis and colleges from around the UK

    A student working on a computer

    Personal statement help

    Use our tool to get your ideal PS quickly!

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A student looking down a microscope

    Planning open days

    Find upcoming open days and get advice on preparing.

    Help out other students

    These questions still need an answer

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.