The Student Room Group

In the UK, is there a distinct career advantage to attending a top university

Top in the sense of A-level achievements and entry standards?

If there are entry standards I would venture a guess that yes it does matter, but one of my friends who has a bachelor's and master's degree in engineering from Oxford is at an accounting firm. I bet (s)he could have done the same coming from an ex-poly with a bachelor's degree in business. Overeducation much?

So I'm really curious. In the US, there is a website called "Ivy leagued and unemployed" where jobless ivy leaguers lament their joblessness, student debt and the lack of a marketable degree. There is a Duke grad who laments having majored in pre-med and is now making six figures after having studied computer programming by himself.

From my own experience (as an Ivy league grad) yes there are CV advantages when you apply to McKinsey, JP Morgan, or other such firms, or if you're an international student when you apply to domestic firms of prestige like central banks or government institutions or other conglomerates. But if you're dead set on immigrating I think a more applicable degree may be the wiser choice unless you can ace yourself at Harvard (or in the UK, Oxford). \

So to summarize :

1. Is prestige university>other universities in terms of employment opportunities

2. Is employable major>academic major in prestige school for prospective immigrants?

PS I'm not looking to immigrate by the way just asking.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by longshanksbow
Top in the sense of A-level achievements and entry standards?

If there are entry standards I would venture a guess that yes it does matter, but one of my friends who has a bachelor's and master's degree in engineering from Oxford is at an accounting firm. I bet (s)he could have done the same coming from an ex-poly with a bachelor's degree in business. Overeducation much?

So I'm really curious. In the US, there is a website called "Ivy leagued and unemployed" where jobless ivy leaguers lament their joblessness, student debt and the lack of a marketable degree. There is a Duke grad who laments having majored in pre-med and is now making six figures after having studied computer programming by himself.

From my own experience (as an Ivy league grad) yes there are CV advantages when you apply to McKinsey, JP Morgan, or other such firms, or if you're an international student when you apply to domestic firms of prestige like central banks or government institutions or other conglomerates. But if you're dead set on immigrating I think a more applicable degree may be the wiser choice unless you can ace yourself at Harvard (or in the UK, Oxford). \

So to summarize :

1. Is prestige university>other universities in terms of employment opportunities

2. Is employable major>academic major in prestige school for prospective immigrants?

PS I'm not looking to immigrate by the way just asking.


1. Yes but depends. Its a factor but not the only one. In the Uk it costs the same to do any degree or at least there a max which everyone seems to charge.
2. Depends whether the major is relevant to the job being applied for. Any oxbridge degree is going to open doors, but obviously not if its irrelevant to the job being applied for.
This is TSR... If you say 'it's not the be all and end all' you get angry 16 yearolds telling you that you just said London met is exactly equal to Oxford.

having said that... it's really not the be all and end all.

proof:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/wp201606.pdf
Original post by Joinedup
This is TSR... If you say 'it's not the be all and end all' you get angry 16 yearolds telling you that you just said London met is exactly equal to Oxford.

having said that... it's really not the be all and end all.

proof:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/wp201606.pdf


A cursory look at this says to me

1. You should study a well-paying subject
2. Birmingham=Cambridge if you are average at both schools
3. The Top at Top (top performers at Cambridge etc) are those who get it all.
Original post by Joinedup
This is TSR... If you say 'it's not the be all and end all' you get angry 16 yearolds telling you that you just said London met is exactly equal to Oxford.

having said that... it's really not the be all and end all.

proof:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/wp201606.pdf


But still this is two decades ago, and the competition for top places in universities has become fierce in the US (and I would guess in the UK as well) so today's picture may be a little bit more skewed towards top schools. Especially with the advent of finance and consulting as widely accepted careers for prestige...
Original post by Joinedup
This is TSR... If you say 'it's not the be all and end all' you get angry 16 yearolds telling you that you just said London met is exactly equal to Oxford.

having said that... it's really not the be all and end all.

proof:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/wp201606.pdf


I have never seen anyone equate the two. Your statement is false.
Original post by longshanksbow
A cursory look at this says to me

1. You should study a well-paying subject
2. Birmingham=Cambridge if you are average at both schools
3. The Top at Top (top performers at Cambridge etc) are those who get it all.


Too simplistic.
1. Depends.
2. Not really.
3. Not all, but a lot.
TSR has become entirely focused on two issues:

1. University rankings and their effect on future career prospects and
2. Whether access to Oxbridge is denied following disappointing GCSE results.
For 1 if you have done Oxbridge, Imperial or LSE for some subjects then you may have an advantage (overall as there may be some exceptions). After that the differences are only slightly different.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by longshanksbow
A cursory look at this says to me

1. You should study a well-paying subject
2. Birmingham=Cambridge if you are average at both schools
3. The Top at Top (top performers at Cambridge etc) are those who get it all.


Seems to say that the highest paid Oxbridge & LSE graduates really are paid *a lot*... don't think it really teased out if they were the highest attaining students in their cohorts - I think it's possible to be great at 'doing academics' without being great at getting ahead in the world of work.
Original post by Joinedup
Seems to say that the highest paid Oxbridge & LSE graduates really are paid *a lot*... don't think it really teased out if they were the highest attaining students in their cohorts - I think it's possible to be great at 'doing academics' without being great at getting ahead in the world of work.


On the contrary, at bachelor's level, the nature of work and study are similar in two respects :

1. study a lot without understanding much
2. do things you don't want to do
Original post by DrSocSciences
TSR has become entirely focused on two issues:

1. University rankings and their effect on future career prospects and
2. Whether access to Oxbridge is denied following disappointing GCSE results.


I think life boils down to

1. income
2. satisfaction

education gives you almost all of 1 and some of 2
so yes I think the choice to do a degree is inevitably tied to future income AND tradition.
a top private school followed by oxbridge or st andrews or similar and your set for life. the poor are occasionally permitted to enter to prevent there funding being cut.
Original post by longshanksbow
I think life boils down to

1. income
2. satisfaction

education gives you almost all of 1 and some of 2
so yes I think the choice to do a degree is inevitably tied to future income AND tradition.


Where does entrepreneurialism fit with that model?
Original post by DrSocSciences
Where does entrepreneurialism fit with that model?


Both. But 50% of students can/will go to uni, while there is no world for half the population to be entrepreneuers. A small minority of successful entrepreneuers will employ the majority of university students.
Reply 15
Original post by longshanksbow

So to summarize :

1. Is prestige university>other universities in terms of employment opportunities

2. Is employable major>academic major in prestige school for prospective immigrants?

PS I'm not looking to immigrate by the way just asking.


1. not for most jobs
2. I don't know what this means... if it's what I think it is, then no your degree course makes no difference to immigration

This is the second, or maybe third, showing of this chart on TSR today:

Exhibit 7.5 - factors for grads.png

Source: http://www.cbi.org.uk/index.cfm/_api/render/file/?method=inline&fileID=DB1A9FE5-5459-4AA2-8B44798DD5B15E77

(If you are interested, I have an international version - it's very similar.)

BUT if you are no longer a "fresh" graduate then your degree has decreasing relevance to any employment anyway. The longer you are working with real professional work experience, the less your academic background matters (for most jobs).
Original post by Doonesbury
1. not for most jobs
2. I don't know what this means... if it's what I think it is, then no your degree course makes no difference to immigration

This is the second, or maybe third, showing of this chart on TSR today:

Exhibit 7.5 - factors for grads.png

Source: http://www.cbi.org.uk/index.cfm/_api/render/file/?method=inline&fileID=DB1A9FE5-5459-4AA2-8B44798DD5B15E77

(If you are interested, I have an international version - it's very similar.)

BUT if you are no longer a "fresh" graduate then your degree has decreasing relevance to any employment anyway. The longer you are working with real professional work experience, the less your academic background matters (for most jobs).


I don't buy this. Interview or questionnaire respondents are either unaware of their own subconsious bias, or are unwilling to admit their known bias. What people do is far more instructive than what they say. That hypothesis is demonstrable if recruiters are shown cvs with and without universities identified.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by DrSocSciences
I don't buy this. Interview or questionnaire respondents are either unaware of their own subconsious bias, or are unwilling to admit their known bias. What people do is far more instructive than what they say.


I think if were to exclude certain finance or consulting jobs I think this might make sense. If you see how schools prefer 1st class from low rank uni to 3rd class from cambridge in admitting graduate students, I think the same goes for jobs where the actual knowledge acquired from education is more important than the name of the school.

Research-oriented jobs, accounting jobs, computer science jobs -- these careers will have much less of a problem employing ex-poly students.
Students should only go to RGUs
Reply 19
Original post by DrSocSciences
I don't buy this. Interview or questionnaire respondents are either unaware of their own subconsious bias, or are unwilling to admit their known bias. What people do is far more instructive than what they say. That hypothesis is demonstrable if recruiters are shown cvs with and without universities identified.


This is why EY, Clifford Chance and others are moving to blind recruitment methods. The clever businesses know that bad hiring decisions cost them money.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending