The Student Room Group

Lower ranking universities are only so because of the students not the institutions

Although I cannot speak for every low-ranking university, I go to a non-Russel group middle of the table uni.

Most of my friends from school go to better universities so I know people from Russel Groups and Oxbridge and such.

It comes as no surprise, that the calibre of student at my university is lower than those at better universities, myself included however I try and make the most of the hand I've been dealt, but a lot of people in my class don't do this, most people try and do the bare minimum to pass. So when we eventually graduate, and the 'average' student struggles to find a good graduate job, is that really because of the university's poor teaching and guidance or is it because the students?

I know people at other unis, who have had a bunch of internships at big companies, volunteer, do charity work. I feel they'd probably still be a success at my university, whereas if you got someone from a low uni and put them in Cambridge, I doubt they'd do much better.

Obviously, some unis may have better ties to certain industries or companies, or might be targeted by certain employers. But I feel for the most case, you could probably achieve relative success at London Met if you were bothered to.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dinasaurus
Although I cannot speak for every low-ranking university, I go to a non-Russel group middle of the table uni.

Most of my friends from school go to better universities so I know people from Russel Groups and Oxbridge and such.

It comes as no surprise, that the calibre of student at my university is lower than those at better universities, myself included however I try and make the most of the hand I've been dealt, but a lot of people in my class don't do this, most people try and do the bare minimum to pass. So when we eventually graduate, and the 'average' student struggles to find a good graduate job, is that really because of the university's poor teaching and guidance or is it because the students?

I know people at other unis, who have had a bunch of internships at big companies, volunteer, do charity work. I feel they'd probably still be a success at my university, whereas if you got someone from a low uni and put them in Cambridge, I doubt they'd do much better.

Obviously, some unis may have better ties to certain industries or companies, or might be targeted by certain employers. But I feel for the most case, you could probably achieve relative success at London Met if you were bothered to.


The definitive answer is very blurry. Many people who have A* or A grades at A Level won't purposely apply to places like London Met. They'd apply to the best place they can. There isn't any research on outcomes who have Top 5 Uni academics who attended bottom 5 universities just because they're few and far between.


But in general, yes - they can succeed. Some industries are harder than others - IB and Law are industries with university bias.

As long as someone from London Met has AAB, he/she can apply to nearly every grad scheme (some require AAA/A*AB, and rarely A*AA/A*A*B). Since most don't, maybe that's why progression isn't great?
Reply 2
Sometimes it comes down the work ethic as well, Oxbridge and Russell Group make you work harder than lower ranked universities. I've been to a Russell Group university and a lower ranked university and the difference in workload in immense.
Reply 3
Personally there should not be so many universities and mickey mouse degrees. You are just wasting time and money studying photography at university.
Good thread.

What matters is you, not your university.
Original post by generallee
Good thread.

What matters is you, not your university.


lol no
Reply 6
Original post by ma_long
Personally there should not be so many universities and mickey mouse degrees. You are just wasting time and money studying photography at university.


Lower ranking universities still teach traditional subjects, so I can't speak for things like photography but I know a few media students which is similar. They were given the opportunity to find internships, however from those I know most either didn't apply or applied for a handful of internships local to them. After the first wave of rejections, they just gave up. I feel if they had more of a drive, they could've found somewhere eventually which would aid their prospects.

Original post by Kyber Ninja
The definitive answer is very blurry. Many people who have A* or A grades at A Level won't purposely apply to places like London Met. They'd apply to the best place they can. There isn't any research on outcomes who have Top 5 Uni academics who attended bottom 5 universities just because they're few and far between.


But in general, yes - they can succeed. Some industries are harder than others - IB and Law are industries with university bias.

As long as someone from London Met has AAB, he/she can apply to nearly every grad scheme (some require AAA/A*AB, and rarely A*AA/A*A*B). Since most don't, maybe that's why progression isn't great?


Yeah I think Law and Banking are more biased about your undergrad though, I looked at statistics for my uni, most students are local to the county and after graduating, most students stayed in the county. Now it could be that they just can't get jobs, or I believe that they just didn't want to move out. There's just less of an enthusiasm for succeeding.
Reply 7
Original post by rhaegar442
lol no


So you're saying if you were just randomly allocated a university, and there were no such things as applications, an A* student who got placed into Leeds Beckett wouldn't do as well as a D student in Durham?

Think about interview technique, writing applications, work ethic?
Is this what people at sub par unis are saying to themselves now? Lower ranked unis are less prestigious, have lower standards and rigour of education and your degree overall will be worth less. The fact that it attracts less intelligent student is reflective of its education standards and requirements.

Furthermore, the doors and opportunities available to you would be considerably less than for those at top unis. If you grind hard at lower ranked unis then sure you will end up somewhere you liked but you'd still be worse off than if you'd had a degree from a top uni on your CV.
Original post by rhaegar442
lol no


LOL yes.

If you are intelligent, industrious and motivated you will make a success of your life wherever you go to Uni.

And the world is littered with Oxbridge and Ivy League under achievers.
Original post by Dinasaurus
So you're saying if you were just randomly allocated a university, and there were no such things as applications, an A* student who got placed into Leeds Beckett wouldn't do as well as a D student in Durham?

Think about interview technique, writing applications, work ethic?


Except you're not randomly allocated to a uni and that's all that matters.
Original post by generallee
LOL yes.

If you are intelligent, industrious and motivated you will make a success of your life wherever you go to Uni.

And the world is littered with Oxbridge and Ivy League under achievers.


You'd always be less successful than if you'd actually gone to a top uni.
Original post by rhaegar442
Is this what people at sub par unis are saying to themselves now? Lower ranked unis are less prestigious, have lower standards and rigour of education and your degree overall will be worth less. The fact that it attracts less intelligent student is reflective of its education standards and requirements.

Furthermore, the doors and opportunities available to you would be considerably less than for those at top unis. If you grind hard at lower ranked unis then sure you will end up somewhere you liked but you'd still be worse off than if you'd had a degree from a top uni on your CV.


Maybe it is a bit of that, or the fact I don't have a traditional view of success and I'm not aiming for the usual TSR-certified jobs.

In the field I've wanted to go into, I've managed fine so far, obviously I'll have to wait and see how I turn out. I realise I am not the norm at my university, but the fact like 95% of my course just aren't bothered means I get a lot more support from the academic staff, a lot more 1:1 to interview prep and help with applying for internships, because most of my peers just weren't interested.
Original post by rhaegar442
Except you're not randomly allocated to a uni and that's all that matters.


In that case, there's insufficient data to suggest that the outcomes are because of the university and not the students.
Original post by Dinasaurus
So you're saying if you were just randomly allocated a university, and there were no such things as applications, an A* student who got placed into Leeds Beckett wouldn't do as well as a D student in Durham?


D students don't go to Durham, my dude. Employers know that, which is why they will prefer Durham vs Leeds.
Original post by Dinasaurus
In that case, there's insufficient data to suggest that the outcomes are because of the university and not the students.


Nope there is plenty of data. From average graduate salaries to employment rates to actual targeted unis for the most prestigious of jobs, they all show that the better the uni the better the job you can get.
Original post by Dinasaurus
Maybe it is a bit of that, or the fact I don't have a traditional view of success and I'm not aiming for the usual TSR-certified jobs.

In the field I've wanted to go into, I've managed fine so far, obviously I'll have to wait and see how I turn out. I realise I am not the norm at my university, but the fact like 95% of my course just aren't bothered means I get a lot more support from the academic staff, a lot more 1:1 to interview prep and help with applying for internships, because most of my peers just weren't interested.


Well you're just proving the point really. If you go to an average uni then aim for an average job then you'll do fine.

Obviously you're right, there's whole host of other things that they look at and you can enter the next "tier" of jobs if you excel elsewhere
Original post by rhaegar442
Nope there is plenty of data. From average graduate salaries to employment rates to actual targeted unis for the most prestigious of jobs, they all show that the better the uni the better the job you can get.


But that's mainly because the better unis tend to get the better students, there's no negative control for this.
To be honest, there are plenty of poor students at Russell Group universities.

I recently had my first taste of marking 1st year undergraduate work. I'm amazed some of the clowns got through their GCSEs.
Original post by Dinasaurus
But that's mainly because the better unis tend to get the better students, there's no negative control for this.


No, it's because they're more intelligent and are doing a more respectable and academically rigorous degree, that definitely plays a part. And oxbridge degree and a london met degree will not be seen as equal by employers. Employers discriminate based on uni because it makes the process easier.

Quick Reply