The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Princepieman
Tbh, I'd much rather focus on establishing myself socially in first year than worry about grades that won't move the needle for my degree.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I get that to a point, but the not moving the needle isn't the crux of it. I routinely see people effectively starting from scratch in second year and such complacency then can and does move the needle - sometimes the wrong way.
I agree to some extent. In my experience (obviously a generalisation), the staff at lower-ranked institutions might not have especially strong research profiles but they're very good teachers. If there were a 'value-added' score, they'd do very well.

There are some students who struggle but work very hard and deserve to succeed. I'd never put someone down for working hard and scraping a 2:2 or whatever. Not everyone has the capacity for high-level academic work. There's an argument that university isn't really for these people but they're trying to better themselves and their employment prospects by getting a degree and I really can't criticise them as individuals. Plenty are also mature students juggling other commitments.

I do judge those who treat university like an extension of school or an opportunity to socialise and just don't bother, or who play games on their phones during lectures and then complain that things 'weren't explained properly' and that's why they failed.

(My personal experience is very unusual. Working class, dropped out of school at 16, no A Levels, went to London Met much later, got high 1st, now attending KCL with a Cambridge scholarship for next year - so they clearly don't see my London Met degree as worthless! And I never would have considered applying to high-ranking places for postgrad if not for the encouragement I got from staff at London Met.)
Original post by InvisibleDuck
I agree to some extent. In my experience (obviously a generalisation), the staff at lower-ranked institutions might not have especially strong research profiles but they're very good teachers. If there were a 'value-added' score, they'd do very well.

There are some students who struggle but work very hard and deserve to succeed. I'd never put someone down for working hard and scraping a 2:2 or whatever. Not everyone has the capacity for high-level academic work. There's an argument that university isn't really for these people but they're trying to better themselves and their employment prospects by getting a degree and I really can't criticise them as individuals. Plenty are also mature students juggling other commitments.

I do judge those who treat university like an extension of school or an opportunity to socialise and just don't bother, or who play games on their phones during lectures and then complain that things 'weren't explained properly' and that's why they failed.

(My personal experience is very unusual. Working class, dropped out of school at 16, no A Levels, went to London Met much later, got high 1st, now attending KCL with a Cambridge scholarship for next year - so they clearly don't see my London Met degree as worthless! And I never would have considered applying to high-ranking places for postgrad if not for the encouragement I got from staff at London Met.)


Oh wow congrats on the improvement.

I agree with you on those types of students who complain that things weren't taught properly, if there was a way to measure benefit of degree to students who choose to be receptive, I feel they'd fare better.
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.


How are you not seeing the catch 22? Lets say a uni has low entry standards. So it has a low reputation. So it attracts less people. Which means it needs to lower its entry standards. It's a basic cycle.

Do you want every Uni in the country to be like Manchester Physics and only want A*A*A? I'm 100% sure you haven't even step foot in half the unis you bash. Being worse than Oxbridge doesn't mean you're subpar. If the courses are accredited (which most are at UK Universities. It's not a 3rd world country where only the top ones are), by definition they're good enough and have high standards of teaching.
(edited 5 years ago)
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.


yes. the quality of teaching as well as resources available are essential for training in certain subjects. science, engineering, mathematics.. these aren't things you can waltz through without knowing the content
Reply 45
Original post by DarthRoar
D students don't go to Durham, my dude. Employers know that, which is why they will prefer Durham vs Leeds.


I'm late to this conversation but you'd be surprised, I know people doing BTEC and going to Durham
Original post by Tom191
I'm late to this conversation but you'd be surprised, I know people doing BTEC and going to Durham


Nonsense
Reply 47
Original post by DarthRoar
Nonsense


Why would I lie? They're good at a particular sport and got an unconditional to Durham
Reply 48
Original post by Tom191
I'm late to this conversation but you'd be surprised, I know people doing BTEC and going to Durham

But surely that depends on the grade, not just doing a BTEC, the equivalents (to an A level) range from E-A* depending on the BTEC grade someone achieves.

Obviously someone with Pass/Merit grades wouldn't get in, but Distinction or Distinction* is perfectly viable.

Original post by DarthRoar
Nonsense

I know two people that did, one for Business and one for Criminology.
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.


John Major didn't even go to university. People on TSR forget that top employers want to select the right people. Intelligence is one part of that, but who you are and what you look like matters more throughout the job interview process. Would you hire someone who got a 1st class degree from Oxbridge in a STEM subject if he/she looked very geeky and creepy with no social skills or no obvious potential for teamwork or leadership? Or would you take the 1st class degree candidate from Coventry who looked the part in appearance and presence, and had demonstrated the necessary skills? Hiring is heavily influenced by cultural fit.

Luckily for me I want to go into academic research, so I won't have to worry about the above as much as those wanting to work in office jobs.
Original post by StarLinyx
John Major didn't even go to university. People on TSR forget that top employers want to select the right people. Intelligence is one part of that, but who you are and what you look like matters more throughout the job interview process. Would you hire someone who got a 1st class degree from Oxbridge in a STEM subject if he/she looked very geeky and creepy with no social skills or no obvious potential for teamwork or leadership? Or would you take the 1st class degree candidate from Coventry who looked the part in appearance and presence, and had demonstrated the necessary skills? Hiring is heavily influenced by cultural fit.

Luckily for me I want to go into academic research, so I won't have to worry about the above as much as those wanting to work in office jobs.


Plenty of good looking, well adjusted individuals from good unis between that spectrum to choose from before getting to Coventry. Arguably there are more good looking and well adjusted people at top unis (which has been my experience).

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 51
Original post by yt7777
But surely that depends on the grade, not just doing a BTEC, the equivalents (to an A level) range from E-A* depending on the BTEC grade someone achieves.

Obviously someone with Pass/Merit grades wouldn't get in, but Distinction or Distinction* is perfectly viable.


I know two people that did, one for Business and one for Criminology.


They got an unconditional so it didn't matter what BTEC grades they got.

I'm quite close to the person and no way would they be getting a D at A level, said person barely passed their GCSEs
Original post by Princepieman
Plenty of good looking, well adjusted individuals from good unis between that spectrum to choose from before getting to Coventry. Arguably there are more good looking and well adjusted people at top unis (which has been my experience).

Posted from TSR Mobile


And there are also plenty of them at less prestigious universities. Some people may think graduates from Coventry are all stupid, but some of them are just as good as the ones from top universities. I've met some of these at UCL, and they have coped ok with tough MSc courses in STEM subjects.
Original post by StarLinyx
And there are also plenty of them at less prestigious universities. Some people may think graduates from Coventry are all stupid, but some of them are just as good as the ones from top universities. I've met some of these at UCL, and they have coped ok with tough MSc courses in STEM subjects.


For sure, the top end of "lower" universities are still very talented and they'll do well regardless. the median however..
Original post by Tom191
They got an unconditional so it didn't matter what BTEC grades they got.

I'm quite close to the person and no way would they be getting a D at A level, said person barely passed their GCSEs


My youngest son barely passed his (in fact he had to do a resit year to bring him up to the required amount of GCSEs to go onto A levels), he ended college with 3 x A* at A level. Worked his butt off to get those but he was absolutely determined he would show those at his old high school what could happen with the right support.

He is just completing first year at uni (a top 25 one for those where rankings matter) studying a STEM subject, has continued with the same work ethic and has achieved a first for the year. The idea of coasting or that first year doesn't matter didn't even enter his head, he didn't want to get out of the habit of studying.

Re lower ranking universities, eldest graduated from pretty much the lowest ranking one you can find, did (shock, horror) a media based degree but still got into a competitive graduate scheme beating many of those from much more prestigious universities in the process. That said, he volunteered during uni holidays and was a senior resident in halls making sure the 1st years were ok plus he has a go get personality.
Original post by Princepieman
For sure, the top end of "lower" universities are still very talented and they'll do well regardless. the median however..


Not everyone wants to be MC lawyers or investment bankers or accountants for a big 4 firm. And even these prestigious firms take on students from lesser universities for more regular office jobs (not so much the graduate schemes though).
Reply 56
Original post by Crazysue1
My youngest son barely passed his (in fact he had to do a resit year to bring him up to the required amount of GCSEs to go onto A levels), he ended college with 3 x A* at A level. Worked his butt off to get those but he was absolutely determined he would show those at his old high school what could happen with the right support.

He is just completing first year at uni (a top 25 one for those where rankings matter) studying a STEM subject, has continued with the same work ethic and has achieved a first for the year. The idea of coasting or that first year doesn't matter didn't even enter his head, he didn't want to get out of the habit of studying.

Re lower ranking universities, eldest graduated from pretty much the lowest ranking one you can find, did (shock, horror) a media based degree but still got into a competitive graduate scheme beating many of those from much more prestigious universities in the process. That said, he volunteered during uni holidays and was a senior resident in halls making sure the 1st years were ok plus he has a go get personality.


Well done to your son, that turnaround is admirable.

I was mostly referring my friend about the GCSEs, I know he hasn't made that kind of switch lol. But he's going to one of the best unis in the country and playing high level sport, so who's really winning I suppose.
Reply 57
Since when did Leeds have D grade entry requirements?
Original post by DarthRoar
D students don't go to Durham, my dude. Employers know that, which is why they will prefer Durham vs Leeds.
Reply 58
Original post by StarLinyx
Not everyone wants to be MC lawyers or investment bankers or accountants for a big 4 firm. And even these prestigious firms take on students from lesser universities for more regular office jobs (not so much the graduate schemes though).

You probably shouldn't be lumping big4 with MC and IB. Now I don't know much about the latter two. But, with the big4 quickly moving away from tough academic requirements, it's a possible sign of things to come in the overall grad job market, where grades, never mind the subject or university, mean little; if they mean anything at all at the moment, that is. E.g., see EY getting rid of all grade requirements apart from a couple of programmes like Actuarial where candidates need an A at A-level maths.
They may have done in 1995-2000, but certainly not now. As for Durham, even if they attract some of the best Oxbridge rejects, that does not mean that they receive a better education than those at, say, Leeds. The REF scores show that Durham is one of the worst performers in the Russell Group, and REF is taken very seriously by all universities and academics. If they cannot undertake top quality research, how can they deliver a top academic education?
Original post by hau28
Since when did Leeds have D grade entry requirements?

Quick Reply

Latest