Why bother going to a university outside top 30 UK rank?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Princepieman
Lol.
As someone that has been at a mid-tier and top ~15 by rep uni.. this is false. There is a significant difference on almost every single metric.
As someone that has been at a mid-tier and top ~15 by rep uni.. this is false. There is a significant difference on almost every single metric.
You transferred from one average uni to a slightly less average uni because you think it'll improve your career prospects. That's fine - maybe it will (you want to go into finance, right? If you wanted to go into any other sector except maybe law then I doubt transferring would be worth it). But the crucial point is that if it does make a difference to your employability then it will be because of the uni name on your CV, and not because the teaching, research quality or any other metric is better at Exeter than Swansea. These things are incidental to most employers. That's my point.
Original post by Merry Xmas 2k18
what's an expoly
A current university that formerly was a polytechnic. Anglia Ruskin and UCLan are examples with a medschool.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think this subject has been rinsed dry to death. However my two pence.
Uni rankings matter only depending on what you actually want to do in life;
1. Something like Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Optom etc does not matter where you graduated from as the courses are regulated by the body for standardisation.
2. However if you want to do investment banking, strategy consulting, asset management, private equity ( basically highflying London professions) then it is a well known fact that they only recruit from Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial and maybe Durham/Bristol in rare cases.Even Law is something interesting; if you want to land a TC from a well known firm then again the mentioned unis and RG unis are your best bet. I am not sure about what the criteria is for someone being an injury claims solicitor in a small town like Huddersfield for example.
3. If you want to apply to generic graduate schemes like Civil service or the Big 4 for example then it doesnt matter where you went to Uni ( you might need to have a specific subject in some cases but thats about it). I went to a Uni ranked 60-70 and now doing a Graduate scheme in the Big 4 after doing Pharmacy.
So to all arguing if it is worth it, make your mind up by thinking critically. A lot of students pointlessly go to uni to do a degree they enjoy ( nothing wrong with that on paper) but they are left unemployed with massive student loans purely because they are unemployable due to lack of technical skills/work experience. The lower ranked uni's are making money off these people by offering less rigorous degrees which in most cases do not lead to much UNLESS the student themselves are proactive about advancing their careers.
Uni rankings matter only depending on what you actually want to do in life;
1. Something like Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Optom etc does not matter where you graduated from as the courses are regulated by the body for standardisation.
2. However if you want to do investment banking, strategy consulting, asset management, private equity ( basically highflying London professions) then it is a well known fact that they only recruit from Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial and maybe Durham/Bristol in rare cases.Even Law is something interesting; if you want to land a TC from a well known firm then again the mentioned unis and RG unis are your best bet. I am not sure about what the criteria is for someone being an injury claims solicitor in a small town like Huddersfield for example.
3. If you want to apply to generic graduate schemes like Civil service or the Big 4 for example then it doesnt matter where you went to Uni ( you might need to have a specific subject in some cases but thats about it). I went to a Uni ranked 60-70 and now doing a Graduate scheme in the Big 4 after doing Pharmacy.
So to all arguing if it is worth it, make your mind up by thinking critically. A lot of students pointlessly go to uni to do a degree they enjoy ( nothing wrong with that on paper) but they are left unemployed with massive student loans purely because they are unemployable due to lack of technical skills/work experience. The lower ranked uni's are making money off these people by offering less rigorous degrees which in most cases do not lead to much UNLESS the student themselves are proactive about advancing their careers.
Original post by Snufkin
You transferred from one average uni to a slightly less average uni because you think it'll improve your career prospects. That's fine - maybe it will (you want to go into finance, right? If you wanted to go into any other sector except maybe law then I doubt transferring would be worth it). But the crucial point is that if it does make a difference to your employability then it will be because of the uni name on your CV, and not because the teaching, research quality or any other metric is better at Exeter than Swansea. These things are incidental to most employers. That's my point.
I'm not sure what my situation has to do with this. You asserted a claim that mid to lower reputed universities were the same as higher reputed universities. That itself is false.
Whether you look at the alumni network, the type of attitude most students have towards their futures/their work, the resources, the access to top employers, access to accomplished speakers, the rigour of the course.. so on and so forth. They are absolutely not the same. Sure, none of this matters if you want to go be a nurse or something but for most folks doing an academic degree it matters and the difference in quality is stark (not slightly different, stark). You'd have to legitimately have some kind of blindness to reason to propose otherwise.
Your insecurity shines through this post, and everyone can see it. You are the epitome of a TSR prestige obsessed user, who uses the reputation of their institution as a basis of self worth.
Also, university is about becoming more mature. Why are you, an adult, still on TSR obsessing over reputation? This thread isn’t remotely constructive, no one has replied and gone ‘thanks, I’ll only apply to top 30 universities now!’. This was just a statement for you to assert some perceived authority and provide yourself with some personal reassurance. Literally no one cares about uni rep other than you and a small handful of TSR users, maybe you can get together and circlejerk over uni rankings?
Also, university is about becoming more mature. Why are you, an adult, still on TSR obsessing over reputation? This thread isn’t remotely constructive, no one has replied and gone ‘thanks, I’ll only apply to top 30 universities now!’. This was just a statement for you to assert some perceived authority and provide yourself with some personal reassurance. Literally no one cares about uni rep other than you and a small handful of TSR users, maybe you can get together and circlejerk over uni rankings?
Average student as in someone doing a degree that isn’t medicine, science etc. That have no alternative route to the job market through apprenticeships or simply working
Before your arguement had at least a gram of credibility despite being boring as hell, but now you just sound pathetic. The truth is, people at lower ranked universities aren't on their knees wishing 'oh if only I was at a top 30 university!', they are probably just getting on with their lives and studying. Whereas you, at a top university, are on a forum banging on relentlessly about reputation? Doesn't that deserve some evaluation on your part? Or are you enjoying preaching your prestige cause...
Only those who have a point to prove to themselves will put others down. Your insecurity is blazingly obvious.
Only those who have a point to prove to themselves will put others down. Your insecurity is blazingly obvious.
Really, in my experience Bangor was tougher than Durham.
Genuine question - Why is it that you can achieve a first from a university that's lesser respected and it's not as vigurous as one from a top university, surely you'd pick the easiest university to lessen your own workload? I realise there's not lots of truth in OPs post, but it's an interesting idea. Universities have different requirements for a first, it's not like A-Levels where you're marked equally across the entire nation sitting your subject and exam board.
Original post by FloralHybrid
Genuine question - Why is it that you can achieve a first from a university that's lesser respected and it's not as vigurous as one from a top university, surely you'd pick the easiest university to lessen your own workload? I realise there's not lots of truth in OPs post, but it's an interesting idea. Universities have different requirements for a first, it's not like A-Levels where you're marked equally across the entire nation sitting your subject and exam board.
People pick the better ranked unis because of loads of reasons - connections and network access after grad, or during tenure there, higher employability - so better potential for job security down the line, better research quality so you go into better depth
However some people on the thread claim the above things don’t really matter and you can get to where you want with hard work, determination etc... which is very true and a very good thing
But perhaps not true in some exclusively competitive fields or where you can’t get through directly without having degree - medicine, veterinary, dentistry or investment banking, consultancy, and law etc at top firms where uni prestige may carry some weight and could make the difference between getting the job or not
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by timif2
People pick the better ranked unis because of loads of reasons - connections and network access after grad, or during tenure there, higher employability - so better potential for job security down the line, better research quality so you go into better depth
However some people on the thread claim the above things don’t really matter and you can get to where you want with hard work, determination etc... which is very true and a very good thing
But perhaps not true in some exclusively competitive fields or where you can’t get through directly without having degree - medicine, veterinary, dentistry or investment banking, consultancy, and law etc at top firms where uni prestige may carry some weight and could make the difference between getting the job or not
However some people on the thread claim the above things don’t really matter and you can get to where you want with hard work, determination etc... which is very true and a very good thing
But perhaps not true in some exclusively competitive fields or where you can’t get through directly without having degree - medicine, veterinary, dentistry or investment banking, consultancy, and law etc at top firms where uni prestige may carry some weight and could make the difference between getting the job or not
All very good points - However it's still arguably true that it's 'easier' to get a first from a 'lesser' university?
Original post by FloralHybrid
Genuine question - Why is it that you can achieve a first from a university that's lesser respected and it's not as vigurous as one from a top university, surely you'd pick the easiest university to lessen your own workload? I realise there's not lots of truth in OPs post, but it's an interesting idea. Universities have different requirements for a first, it's not like A-Levels where you're marked equally across the entire nation sitting your subject and exam board.
Let's be clear that it is easier to get a good grade at a less established uni. Princepieman can speak to that. I also have some experience of working with students from the local ex-poly; and truthfully their first-class essays wouldn't get even a 2:2 at a more established uni.
Grad success does depend largely on you as a person. But there are some career benefits, even if the TSR masses like to ignore it -- the alumni network, career support, being targeted by leading firms, and mixing with other motivated people.
In some industries, by no means most, a first from an ex-poly will be viewed with a sort of asterisk -- so you have to perform extremely well to impress that your first is a "real" one. So if you roll the dice and decide to go to Plymouth with your A*AA, do know that a 69% will not give the impression you're after. And you've suffered lack of alumni network, leading firms visiting, mixing with motivated (and like-minded people!) for nothing.
But I do think there is a lot to be said to going to a less established uni and leaving with an 80%. For the A*AA student, this is easy! You get awards, you leave top of year, you know your lecturers incredibly well, and you have the confidence to put yourself forward for roles.
Original post by FloralHybrid
All very good points - However it's still arguably true that it's 'easier' to get a first from a 'lesser' university?
Generally speaking "higher" universities award more Firsts. Not in all cases, or for all subjects, but generally it's the case.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
Generally speaking "higher" universities award more Firsts. Not in all cases, or for all subjects, but generally it's the case.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
And lower unis award more 2:2s; have higher discontinuation rates. That reflects the calibre of student attending the uni, though, rather than the actual difficulty of the course.
Original post by Poooky
So you can do less work at a lower ranked university, get the same degree/classification, and you're questioning why people would do that? The real question is why bother going to a top ranked uni.
And this is a problem.
There is a massive discrepancy in standards and difficulty between institutions and its a problem that this obvious difference isn't recognised by anyone, most people (and employers) are of the opinion that 'a first is a first' wherever you graduate from, when it really isn't.
You're right, you can be tactical and go to a university that requires a lot lower academics, then you can go and graduate with the highest grades from your cohort and that looks impressive to employers, but if you go to a university that requirements more closely aligned to your achieved grades then you will likely graduate with a worse classification to the aforementioned scenario and its not really fair in my opinion.
I am not saying these 'worse' institutions (top whatever number) don't have there place, because they really do. They open a lot of doors for people you don't have or miss the grades to apply to 'better' universities as well as offering a lot more options in terms of locations and courses, but there should be some form of consideration of the standard of institution vs the grade achieved, because someone with grades of CDD at A level graduates with a first from a university that will accept that and someone with grades of AAB+ graduates with a 2:1 or 2:2 which may have required a tonne more work will look less of an appealing prospect for an employer who doesn't consider the difficulty or their course or standard of their university, and I know examples of people for both those 2 cases and it doesn't seem fair to me.
Original post by Princepieman
I'm not sure what my situation has to do with this. You asserted a claim that mid to lower reputed universities were the same as higher reputed universities. That itself is false.
Whether you look at the alumni network, the type of attitude most students have towards their futures/their work, the resources, the access to top employers, access to accomplished speakers, the rigour of the course.. so on and so forth. They are absolutely not the same. Sure, none of this matters if you want to go be a nurse or something but for most folks doing an academic degree it matters and the difference in quality is stark (not slightly different, stark). You'd have to legitimately have some kind of blindness to reason to propose otherwise.
Whether you look at the alumni network, the type of attitude most students have towards their futures/their work, the resources, the access to top employers, access to accomplished speakers, the rigour of the course.. so on and so forth. They are absolutely not the same. Sure, none of this matters if you want to go be a nurse or something but for most folks doing an academic degree it matters and the difference in quality is stark (not slightly different, stark). You'd have to legitimately have some kind of blindness to reason to propose otherwise.
You are missing the point. I did not say the experience of a student at a top 10 uni will be the same as a top 70 student, there will of course be differences in the course, resources etc. I am talking about difference in terms of outcome. I don't think there is any. All other things being equal, a graduate from a top 15 uni is not more likely to get hired than a graduate from an ex-poly*.
*Apart from law and finance-related jobs.
You are one of the most insecure people on TSR. That is the reason you feel the need to lie about things such as having a degree from Oxford and having rejected LSE when the truth is that they rejected you.
Id argue the two more important trait past the 2:1 requirement are
- Your spoken/written English skills.
- Your ability to think/act/socialise as the middle class do.
Employers in the city don't really care about your technical knowledge or where you got it from. JP Morgan's grad scheme brings ANY applicant with a numeracy based degree up to equal footing with a finance grad within 4 months in terms of practical knowledge.
What they DO care about (and this is where the name of the uni does start to influence decision making) are the two skills i mentioned above. Can you fit in with a very middle-class office? Do you present a credible front for the company to potential clients? Do you subconciously drop in colloquialisms in your speaking/writing?
It is naive to think your average East London graduate is going have those qualities over your average Oxbridge graduate even if he/she is stronger academically, but it can and does happen.
Take responsibility for how employers percieve you and you'll soon realise the "advantages" the top universties give you are miniscule at best. (Caveat, for research there is no question top uni's are far superior).
- Your spoken/written English skills.
- Your ability to think/act/socialise as the middle class do.
Employers in the city don't really care about your technical knowledge or where you got it from. JP Morgan's grad scheme brings ANY applicant with a numeracy based degree up to equal footing with a finance grad within 4 months in terms of practical knowledge.
What they DO care about (and this is where the name of the uni does start to influence decision making) are the two skills i mentioned above. Can you fit in with a very middle-class office? Do you present a credible front for the company to potential clients? Do you subconciously drop in colloquialisms in your speaking/writing?
It is naive to think your average East London graduate is going have those qualities over your average Oxbridge graduate even if he/she is stronger academically, but it can and does happen.
Take responsibility for how employers percieve you and you'll soon realise the "advantages" the top universties give you are miniscule at best. (Caveat, for research there is no question top uni's are far superior).
Original post by yt7777
And this is a problem.
There is a massive discrepancy in standards and difficulty between institutions and its a problem that this obvious difference isn't recognised by anyone, most people (and employers) are of the opinion that 'a first is a first' wherever you graduate from, when it really isn't.
You're right, you can be tactical and go to a university that requires a lot lower academics, then you can go and graduate with the highest grades from your cohort and that looks impressive to employers, but if you go to a university that requirements more closely aligned to your achieved grades then you will likely graduate with a worse classification to the aforementioned scenario and its not really fair in my opinion.
I am not saying these 'worse' institutions (top whatever number) don't have there place, because they really do. They open a lot of doors for people you don't have or miss the grades to apply to 'better' universities as well as offering a lot more options in terms of locations and courses, but there should be some form of consideration of the standard of institution vs the grade achieved, because someone with grades of CDD at A level graduates with a first from a university that will accept that and someone with grades of AAB+ graduates with a 2:1 or 2:2 which may have required a tonne more work will look less of an appealing prospect for an employer who doesn't consider the difficulty or their course or standard of their university, and I know examples of people for both those 2 cases and it doesn't seem fair to me.
There is a massive discrepancy in standards and difficulty between institutions and its a problem that this obvious difference isn't recognised by anyone, most people (and employers) are of the opinion that 'a first is a first' wherever you graduate from, when it really isn't.
You're right, you can be tactical and go to a university that requires a lot lower academics, then you can go and graduate with the highest grades from your cohort and that looks impressive to employers, but if you go to a university that requirements more closely aligned to your achieved grades then you will likely graduate with a worse classification to the aforementioned scenario and its not really fair in my opinion.
I am not saying these 'worse' institutions (top whatever number) don't have there place, because they really do. They open a lot of doors for people you don't have or miss the grades to apply to 'better' universities as well as offering a lot more options in terms of locations and courses, but there should be some form of consideration of the standard of institution vs the grade achieved, because someone with grades of CDD at A level graduates with a first from a university that will accept that and someone with grades of AAB+ graduates with a 2:1 or 2:2 which may have required a tonne more work will look less of an appealing prospect for an employer who doesn't consider the difficulty or their course or standard of their university, and I know examples of people for both those 2 cases and it doesn't seem fair to me.
I get this. But perhaps it's more important to address why we believe that the person who apparently did more work should be rewarded (be more appealing to those employers) vs the person who was smarter about it. If employers really felt there was a difference, and indeed some do (IB, law etc) then they will set their own standards and universities which they will accept. The others have obviously felt that it doesn't make an iota of a difference and who are we to say otherwise?
Hard work is not rewarded in the real world! The real world isn't fair either. Perhaps that is a bitter truth that students should learn earlier but it's true.
I think it would be even more unfair if all employers used rankings and thus people who are not academially inclined (i.e. at "worse" universities) will be seen as second rate even when entering the world of work, where academic ability doesn't matter
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews?
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Most popular and desired UK universities by students on TSR
- Researchers at top ranked universities are of about the same quality as any top 30..
- Can I study maths without further maths at a top 10 uni?
- Durham university went downhill
- Which offer should I accept?
- N/A
- choosing between Warwick or Bath
- need to choose last 2 options for UCAS application still
- Best Msc Finance degrees?
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- Selection of five universities for UCAS application
- UCL reputation in uk
- Law Ranking
- is LSE better than Durham
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Do I need FM to get into computer science?
- help me choose universities please
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
