does it really matter if it's 3rd or 13th ranked uni

Is it really just oxbridge>everyone else?
Are your grades much more important than where you got the grades from? So it's better being a bigger fish in a smaller pond, so to speak?
How much of a difference is there between, say, Bristol compared to UCL?
Where would the "cut off" be for a uni to be considered "prestigious enough"?

Reply 1

spaekles

Yes, I got the exact title from your post. I thought I'd start a new conversation about this subject. As someone who isn't really familiar with the UK education system and job market, I wanted to get other people's opinion on this matter.

Original post by J-SP

Whose opinion do you want on prestigiousness?

Preferably potential employers.

Reply 2

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by spaekles

Save perhaps very specific courses, mainly at Masters level, UCL and Bristol are the same in terms of influencing an employer. That is to say, faced with a UCL grad and a Bristol grad, the employer is very unlikely to differentiate between them on the quality of their degree, they will use other factors about the personality/fit of the individual.

Out-lying universities that suddenly jump up the league tables are doing so by making it a specific university strategy to focus on the NSS and manipulating their university strategy towards improving their League Table position, as opposed to improving teaching & learning and research. Can they not be the same thing, you might ask? No, by and large they can't, because the quality of teaching & learning and research depends on staff, and generally good begets good. University lecturers cluster where they see good work being done, and very few have the reputation to strike out to a lower ranked institution with the intention of building a subject reputation. To change the material status of T&L and Research takes decades.

However, changing more superficial things like the decor of halls of residence, how many shops and bars there are on site, the branding, videos, communications, engagement, the gardens, and focussing on the immediate 3-year student satisfaction stuff, which scores very highly in league table scoring, is relatively easy to change and manage.

Regrettably, Universities do not have the money to do both, and only T&L and Research enhance the value of your degree for the 40 or more years you might be using it.

If you really need a mental model of 'prestige/value' then work in groups of 20, and use a very long historic average of any league table data. Pretty much, plus or minus 10 places of any university you pick, employers will not differentiate based on the degree, but will use the personal qualities of the individual.

Reply 3

spaekles

Original post by J-SP

What do you mean by difference? Bristol and UCL are different universities, there will be a lot of differences between them.

UCL is the 4th ranked law program in the UK, while Bristol is ranked 12th (according to topuniversities.com). How much harder is the UCL law program compared to Bristol? If an employer were to pick between an average UCL law graduate and an above average Bristol graduate, which one of them would land the job?

Reply 4

spaekles

Original post by threeportdrift

This is exactly what I was trying to figure out. Thanks for the answer.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 5

hehe_x

Universities only matter quite a bit when you graduate and are looking for your first job, people want fresh graduates from top end Unis, but that doesn't mean people who go to university *x y z* will be less successful than oxbridge students in the long run. Maybe they may take more time to be recognised by companies but if they're at the right place at the right time they can be even more successful than someone from a higher ranked university - that's what my cousin told me who's just got her first job, and as she went to Imperial she got picked over someone from a lower ranked uni for the job

Reply 6

Profesh

Original post by spaekles

Read threeportdrift's answer, above. Ultimately, both institutions are sufficiently—and similarly—well-represented among the intake of elite UK firms as to belie any notion of either's net supremacy over the other with regards to candidate eligibility.

Indeed, considering the now multiple generations of graduates from these and institutions of comparable (or lesser!) pedigree who must surely fill out the ranks of senior associates and equity partners at said firms, only a simpleton would accord decisive weighting to so nebulous and volatile a metric as 'university ranking' over the preponderance of field-tested empirical data embodied in those same employees. Until UCL or Bristol starts fielding consistently sub-standard lawyers, whether their alma maters have technically ranked 3rd, 13th or 33rd from one year to the next is simply of no material significance whatsoever.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 7

spaekles

Original post by J-SP

Worked with over 10 law firms in my career now. Most of them where highly “competitive” firms to get into.

Most of them were actively targeting universities ranked as low as those in the forties.

Even outside of targeting, I’ve recruited people for MC firms who were in the bottom 10% of ranked universities

As someone with a lot of experience on the field, could you confirm the article linked by Profesh which states that 80% of new recruits by law firms are Russell Group grads? If this article is true then a "cut off" does exist between RG unis and regular unis don't you think?

Reply 8

spaekles

Original post by J-SP

That means the vast majority of students in lower ranked universities won’t have the grades to even be able to apply.

Well this is news to me. If they couldn't even apply to be recruited then what the heck are they supposed to do?? What do these law grads from lower ranked unis end up doing?