This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The "Is this university/course good enough for banking/consultancy?" thread

Reply 1060

ssk2

10

Not snobish... they just want the best...

Reply 1061

Drogue

19

Breitling

Guys I don't know why everyone tells you this on TSR but you really don't need to be at one of the top 5/6 at all. If you are very good and from a decent uni i.e. (Top 12/13), you will get interviews at all the top banks. From that point on, university means absolutely nothing.
You reckon anyone good from generally reasonable university will get an interview? Not quite. You'd have to have a pretty special application form, and even then you'd never get interviews from all of them. And university *still* matters. Or at least academics (mainly A levels) does. Having seen a couple of 'scoring' systems used by grad recruiters, they add up the scores all along - from application form (ie. grades, university, etc.) with interview ones, and assessment centre ones, to get a final score. Sure, interviews are what matters, but I know some really, really good people who go to 10-20 ranked unis who are struggling to get a decent job. It surprises me, as they've all got pretty good A levels (ABB-AAB), have decent extra-curriculars, are predicted good grades, and yet still get very few interviews.

It's a long way from getting an interview at "all the top banks". Sure, you may get a couple, and if your application form is really special you may get quite a few, but university, and especially grades, helps massively all along the way. It's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it helps massively.

Moreover, since quite a few bansk have a 340 UCAS points minimum, if you have AAB or better, wouldn't you go to a pretty decent university?

Reply 1062

amerba

ssk2

Not snobish... they just want the best...

Who says the best come from oxbridge 20 years ago,most people in the city didn't come from university, its just the fact that oxbridge and lse are just brands just like nike, doesn't mean they're the best. John Meriwether of Long Term Capital Management didn't come from Harvard or Princeton but he revolutionised the Hedge Fund industry, so I think its ignorant to say the best come from Oxbridge or LSE, just because you're bright academically doesn't mean you're going to make it in the working world.

Reply 1063

ssk2

10

So.... you're saying the best students AREN'T at top rated universities?

Reply 1064

grt

14

Well, to get accepted by a decent university you will need excellent grades from school (besides some other stuff that is mostly unimportant in this case). What is needed to get these? Intelligence or hard work.

Being at a top rated university means that you probably have potential. But getting a first or upper second class degree requires both, some kind of intelligence-level that is required and the ability to work hard. But it is the same at most universities, isn't it?

Reply 1065

sammyrj

15

ssk2

So.... you're saying the best students AREN'T at top rated universities?

That's a bit of a simple reverse-assessment isn't it? Of course some of the best students are from the top-rated universities, but then some of the best students are at less renowned establishments.

To say candidate X is better than candidate Y simply on the grounds of which university they attend is very generalising and unfair. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way things happen.

Reply 1066

ssk2

10

Typically, a top bank is going to take students from the top universities because yes, their students are much likely to be better. I would've thought this is quite a simple concept...

Reply 1067

simon123

Also the opportunities to do some standout things EC wise at the very very best universties as well as recieve all round better support on all aspects of the application process from better, more equiped careers services, and perhaps more importantly fellow students that have been through the process helps to create better applicants on paper.

Reply 1068

e-lover

16

Kaloki

That's a bit of a simple reverse-assessment isn't it? Of course some of the best students are from the top-rated universities, but then some of the best students are at less renowned establishments.

To say candidate X is better than candidate Y simply on the grounds of which university they attend is very generalising and unfair. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way things happen.

Why do you care? You got friggen offers from LSE, Durham and Warwick?! ^o)

Reply 1069

amerba

ssk2

So.... you're saying the best students AREN'T at top rated universities?

Depends by what you mean by best students. Best students academically or suited for the working world? If you're talking working world then no I dont think all the best students are from Oxbridge, theres a big gap between academia and the working world, and I think some students not from Oxbridge are better equipped to deal with the working world seeing as they have part-time jobs whilst studying giving them skills for the working world, unike most Oxbridge students.

Reply 1070

seanthebean50

which would be better, philosophy at cambridge, or philosophy and economics at the LSE?

Reply 1071

Wish

9

Answer these confusing questions please:

1) Undergraduates Options:
A: Oxbridge candidates with a 2:1 or
B: UCL candidates with a first class.

2) Postgraduate vs. Undergraduate:
A: Oxbridge postgraduate who got a undergraduate degree from another uni or
B: Oxbridge undergraduate

Also, if a person gets a postgraduate degree from Oxbridge (say Oxford), but has a undergraduate degree from UCL, do the world say he's a graduate from LSE or Oxford?

Thanks in advance.

Reply 1072

steve2006

15

1) Both are very highly regarded but ithe reputation of Oxbridge outshines that of UCL and so the 2.1 from Oxbridge will look slightly better. However UCL is very good and a 1st class would have a similar weighting in some banks as a 2.1 from Oxbridge.
My VERDICT: Both nearly the same but oxbridge may just be ahead

2) Both are the same. Postgraduate degrees from LSE or Oxbridge are excellent and i dont think it matters where you did your undergraduate degree as long as you meet the requirements of the university. These are very high requirements with LSE asking for First Class Degrees for their most popular courses

Also, if a person gets a postgraduate degree from Oxbridge (say Oxford), but has a undergraduate degree from UCL, do the world say he's a graduate from LSE or Oxford?

I think you mean UCL or Oxford?
You would say hes a graduate from UCL and Oxford. Cos he did 3 years at UCL and about a year at Oxford.

Reply 1073

Drogue

19

Kaloki

That's a bit of a simple reverse-assessment isn't it? Of course some of the best students are from the top-rated universities, but then some of the best students are at less renowned establishments.

To say candidate X is better than candidate Y simply on the grounds of which university they attend is very generalising and unfair. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way things happen.

Which university you go to is a signal. Going to Oxbridge or LSE says you can get in to Oxbridge or LSE. It says you have top grades. I mean, you could judge people based solely on grades, but the top universities have all said they that find grades alone aren't able to distinguish between the best candidates, which is why Oxbridge interview so many candidates.

Now, if you presume that a student will go to the best university they get into - which I admit is a bit of a presumption but does largely hold true - then which university someone goes to is a very strong indicator of how good, academically, they are. If you can get into Oxbridge or LSE, why go to Birmingham? There may be some reasons, but generally going to Birmingham is an indicator that you didn't get in to better-regarded universities (or that you didn't apply to better universities, but most people I know got rejected from at least one university).

So to say which university you go to isn't a very good indicator of your ability, either you're arguing that those of the "best students" that are at less renowned establishments all didn't apply to top universities or they got in but had reasons to go to less reknowned universities?

Lastly, from an economic point of view, the argument is even simpler - it's very hard to get into a top university, thus it is a good signal that someone is bright. Since it costs a lot to find out how bright someone is, and since they can fill their places without doing that by taking people who've already signalled that they're bright, why would they bother trying to test other people? Yes, there may be a few people at less reknowned universities who are very able and very bright, by why spend the time, money and effort trying to find out when so many others have signalled as such already. They'd have to be pretty stunningly bright for that to be worth the effort, and in that case, you'd have to ask why someone so bright wouldn't go to a top university.

Reply 1074

v2006

But Drogue, surely getting into an economics course at Nottingham is harder than getting into viking studies, engineering etc at UCL?

Reply 1075

PorcineAviation

14

Drogue

Which university you go to is a signal. Going to Oxbridge or LSE says you can get in to Oxbridge or LSE. It says you have top grades. I mean, you could judge people based solely on grades, but the top universities have all said they that find grades alone aren't able to distinguish between the best candidates, which is why Oxbridge interview so many candidates.

Now, if you presume that a student will go to the best university they get into - which I admit is a bit of a presumption but does largely hold true - then which university someone goes to is a very strong indicator of how good, academically, they are. If you can get into Oxbridge or LSE, why go to Birmingham? There may be some reasons, but generally going to Birmingham is an indicator that you didn't get in to better-regarded universities (or that you didn't apply to better universities, but most people I know got rejected from at least one university).

So to say which university you go to isn't a very good indicator of your ability, either you're arguing that those of the "best students" that are at less renowned establishments all didn't apply to top universities or they got in but had reasons to go to less reknowned universities?

Lastly, from an economic point of view, the argument is even simpler - it's very hard to get into a top university, thus it is a good signal that someone is bright. Since it costs a lot to find out how bright someone is, and since they can fill their places without doing that by taking people who've already signalled that they're bright, why would they bother trying to test other people? Yes, there may be a few people at less reknowned universities who are very able and very bright, by why spend the time, money and effort trying to find out when so many others have signalled as such already. They'd have to be pretty stunningly bright for that to be worth the effort, and in that case, you'd have to ask why someone so bright wouldn't go to a top university.

This, of course, is assuming the Oxbridge application processes actually distinguishes the best and brightest.
With all these assumptions and generalisations, deciding which universities amongst the highest echelons are "better" becomes a bit wishy-washy.

Reply 1076

Drogue

19

v2006

But Drogue, surely getting into an economics course at Nottingham is harder than getting into viking studies, engineering etc at UCL?

I wouldn't consider Nottingham a "less reknowned university", especially for economics.

Benh842

This, of course, is assuming the Oxbridge application processes actually distinguishes the best and brightest.
With all these assumptions and generalisations, deciding which universities amongst the highest echelons are "better" becomes a bit wishy-washy.

Yes, deciding amongst the top universities is. But deciding between a top university and a less-reknowned one isn't. I'm not saying just Oxbridge, I'm saying if you can get into a top university (Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Nottingham, Bristol... etc.) why would you go to a less-reknowned one? Many people get in each year from a range of decent universities, but very few get in from Leeds (which started the discussion) or Birmingham, or any universities from then on down.

Reply 1077

Breitling

3

Drogue

You reckon anyone good from generally reasonable university will get an interview? Not quite. You'd have to have a pretty special application form, and even then you'd never get interviews from all of them. And university *still* matters. Or at least academics (mainly A levels) does. Having seen a couple of 'scoring' systems used by grad recruiters, they add up the scores all along - from application form (ie. grades, university, etc.) with interview ones, and assessment centre ones, to get a final score. Sure, interviews are what matters, but I know some really, really good people who go to 10-20 ranked unis who are struggling to get a decent job. It surprises me, as they've all got pretty good A levels (ABB-AAB), have decent extra-curriculars, are predicted good grades, and yet still get very few interviews.

It's a long way from getting an interview at "all the top banks". Sure, you may get a couple, and if your application form is really special you may get quite a few, but university, and especially grades, helps massively all along the way. It's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it helps massively.

Moreover, since quite a few bansk have a 340 UCAS points minimum, if you have AAB or better, wouldn't you go to a pretty decent university?

Look I'm just going on my own personal experience. I attend a university that I would place about 9th or 10th on the City recruiting list. I believe there was a university list on here about a year ago that placed it 16th or 17th.

This year for IBD internships, I have been offered interviews at all of the BBs (apart from GS that haven't started yet) and I do not believe I am particularly special.

Maybe I have just been extremely lucky.....who knows...