What&#x27;s better: 2-1 from &quot;top&quot; uni or first from other unis?

jacketpotato

Of course a 2:1 from a top uni is worth more than a first from a non-top uni. Though obviously its relative: a Oxbridge first is worth more than a LSE first, and a Liverpool first is better than a Liverpool Met first and so on.

Hang on, I'm not letting you get away with that unless you provide a very good argument. Of course, having seen your arguments in the past I doubt it'll be up to much.

Reply 43

jacketpotato

Sometimes, but not always.

So there are highly competitive graduate schemes that don't use UCAS points screening as part of the selection tools?

The problem is that there is an implicit value judgement in all of this as well. So called 'competitive' graduate schemes are seen as such because they lead to high remuneration careers in finance, investments, consultancy and corporate law - things that many of the middle class denizens of the older universities tend to aspire to. There is a different social make-up at ex-polies and many of the students aspire to different career paths, many of which are in the regions. That was a key thing that I discovered whilst teaching at NTU after teaching at Nottingham. IB and consultancy were mentioned a few times by students at the latter whereas things like teaching, industrial work and management were mentioned more by the former.

There are a huge amount of factors that would have to be mitigated for to really make a valid judgement that doesn't involve inherent value judgements like the example above. Personally I believe it is an intractable issue.

Reply 44

roubiliac

Many top employers are now specifying a 2.1 degree plus 340 or more A level points at entry.

Reply 45

Hanoi

15

A 2:1 is really good anyway so I don't know why people are saying that a first from a lower uni is definitely better.

I would prefer to have a 2:1 at Oxford to a 1st from Birmingham, but that's just me.

Reply 46

Ducklighter

If I got a 2:1 or a 1st from Cardiff [it depends if you see that as a top uni. to me it is.] then I'll be really happy andd I'll apply to RAM to be honest. :/

Reply 47

To end this argument here are the stats:

The average starting salary differential between a third class degree and a first class degree is 3% for females, 8% for males (DLHE Longitudinal survey).

The salary differential between an Oxbridge degree and national average is 12% (High Fliers survey) - although it's worth noting Imperial is 22% higher than the national average.

So the university you go to has a much higher impact on salary than the classification of degree that you get.

Caveats: This data isn't adjusted for student ability (which is naturally higher at elite universities) or degree subject (Imperial's lack of arts subjects pushing it's average salary up), and it's based upon starting salaries rather than long term salaries.

Reply 48

ttx

To end this argument here are the stats:

The average starting salary differential between a third class degree and a first class degree is 3% for females, 8% for males (DLHE Longitudinal survey).

The salary differential between an Oxbridge degree and national average is 12% (High Fliers survey) - although it's worth noting Imperial is 22% higher than the national average.

So the university you go to has a much higher impact on salary than the classification of degree that you get.

Caveats: This data isn't adjusted for student ability (which is naturally higher at elite universities) or degree subject (Imperial's lack of arts subjects pushing it's average salary up), and it's based upon starting salaries rather than long term salaries.

Why not use the DHLE survey throughout? Probably because it shows that the premium for russell group universities by the same methodology is only at 3.5%. You can't just put up stats with no reference when they could have wildly different methodologies or response rates.

Reply 49

jkyng1

10

i won't want to employ someone who just got a first in a low-ranked uni unless he has other exceptional qualifications or extremely good personality.

Reply 50

jkyng1

i won't want to employ someone who just got a first in a low-ranked uni unless he has other exceptional qualifications or extremely good personality.

Do you employ anyone?

Reply 51

ChemistBoy

Why not use the DHLE survey throughout? Probably because it shows that the premium for russell group universities by the same methodology is only at 3.5%. You can't just put up stats with no reference when they could have wildly different methodologies or response rates.

If DHLE survey summary provided the per institution data I would have. The Russell group is made up of 20 universities with considerable variance, hence not using the data. However 3.5% overall for the Russell group isn't necessarily inconsistent with the HF figures for Imperial and Oxbridge, if you look at the DELNI report on graduate earnings which also uses the same underlying DHLE data it also shows a 20+% difference between the mean and the top universities (although the DELNI report doesn't name the individual institutions)

I wouldn't have used the HF data if there was a better source was available online, as HF have put out some dubious research in the past. I should be getting the full DHLE dataset posted to me soon, once I have that I should be able to pull the specific stats for Oxbridge/Imperial.

Reply 52

Of course this all relies on the assumption that success is exactly equated to the salary relative to your peers several months after graduation or indeed salary at all.

Reply 53

jkyng1

10

ChemistBoy

Do you employ anyone?

i mean if i were the employer..

Reply 54

jkyng1

i mean if i were the employer..

So you don't then. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Reply 55

ChemistBoy

Of course this all relies on the assumption that success is exactly equated to the salary relative to your peers several months after graduation or indeed salary at all.

Yes.

Reply 56

ttx

Yes.

Do you believe it to be a valid assumption?

Reply 57

ChemistBoy

Do you believe it to be a valid assumption?

Well I don't think it's an assumption that can be defined as valid or invalid, as the definition for success is rather arbitrary. It's an individual opinion as to whether you measure success by salary or not, in the context of this thread which focuses mainly on employment it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You could use other employment data such as job satisfaction or employment rate (both of which DHLE collect), but again the choice of which one to pick is rather arbitrary.

I think a much bigger concern is that the data isn't adjusted for student ability. If all the students at Imperial had gone to say Loughborough, what's to say Loughborough wouldn't have the highest graduate salary. After all there is a strong correlation between a university's average UCAS points on entry and the various employment success metrics.

Reply 58

It's a value judgement of course. I was asking whether you subscribe to it.

Reply 59