Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by statics)
    Whilst I agree that there are many variables that are often more important than the prestige of your university, I think it is unhelpful to claim that no such tiering system goes through the minds of employers. Ceteris paribus, I think a Bristol graduate would stand better chances of employment than a Liverpool graduate, just as a Cambridge graduate would stand better chances against a graduate from KCL. It rarely is the case that all else is equal though, and I accept the argument that your university is less important in the grand scheme of things than is often claimed. It is a leap too far, though, to claim that when one's university is considered, the institution from which one's degree was gained makes only a negligible difference.
    Did you miss the bit about 'no evidence' then? Far from me 'claiming' and being 'unhelpful', and while you may think away to your hearts content what you wish about Bristol graduates having a better chance of employment because of the name on their degree, you are very much mistaken- as all the research (n.b. research and conjecture have two very different definitions) into graduate employment doesn't follow this idea you have- I'm not putting forward any theories here, nor are they a 'leap too far', it's published work, which is acceted as fact, that university name is not the defining factor in graduate employment. Once again, its those that know the least about it who make these bizarre statements, and over time other people with just as little experience of graduate employment seem to accept this tiering as fact. It ain't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Did you miss the bit about 'no evidence' then? Far from me 'claiming' and being 'unhelpful', and while you may think away to your hearts content what you wish about Bristol graduates having a better chance of employment because of the name on their degree, you are very much mistaken- as all the research (n.b. research and conjecture have two very different definitions) into graduate employment doesn't follow this idea you have- I'm not putting forward any theories here, nor are they a 'leap too far', it's published work, which is acceted as fact, that university name is not the defining factor in graduate employment. Once again, its those that know the least about it who make these bizarre statements, and over time other people with just as little experience of graduate employment seem to accept this tiering as fact. It ain't.
    As I said in my earlier post, I accept this - university name is not the defining factor. Yet faced with two applicants who are otherwise equal, I maintain that most employers would pick the one from the more reputable institution, given that this would tend to indicate the relative strength of that candidate and the education they had received, and with their being no other means by which to distinguish the two.

    To take an extreme example, a solicitor's firm is considering applicants X and Y for the same post. X has a first from Oxford in law, while Y has a first from the University of Hertfordshire, also in law. Both interview well and have relevant work experience with otherwise convincing CVs. The Oxford applicant will get the job. To the extent that you accept this hypothetical example to be valid, you must also accept the premise that a university's reputation carries some weight, all else being equal. Given this fact, although its significance will be diminished, it will also apply at the top end, between graduates of Oxbridge vs. KCL, those of Bristol vs. Liverpool and so on.

    There is a host of evidence to this effect. I am not familiar with research of the kind you describe, but the simple fact that graduates from top institutions are more likely to find themselves at the top of their fields is indicative of the weight placed on the quality of their degrees. This does not prove my position, but it provides strong justification for supporting it. Some professions, the bar being a good example, are almost exclusively Oxbridge at the top of the field. It is for this reason also that top employers will more vigorously recruit from better universities than poorer ones.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by statics)
    As I said in my earlier post, I accept this - university name is not the defining factor. Yet faced with two applicants who are otherwise equal, I maintain that most employers would pick the one from the more reputable institution, given that this would tend to indicate the relative strength of that candidate and the education they had received, and with their being no other means by which to distinguish the two.

    To take an extreme example, a solicitor's firm is considering applicants X and Y for the same post. X has a first from Oxford in law, while Y has a first from the University of Hertfordshire, also in law. Both interview well and have relevant work experience with otherwise convincing CVs. The Oxford applicant will get the job. To the extent that you accept this hypothetical example to be valid, you must also accept the premise that a university's reputation carries some weight, all else being equal. Given this fact, although its significance will be diminished, it will also apply at the top end, between graduates of Oxbridge vs. KCL, those of Bristol vs. Liverpool and so on.

    There is a host of evidence to this effect. I am not familiar with research of the kind you describe, but the simple fact that graduates from top institutions are more likely to find themselves at the top of their fields is indicative of the weight placed on the quality of their degrees. This does not prove my position, but it provides strong justification for supporting it. Some professions, the bar being a good example, are almost exclusively Oxbridge at the top of the field. It is for this reason also that top employers will more vigorously recruit from better universities than poorer ones.
    And for that you may well be correct. The fact is (having both interviewed and been interviewed myself) that its a very rare occasion where you find two graduates (especially Oxford vs an ex-polytechnic) who are equal in all other ways, going for the same job. Graduates of certain universities are pushed into certain careers, some often have connections in that field, putting them at an advantage before they cross the threshold of the employer's office. When they have found this to be the case, university name is usually one of the last things employers look at to split candidates- in other words, it'll only be to your advantage in a tie-break situation, when something as subjective as an interview has left two truly equal candidates, so once in a blue moon. Which brings me back to the original point: University name is negligable in graduate employment, the odds are piled against it having to be used in any meaningful way for the vast majority of graduates. Say what you like about certain law firms, they may take on 30 graduates, 25 from Oxbridge. I'd rather concentrate on the other 300,000 who graduate every year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Engineering - Loughborough, Bath
    Science - Durham, Loughborough
    Social Science - Durham, Bath

    Overall
    1. Durham
    2. Bath, Loughborough
    3. Leicester

    Am i right?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by old market)
    Engineering - Loughborough, Bath
    Science - Durham, Loughborough
    Social Science - Durham, Bath

    Overall
    1. Durham
    2. Bath, Loughborough
    3. Leicester

    Am i right?
    Not quite as simple as that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by old market)
    Overall
    1. Durham
    2. Bath, Loughborough
    3. Leicester

    Am i right?
    Yes, this seems to be correct in my opinion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T. Hereford)
    I don't know you mate but I really like you because you talk a lot of sense unlike some people on here.
    Really? I think the post was a bit of a piss take (or I hope it was) either that or he's very ignorant. Calling Leicester an "ex poly" for example. If you think that's talking sense.....

    (Original post by wrikler)
    I have both unconditional offers from durham and edinburgh for accounting, and I have chosen edinburgh. Is this a good decision? If not, will it be possible to change it?
    Do you want to go to Edinburgh? If so then yes it is a good decision. It's as simple as that. Both are excellent universities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Prove that then, rather than just opening your mouth for the 648th time on TSR without the first clue what you're talking about.

    For the uninitiated, here's what Mr Hereford knows about universities:



    Yes, let the compulsive liar tell you about what matters in university reputation, since he's built up such a sound reputation himself on TSR with his sound advice and intellectual prowess.

    Right, so are you suggesting that a 2:1 from Durham is as good as a 2:1 from Leicester or a 2:1 from Edinburgh is as good as a 2:1 from Sussex???!!!

    Get real !!!:rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Both Bath and Loughborough are not in the russell group. How's their reputation in UK?

    Are Bath and Loughborough TOP20 in UK?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by old market)
    Are Bath and Loughborough TOP20 in UK?
    The newspaper league tables would say so. Some would dispute Loughborough's placing there whereas there would be none over Bath's.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T. Hereford)
    Right, so are you suggesting that a 2:1 from Durham is as good as a 2:1 from Leicester or a 2:1 from Edinburgh is as good as a 2:1 from Sussex???!!!

    Get real !!!:rolleyes:
    No, you clown, you've once again (as well as dodging the fact you're a proven compulsive liar) missed the point. I'm not saying all 2:1s are 'equal' (besides, thats subject specific, which you've completely neglected), what I am saying, and note this one down for future reference, is that employers do not put much weight on university name when choosing their candidate. It's been shown that while Durham may have the edge if we're splitting hairs between two very even candidates, the name of the university would be one of the last things they use, at least according to graduate employment patterns, to split the candidates. Ergo, the Leicester candidate would have every chance of getting the job if they proved themselves superior in the interview- its only very few professions (and there are 300,000 graduates) which have any bias pre-interview towards certain institutions. Your Leicester degree would get you in the door, its what you do from there that has shown to be most important. You are sadly lacking in real-world skills and experience since you've time and time again got hung up on 'reputation' without stopping to think. I'm not going to bother going into the complexities of the Edinburgh example with you, Scottish students at Scottish universities have an entirely different employment record to those in England, mainly because the different school system means almost all of them go to a Scottish university and use their degree in Scotland, so a 'prestige' comparision for the most part between a Scottish university and anywhere else is pretty pointless.

    I don't know why I wasted those seven minutes on you anyway, your track record suggests you'll be completely unable to grasp it regardless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    The newspaper league tables would say so. Some would dispute Loughborough's placing there whereas there would be none over Bath's.
    some would dispute loughborough?:confused:
    why? i think it is a very good univ, especially for engineering and sports science
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by old market)
    some would dispute loughborough?:confused:
    why? i think it is a very good univ, especially for engineering and sports science
    A lot on TSR would argue that it is only good for sports science.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    A lot on TSR would argue that it is only good for sports science.
    Nobody with any sense, intelligence and knowledge of the university would say that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Out of the 4 unis there I would say Durham by a mile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_wizard123)
    Nobody with any sense, intelligence and knowledge of the university would say that.
    Correct, but thats never stopped the kids on TSR in the past...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Correct, but thats never stopped the kids on TSR in the past...
    Yeh, some people will never learn . It's always the same people who have bad things to say about Loughborough. They'll grow up soon, I'm sure.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    For what it's worth, in my opinion:
    - Loughborough is best for anything sports related and is also excellent for engineering
    - Bath is probs the best for engineering
    - Durham has the best overall reputation, and is particularly good with sciences
    - I don't really know Leicesters strengths, which is terrible seeing as i lived there for almost 15 years! Still a very well renowned university though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    No, you clown, you've once again (as well as dodging the fact you're a proven compulsive liar) missed the point. I'm not saying all 2:1s are 'equal' (besides, thats subject specific, which you've completely neglected), what I am saying, and note this one down for future reference, is that employers do not put much weight on university name when choosing their candidate. It's been shown that while Durham may have the edge if we're splitting hairs between two very even candidates, the name of the university would be one of the last things they use, at least according to graduate employment patterns, to split the candidates. Ergo, the Leicester candidate would have every chance of getting the job if they proved themselves superior in the interview- its only very few professions (and there are 300,000 graduates) which have any bias pre-interview towards certain institutions. Your Leicester degree would get you in the door, its what you do from there that has shown to be most important. You are sadly lacking in real-world skills and experience since you've time and time again got hung up on 'reputation' without stopping to think. I'm not going to bother going into the complexities of the Edinburgh example with you, Scottish students at Scottish universities have an entirely different employment record to those in England, mainly because the different school system means almost all of them go to a Scottish university and use their degree in Scotland, so a 'prestige' comparision for the most part between a Scottish university and anywhere else is pretty pointless.

    I don't know why I wasted those seven minutes on you anyway, your track record suggests you'll be completely unable to grasp it regardless.
    Well for proof look at the Norwich North by-election. The Tory candidate was a York graduate and the Labour candidate was an East Anglia graduate. The majority of people who voted in the by-election voted for the Tory candidate. I believe this is because the prestige of the universities the various candidates was a the forefront of the electorates mind when they were deciding who to vote for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    No, you clown, you've once again (as well as dodging the fact you're a proven compulsive liar) missed the point. I'm not saying all 2:1s are 'equal' (besides, thats subject specific, which you've completely neglected), what I am saying, and note this one down for future reference, is that employers do not put much weight on university name when choosing their candidate. It's been shown that while Durham may have the edge if we're splitting hairs between two very even candidates, the name of the university would be one of the last things they use, at least according to graduate employment patterns, to split the candidates. Ergo, the Leicester candidate would have every chance of getting the job if they proved themselves superior in the interview- its only very few professions (and there are 300,000 graduates) which have any bias pre-interview towards certain institutions. Your Leicester degree would get you in the door, its what you do from there that has shown to be most important. You are sadly lacking in real-world skills and experience since you've time and time again got hung up on 'reputation' without stopping to think. I'm not going to bother going into the complexities of the Edinburgh example with you, Scottish students at Scottish universities have an entirely different employment record to those in England, mainly because the different school system means almost all of them go to a Scottish university and use their degree in Scotland, so a 'prestige' comparision for the most part between a Scottish university and anywhere else is pretty pointless.

    I don't know why I wasted those seven minutes on you anyway, your track record suggests you'll be completely unable to grasp it regardless.

    ok mate, just to put this one to bed.... This is really cringe but I've been driven to it.

    My dad is fairly big employer in the city and generally, the banks/insurers couldn't give a monkey's what you have studied as long as it is a respected degree (History, Law, Chemistry, English, Economics etc etc) from a respected university (Oxbridge, Bristol Durham LSE UCL etc etc) . obviously Oxbridge significantly helps, as a does a First.

    My godfather is a QC in charge of his chambers. He ONLY employs law graduates (no GDL..) from Oxbridge and Durham. no seriously.

    I feel like a f**king chump writing that, but thats how it is.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.