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

How much does uni name + degree class determine your job/salary? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This debate will never end. Just do the best you can!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelScofield)
    You really are a fool. To obtain a 2.1 from Oxbridge is substantially harder than, say, a former poly. This means that you will (generally) be more intelligent, dedicated, harder-working, capable, able to realise your potential etc. than a graduate with a 2.1 from an ex-poly. Obviously, to appear politically correct, (large) firms will not (possibly even cannot?) state university preferences. However, do you really believe that, given the interviewer will have had alot of experience of how new recruits progress, he/she is not going to know that graduates from better universities with a given classification are (generally) better suited to the job? Even if they were completely impartial and/or inexperienced, this fact would quickly become evident after the graduates from better universities (generally) will do better in the various tests, group sessions, application forms, initial interviews etc. There is a reason why, if you go to an insight day at a large financial services firm, almost all the graduates you talk to will have gone to a top twenty-ish university. There are of course exceptions in that some people will have underachieved at school but started working at university, will have been severely ill at school etc. but they are few and far between.

    Basically, you're just wrong.
    Your point was that university name trumps class of degree. I did not deny that those going into the top firms, companies, etc. were likely to be from the top universities. However, you'll note almost none of those have anything lower than a 2:1. You will note that sometimes they do have people from 'lesser' universities. And while systems do automatically filter for 2:1's, they don't for universities (except for UCAS, and even then that's not university filtering per se as you can meet the UCAS requirement and go to a 'worse' university.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your point was that university name trumps class of degree. I did not deny that those going into the top firms, companies, etc. were likely to be from the top universities. However, you'll note almost none of those have anything lower than a 2:1.
    I never denied they wouldn't have at least a 2.1, purely that their 2.1 would be preferable to others due to the calibre of the university that awarded it.

    You will note that sometimes they do have people from 'lesser' universities.
    I already told you this was the case in my previous post.

    And while systems do automatically filter for 2:1's, they don't for universities (except for UCAS, and even then that's not university filtering per se as you can meet the UCAS requirement and go to a 'worse' university.)
    This is not indicative of classification taking precedence over university, but rather is a reflection of the overly PC times in which we live and attempts at social design.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    They both play an important role, however so does course content and also professional sector your seeking to enter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelScofield)
    I never denied they wouldn't have at least a 2.1, purely that their 2.1 would be preferable to others due to the calibre of the university that awarded it.

    I already told you this was the case in my previous post.



    This is not indicative of classification taking precedence over university, but rather is a reflection of the overly PC times in which we live and attempts at social design.
    "That's just completely incorrect. It's far closer to being the opposite."
    Closer to being the opposite would be that university is more important than classification. Within a 2:1 and above cohort, I agree, but you never stated that. If that is what you meant then fair enough.

    I think you'll find the right term for your conspiracy theory is 'social engineering', not 'social design'. Alternatively, you might realise top companies really aren't interested in playing games and recognise it's not impossible for 'lesser' graduates to have other compensations. After all, if they don't have extra things to offer, it's just another CV in the bin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Closer to being the opposite would be that university is more important than classification. Within a 2:1 and above cohort, I agree, but you never stated that. If that is what you meant then fair enough.
    No, once again you are incorrect. I did not state it was explicitly and absolutely the opposite, merely it was closer to being the opposite, which allows for the fact that many firms filter out less than a 2.1, but that overall uni is more important than classification, despite the fact that say, at some firms, a 2.2 mathmo will be tossed straight away where as a2.1 media studies graduate will not be. (This is analogous to your acknowledgement that the university attended is not obsolete.)

    I think you'll find the right term for your conspiracy theory is 'social engineering', not 'social design'.
    Well I think you'll find that some people are capable of articulating themselves correctly. "Social engineering" is a misuse of the verb "to engineer", the practice is much closer to design. Do you not think that given my profile I would know more about engineering and, more importantly, what is and is not engineering than you?

    you might realise top companies really aren't interested in playing games
    I doubt many people would consider finding the most suitable graduates as efficiently as possible "playing games".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelScofield)
    No, once again you are incorrect. I did not state it was explicitly and absolutely the opposite, merely it was closer to being the opposite, which allows for the fact that many firms filter out less than a 2.1, but that overall uni is more important than classification, despite the fact that say, at some firms, a 2.2 mathmo will be tossed straight away where as a2.1 media studies graduate will not be. (This is analogous to your acknowledgement that the university attended is not obsolete.)
    Perhaps we have a difference of metric, because it seems we are saying much the same thing.

    1) Classification versus university attended is decided by which of these two has the largest number of cases where one tipped the balance versus another. Since most people get 2:1s, this measurement would favour university attended being the most important.

    2) Classification via hypothetical cases of good universities with bad classifications and vice versa. Oxford 2:2 versus, say, Nottingham Trent 2:1. This is considerably closer.

    I suspect you're using 1, and I'm using 2.

    Well I think you'll find that some people are capable of articulating themselves correctly. "Social engineering" is a misuse of the verb "to engineer", the practice is much closer to design. Do you not think that given my profile I would know more about engineering and, more importantly, what is and is not engineering than you?
    The term 'social engineering' has existed for at least 50 years and was notably used by Karl Popper, a sociologist and philosopher of science. You really have no place to comment on whether it's an 'incorrect' usage of the verb "to engineer" any more than those people who flip out when "gay" is used to mean homosexual do (or I am when people use the term 'validity' or 'beg the question' incorrectly according to my subject). Especially since Popper's use of the term was deliberate to imply the use of the hard sciences in the field of social policy. And as far as having a civil engineering degree giving you good ground to comment on social engineering, it only does so to the same extent that the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy (as sociological concept) can be accurately commented on by a divinity graduate.

    I doubt many people would consider finding the most suitable graduates as efficiently as possible "playing games".
    Did you read my post? This is what I said. I said that they wouldn't be interested in playing games by being part of a PC conspiracy. They don't specify university because at worst they get a few candidates who CVs need throwing in the bin. At best, they get someone who could have slipped under the radar.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel4fun4u)
    Before any of the rest get a chance to soil this thread, I will comment. There's no clear cut answer. A first degree is respectable from any institution so immediately you'll stand out from the majority of candidates.

    In real life, which university you go to doesn't make much difference to employment prospects, it's what class degree you got/what kind of work experience you have/what kind of person you are that seals the deal.

    Now watch and see what the rest of this forum thinks.
    I agree, secondly what is QMUL?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mickeyfit)
    I have a feeling that most of the people who will post a response to this are either undergrad students, or not even in uni yet - so you're not really going to get a reasonable answer - those that go to a 'top' uni will say the name is important, those that don't will say its not - the only people who's opinions matter are employers, so I suggest getting in contact with the HR/Recruiter in the area you want to work in and try wrangle an answer out of them - because answers from people who haven't graduated and aren't employing people are going to be matters of opinion rather than facts you can depend upon.

    Couldnt of put it better myself!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Very detrimental and DO NOT listen to the dumbasses who say it doesn't because most of them go to the lowest of the low universities and are trying to comfort their own failure with their wishful thinking.
    Oh how mean. But true
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mickeyfit)
    I have a feeling that most of the people who will post a response to this are either undergrad students, or not even in uni yet - so you're not really going to get a reasonable answer - those that go to a 'top' uni will say the name is important, those that don't will say its not - the only people who's opinions matter are employers, so I suggest getting in contact with the HR/Recruiter in the area you want to work in and try wrangle an answer out of them - because answers from people who haven't graduated and aren't employing people are going to be matters of opinion rather than facts you can depend upon.
    This is the only sensible answer to emerge in the thread so far :yes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choccielatte)
    This is the only sensible answer to emerge in the thread so far :yes:
    :sad: I thought mines was pretty good.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    :sad: I thought mines was pretty good.
    Sorry! :flowers:

    It seemed to make the most sense!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    MichaelScofield your assumptions that university name holds such weight during the application process is totally incorrect.

    If they studied at a distinguished institution I agree that does deserve merit, but fundamentally its a small cog in a large wheel, though I would hate to undermine your 'engineering' expertise... You're experiences, personal attributes etc are going to be the things employers will seperate candidates

    My advice to you is to look at a graduate scheme application and selection process and you'll soon discover the recruitment methods used, particularly to narrow down candidates, places little if any emphasis on university, psychometric testing is just one example.

    Though like many of the other posts in this thread have agreed, Mickeyfit's reply deserves credit and the only people who will be able to provide these answers are the employers.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    I agree, secondly what is QMUL?
    Queen Mary, University of London
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    from what i'm told, those factors contribute, but what really shines is the personality of the person
    come across the right way, saying the right things at the right time will affect it more
    obviously you need qualifications to back it up
    "it's a crime to not show your talent" sums it up. you may have all the qualifications, but you've got to demonstrate confidence to show them and their usefulness
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greg1004)
    Couldnt of put it better myself!!

    Thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choccielatte)
    This is the only sensible answer to emerge in the thread so far :yes:

    THANKS

    And thanks to whoever gave me rep - it was my first rep!!! :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You really have no place to comment on whether it's an 'incorrect' usage of the verb "to engineer" any more than those people who flip out when "gay" is used to mean homosexual do (or I am when people use the term 'validity' or 'beg the question' incorrectly according to my subject).
    I never claimed I did (I claimed that I would probably be in a more suitable position to comment on engineering related matters than you purely based on profiles. Of course, I don't know you. You're experience of, interest in and knowledge of engineering may be far greater than mine, if you feel this is the case then please let me know).

    The term 'social engineering' has existed for at least 50 years and was notably used by Karl Popper, a sociologist and philosopher of science.
    This does not mean it is not a misuse of the term. Moreover, I doubt that he was too concerned with the appropriate use of the term but rather with how best to demonstrate his point to the masses. Therefore, his reputation is somewhat irrelevant.

    Anyway, I feel we're going off on a tangent. If you want to debate semantics and, more specifically, fair and appropriate uses of "to engineer" then I will, in a separate forum. However, I feel it's only fair to keep this thread on topic.

    And as far as having a civil engineering degree giving you good ground to comment on social engineering, it only does so to the same extent that the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy (as sociological concept) can be accurately commented on by a divinity graduate.
    I'm not commenting on social engineering per se, purely on the misuse of the term "to engineer". It is irrefutable that, in the context of social concerns, "design" is more appropriate than "engineering".

    Did you read my post? This is what I said. I said that they wouldn't be interested in playing games by being part of a PC conspiracy. They don't specify university because at worst they get a few candidates who CVs need throwing in the bin. At best, they get someone who could have slipped under the radar.
    You did not state this as being the "games" to which you referred in a previous post as far as I recall. Moreover, this does not detract from the fact that considering uni quality is far more efficient than the selection method you describe above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're experiences, personal attributes etc are going to be the things employers will seperate candidates
    You just don't understand my argument. If you had the personal attributes a top employer desired then you more often than not would have gone to a (comparatively) good university.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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