How important would a Russell Group uni be to your employer?

[paygride]

I work for a well known global company, employs about 2000 in UK. I was speaking to someone from our People team about how important it is for a candidate to have attended a Russell Group unti and she said it wasn't something that was especially relevant when they were looking at CVs and a few young people have joined our team recently and only one of them attended a RG uni (she did go to Cambridge). I spoke to DH about this and he works for another global company (totally different sector) and he said it's not something he looks for when he's been recruiting either. What they both said is they were bothing looking for 'something extra' (well my People officer actually described it as a 'sprinkling of fairy dust'.)

By contrast I worked for a Consultancy firm in the city and they pretty much only recruited people from Oxbridge, much smaller firm and pretty much all their business was UK based, huhe salaries and huge bonuses (which defintely isn't across the board where I work but lots very senior of people on high salaries).

DS is going to be applying to Unis and is fixed on the idea of a RG uni even though some non RG unis (Lancaster & Leicester) seem to be offering much more interesting courses in his chosen field but he will only apply to the RG unis.

Interested to know what others think. .

This is very industry specific.

I know a load of people who did nursing at the University of Hertfordshire and all went straight into employment....

I know many people who did Teaching/Education at RG unis and still struggled to get posts. Particularly permanent ones.

I work AT a Russell Group and we don’t care. Only one person in our team of 14 attended an RG

I taught at one which always made me laugh. I started out with a diploma from a poly!

Admittedly I've gained a lot more qualifications and experience since.

I love that there are posters on this thread who are ignoring anyone who doesn't think RG is the be all because they're sure we don't understand, or don't work in the right field, or don't earn enough money or have enough status or......

The original question was "How important is a RG uni to your employer?" with no caveats about earning 6 figures, or magic circle firms etc.

my hod is (self described) snobbish. I’d rather have a first class from Lancaster than a 2.2 from an RG, they’re vice versa
but ultimately it’s the interview that does the work.

It's always the same handful of posters who come out with this nonsense.

Never been a consideration in any CV screening process I’ve been part of. I’m looking at experience, what kind of person they sound like from their cover letter, and how relevant their qualifications are to the post. If, hypothetically, I had two candidates with absolutely nothing else on their CV but their uni qualification, - 1st from a RG and one from a post-92 or other I might rate the RG one higher but tbh I’d be more interested in how they came across in the covering letter.

@LottieMary Do you not understand that Lancaster, whilst not RG might as well be. It’s NO different. Also we all know a 2:2 can lead to job issues from anywhere. Even Oxbridge.

It’s also about time we stopped telling young people it’s snobbish to aim high. It’s tiresome. No one on the Oxbridge threads think that! It’s the best way to try and get a better paying job. All the research tells you this. The evidence on this thread from the CS tells you this. Why can we not understand the difference between aiming high and thinking all unis are equal? They obviously are not.

Then we have the accusation, as usual, that the privately educated elbow others out and hold all thd trump cards! Obviously this cannot be true as they are a minority. They are also a minority at Oxbridge but still people think the privately educated get more jobs with the CS, for example. They don’t. The stats show they get fewer offers than their % in the independent schools, yet still we think they are gaming the system. Oxbridge and a few others definitely give an advantage in some jobs, but maybe their style of teaching and selection procedures give these dc a better prep for interviews?

However anyone advising young people should evaluate the capabilities of the young person and where a career might lie. If they want a local job and a local university so be it, but at least open their eyes to the possibilities elsewhere. It’s not snobbish to do that snd the longer we think it is, the longer we have dc under achieving snd huge numbers angry about loans and the cost of their education which hasn’t conferred any advantage at all. I’m sorry if folk don’t like the “nowhere” comment but we need to understand there is a pecking order and “nowhere” is nowhere in any league table and a dose of realism is needed. By the way, that’s not a comment about the unis suggested by OP.

And many are telling you that employers recruit blind as they don’t consider knowing the Uni is relevant to recruiting good employees.

We do need to be realistic. And the reality is that the uni you went to is irrelevant in the vast majority of jobs.

DS and I were chatting about this thread last night and he was really interested in what everyone had said, he (and I) had no idea on blind interviewing process. He does have a weekend job as FOH at a cafe near us and he was very happy that this would go in his favour.

@Parker231 And many are telling you that doing this still ends up with the majority from RG and RG plus!!! It’s not promoting candidates from the lower reaches of the league tables at all. Generally because these unis supply a local market.

It’s completely wrong to think blind recruitment alters anything in terms of recruitment to the best paid careers. In fact it produces more from Oxbridge in some cases! I’ve no idea why people think not knowing uni leads to greater employment of inferior candidates: it doesn’t. Look at CS if you want to understand what actually happens and that is not unusual. Look at IFS research. RG and RG plus still gives an earnings premium. Employers still choose them whatever the policies they have. Policies that don’t produce any change are surely questionable?

Also why are some universities over subscribed? Is everyone a lemming or do these unis provide a better springboard for work? There’s a big difference between employers not looking at uni and then choosing the ratio of 5:1 in favour of non RG. They simply don’t.

The only way to make changes is to know if dc were given a reduced offer for uni due to deprivation criteria and know if they received fsm. Obviously that’s a bit intrusive but I’d back these dc, even from RG, over some others but employers just kid themselves they are being fair but just carry on recruiting more of the same.

I’ve spent 25 years in investment banking, at 3 different banks. I went to an ex Poly, it’s not hampered me in the slightest. DH was a currency trader for 30 years and didn’t go to Uni We also do blind recruiting so I have no idea where candidates went. The last grad I had on my desk failed probation, he had a first from LSE but was utterly hopeless at the actual job. Put me off LSE a bit if I’m honest.

I recruit into Digital Professions, at all levels … I pay no attention to what University someone has gone to. Also work on Graduate Apprentice recruitment… again, I pay no attention to the University.

@MeowCatPleaseMeowBack The huge issue facing grads is getting the job. We know there is grad unemployment and dc not doing grad level jobs. Getting the job is key. Some degrees always lead to a job, eg nursing, others like history don’t. So the candidates have to show employers what they can do and how they think. It’s hugely competitive!

I look for which languages candidates can speak - it’s a huge indicator of mental agility and cultural flexibility. Monoglots are a big red flag for me.

"I’ve no idea why people think not knowing uni leads to greater employment of inferior candidates"

Careful, your snobbery and bias are really showing!

Why are you telling me?

I went to an RG uni

Influencing factor of zero in big tech
World class universities- oxbridge harvard, an MBA from wharton or yale maybe... but a Bsc or BA from an RG? 🫤

How do you know that was the reason they got the job? Did the hiring person actually say that?

Interestingly, the most targeted university by employers is not Oxford or Cambridge, but Manchester (at no 28 in the CUG and with 7 non RG universities ranked higher)
That's just laziness on the part of employers.
Manchester has one of the highest numbers of undergraduates. Why bother to do the milkround at several Universities when you can see the same number of students in one fell swoop at Manchester?

How many years have you interviewed and trained graduates? After 25 years I can tell you that some of the best members of my team globally did not go to a RG - a couple are on the partnership track.

Are you recruiting for a job that requires additional languages? If not surely the vast majority of candidates are monoglots, that sounds like a very unusual red flag

I worked for a company as a new graduate (US multinational) and they only recruited from RG universities. I am not sure if it would still be the case, but likely.

My DH works for a global large company and says that there would be no judgement if someone didn’t go to a RG university.

We have one at Uni (non RG) and one who will be looking in the next year or so, and we keep an eye on the league tables. It certainly isn’t always a case of RG unis being at the top. DS has a friend who was adamant he would only attend a RG, but is (according to league tables) at a lower Uni than DS’s.

I hire people for a huge global organisation and university details get removed from the CV so we can only see if you have the relevant qualifications not where they are from.

this is to help with social mobility factors.