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. .

I’m not suggesting anything. I am saying that the available data does not support your earlier contention that higher grades at 18 means those students will still be the highest achievers at degree level.

That teenagers face very different educational experiences at school is tacitly acknowledged by the existence of contextual offers (a blunt tool to be sure, but one whose heart is in the right place). To a certain degree (sic) those differences are levelled out at university.

Oxbridge is a slightly different case because of its tutorial system and the fast pace and short terms may not be suited to those unused to that approach. But the difference between, say, Bristol and UWE or Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam are easy to over-estimate.

Couldn’t find last year’s figures (I’ve left now but occasionally do some consultancy work for them) but in 2023 globally c220,000 hires with approximately half being graduate level.

Acceptance rate globally onto the graduate level roles is c3-3.5%.

What employers care if Lancaster is highly rated for linguistics though? Probably none. In the CUG only 25 universities offer it. Nothing wrong with Lancaster but who will care if employers don’t look at where she studied?

DD doesn't know what she wants to do yet, she's only 18. She's enjoyed work experience in schools, she may enjoy research, who knows what she'll choose to do. She wants to do MFL as well so maybe she'll go abroad where a linguistics degree at a Uni highly regarded for the subject will be valued?

The real point is she wants to go somewhere where the subject has lecturers working on cutting edge research and a good teaching reputation.

I don't understand the CUG ratings for linguistics and why there are only 25 Unis - my DD has an insurance offer for Bangor and that isn't even listed.

Thank you. Of those 220,000 hires do they include all roles e.g. admin, maintenance, cleaning staff etc? Or do all of the 220,000 go on to do purely professional roles, get chartered etc?

Admin, maintenance , cleaning etc are all outsourced so not employees.

Thank you.

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees Not sure I understand that either! It was a wierd list.

However the point I’m making (and DD did MFLs) is that you need to consider jobs and what unis give you the best chance of getting one. Not that Lancaster wont be good on the cv of course because it’s RG plus. Do universities employ researchers university blind? Or does it matter that cutting edge teaching has been received? Do universities read the cv and look where applicants studied? I think they must do.

Employers in the wider economy will look at history, MFL, linguistics, philosophy, music, psychology, English, business, politics, law, sociology, etc etc grads all applying for the same jobs. Thinking about what you want does pay dividends because great cutting edge lecturers only really matter if you become a lecturer. My DD couldn’t have cared less about cutting edge MFL teaching I suspect but the point was that she did an academic course which was required for her career. It is about getting an academic platform for what she wanted next. So choice of where that is mattered.

The skills gained on a degree are wide and varied and, if not going into research (most don’t), thinking about utilizing them for work matters. I do think planning for the next stage is always worth it.

I work at an RG uni and it's a completely self selecting group. Your son needs to look at the rankings and student experience for his particular subject - that is what's important to his experience, the quality of his degree, and his future prospects.

Interesting - I did online competency tests for my big 4 graduate position 18 years ago, and I can still remember scoring in the 99th centile for the verbal reasoning one. When it came to the partner interview he acted like I’d already got the job and didn’t ask me anything and I always wondered if it was because of this, but will never know. Makes sense though as it’s natural ability not whatever education your parents have paid for that matters as to whether you’re good at the job!

Similar for me -many years ago. I got the job because I had been to LSE - the interview was a formality.
Thankfully robust testing, blind CV’s and strong f2f interviews are now much fairer and producing great employee with a range of backgrounds

@Cupteaisit But we all know not all RG are the same! They might have come to an agreement and a few are falling form the ranks (Newcastle, QMUL, Liverpool ) but others are still robust universities that pride themselves on research and are in world rankings. With respect, places like Northampton and Beds are not equivalent. I don’t know why we pretend they are.

So my DC interested in Law and was looking at a website called legalcheek.com recommended by another mumsnetter. Majority of trainees in the top firms have been to RG.

With respect, places like Northampton and Beds are not equivalent. I don’t know why we pretend they are.

I don't think anyone is.

Newcastle and Liverpool are not falling, they are bouncing about. They both moved up last year and have dropped this year.

Interestingly, Liverpool is 3rd for DD's subject after Imperial and UCL. It just goes to show that we all need to be aware about the subject ranking at the university as well.

@Truetoself a lot of law firms are still in the dark ages when it comes to recruitment, and they have their favourite universities to recruit from.

@RampantIvyi will ask DS how many of his applications were uni blind. Given the competitiveness, I feel that it is more that the successful candidates would have gone to a RG or Oxbridge.

Another example- you go to any medical school and pass - you wnd up being a doctor. But those who attend Oxbridge are more likely to pass postgraduate exams firat time and also to start their own private practice. This has been my observation anyway

A lot of RG bias noted on this thread seems to be for very specific companies / careers. DS, for example, would like to become a data analyst in the entertainment industry. I work with many data analysts (some v senior and some in more junior positions), all great at what they do, but none (except my boss who is Harvard educated) are RG / Ivy League educated. It does sound like some companies do prefer a RG degree though so no real definitive answer.

thanks all, it’s an enlightening thread.

@Truetoself yes dd1 is a Cambridge educated doctor who has passed all her exams first time (gynecology) whereas her dh has taken a few takes.

Passing exams first time doesn’t necessarily make for a good doctor (am married to one!).

Some people are better at passing exams, doesn’t necessarily mean they will make a good employee.

Ds graduated yesterday and the man I was seated next to asked if ds had chosen the university because it was a RG one. I was really surprised at the question as I don't think that entered his head! Ds looked at the ratings for his subject (aero/astro) and chose accordingly. He then went with the one closest to dd1 ( he's ND and we felt it would be good for him to be near some support).

True! SiL is an excellent doctor but has found it difficult to get a training contract after finishing his CT stage. Currently he's doing a fixed term research contract which works well with their dd. Dd1 is also very good and her progress has been very smooth though she has taken time out to have dd. Dd1 always has excellent feedback from patients.

When you say Liverpool is third for your child’s subject, can you please tell me how you know this and where I can find out the positions of various unis for my child’s subject? Genuine question. Which website and which of the many different ways to rank them?

The Complete University Guide.

The Times one is behind a paywall and the Guardian one is bonkers.

Thank you. Which of the various statistics it quotes is the most useful for finding out which uni is the strongest in certain subjects?

If you search for a subject you can rank the university in subject order. You can also filter for overall score or by graduate employment or other factors, depending on what is important to you.

I also use the QS world rankings as a guide. It places quite a bit of emphasis on employer reputation

@paygride Then you know how to get him into his chosen career because you know people and have asked them about their careers. That’s entirely different from a young person choosing history or the ridiculously popular psychology with no idea of a career.

Interesting for a non specified subject, Liverpool, Imperial and UCL! ALL RG universities. However I agree subject matters so subject tables matter but they don’t necessarily tell you what employers like. Some law courses are ranked below 20, but are very popular with employers. It’s very obvious quality is spread around but there’s a lot of people who do spout everywhere is equal. We need to be honest that 100th isn’t 10th.

Don’t use QS world rankings OP, too easy to game, too likely to fall into the ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ trap, heavily favours STEM subjects over humanities etc etc. I guess if you are aware of the biases inherent in the metrics it employs, that helps a bit…