to ask if DC shouldn't bother with university if they can't get into a Russell Group one?

[TuTuTilly]

I'd never heard of the ruddy things before I joined MN. Didn't even realise I'd been to one. I do recall when I had a tedious summer job in Human Resources which included "sifting" job applications for an international firm of accountants, being told to dump any that weren't from a handful of universities.

So my question is; if your child can't get into an RG university - should they accept that they will be unemployable oiks upon graduation and resign themselves to a life working in call centres?

I know people with law degrees who work in: the civil service; large corporates; human resources; banks; the third sector; accountancy firms; professional bodies; regulators.

That's just off the top of my head. None of these people are qualified solicitors or barristers (or national equivalent- the people I'm thinking of include Americans and Germans).

As for graduates wafting round while they consider their next move - that's exactly what a whole load of them are doing right now, and that will continue.

Well I just hope my students remember my feedback so clearly ten years down the line.... hollow laugh.

The people I know with law degrees in non legal fields went there when they could not get a job as practising lawyer. I went to UCL, tutored there, City and Birkbeck so I would be surprised if my experience was unusual, although I accept I am London centric.

I am charmed by all the St Andrews further up the thread who (like me) assumed it was RG and are slightly miffed. And there was a Milk Round, as competitive and meaningless as they all are.

And spero, I don't know where or when you went to university, of course, but if it's any comfort we mark and double mark and get moderated and externally moderated for almost everything, so it's unlikely that any individual's bias against you could have been able to affect your mark like that. Unfortunately sometimes students write good essays and then less good essays... For all kinds of reasons.

That will be true of course Russian but the reality is that most people who do a law degree will initially hope to become a solicitor or a barrister. Otherwise they would better placed doing a business management degree for example where there will get a grounding in law but also in accountancy, economics etc.

I feel for those students who do a law degree hoping to become a lawyer nowadays because the competition is really tough and our profession still pays a lot of attention to where you went to school, where you went to university etc. Its hard to get a foot in the door.

I attended a conference recently where the speaker was suggesting that working as a paralegal before securing a training contract will become the norm (and paralegals often earn minimum wage or not much more)

I have experience of marking undergraduates. In 1996-7. I was shocked by lack of moderation or supervision of my work. The only feedback I got was that I should not have failed so many as only a certain percentage of failure was 'acceptable'.

Er, it was the same essay. I printed it off twice, it came back with significantly different mark. This happened three times. The biggest gap was 20%, the smallest 5% - which I would accept, but not 20%.

Well the RG only came into existence in 1994 so some up thread are lying when they bring it into discussions about where they went to Uni and that this was a factor. I would think this is all just mass snobbery and there are certain firms that look to this stuff, but vast majority of employers would like to see a GOOD relevant and practical degree and some work experience from their potential hires.

Blingy, I've missed the back story then, spero, sorry: why did you do that?

Blimey, not blingy, sorry!

Business management degrees are a waste of time (shields iPad from Business Information Management academic DH on opposite sofa). It's true though. And he knows it.

Disagree Russians. I have a business management degree and I earn six figures (although as a lawyer)

Anyway, I think an English lit degree is a perfectly good thing to do with three years, and it can teach you a lot about thinking and analysing, if that's what you want. I remember with mine really enjoying the fact that it took me into every area of the library (theology, psychology, economics, history, anthropology....)

Sorry - which back story are you missing?

open University - two different tutors gave the same essay different marks which has compounded my cynicism about subjective arty subjects

Marking undergrads - I didn't get tenancy after my first pupilage, so I spent a number of years 'in the wilderness' as law lecturer and working for the law Commission. Which has informed my view that there are far, far too many people studying law and many will get into big debt for little reward.

Oh ok Spero. Admittedly I still hanker after a History degree but I did still really enjoy law. Perhaps I'm dull. Or perhaps your tutors were dull. Anyhow, I started out at an MC firm though I never intended to at all. I just kind of applied because everyone else wanted to do that, which I guess is quite limp :). DD1's boyfriend did a law degree and has just binned his MC offer which he always railed against accepting and has gone off into a more exotic alternative career. You clearly disparage English as a valid academic discipline so perhaps you're just a disparager. Which disciplines are interesting as far as you're concerned? And why didn't you apply for one of those instead of law?

I just meant I'd missed the submitting same essay context. I wish that didn't lead you to draw conclusions about arts and lit more generally: may as well say it should make you cynical about the OU, surely?

I can't do maths or science so all I had was eng lit history or law.

This was due to a combination of truly shit school career advice and me being dull and lacking in imagination. If i could have my time again would try for,psychology somewhere really good - although I suspect I would have struggled with statistics - then do the law conversion course, this compressing the dull bits into one year. Anyone who claims to find the majority of core subjects in law 'interesting' is either joking or someone I view with suspicion.

The only point I am making is now that we have to,pay for degrees o need to consider more carefully what return you get on your investment. I don't rate arty fluffy subjects where all is 'opinion'. Would love my daughter to do engineering or physics, something meaty that actually matters. She can read books and go to the theatre without spending years wanking on about the subtext of what she reads.

But if she really wants eng lit or history of art, she is genuinely engaged and has given at least some thought to,where it will take her, of course I will support her.

But I will be crying inside.

It's really not all opinion in English. Though students who aren't doing very well often like to think it is!

I'm certainly not joking and I don't think those who know me view me as suspect: I found several of the core subjects immensely interesting.

Where did you do your degree? (I think I can anticipate what you're about to say :)).

Some are ok - liked crime a lot. But land law and trusts?? Surely not...

I was undergrad at UCL which certainly at time was seen as London solicitor factory - think 80% of my year went to city sols firms, only handful of us tried for Bar. No wannabe academics.

As far as I recall there was even then considerable worry and pressure about getting a 2:1 as without it your prospects were grim.

howdoIdeal I earn 6 figures as well. Good, innit. I know what I'm talking about. But feel free to disagree. Although perhaps you might want to ask yourself what was the point of your 'business management' degree if you are working as a lawyer now?

Nit - all I can say is that I treated my English A level with bored contempt. I got an A in 1988 when a grades meant something! .

I accept I haven't done an Eng Lit degree, which is probably good thing for all concerned, so can't speak with authority about what it entails. But surely it is not a million miles away from the fruitless and arid dissection of texts that was forced upon us at A level??

Art 'fluffy' subjects teach a fair whack more than fluff. How to analyse, challenge, write. Important things and useful in all sorts of careers.

Dawndonna Exactly. The ability to analyse, challenge and write effectively are absolutely crucial in my particular line of work.