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?

Copthall I think you set up a very artificial divide between the thinkers and the feelers, those who are adaptable or flexible in their thinking and those who are not. A person with a degree in economics is just as likely to be empathetic, etc., and have the potential to do good for others as someone with a degree in English Lit. In fact, I would think someone with a degree in economics, who has a job in their area, might have a better chance of doing good than some English Lit grad who works in Starbucks because nothing else turned up for her. A cousin of mine who works in the financial sector (degree in maths and econ) was able to take a year's sabbatical to use his many talents and huge amount of experience to benefit a major cancer charity. Not by going out shaking a collection can.

Beware of anti maths bias. Maths nerds can also cope with shit and trauma and laugh through it all.

Maybe your DD's indie suffers from some sort of cultural conditioning -- judging from the career destinations of the girls you described, it seems to me there are a lot of traditional 'girl areas' represented. I wonder if the picture would be different at a boys' indie of the same calibre? Were there any engineers? Computer scientists? Physicists? Imo, if girls are not being encouraged to go into maths-heavy areas they will be sidelined.

So I looked up the leaving destinations of my year group (went to a top tier boarding school where my peer group were daughters of a mix of establishment, titles and industry leaders). Over half went to oxbridge and none of those who went to oxbridge studied Medicine. Subject choices were mainly PPE, Maths, Chem eng, natural sciences, history and music. From that group about half went into law and accounting and the other half either went into academia, government management jobs, eng roles or arts areas.

The group that went to RG schools studied everything from law, history, medicine, dentistry, eng lit, economics to pharmacology. Those guys have gone on to work in medical research, technical government roles, started their own business, the arts, media (PR/marketing), IB, accounting and law. While there was one girl who studied computer science she did a law conversion course. Two girls who studied arts courses went on to do a medical degree as a post graduate course.

There were two girls who went to 'ex-polys'. Neither have done well career wise. One has spent 10 years at school and has just qualified as a teacher. IMO it scares me that she is teaching young children as she is quite badly dyslexic and can't spell to save her life. The other girl is a secretary to middle management.

Ironically the girl who left at 16 trained as a hairdresser and IMO is the most successful of the lot of us. She had the academic chops to go to oxbridge but didn't want to go down that path. She has a chain of five successful salons and was a multimillionaire before she turned 30. She employs around 100 people and she loves what she does. That girl was the smartest of all of us.

I think the focus should be on picking a subject area you enjoy and want to explore. However, with the high cost of going to university, you must also consider the financial implications. My good friend has a 1st in English Lit from a RG school. I earn more than double what she earns but she loves her job in the music industry. She is ok with still having student debt 11 years after graduating.

I'm Oxbridge. Career-wise? No, it's bollocks. I did a degree subject that doesn't particularly lead anywhere. I'm wonky on my feet, which doesn't help in job interviews where you're expected to turn up looking like you've just been groomed for Crufts. So I've struggled. Not any more, thank God, but it was a real ballache.

Also, no university anywhere will give you a degree in Managementspeak, which seems to be what you need to get ahead these days.

I think that is a very good picture of modern life Want2Supermum- a good cross section- and so many people do something very different from their original plan.
Personality is the biggest indication of success and not which university you go to.
It is a bit like a card game, those at a RG university might hold the best cards but they don't always play them well and those with a poorer hand can use them very astutely.

McGee Interesting that you say that. I'm dyspraxic and I can't walk across a room without some sort of mishap and as for grooming - try as I might its always been an alien concept. I've always felt that my Cambridge degree gave me back the brownie points I lost by being dyspraxic (and female :( ) For me, it's been a great boon.

Exotic DH and I met up with an old gang of mates not so long ago and we all agreed that none of our lives had turned out how we had planned or envisioned at 17, 18, or 21.

For some of us, it was for the better!

I look at all the twists and turns my career(s) have had and can honestly say it's been a hoot.

Maths Anxiety You misinterpret me, I am perfectly aware that people are multifaceted, I was merely defending English Literature against the accusation that it is irrelevant crap. Nothing is that simple is it?

I agree personality is v important. DH took on an Oxbridge graduate a few yrs ago. She seemed like a good prospect - excellent degree, trained with a Big 6 firm, great professional exam results. She was a nightmare. She did the job OK (but not brilliantly) but got hung up with procedures and nit picking. She upset the staff and was basically a terrible manager and seemed to have the expectation that she knew best because of her background, disregarding the experience and competence of those who worked with her because they supposedly weren't as good as her. Thankfully Dh was able to make her redundant (never thought a cashflow problem would be welcome - every cloud and all that) but not before 2 of his 8 staff had resigned.

No amount of RG education made her good at her job. I don't think DH will be sucked in by only qualifications again. Problem is, it can be difficult to tell about personality until somebody has been in the position for a while.

Russians I am dyslexic, and started my career in an era without spellcheck. I dread to think the impression I gave in the written parts of the graduate recruitment process e.g case studies, in tray exercises etc. I know that in the six minute mental arithmetic test which was part of the my company's recruitment exercise I had the lowest score they had ever seen, but then one of the highest in a data interpreting exercise analysing trends. I did brush up well though. Thankfully I think in business more than most professions it is recognised that you focus on a person's strengths, and in that sense I actually think overall my dyslexia has been a blessing, because seeing the bigger picture, creative thinking etc are all strengths that can be of particular benefit in business. And a lot of senior managers IME have terrible handwriting and spelling. And now we have spellcheck

Maths Just looked at leaver's destinations for DD's indie, 10 to medicine, 3 to Dentistry, 3 to Nat Sci courses (which is what my DD is studying) 2 to Biomedical Sciences, 1 to Biochemistry, 2 to Engineering, 3 to Maths, 4 to Economics. Admittedly only 1 to Physics but not a bad representation of STEM subjects.

Set against 5 to Eng Lit, 3 to History, 3 to History of Art

Others MFL 8, PPE 3, Law 2, Psychology 4, Geography 6, Philosophy 3, Music 4, Art 2 plus a wide range of others

I think the gravitation towards marketing and PR jobs, which I would argue very strongly are not just about thinking and creativity because they have to be grounded in sound numerical analysis and modelling, reflect the fact that it is a London School, and it is a cultural bias.

MATHS Sorry but just struggling with how you work out that someone who has studied STEM subjects can be this wonderful renaissance person who cam turn their hand to anything and make a difference but an Eng Lit graduate ends up working in Starbucks Some of us arts graduates can turn our hand to all sorts too.......

In my experience (and I did Maths Part I of the tripos so I am hardly biased) many STEM graduates (especially from lesser universities) find it difficult to communicate in writing, or sometimes even to write in proper sentences. They also have issues with talking. presenting etc :(

Yes- it's a massive generalisation but far closer to the truth than the starbucks comment.

I do think the gender issue is interesting though, from the point of view that STEM subjects have been dominated by male ways of thinking that deterred women. My DD did a fascinating essay, because her unis makes their Scientists study philosophy, ethics, policy, communications, entrepreneurship and, even, which will will probably give some mumsnetters palpitations , Sociology, about how this is a weakness in the development of theories and method. For instance are we not all accustomed to a model of conception as gendered, a sperm embarks on a proactive manly quest to "penetrate" the passive egg, yet both sperm and egg carry the genetic material of both genders, and the sperm does not penetrate the egg at all, it is a process of melding, with both undergoing changes to make conception possible. There were lots of more detailed examples but my poor womanly arty brain couldn't assimilate them

Certainly the Scientists at her uni are recognising that it isn't just a case of encouraging girls to study Science, science has to actually change so it can benefit from female ways of thinking, which will in turn, make it a more attractive subject of study for women. That is something I think the business world came to appreciate some time ago, even if it has been slow to actually change.

Totally agree that personality is the most important factor.

So, to answer the OP - I think you have to be careful and do your research when looking at universities. If your DC know what they want to do then they should speaking to those in the industry and asking where they should be going and what subjects to study. I know plenty of employers value courses at ex-polys while some will only consider oxbridge or RG.

In addition, if your child is looking at RG they should also be looking at oxbridge.

Plenty of posh thick girls go into marketing and PR< serve men and never earn much. I don't think we really want girls to think going off to be a blonde PR girl with a big smile is something great for which to aim, surely? The only one of my daughter's friends who went into PR after graduating is earning a pittance compared the others who are lawyers, medics, a pilot, etc.

If your employers recruit by institution then tactically you can be best advised to pick an institution even if it's not the subject ultimately you might do in your career.

As someone said above good A levels and a good degree are good cards to start with in your hands. There are loads of people with good cards too though so you need all the other elements too like hard work, personality and desire to get on and lean in (not work 2 hours a day at university and work whilst painting your nails the rest of the time and living off male earnings).

Totally disagree that personality is the most important factor. You can have a winning personality but if you get crap A levels and go to a rubbish university, you may never get the chance to demonstrate to anyone who matters just how super you are.

And I agree with Xenia - thanks for reminding me that there are worse options than Eng Lit.

Xenia That is just ignorant. If you want to get on to the Board of a British top 500 company then marketing is a good route, especially if it is a consumer goods or service company where it is vital to be marketing/ customer led. Plenty of the CEOs and members of British Boards started out on the P&G or Lever Brothers graduate training schemes or similar, both male and female.

Take the new CEO of Easyjet

"Carolyn (1961) joined easyJet on 1 July 2010 as Chief Executive. Prior to this, she was Chief Executive of Guardian Media Group.

Carolyn was a Non Executive Director of Lloyds TSB from 2008 to 2009, Non Executive Director of Tesco Plc from 2005 to 2008 and Non Executive Director of New Look from 1999 to 2005. She was Chair of Opportunity Now and a former President of Women in Advertising and Communications London (WACL).

She was awarded the OBE for services to women in business in 2008. In April 2008, she was named Veuve Clicquot Business Woman of the Year.

In 2012, Carolyn won the ?Woman of the Year Award? at the Women 1st Shine Awards 2012. Carolyn graduated from Kent University with a BA in History and Politics and from London University with a Masters in Politics."

The women that the school were referring to are Marketing Directors, Heads of PR for large companies etc. The school is very similar in terms of it's selectiveness to NLCS, maybe there are lots of dumb posh girls going into PR from NLCS, but there certainly aren't from this school.

I've read this whole thread and I think the effect of personality has been entirely underestimated.
I spent several years working for a top city firm (not law obviously, it's illegal to practise law without prescribed qualifications obviously!) and noticed that most of those in six figure managerial roles had worked from the bottom up or been promoted based on fabulous natural talent, people skills etc and the sort of stuff you don't learn on an average degree course, RG or ex poly.
My husband is in his forties, very high salary, managing several people, some of whom are RG educated, but he recruits based on experience and aptitude, and if they come in for interview and their personality doesn't gel, they don't get the job. Whether they have a Cambridge first or no degree.

and Xenia, referring to people with A level grades CCB as 'thickies' is rather ignorant. You need empathy and people skills to get on in life. And 'getting on in life' is not all about earning big bucks. That's not the sum total of happiness.

It is useless telling Xenia these things-she is entirely blinkered.

Xenia would say anyone who didn't have four A*s was thick!

Spero Qualifications get you in the door but won't get you promoted. In business it is your personality that gets you noticed. I have done well because partners like working with me. My technical skills are not as good as some in my peer group but I get the job done and know to leverage off those who do have the technical skills.

Copthall I don't think marketing is such a great route. In Carolyn McCalls profile it says she started at the Guardian as a research planner. I would be very wary of my daughter working in a marketing role at a junior level as there is a sterotype. A lot of the work is normally outsourced to an ad agency so if that was what she wanted to do I would suggest she work there. In a corporate role, would want her to gain experience in sales. It is a much more respected division in the majority of companies.

Xenia thinks that Exeter is where you go if you are posh but not too bright and that Bath is similar. You have to take it all with a large pinch of salt!

Agreed, but my point is you won't even get to the door in many professions if your qualifications are poor. And then, if you do, you are competing against people with charming personalities AND first class degrees from Oxbridge.

I think it is a courageous strategy to tell our children their personalities will shine through in every situation.

I am of course using 'courageous' in the Yes Minister sense.

All the IQ in the world won't get you anywhere without EQ and personality. You would be very silly to underestimate the impact of personality on success. It can overcome a crap degree from the worst university and lack of it make the best degree from a good university a bit pointless.

Why do you think people work so hard on their CV? It isn't enough to have a good degree from a good university, you have to show you have drive and determination to get on, that you can apply yourself, plan a future, demonstrate that you are the sort of person who can do the job you want to do - all that is personality. The RG graduates would be seriously fooling themselves if they think they can become a success on the back of their degree alone. 2 or 3 years after graduating, nobody will want to know or care about your degree if you haven't shown yourself to be the right sort of person for the job.