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 know a couple of actors who started their working lives as lawyers (one without a degree, he's a lot older than me and he just went into articles straight after he left school), and several more performer/writer/director types who read law at university because their parents made them, but who never went on to work in the field.

I probably come under Xenia's category of abject failure. I will never be in the high rate tax band never mind earn a 6 figure salary. My old Uni never joined the Russell Group, I didn't get any A* (in my defence though they didn't exist).

It does not however mean I don't work hard, it doesn't mean I don't put in hours of unpaid overtime when DD is in bed, it doesn't mean I don't care about my children's future, it doesn't mean I don't educate them (I know more than people give me credit for). It definitely doesn't mean I'm not bloody good at what I do.

Just because as a society my contribution to society is considered worthless does not make me worthless.

Bon Mortimer was criminal sol wasn't he? There is a big link between criminal advocates and actors, or at least while we still have an adversarial system and legal aid...

Hey Grumpy - take no notice of Xenia.

I reckon it's ridiculous to go around labeling other women as "abject failures" (probably based on their earnings ?) - just shows a lack of perspective about life to my way of thinking.

Cherist.

For some careers (law being a v important one) and actually for anything in the city, firms are only recruiting from top universities.

I'm not talking about when I was hired (12+ yrs), but now. It is almost impossible to get a training contract if you went to an ex poly. Sorry -but it is. I work with a lot of paralegals who are almost all ex-poly and cannot get interviews, let alone jobs. There are just too many candidates with "better" institutions on their CV.

I chose to go to a top ranked university (yes, RG), and do a different course - not law - then converted to law later. I wouldn't have got in to study law. However people still comment positively on my university when talking about my background. And choosing this two stage process is something I would recommend my DC did in the future.

A 2:1 from East London University just does not measure up to a 2:1 from Kings.

My current employer (finance not law) ONLY hires from Oxbridge/LBS.

It does happen, and to think it doesn't is naive.

I'm not in anyway saying you can't get A job with a degree from a lower ranked university, just that some fields will be barred to you. However like other posters have said, some fields positively LOVE ex-polys, due to a specialism etc etc etc. You have to know what it is you ultimately want to do. if you don't, you are better off picking a top ranked uni as this will stand you in better stead in the future.

Oh and as for Sussex, certain courses are outstanding - their chemistry department for example has much to recommend it, not least the Nobel prize of Sir Harry Kroto.

this thing makes no sense. Just had a look at the list and my background is exercise/sport science/ and the top 4 universities for sport (including the one I went to) aren't even on that list. It really depends on the subject I think

One important factor for me personally when I chose my University was that it had to be within commuting distance from home as I wad needed for caring duties. Isn't it fascinating what can have you categorised as worthless?

There is only one RG university within commuting distance from where I grew up. Baring in mind that there was no such thing as RG when I was applying. I have just looked at the list. I find it interesting that for the course I did my old University is currently ranked in the top 10 for that course. A full 21 places ahead of the nearest RG University.

Just goes to show it is over simplistic to say you must go to a RG University. A lot more research is needed.

juggling grumpy I don't think calling people abject failures or worthless is either nice helpful or accurate. However neither is labelling entire categories of study wastes of time or useless, or women in certain careers or income brackets as automatically people who prioritise their job over their home.

It's just common sense.

If it takes 3As/A* combo to get to one university to do, say, English, why on earth wouldn't you field out those candidates who had attended the University of JustFoundedYesterday who only required a couple of Ds?

If I were thinking of recruiting a Sports Science or Equestrian or even Golf Management person, then I would indeed consider - nay, positively seek out - individuals who had attended ex-polys etc if the degree they had done was the relevant particularly well-respected one from there, but if I'm recruiting for high-end/competitive jobs with no specific degree required - well, I'm only going to pick from the academic cream of the crop.

Please reread my posts Russian at no point have I accused anyone of prioritising work over family etc.

grumpy I know you didn't. Others did. There have been a lot of outrageous statements in this thread, picking on only Xenia's predictable stance is missing the point a bit.

Maybe, but she does always tend to get under my skin a bit.
It's a personal thing

Fair enough I find there are very few posters on MN that I see regularly contributing to the threads that interest me, at any rate, with whom I disagree on every single thing. I can actually only think of one, and it isn't Xenia.

Unfortunately, in relation to job prospects, it doesn't matter how good you or your uni are if you can't get through to an interview to show that. I do think this is a new thing as I had never heard of it till recently and when DS was looking at unis Durham and St Andrews both featured highly in the recommendations (Durham joined after that)

If employers are selecting RG as one of their criteria then, rightly or wrongly, it becomes a hoop that candidates have to jump through. Another issue to bear in mind is that professional qualifications often offer exemptions to RG graduates; I believe accountancy trainees have to pass more modules if they are non-RG which may make them more of a risk to an employer who has to fund them through it.

I am another "failure" in the eyes of some, RG uni degree then professional qualifications but have only worked part-time since DCs. I have an interesting, challenging part-time job which is reasonably paid, a lifestyle with which I am very content and have thoroughly enjoyed all the time spent with DCs over the years. I wouldn't have changed a thing but am clearly a failure as my salary is not 6 figures and I'm not driven to go any further!

Ok, I thought I had made my point enough times but obviously it is my fault for not being clear enough.

Studying English Literature or any other comparable 'fluffy' subject is not 'useless' or a waste of time BUT now that degrees aren't free anymore you do need to think carefully about whether 3 years of that will give you a good return on your investment.

If you chose to go to, or can only get into a less good university to study such subjects then even more imperative to think long and hard, given the competition you will face on graduation.

O and btw sometimes I DO prioritise my job over my family. Just as sometimes I prioritise my family over my job. This is called life. It's about balance. Extremes in any context are rarely helpful.

If I couldn't pay my mortgage that would certainly compromise my child's welfare. So sometimes I am not there to put her to bed. This no more makes me a bad mother than a mother who would never miss a bedtime.

timid, you have struck a good work/life balance, one which works for you. If that makes you an abject failure, let me join the club.
The problem with alot of these city jobs (and I know, I've experienced the presenteeism culture firsthand) is that they absolutely DO require you to put career before family. All of the senior partners if my firm were on 2nd or third marriages. Something's got to give. Xenia has said on numerous other threads that she believes maternity leave is sexist and that's why she didn't take any (except the legal week or two) and I'm sorry, dress it up and disguise it any which way you fancy, any way which makes it more palatable, but that IS putting job before children. And I think she's perhaps not best placed to judge who is and isn't an 'abject failure' judging by what she's shared about her own life.

step The senior partners in your firm were on their second or third partners because that's what they were like. Nothing to do with their jobs. The senior partners in my firm are in the main still on their first marriages. There was one notorious wine women and song merchant but that was his personality. He wasn't turned into a Bad Man by his job. He would have been a Bad Man wherever he worked.

I think it was Rod Liddle who said that he didn't need to disparage feminists because the ladies did such a good job all by themselves.

If someone has called you an 'abject failure' ignore them. Nobody knows enough about anyone's life here to make such an appalling rude and misguided judgment.

But I don't think anyone did ever say that? But some people seem so quick to go on the defensive and exaggerate.

Shame that the debate degenerates so quickly.

Rod Liddle?

Anyway - OK - now we know this is a comedy stance you've taken so that does make things a lot clearer.

Nope. I think he makes a very good point. Which you are proving.

Spero - Well, I'm not a political feminist. So, I'm not sure what you think you are doing at all, really. Nor did I call anybody an abject failure - that was Xenia. Nor did I disparage arts degrees or kids who go to non RG universities. That was you. All I have done is disagree with your ludicrous and philistine attitudes and also with your misinformation about city recruitment. And thus copped your ire and snippiness.

This thread was derailed the minute you began your first tirade against arts subjects in general and English in particular. So well done for that.

The day I do something Liddle approves of will be the day my life really stops having any meaning.

And I ain't no lady.

If you think a thread has been derailed, why not get it back on point by wasting more time in personal insults? Just a suggestion.

I think Rod Liddle has a good point because already people are throwing accusations around about being considered failures by other women because they do X Y or Z. I thought the whole point was that we now have the freedom to make choices, and we should make the choices that are right for us and those we love.

But when some get so very angry so very quickly, I do wonder whether a sore point has been touched.

O dear, rather too many 'points' there. My lack of appreciation for the beauty of the English language quite aptly demonstrated there.