To wonder if it really matters what university you go to?

[yappydappydoo]

Part of me says yes, part of me says no.

I do think there's more to it than what university you go to as to whether you get the job or not. I think experience is also important (more so these days when it seems pretty much everyone has a degree) and the people themselves and how they come across and how they will fit into the team, etc. However I can't help thinking if there was no difference between two candidates other than one went to a good Russell Group university and the other went to a bottom of the league table ex-poly then it might become important iyswim?

Also I'm not an employer but I can't help thinking that because so many people these days go to university that employers do have to differentiate between candidates somehow to choose who to invite in for an interview and one of the easiest ways to do that would be by what university they went to. I actually know someone who does interview for graduate jobs and to narrow applications down he immediately disregards any that went to universities that he hasn't heard of and then works from there.

The whole university snobbery thing seems to be worse on the internet.

but it was unfair of you to say that RG is more rigoruos than other none RG universities when in fact you meant ex poly univerities as there is a world of difference between the older none RG universities which have similear level to RG to ex poly universitys

Its like comparing a mini metro to a high end jaguar sports car and basically saying every car is worse than said high end jaguar and using the example of a mini metro as the basis of that assumtion

It would be really nice to see a discussion on here where specific universities weren't criticised without a thought for those who are reading the thread.

Despite so many women's attempts on here to tell everyone they are gifted and talented, as are their offspring, the fact is that many young people aren't and for them to get into university at all is a huge achievement which should be celebrated. If they are the first in their family to go, this becomes an even bigger deal.

I would absolutely hate to be sitting here proud of my child for going to university and read on this thread that the university they're hoping to get into is crap. Nobody is under any illusions that there are better and worse universities but maybe people could think of those reading the thread and be a bit more understanding?

I think it does matter in general, but it's not defined along Russell Group lines. Employers know which Unis produce good calibre graduates in their field. There may well be a snobbery with regards to ex-polys in some sectors but employers don't sit with a list of RG universities in front of them when checking applications.
If you look at employment statistics you would be surprised at which institutions do particularly well at getting their graduates into relevant graduate positions.

I think it depends what you want to do. A relative of mine is in a career that usually only accepts employee applicants with Oxbridge degrees - he was employed when the company had an 'open day' where any application from any graduate was accepted.

I've found over time that the sort of jobs or employers who only accept people from certain institutions are not the sort of people who are nice to work for - whether you meet their criteria or not.

There certainly is an "old boys club" attitude in particular with Oxford (Cambridge is seen as more free in that respect and accepts far more many state school applicants than Oxford iirc), but those employes often discriminate in other ways as in, you better be white and male

I attended an ex-poly for my undergrad and a good London uni for my MA. I continued study at Oxbridge and still work there now. It has not hindered me in the slightest, all my colleagues come from jumbled backgrounds too with various jumbled qualifications.

In short, I guess it just depends on what you want to do. IMO&E it's really what you do with the degree that counts.

but those employes often discriminate in other ways as in, you better be white and male

sorry, that is, those employers who are already restricting their employee pool to graduates of 1 or 2 institutions.

There probably isn't a massive difference between the middle ground Universities.
But Oxford will always be a 'better' place to go than a Poly.

It doesn't mean the people who went to Oxford a more intelligent though. I know 2 or 3 who attended and are stupid when it comes to day to day tasks and aren't particularly nice people either. Lots of other things count.

I work as an in house lawyer in a respected City institution and have occasionally helped with graduate recruitment. When doing the cv sift, we had to allocate points to different parts of the cv. For the uni, different marks were allocated for a first, 2:2, 2:1 etc., but no notice was taken of the actual uni attended.

I thought that was great and as it should be. There are some talented people here, some with Oxbridge degrees and others who have never even been to uni, and a vast swathe in between. The quality of your university is no indication of what your work will be like. I went to a 'good' uni, and am acutely aware that others from lesser regarded institutions are much better than me at the job.

It is important to look at the overall picture that a candidate presents. The name of the uni should not be used to determine who is offered a job, in my view.

I

I remember when working at a City law firm, a fellow trainee solicitor was praising the recruitment policy of another law firm, which only took Oxbridge graduates. I thought he was joking. He wasn't though. He is obviously now a partner on a six figure salary, but also obviously still a complete fool.

There is a huge amount of snobbery on MN. I'm sure it sometimes matters. For maybe 5% of Uni graduates.

Imperial

Such a good point you made there. I'd hate to make some parent or child dissatisfied with the no doubt enormous effort it took to get into a university some people on here sneer at.

I am an academic and it is interesting that when considering postgrad applications, it is much more common to look at the class of degree and the academic references or samples of work than the institution.

A good First is difficult to get anywhere. I teach at one of the much-maligned ex-polytechnics and about the top 6% of our grads get Firsts. Their work is certainly comparable in quality to mine as an undergrad and I have a First from Oxford.

When people say they only recruit from certain institutions I generally assume they are snobs who don't really understand how universities work, and also fools who are missing out on many talented candidates.

I think it does depend a bit, especially for 'normal' courses that you can do at most universities. I'd wonder why somebody had chosen to go to Sheffield Hallam University rather than the University of Sheffield to do German for example.

I think (disregarding RG and 1994 for the moment), there are tiers of universities and how they're perceived. Oxford/Cambridge probably do attract more attention because they're so hard to get into ,and they interview- you must have seemed pretty special even at eighteen to get a place.

Ranking in Scotland is quite different though. Since you don't pay, it's unusual to go out of the country, so nobody thinks if you're clever you 'should' go to Oxbridge.

I think it matters, at least short term.

All of my friends who went to "top" unis (not necessarily RG, but well ranked) have great graduate jobs. The ones that went to ex-polys have really struggled to find jobs.

I suspect after your first graduate job, noone cares. But getting that first job isnt always that easy!

As others have said, it depends on the job you want to do and the level you are trying to do it at....

I used to work in HR and recruitment for a top 10 multinational law firm in London. When screening cv's we would automatically disregard many universities, UNLESS they had had such good experience since that it made it irrelevant (ie worked for another magic circle firm). 2.1 and above only, and only from a well recognised/thought of uni. The partners would not even look at anything else. In other places lower down the pecking order I have worked at it just wasn't that relevant - experience and a decent degree from wherever was what mattered.

That was for the lawyers though, I don't even have a degree and got the job there by just having lots of good experience and being awesome

I used to be involved in graduate recruitment. We only take from a limited no of universities. We also only take people who have at least a 2.1, have decent work experience, score well in the online tests, have lots of top A level grades, have perfect spelling in their CVs etc etc.

The reason is that we get hundreds of applicants for about 3 jobs. We need ways that we can get that number down to a manageable figure. It is just not possible to interview everyone let alone invite them all to the assessment centres.

Who did you recruit for, Mumoftwoyoungkids?

Too identifying to say as quite specialised!

I'm not a magic circle lawyer. (Not least as I'm not quite sure what "magic circle" lawyer actually means.)

Oh crap, this makes happy reading.

DS1 didn't work hard enough at A level admittedly and lost direction. After some thought he knew he'd fucked up.

He was accepted by two despite not good grades and chose one that sold itself well and appears to be outstanding in its field.

Reading these replies makes sad reading.

I went to Cambridge and didn't think anyone would be particularly impressed by it in this day and age, but it has been brought up at every interview I've ever had. Employers seem to love it.

I have to laugh at people saying the standard is higher in rg unis and degrees harder to get. I went to a non rg university with a strong reputation in my degree area, it was an old poly and the rg university next to it had a very poor rep for my specialism. My bf did the same degree at the rg uni, it was much more watered down than mine and much easier.

Btw if you do a PhD no one gives a hoot about where you did your degree

It depends on what the degree is and what you want to do. I've interviewed candidates with Oxbridge degrees but little or no relevant experience, for example - they didn't get the jobs simply because their CVs were too weak. DH works in another sector and has had similar experiences. We're in Scotland, not sure if it's different in other parts of the UK.

From my experience, it does matter to employers.

Stillstaying, don't be sad or cast down. Your ds has been through a crisis and pulled himself out of it, making a positive choice for his direction - that maturity will come across hugely in interviews. Much more than candidates like me who still at 21, though hard workers, haven't really been through much in the way of true life challenges.

The vast majority of employers don't care. Quite a few don't even ask for the name of your university on your application form.

With regard to having any degree, yes i still think it makes a difference. I used to be involved in writing person specs for jobs, and always used to draft them with 'graduate equivalent' as essential, as I felt it was ageist to make a degree essential when not that long ago, a very small proportion of the population went to university. Also ridiculous not to shortlist a good candidate who'd been in the forces instead of university, for example, or who had perfect work experience for the role. Sadly, my senior managers usually put 'graduate' back in before the advert was sent out. Never stopped me shortlisting a non-graduate, though, and nobody ever noticed if I employed a non-graduate, but it must have prevented some people applying in the first place