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.

if it's that identifying & specialist then it describes only a very small number of employers. Further Evidence that it rarely matters.

Many companies will perform their 'first sift' electronically and will rule out applicants based on certain criteria; must have 2:1 or better, must have attended University on specified list, must have 3 A grade A levels etc. You may not like it; you may think that 'fools' are employed using this system, but it happens.

lijkk I haven't a clue. I don't work for anyone else to find out. All I can do (and all any of us can do) is share my own experience. Which is:- if you are applying for a role where there are likely to be a very large number of applicants per role then it may matter as the company has to find ways of separating out candidates without interviewing.

NHS is the largest employer in Europe & I bet they don't sift like that for many positions.

The NHS may be the largest employer but a huge number of their employees will not be qualified at the level we are talking about.

Or Tesco, Iceland, BHS. Given their current & recent CEOs would struggle to get thru such sifting, I doubt they subject all new recruits to that kind of rigid system, either.

Hmm... OK .. probably not important which Uni you go to for Tesco. Although most graduate recruitment schemes do operate using these selection procedures. Not for jobs on the tills though.

I was always an average student, not particularly smart, but I worked the hardest I've ever worked and got into a RG uni. The day I found out was the happiest moment of my entire life, so I say it does matter ;)

Seriously though, I had friends at both Cambridge and Oxford, and family at Southampton Solent (who by the way, worked their hardest to get there, interesting how MN is all for supporting all intelligence levels but will publicly shame places like Solent), and the work load was very different for the same degrees.

I have to say that viewing university as just a way to obtain a job is very depressing to me, my university experience changed my life in the best way possible, due to the independence and people I met there. As long as the individual feels compatible with the university, I would argue their university experience is just as valuable whatever the ranking of the establishment.

I don't think anyone has been viewing university as 'just a way to get a job'. We have been trying to answer the Op's question. However, as most people get one shot at it, it makes sense to aim for the best you can and the one you feel offers the best prospects for employment in your chosen field. If that is Southampton Solent, then so be it!

increasingly I would look at the standard of the application in the context of the institution awarding the degree - I work at a good but not top flight university and have been external at several others - some of them RG. I can say on the basis of long term experience that the very best students at my own institution easily equal the attainments of those at more privileged institutions - but this is a key point. They have done so with considerably fewer resources (including stark variations in staff-student ratios) and in my view are more self-motivated, interested and independent - and thus readier for graduate work. This isn't to say that other students (Oxbridge etc) aren't highly accomplished, just that they have been supported more to achieve their best

Josie When did you go? I quite agree but I went in the last pre fees year and so ended up with a student debt of just £6k. (Although it seemed enormous at the time!)

If I was going to end up owing £50k+ then employability after university would become a lot more important.

I chose a 1992 group uni over two RG unis (and durham)for my first degree. It had an excellent reputation for the course I signed up for, not only academically but within industry as well. My cohort all have jobs within our chosen field (apart from those who have, like me, progressed to other fields. But we all got grad jobs without an issue). I would say that it's important to choose your uni based on the rep of the course rather than the rep of the uni itself.

I work in an industry where organisations often sift applicants for grad schemes by only looking at certain universities. Forget about Russell group, one place I worked just about managed to look at students from Oxford and Cambridge (and London so they could include students from Imperial and LSE). It is lazy, but they get huge numbers of applicants and just want to get of down to x candidates worth interviewing.

However, for experienced candidates, it is proven ability to do the job that matters. If I wanted to work in an industry that Was super selective about which grads it takes, I would go and work in a different industry, where I could get get the skills and experience to make me attractive as an experienced hire.

Virtually all the new grads I see at work have flawless academic records and degrees or MBAs from top universities. A lot of them don't make it and will get culled. A significant percentage of the senior managers I have worked with have taken a much less direct route. After a certain point, all that matters is your ability to add value.

I have a friend who finished Cambridge (Natural Sciences, not divinity or anything a bit unusual) with a good 2i, 4 As at A-level, and had a huge struggle to find a graduate job. The one she did get wasn't particularly good.

But she got a lot more interviews than a friend from Birmingham with a First in biology, and 4 As at A-level, and similar work experience. Although that friend actually ended up getting a better graduate training job in the same sector.

Friend 2 is better in interviews, and that came across in the end but she didn't get as many interviews to begin with, and knowing them both well, I think it probably was on the strength of the university name.

I think it does matter in that generally speaking the "better" universities will be more rigourous.

From my own experience, Russell Group universities have bigger assignments, expect a huge amount more research etc to be put into them, you'd get one shot only with any submissions, and the exams are tough.

For ex-poly universities in the same city (of which there were several) you could get feedback on your assignment and resubmit it if you didn't do well, you could get degrees without doing a dissertation, the assignments were tiny, and for exams the lecturers gave you the questions beforehand and you could take a page of notes or your textbook in with you

Oh

RevoltingPeasant that's my experience in the academic sector, classification of degree (first at ug, distinction at pg) matters more than where you have achieved it. That's in a very distinct sector though and I suspect in wider grad job opportunities, this is not the case. We also take Masters and PhD students from all over the world, I don't have a finger-tip knowledge of each institutions strengths and weaknesses so again rely pretty much on looking for consistently high grades.

I also hear that employers are starting to ask for transcripts rather than just accepting degree classification. Getting a 2:1 doesn't tell you that much about the academic profile at all, they might have scraped it on 59.9% which was rounded up or have been very very near a first. Transcripts show all the grades, from throughout the whole degree and allow you to see if the person is consistently good in the areas you are interested in. All our international students carry their transcripts and I think this will become the norm rather than relying on rather crass overall classifications (plus there has been some inflation of these so slightly more % get 2:1/firsts now than in the past).

I agree with you though that a good student, with a excellent first from an ex-poly is just as good a bet for an academic career, if not better than someone else- they often have amazing determination to work very hard, amongst a cohort of not top achievers. My own supervisor was just like that, had a first degree from a new uni and was a professor by about 42!

Whoops, sorry

Many to say people who failed their exams and the better thought of universities and weren't allowed to continue their studies then went to the ex poly and got all A grades and a First.

It depends if you want a bland 'graduate training scheme' job or something more unique. I went to one of the oldest universities in the country, it isn't RG but has a certain cachet. It was most definitely on the 'milk round' and people would expect graduates to have some intelligence and ability and a lot of self-confidence and social skills.

However, I did a very specialist masters afterwards and built a career in a very specialist area. In my career it really hasn't mattered. However, I know a lot of my cohort did the civil service trainee scheme or KPMG or P&G or various other big 'milk round' employers.

I think there are a few things to consider.

• Some employers just want someone with higher education and they aren't bothered about the course or the university.
• Some employers want people that have gone on a specific course, in which case they will know which universities are best. For eg the best universities for Classics are still the likes of Oxbridge, however old polys are much better in newer subjects such as journalism or engineering.
• Whatever anyone says, academically you cannot compare someone who has done PPE at Oxford with someone who has done Performing Arts at Chelmsford, you are just not getting someone comparable.

Where I work there are an average of 70 applicants for each job opening. We can afford to, and indeed must, favour candidates from a solid academic background with relevant experience. This said, we pick the best person for the job. Sometimes we have picked someone who had an unconventional background but showed great potential, but since competition is fierce I would advise my children to go to the best university they could for their chosen subject.

Bakerstreet - I assure you I was not allowed to take books into exams, resubmit etc as you assert...the uni my DS has firmed is ranked higher than some RG in general, in his field of study it is one of the highest ranked in the country.

The only time I gave seen uni status (other than oxbridge) given a second thought is on mn

Oxbridge and Imperial imo

Nor was I, cricketballs, and I agree that it only seems to matter on MN.

At our school, where you got your degree does make a difference. The principals in this area that I have spoken to prefer graduates from one or two universities, and there are some universities that will not get looked at. Once you have experience, it's not such an issue, but when it comes to graduates it certainly does.

cricketballs I disagree, I don't know where you work but for all of my jobs which university has been massively relevant, especially for people of less experience.