Is he right - anything lower than a B isn't worth bothering with ... Uni related ...

[UsedtobeFeckless]

Just had a row with my brother - who is being a pompous twat. But is he a pompous twat with a point?

Basically, his son ( My nephew, let's call him Kev ) just got his A level results - Bs and Cs - and missed both his offers. He's really upset, understandably. My brother is also upset - he's insisting Kev retake, as Any degree with entry requirements that low isn't worth the paper it's written on ...

Thing is, two of the three universities that DS1 ( Who is in the year below Kev at the same school ) is considering have Bs and Cs as their standard offer. My brother insists that employers would rather have someone with a third from a prestigious university than someone with a first from somewhere less well known - is he right? I thought degrees were technically worth the same irrespective of where they were from ...

Is it worth DS running up a huge debt if no-one's going to give him a chance because he didn't go to a Russell Group college?

I think it's worth pointing out that all corporate recruitment these days is done online, and most ask if you have a 2.1 or not before allowing you to progress any further.

If someone has a 2.1 from Bogshite old FE college uni, then they can apply, while a 2.2 from Oxford is out.

Other than that, yes, your university matters. But for vocational courses, RG ones aren't always and necessarily best - some courses at fairly random colleges can be absolute centres of excellence in an otherwise uninspiring field. It rather depends what his (and your own) son wants to do with his life, really.

Having said that, the idea a 3rd from Cambridge is worth as much as a First from somewhere not terribly admired is utter rubbish. A Third means you are a lazy fucker, or an admissions mistake to begin with, and neither explanation will impress an employer. It used to be so, when Thirds were more common and academic results less essential, but hardly anyone gets Thirds these days from Oxbridge and those that do are either ill, lazy beyond belief, or not academically up to it. Someone pulling a First from anywhere else has to have done a fair lick of sustained, concentrated work to achieve that, which is a transferable skill in any field of employment.

Depends on what he wants to do. Science companies are notoriously picky, in many you also need a PhD to progress.

On the other hand a friend's daughter has a dodgy degree from a very Mickey Mouse place and is about to start her first job teaching science, presumably on an equal footing with someone with an Oxbridge first in a pure science.

Ugh no. I can see perhaps a 2.1 from Oxbridge "beating" a 1st from another uni, but a third from a "prestigious" uni will get you nowhere.

It's a sweeping statement that employers care about the university you went to. Most don't. Some do as it guarantees the graduates are doing a high level course and will have reached a certain standard to get their grade. I know my company rate by university, but they also rate by grade, and a third would mean you can't even apply.

For graduate schemes they usually specify they want a 2.1 or higher, sometimes in a related subject, but sometimes not. Whether or not they then filter behind the scenes by university I have no idea.

It really all depends on what Kev wants to do. Some ex-polys are well known for particular courses, I know that Oxford Brookes is meant to run one of the best PGCE courses, and if he is a more hands on person then some of the engineering courses at the ex-polys would be more suitable than a more book-based course.

There's nothing to be ashamed about if he is more suited to a poly. My father went to a poly back in the day, and I can say that he is one of the cleverest people I know. Not just book clever, but can fix anything, build anything, could explain how a car or plane works, and used to help me with my maths coursework.

Also, let it be noted that I took a course I loved at uni. I graduated with a first.

DP was "forced" into a course he wasn't keen on doing, because his parents have aspirations that (to be brutally honest) aren't right for him. He graduated with a third. There are no graduate schemes that want him. No one cares that he graduated from a uni that's currently in the top 10 on the league tables. It's the third that's buggered him, not the uni choice.

I'm afraid he's right to a certain degree (and I speak as an MSc tutor who tries to keep an open mind when recruiting and I've recruited brilliant graduates of ex polys) but it's worth checking the stats on the actual subject as we'll as the university as others have said. I'd recommend www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings/, where you can see how a particular subject area is ranked by research ranking, for example, or total score.

I think your brother is a bully- and needs to back off.

I know people without degrees who are much more successful on their own then the people I know with degrees put together. I know people with well respect degrees, from RG universities who are working in supermarkets. Not because it's a useless degree- but because the jobs in their chosen field are few and far between and they have to work to put food on the table.

But of course their is snobbery- and the third point is a good one. Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company like that, but if your brother/DN/DS do I guess that's their choice.

Try UEA

Your brother isn'the always right.

I got BBC and went to an RG uni and did a very popular course.

My DBro got ABC and also went to an RG uni

As others have said, it depends on the course really.

My DSis went to a non RG uni, but it was one of the best in the country for her course.

I agree with pp your brother needs to back off tbh.

My question is if the ds retakes his A levels, will be get the grades? And would retakes still get him a place at the RG uni?

Not Sparta
Can I just say, I went to a Poly "back in the day". At the time, simply going to do a degree put me in the top 15%. There is no comparison between the academic level of kids who went to Poly 30 years ago and kids who go to ex Polys now.

As others have said; depends on the course and the chosen career path. I knew I wanted to go into some form of theatre, but couldn't decide - so I have just finished my degree at a very very very unprestigious university, with a first-class honours degree in Theatre and Performance.

However, as this university and this course places massive importance on practical skills (we do theory too, but it's a 70/30 split), vocational skills and industry contacts, I've graduated with far better prospects in my chosen field than someone with a degree in a very theoretical-based Theatre Studies or Drama degree from a more respected university.

Unlike most universities, I also have several major performances on a semi-professional scale to go on my CV, as well as several projects I've written and directed, rather than leaving uni only being able to write a good review of a play.

I've also just walked into a full-time job to earn some money to pay for my Masters - the practical emphasis of the course, which is sneered at by the higher universities, has given me vital communication skills and confidence.

Law and the big sciency mathsy courses? RG is probably the only way to go.

Sorry almost all grad corporate recruitment, I mean.

But presumably he won't be paying tuition fees - the government will and he will only pay them back IF he earns a fair whack; if no-one "gives him a chance", he won't pay it back (or only a small amount), it can be ignored and will then be wiped out.

OP, I would find out where graduates of the courses your ds is considering go on to - not just the broad employment stats, but specific jobs. When dd was looking, the departmental websites often had student profiles and you could contact the department to see if they have more information. Degrees, employers, subjects, people all vary so much, it is hard to generalise I think.

I doubt insisting Kev retakes by insulting him will be a good strategy, whatever the ins and outs of the courses. Good luck to them both smile].

Talking to db and ds, both mds of international companies. They don't look unless it's 2:1 from Russell Group or big five.

Boffin
UEA generally have quite high grade boundaries.

'I thought degrees were technically worth the same irrespective of where they were from'

Degrees are not all created alike.

I think your DB has a good point. This is not about poshness or a snob value attached to certain universities (though that element exists). Many employers only recruit from a small pool of universities. In general, they are the hardest to get into.

You are going to be stuck paying fees and repaying loans no matter where you go, so you might as well aim for some place likely to stand out on a CV when the time comes. So I think DNephew should resit, and your DS needs to make very sure that the course he has his eye on is very well regarded in the area he wishes to start his career in.

Where I part company with DB is the matter of a Third from Cambridge -- I agree with Sleeponeday.

Can I just say, I went to a Poly "back in the day". At the time, simply going to do a degree put me in the top 15%. There is no comparison between the academic level of kids who went to Poly 30 years ago and kids who go to ex Polys now.

Yeah, I think that tends to get overlooked rather too often.

Sorry to say but I think your brother is probably being a pompous twat with a point.

It's hard to advise with regards to your son without specifics (ie course, unis and career plans) but there is a definite bias towards certain universities in a lot of industries and it is certainly the case that some employers would look more favourably on someone with a 2:1 from x university rather than someone with a first from y university.

For your nephew though, if he's going to do resits he wants to be pretty sure he's going to get significantly better marks next time as otherwise he'll be having a rather pointless gap year with no difference in the overall outcome. An alternative might be to consider whether he could get a clearing place on a different course at the university he wanted to go to and look to change courses at the end of the first year if his marks are good and he still wants to?

The big graduate recruiters will ask for a 2:1 minimum and as they are hugely oversubscribed will stick to that regardless of where it came from.

They will also have a good idea which courses are better than others, for example I do know that there are three universities in my city, one rg, one ex red brick and one ex poly, with a certain popular course far higher rated at the latter two than the rg.

I agree with DawnoftheDoggers and LittleJohnnyDory. However.
'My brother insists that employers would rather have someone with a third from a prestigious university than someone with a first from somewhere less well known - is he right?'

• It depends on the employer. If they are hiring for a job that doesn't require special training gained on a degree, and if they are a very traditional milk-round sort of employer, then yes. If they are Professional Hornswogglers Inc. and the only BSc. in Hornswoggling in the UK is given by The University of Lesswellknownshire, then no.

'I thought degrees were technically worth the same irrespective of where they were from ...' So did I. Then (I am an hourly paid HE lecturer) I taught a certain subject at at RG university and later that year taught the same subject at one of the weakest universities in the country. A 2:1 at the RG university was not the same quality work as a 2:1 at the weak uni. There was more similarity between the 1sts although still what would have been a scraped 1st or high 2:1 at RG uni was a high 1st at the weak uni . The difference as far as I could see lay in 1) the quality of the students: their maturity and commitment and readiness to work, to listen, to do work set for them instead of muck around, waste as much time as possible and make it hard for those who were more motivated to gain something from the class (much much better quality at the RG uni) 2) the expectations the regular tutors had for their students, which were much higher at the RG uni. My feeling, from my own experience studying and more recently teaching in HE, is that students nowadays need to have a really good idea of why they are doing this degree, what they want to do afterwards, what the realistic routes of getting into that field are, etc. - be really targeted. Which doesn't mean they all ought to do law or medicine at ALL, but they need to have a sense of what they're doing and why, and why this course at this uni. If your DS has that then great. There is also the fact that more established/successful unis have a lot more extras laid on for the students - all the exchanges and opportunities and so forth. This apparently matters to employers more than the class of degree - I'm told by those with more experience than me that undergrads actively aim for a lower class degree to allow them time to fit loads of extra curricular stuff (leadership skillz etc. etc. ) on their CV. Apparently this is what employers look for, rather than a purely academic type with a 1st but no external interests. Having said that, smaller, less academically successful unis can often be much more supportive of students in terms of pastoral care, IME. It all depends which your son feels is right for him.

Dawn- please pick up the phone! Those are good results.. Esp from 20 years ago! Please don't let your mums unsupportive comments have power over you now!

Your bro is kind of right...but he cant speak on behalf of ALL selectors. it so depends on who is doing the selecting. Selectors will have their own preferences and prejudices!

I think there is a difference depending on how you are using your degree. If you are going to a generic graduate scheme they seem to focus not on subject but having a 2:1 or above. On popular schemes first sorts are often done by admin staff (strictly someone with a 2:2 from Cambridge wouldnt pass the first sort. Mad!).

However, uni matters if you are going into a job where a specific subject is required as someone said upthread re law.. Eg if you wanted to go into a junior engineer position - you would be better with a degree from Imperial rather than an ex poly. They want the best, cleverest people... Candidates from polys may be as good, but why would the employer take a chance if they could select from a top science-y university!

If it were me: I'd go for the best uni for subject that I could get into... Assuming i wanted to spend the next three years there!

when I say undergrads aim for a lower class degree - I stress that I mean they aim for a 2:1 rather than a 1st. Agree with what people have said above about 3rds, from anywhere. (Unless it's one of those incredibly nepotistic situations which are thankfully the exception).

Will the nephew actually do any better if they resit? Can't help but feel another year with their father might zap all their confidence and they end up doing worse.
What are school suggesting?
No harm in looking at clearing is there?

Usedtobe what sort of science company? Pm me if you want, because most science companies now don't give a shiny shit where you went we just want hard workers with more than an ounce of common sense and I want to steer clear of any company that has your brothers opinions on recruitment!

Modern results CANNOT be compared with historic

• I went to Uni when 5% of people did
• when EE offers from Cambridge were part of the pattern (even for students who did get EE)
• before the Russell Group had been thought up
• when you could still get a milk round job with a 2:2
• when you could still get a job with a 3rd
• when there were grants

Any degree now equals £40k of debt : do not take one unless you expect to earn more than that within 3 years of graduating

Having said that, people can obviously come back from 3rds if they have enough drive to do so. i got a 2:1 from an RG uni, two of my friends there graduated at the same time with a 3rd and a fail respectively (ha - well, I suppose the one with the fail didn't technically graduate! :)). Anyway, the one with the 3rd got onto a Msc course and then when he dropped out of that, into the police. The other one talked his way into a job at a small start-up and now earns more than me by far. I just mean to say that even if you get a 3rd it is not the end of the world. But you get more chances if you get a 3rd from a RG uni than if you get one from a less recognised university, I think.

Is your brother a good employer with whom employees stay for a long period? Or does he have a high staff turnover? How does he treat employees whose roles do not require academic qualifications (but who may have them anyway) i.e. clerical staff, technical and IT staff, receptionists, cleaners? If he is too snooty to acknowledge or work with his whole workforce then he may have letters after his name but he is neither talented nor a "good" employer. Not able to get the best from his staff, and full of his own importance. Is he one of those people who are so insecure that they have constantly to prove their superiority?

I have a lowly degree but work in a field where Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham etc qualifications are common. I am the one who is asked to speak at conferences, the one to write strategy documents and conduct induction courses for graduates, some of whom have Oxbridge Firsts but neither the ability to apply knowledge nor common sense.