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?

The claim that you need very high grades and a RG degree for law is bullshit. My cousin didn't sit GCSEs as she was unwell, then did a vocational BTEC. From there she did a vocational, science-based degree at a former poly, and converted to law at the same place. She secured a training contract with no problem and practised for about 7 years before taking a short career break with DCs. She is now establishing her employment law / HR business and has more lucrative work than she can take on.

It's not all blue-chip, Home Counties professions.

Basically OP, Your DB may or may not have a point about your DNephew. The devil's in the details.

But there's enough truth in what he says that you and your DS should do a bit more digging and research into degree quality at his chosen unis (incl the snob value factor) - maybe start a specific MN thread under a nc - just to check he couldn't do better.

My old boss - an MD at a major household name - wouldn't look at anyone with media studies type degrees.

But candidates with degrees in robust subjects were of interest. RG unis were preferred, as were 2:1s and Firsts, but not essential. I think that your nephew should look for a decent course at an established uni, and work has hard as necessary to get a 2:1.

I had another boss who liked evidence of team sports on CVs!

My first boss, when asked bybthe MD where he was recruiting for their new grad trainee position replied "Both". The MD then replied that this was appalling snobbery and he should widen the search to Manchester which was an excellent institution because his daughter went there. So Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester it was.

The jobs I recruit for I look for the best degree from the best institution (relative to the subject, eg Warwick for maths) I can get. If they can make any eye contact at interview that's a bonus.

Makes my blood boil every year with all this pompous rubbish about only going to Russell Group.

A number of Russell Group unis were filling spaces yesterday with BBB and BBC - so your brother can stick that in his pipe and smoke it. (Humanities courses ????). Every student is worth money.

The thing to look at is employment tables where you often find some of the Russell Group do not perform as well with students having to take a Masters to boost their employment chances

A third is worthless no matter where its from. You can get a third if you can spell your own name right on the exam paper.

I do think your brother has a point, unfortunately. Minitoot is right about the variable standards, each institution has different expectations/standards for their degrees. I would certainly agree with pp who suggest looking carefully at the University and the employment success of alumni.

He's wrong about the third though IMO - I don't think that would impress an employer these days when there are so many candidates with degrees. One of my inlaws did a degree over 20 years ago and kept saying he'd be devastated if he got a Desmond (2:2) so grade snobbery has been going for a while! As pp have said, at least a 2:1 is usually required.

Bearing all that in mind though, not every student gets an A and as the numbers of University entrants increases then not all the courses or institutions are going to be of the same quality. With the rising costs involved, I would be giving the course and institution very careful consideration!

My old (RG) university (as staff, not a student) would not accept students for postgraduate studies with thirds regardless of where their third was from. However, you have to be trying quite hard to do badly to end up with a third from anywhere tbh.

In sciences it is your PhD that matters, not so much your undergrad degree and more importantly, who supervised your PhD, rather than the institution you went to.

I have to laugh at the idea that teaching quality is better at RG universities, having seen the (lack of) effort many of my former colleagues put into teaching undergrads. What is better, generally though is the rigour with which pass/fail/classification rules are applied.

The "best" university is absolutely dependent on the field the student intends to enter later and the personality of the student in combination with the "personality" of the university (for want of a better expression). The best institution for one student will not be the best for every student and this all takes time and effort to research. However, given the amount of money at stake, the time required to do that research is time well spent.

it must be nice to be so fussy about what degrees your recruits got. We'd just like to get any applicants for the (degree-level) jobs (& PhDs) we offer. I'm beginning to think we've got a serious problem with recruitment strategy.

I would definitely think much more of a first from an ex-poly than a 3rd from Durham-Oxbridge-anyRG. The third from Oxbridge (do they even do thirds?) means they have potential but totally blew it. The first from ex-poly means they're a grafter & finally found their niche.

I turned down an Oxbridge place for an ex-poly. It was far more highly regarded and I'm now operating at an extremely.high level in a niche field.
I do agree that if grades are lower than expected then it's worth trying to understand why - I saw so many friends pushes into careers they had no.interest or enthusiasm for who were essentially doing degrees to stall their parents. I think you should go into uni with eyes open - are you doing a specific degree to get into a particular field (which also has sufficient vacancies to support the number of grads) or is it a speculative degree with no.clear route at the end - this is fine but you have to accept that you may end up with a chunk of debt and no high flying career at the end of it.

What sector/roles is that Trout?

Talkin - this is rubbish: Any degree now equals £40k of debt : do not take one unless you expect to earn more than that within 3 years of graduating . Nobody would be a nurse or a teacher if this were a sensible way to think!
The debt is a red herring as PPs have said - it's only repaid if you earn a decent amount.
As regards RG Unis, I'm a teacher and see students go to all kinds of institutions and see them get professional employment afterwards. It's nonsense except for a few jobs at a few companies. You can google and find the employment rates in professional roles of any course at any University - have a look! Many non-RG institutions do extremely well as regards employability.

Just asked husband who does a lot of recruiting - he looks for someone with a 2:1 or 1st with good professional post graduate qualifications - he's not that bothered about where they did their degree a long as the undergraduate degree was in a proper academic subject. He's more interested in whether someone is clever, enthusiastic and has a positive attitude to working in his company.

He also says that some of the fresh graduates from the better universities are a bit arrogant and he's not that impressed with them.

I've had this too - I've had kids say that they don't want to do the photocopying because they got a first, or they don't want to work for less than £30k a year.

cardibach
^Nobody would be a nurse or a teacher if this were a sensible way to think!
The debt is a red herring as PPs have said - it's only repaid if you earn a decent amount. ^

Except that uncollectable student debt will turn into higher taxes and lower pensions for public sector workers

the sooner degrees drop back below 25% the better

Don't get too wrapped up in the 'Russell Group' stuff. It's a group formed because of their achievements in research, not because of their skill in teaching undergraduates, as far as I am aware. Some of the unis that rank alongside various RG unis in everyone's heads are not actually RG unis.

I'd bear in mind also that entry requirements are always going to at least partly be down to competition for places rather than requirements for doing well on a course. Less competitive subjects at competitive universities will have lower grade requirements. E.g. a Joint Honours languages degree (two languages) will usually have higher requirements than a Single Honours languages degree (one language and more 'content' units to do with that language), because people struggle to see the value of doing just one language compared to the standard two.

On the other hand, I would be extremely wary of fact that the students on the course shape the delivery and level of the course. If everyone the course is generally a dunce, the material will not be as challenging.

I would generally say that, certain unis being exceptional and well known in the relevant industry for specific courses excluded, it's best to stay in the top 25 or so in the league tables.

I would also recommend being incredibly sure what you want out of a degree and where you're hoping to go with it (or without it) afterwards. I did most of a degree and then changed my mind at one point when I realised I wanted to do something else because I couldn't think of anything I wanted to end up doing with my degree (or generally with any old degree). Thankfully I emigrated and have had a second chance at it all because this country does not charge tuition fees, so I'm not having to pay £9000 + living expenses per year without support to do what I actually want to do. Someone staying in the UK will not have that option, and most leaving the UK won't have that option either. I've had to jump through a lot of hoops to be in this position and I am ridiculously relieved to be in it.

Your DB is massively over simplifying it the best uni depends on the course. The grades required are not an accurate measure of course quality.

I think it matters more what the degree is in than where from. Looking at uni stats there is a huge variation in employment post graduation.

Depends on what he actually wants to do post graduation. Many graduates end up doing jobs that we would have seen people even without o levels doing years ago. I think what's more important are those transferable skills, employability as it were.

Just because you don't get on a grad scheme at first does not mean you cannot have a good career, pick up skills and move on!

I think there was some research I read that investigated people who had been very bright at school and they found a surprising number doing menial jobs. They found that brightness and academic ability was a poor predictor of success in the workplace, it was more to do with ability to relate to people.

I got straight Cs at secondary school went to a Russell group for first degree & just missed a first. Returned to do law & had a 94% average - was told at school I was too thick to study law & had I considered the army.

My father was v high up in his career (related to quality assurance and awarding degrees) & he would say that a 2:1 from Oxbridge was no better than a 2:1 from a poly - both will have to meet similar academic standards with similar learning outcomes to be allowed to award degrees in a given subject. I was in my youth an academic snob & harassed admissions officers until they got sick of me & let me in to shut me up. They took a gamble that paid off. I'm not very good at sitting formal exams (hence the Cs) and it took me a long time to learn it was more about technique than knowledge for a lot of subjects. I personally think your brother is wrong & it could end up putting unnecessary stress on your nephew.

Thanks everyone - lots to think about ...

DS has a very definite idea of what he wants to do ( History related ) and has chosen his short list accordingly. He's also fairly realistic about his prospects and has his eye on an aspirational choice and a safe pair of hands, both of which have good employment results and lots of relevant and practical course content.

Kev is looking for a particular science degree which needs AAB - I'm not sure what career he was thinking of afterwards and he's gone to ground with his Mum until PT brother calms down a bit so I can't ask him ...

Most people outside of MN do not know what the Russell Group is.

Most people do not end up working for the 'big' recruiters (ie fancy law firms, banks in the City).

They get normal jobs working for local authorities, for schools, hospitals, or web firms. They work their way up from the bottom in PR or marketing, in accountancy or journalism.

So if he wants to be one of the 0.1% who works in a graduate job in the city then he needs to retake his a-levels. If he wants to do any one of millions of different jobs then should crack on and go to a university that is the best fit for him.

I think these parents who make their 18 year old children feel like shit should think about trying their best to make their children feel happy and supported. In the end that's much more important than pushing them into a career they feel they 'ought' to have.

I hate educational snobbery, with a passion. Yes a degree in media from Bolton isn't worth the same as PPE from Oxford, but everyone knows that.

A bloody solid degree from a good uni ( and despite the snobs on here many ex polys do better in many subjects than the older lot) with a good bit of work ex will do.

The results are what you make of them, not what someone says it will be.

That being said, if you want a top job, even having a good degree from a good uni doesn't help that much. Nepotism does, ask the PM he knows.

Someone asked me why agents only send me CVs from red brick unis. It's because the agents are competing with each other.

An agent can only send me through a handful of CVs and I will probably be dealing with 3 or 4 agents.

I will probably only see 10 or 20 cvs for each hire.

So before you impress me you have to impress an agent who knows nothing about the job.

@NormanL : I work in public health / research / university.

It seems to me that since people in UK rarely change university, all the Uni-degree-place tells you about is what happened before they were 19. The degree (first-2.1 etc) tells you what they did once they got there. Which one should matter more, the last 3 yrs or the 2-4 yrs before that?

Agents? Is that a new word for recruitment people? Do science grads now have Agents like sports stars do?

Queen- I presume you mean they only send you CVs from Russell Group graduates? Which, particularly if you're in the science world strikes me as a very short sighted approach- have you considered changing recruiters?