University choice

[IamtheDevilsAvocado]

A billion years ago when I attended university - it really mattered for post- degree jobs where you had earnt your degree. The general feeling appeared to be in terms of merit: it was Oxbridge, followed by Russell group /Redbridge, good (former polys) new universities, then old institute if HE with no hope of becoming universities..

My friend (non graduate) who are advising their teenagers for uni entry over next couple of yesrs, is that this is old fashioned and no one judges any more and 'a degree is a degree' ... I can't see that a first from say Bristol is thought of similarly to social science studies from an old HE at the bottom of the list?

So mumsnet jury what thoughts?

Also the academic standards expected to get a 2:1 or above were much tougher than some of the Russell group unis.

Evidence? Given the intake of students is likely to be less intelligent overall (simply because the majority of very bright kids go to RG or Oxbridge) it's unlikely that standards are higher at an ex-poly unless fewer people graduate with a 2.1 or first.

Someone with a first or 2.1 in History or English from Oxbridge is going to stand a much better chance at say the big 4 accountancy firms than someone with an actual accounting degree from say Birmingham etc.

This isn't necessarily true. A lot of effort is made to increase diversity of grad intakes at least at application stage.

It absolutely matters, especially now that so many people go to uni.

So many companies only hire from top 10/ top 20 unis.

I find the notion that some employers would only recruit from RG universities quite disturbing.

There are universities in the UK, which are not part of the RG, but rank higher (in UK tables) than some RG universities. Where do they fit in to all of this?

Although having said that, more fool such employers, as potentially they're missing out on better candidates, simply due to snobbery. Sad really.

Of course it matters. A 2:1 in Maths/French/English from Manchester, LSE, Newcastle or Aberdeen is always going to be better regarded than the same class of degree in the same subject from Suffolk, Wrexham, Bolton or Thames Valley.

That's just common sense.

I swear I read this same thread on MN (word for word) about 4 yrs ago. WEIRD.

It really depends. Some courses in ex polys have far better industry reputations than similar offered by rg university's.

However, if your doing something more generic like history then it would be advisable to go to a rg university.

Also, things are changing with recruiters with the big four removing university names from applications.

@VladmirsPoutine

You are aware Birmingham is a Russell Group uni right???

Or did you mean Aston which produces one of the highest % into CIMA qualification from its Bsc Accounting For Management?

Maybe you meant the other one that keeps changing name... ;)

I think it depends on subject.

E.g. Bournemouth is an old poly but is renowned for courses in PR, media production etc which are highly specialist and hard to get into. People in those industries know this.

Yes oxford/Cambridge will always have its prestige and show academic skill but the individual has to have the life and social skills to get on.

I think the key is to avoid something "middling" from a "middling" uni e.g. business studies/biomedical science/social studies from 1980s poly.

I got a 2:2 in accountancy from an RG Uni - having needed 3xb to get in (and this was last century).

This royally buggered my early career - and I would probably have done better to get a 2:1 from a former poly where they were dishing them out like sweets.

Mind you "in my day" you needed to be top 10% on my course to get a 2.1.

I'm not bitter now took a long time though

It matters to me when I'm recruiting for new staff, but I know some of my colleagues give priority to people with office experience, even with a degree from a less good university. My best ever recruit was someone who had just graduated from Durham university with a first, and had literally no office experience at all. She shone at interview and has been a godsend in the office.

It matters to me. Those who've bothered to work hard enough to get into RG and come out with good academic degree are likely to be brighter and more driven in the workplace. I wouldn't exclude others totally but it does impact on my overall impression.

I recruit a lot in IT, and I certainly look at which course a candidate did at which uni. I do interpret it though!

For a new graduate it matters, since there's not much else to go on (but if they've done something impressive like write a game I'd definitely interview regardless)

If someone has 5+ years experience, then what they've done in that time is what matters. But if they went to a not-so-good uni, I'll be (even) more careful at interview to be satisfied about their raw ability.

If they don't have a degree, I will assume there was some reason for that, and it won't factor in my decision to interview or not - although I'd be looking for some decent experience. Anyone doing this kind of job already has the raw ability to have gone to Uni, so if they didn't it's probably due to social/class/money issues (which are irrelevant to their ability to do the job), or they may have had an issue with formal education (that can happen with IT types).

If they have an OU degree, I'll assume pretty much the same as for no degree, but the motivation and persistence to get it will be a mark in their favour.

All this just decides whether they get an interview or not! Once they're in front of me, degree is completely irrelevant and I'll just be deciding whether or not they can do the job.