To look beyond university rankings.

[Miztermann]

DC is in Year 12 so we're looking at universities. His predicted grades are likely to be A*'s and A's so he is aiming high. All the universities on his current shortlist are Russell Group, with aspirational entrance requirements, but some are 'ranked' more highly than others in the league tables, and the one he favours the most is ranked the lowest - e.g. 201-250 in the QS world subject rankings and 35 in the Guardian subject rankings. But he favours it because it is one of the best places to go for his sport, which is very important to him.

It seems to me that the university rankings are weighted towards research rather than teaching, so AIBU to think they're not worth paying much attention to at first degree level? If he later wants to do a postgraduate research degree somewhere more prestigious then he can move when he graduates. But if he goes straight into employment, I do wonder if there are many recruiters who only focus on graduates from the top tier institutions. That would have been true in the past, but how about now?

There are no former polytechnics on his list - they're all Russell Group - but some RG uni's are ranked higher than others.

Could be not go to Oxbridge with those grades?

He will apply to Oxford, but unlikely to be successful in my view. The course at Oxford has very low student numbers, making it even more difficult to get onto, and, while he enjoys the subject, he doesn't live and breathe it, which is what is needed.

It seems to me that the university rankings are weighted towards research

That is very true

@Streamside

My son is just finishing at a Russell university and his feedback would be that the intake was fairly evenly split between wealthy foreign students who tended to move as a group and large numbers who came from the main grammar schools which feed into the university. It was pretty exclusionary really and he hasn't particularly enjoyed it. A few vulnerable students fell by the wayside and group work was really problematic as the other students didn't want to come out of their cliques. Student feedback would be very important to me.

I would agree with that observation at present - also, some of the more specialist places that have a particular focus, reputation, and price tag too, are especially attractive to the international market and home students are there in smaller numbers. Some of these, I know, are also looking at shaking up their courses to attract larger numbers - short courses over the Summer, and much more flexibility in part time, one year or 2 year versions, which technically should cater to affordability and getting through faster. Some places will do this well quite soon, but from what I have seen, the plans to increase teaching capacity, so far, often rely on existing staff with a few younger people new to the job market and on shortish contracts too, which may put current teaching under some strain.

The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) findings/history are what you want to be looking at, although its companion the REF is worth not discounting. Most workers in my university think that both will be replaced by something else eventually though - whether sooner or later I can't tell.

And how many students are really that interested in how research intensive a university is?

I'm an academic and if my DC were looking then I'd always suggest to look for the staff in the specific department. What are they researching, what is their expertise? Because it's likely that it will be reflected in the degree content and its good to know what kind of tilt the degree will have. So if I'm an expert in giraffes then the degree at wonky university will have a fair bit of giraffe content and won't be comparable to a degree from another uni. You may also find lower level unis have better research groups. In my field, Oxbridge for example isnt great for research profile. So whilst the overall department might be good, the individual specialisms may vary drastically.

I have colleagues whose private tuition bills are shockingly a 1/3 of school fees

He's at a state grammar school and has never been tutored in anything, so please don't put him in that category. He's very laid back - and just naturally bright. I do think Oxford would be too much, mainly because of the shorter terms, and he'd have less time to play the sport he loves. He wants to apply, but in reality he's likely to be choosing between Durham, Warwick, Imperial, UCL and the (current favourite) un-named Russell Group uni that is particularly good for his sport.

I'm an academic and if my DC were looking then I'd always suggest to look for the staff in the specific department. What are they researching, what is their expertise?

Thanks Winky - we'll take a look at that.

The decision needs to made on the quality of the course itself, as well as the university and what he wants to do for a career. Hopefully RG universities will all offer academically rigorous courses (requiring the high grades that you mentioned is a good sign), but the topics covered may still vary and although research is perhaps not directly relevant to an undergraduate degree, if you love the subject it's good to be taught by people who are passionate about the subject and are up to date... Some universities employ teaching staff who do little or no research, so it's going to be more like a school teacher, that may be fine depending on subject and they may of course be a much better teacher than the one who would rather be doing their research..but worth taking into consideration. The overall ranking and ethos of the university is also important, e.g. some will tend to attract lots of privately educated students whereas others are more down to earth. I don't think choosing based on a sport is necessarily a bad idea but there are a lot of other things to consider as well.

@BackforGood

YAdefinitelyNBU in my opinion, although MN has a real bias towards a small% of income at the top of the tree, and you will have people talking about 'the top 4 law firms only recruit from' or 'top hedge fund managers' and so forth. Like all things, whereas it is valuable to have that input if that is what you are aiming for, obviously 99% of graduates aren't expecting to be, or even hoping to be head hunted into one of those tiny number of jobs.

My opinion is the most important factor at University is being somewhere you are happy. If you are not happy at University, you might not last the course anyway, and you will certainly not thrive. Of course, for many, it is difficult to know what will make them happy at University when they are 16 / 17 and never lived away from home before. You have an advantage in that your ds has a big part of his life that he can feed in to better at some universities than others.

Yes, people generally will value a 2:1 in English from Durham above a 2:1 in English from {don't even know if such a place exists, but} University College, Grimsby, but it sounds as if your ds is still looking at reasonably ranked courses and not somewhere you'd discourage him going to ?

Anyone who says "top 4 law firms" clearly knows absolute zilch about the legal industry because there's just no way that anyone would rule out any of the Magic Circle as being "top" (even if they were archaic enough to genuinely believe the MC is still premium compared to other firms of the same calibre). Regardless, it's complete and total bullshit. I know for a fact that the intake for a MC firm this year included people from a whole range of universities including the University of Hertfordshire. Many firms are now university blind on their applications - and a couple are even grades blind because they've found that the people who performed better academically simply didn't make better lawyers.

Where does he want to go? It is surely his decision alone, not parents.

So many factors go into how student gain top marks these days. I have colleagues whose private tuition bills are shockingly a 1/3 of school fees (so the kids are being hothouses within an inch of their lives) I went to a (consistently) top 5 Russell group to study a STEM subject then Ph.D in similar subject and met many of these kinds of students - many struggled.

My DS (at Warwick) was accused of being a liar by one flat mate as he watched DS working and helping other flatmates on his own and similar STEM courses, snd decided DS must be lying as apparently there was no way he could’ve possibly gone to a comprehensive as he was far too clever.

If you are doing a non-vocational academic degree I do think it matters to go somewhere that is regarded as good, which would include most if not all of the RGs, just because with graduate employment being so competitive that's what recruiters look for. They will likely not be so aware of rankings for particular courses.

Vocational courses are a different kettle of fish, employers are often aware of where the good courses are for niche jobs.

Rightly or wrongly, some of the large professional services firms use the universities as a blunt instrument to filter the large volume of graduate applications. Added to which some people involved in recruitment may unconsciously favour whichever universities were considered top of the pile in their day. Not always the case in fairness and some have "blind" tests as the first stage.

I was reading a very interesting post on student room by an ex recruiter for one of the big three global management consultancies. He was very clear that candidates almost exclusively came from Oxbridge, Harvard/Yale type US unis and a couple of others (LSE was one). Made me realise that my husband was fortunate to get a management consultancy job with his degree from Durham as apparently that wasn't on the list, nor Bristol/Warwick etc.

We are having the same challenge as my son is currently looking at universities and sports provision is an important factor for him too.

OP, I'm not sure you really need anyone's advice as it seems to me you have nailed it in your very first post!

It seems to me that the university rankings are weighted towards research rather than teaching, so AIBU to think they're not worth paying much attention to at first degree level?

This is absolutely correct ime, and is an excellent approach. DD went to a mid-ranking, non-RG university for her first degree, but somewhere that was well thought of in her field and where the subject had a reputation for being very well taught.

She did well and has now moved to a world-leading university for her Masters, where she isn't 'taught' at all, but where the academics are engaging in all sorts of fascinating research which she can be a part of.

You keep not mentioning the uni OP but I'm guessing it begins with 'L'.

There are a lot of good unis not in the RG.

Rightly or wrongly, some of the large professional services firms use the universities as a blunt instrument to filter the large volume of graduate applications. Added to which some people involved in recruitment may unconsciously favour whichever universities were considered top of the pile in their day. Not always the case in fairness and some have "blind" tests as the first stage.

Wow, that cuts down the number of BAME students and ones who are first in their family to go to uni. For a number of reasons many of these students go to their local uni.

@WelcometoJam

Many firms are now university blind on their applications

This^. We recruit in the same way (now). Not law. But a very sought after profession. Traditionally oxbridge top 5 Russel group. Now not so much. Better late than never - its now realised that the talent pool had to be widened to encapsulate the kind of people that would make great innovators in my (STEM) field.

This is what I want to hear!

@sashh I thought that too!
In general as long as someone has the requisite grades and work experience they’ll be solid.

Just confirming that my City law firm recruits “university blind” and I’d say we are very much followers rather than trailblazers when it comes to things like that, so it must be common now.

OP, you mentioned UCL and Imperial. Would either of those be any good at all for sport? I’m imagining him having to travel quite far to the facilities whereas sport must be easier to fit into student life at a campus/small town university? To me, going to University in London would be a very different lifestyle choice to any other path. I’ve lived in London for decades since graduation and am very happy here but I don’t think it would have suited me at all as a student.

@HaveringWavering

Just confirming that my City law firm recruits “university blind” and I’d say we are very much followers rather than trailblazers when it comes to things like that, so it must be common now.

OP, you mentioned UCL and Imperial. Would either of those be any good at all for sport? I’m imagining him having to travel quite far to the facilities whereas sport must be easier to fit into student life at a campus/small town university? To me, going to University in London would be a very different lifestyle choice to any other path. I’ve lived in London for decades since graduation and am very happy here but I don’t think it would have suited me at all as a student.

Good to hear too. He's unlikely to go into law, but hopefully other recruiters are following that path.

We live in London, so a London uni would allow DS to continue to train with his current club. But it would also mean staying close to home, which obviously has its disadvantages.

DD went to Leeds Uni. She graduated last year. A lot of the friends she met there were from a privileged background and had chosen Leeds for the hockey, cricket, rugby and reputation of being a bit of a party place. A lot were from London, Surrey, down South ...but not all obviously. The ones that have done well getting jobs in sector they wanted managed to get work experience / placements / holidays jobs during their degree which obviously helped their applications. But quite a lot of this (not all) was based on connections and having someone help them get a placement etc. Getting some experience is worth more than whether a uni is at position 6 in the rankings or position 10.
At the end of the day, your DC should pick the university he will be happy with.

Another point OP is that now it's quite common for a student to do (at least) a masters after their degree (although for full disclosure I'm from a STEM background so my advise is very much biased in that direction). That is definitely a way for a student to have a more impressive university name on their CV. That said there is a massive difference between the level of content and demands on students at different universities. A student who has studied at Oxbridge/imperial etc will be miles ahead of a student who has studied at a university with a below 50 ranking to the extent it would be very difficult (though not impossible) to catch up. Again I'll reiterate I know absolutely nothing about arts subjects. I've taught at udergrad and early post grad level and find students from Oxbridge/Imperial do tend to be noticably more advance than other Russel group university students at first but it evens out fairly quickly after a year. However students from universities with less demanding courses do really really struggle.

I know someone who chose Loughborough for the reason that it was elite in her sport, and she's worked in a very highly paid career in the oil & gas industry ever since and it's not harmed her career in any way! Similarly, I know Oxbridge grads who have never earned as much as her. Your choice of university is not everything. Employers often value elite athletes because of the teamwork skills and direct experience in working hard and high performance under stress abilities they bring to the table. Your son should go with his heart here.

Otherwise known as University Wankings.

Best ignored.