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?

@BeastforLease

Otherwise known as University Wankings.

Best ignored.

😂😂😂

@IMNOTSHOUTING

My DH works in a very competitive field and is in charge of hiring people. University name plays a big role, it won't let you walk into a job but they don't have time to interview or even read the applications of everyone so only top university degrees get a look in. I would look at stats specific to your DS's degree choice about where they tend to go on to afterwards.

That doesn't mean he should choose his uni only based on employment prospects - it's all personal choice and that might not be his priority. Just be aware it makes a big difference.

That’s quite an old fashioned approach now. At our big company we recruit blind at first. Lots of places like google etc have a similar approach. Interesting times!

@HandfulofDust

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.

Thanks, DC's chosen subject is a STEM field in high demand and he is likely to go into a career that uses his degree directly or indirectly. The uni of interest is in the top 25 so still very good, and we'll be encouraging him to get as much work experience as possible. Really the only thing constraining his choice are the voices of his (Grammar school) classmates who have strong views on which universities are 'best', and a feeling that their equivalents from the past are today's recruiters into the top jobs. Times are changing, but how fast? Hearing about "University blind" recruitment gives me hope.

Nobody seems to have commented on my post yesterday, but just to clarify, DD's undergrad was at a university which would be ranked below all those mentioned by OP, whereas her post-grad is at a university which would be ranked above them all, in her particular (STEM) field (STEM).

It's an eminently sensible approach to go to a university where the course, location, sports, social life etc suits you best as an undergraduate, then 'upgrade', for want of a better word, for your next degree.

@thing47

Nobody seems to have commented on my post yesterday, but just to clarify, DD's undergrad was at a university which would be ranked below all those mentioned by OP, whereas her post-grad is at a university which would be ranked above them all, in her particular (STEM) field (STEM).

It's an eminently sensible approach to go to a university where the course, location, sports, social life etc suits you best as an undergraduate, then 'upgrade', for want of a better word, for your next degree.

Thanks thing47. I do agree that is a good approach and it's what I have said to DS to help reassure him about his choice.

We're aiming to visit all the universities on the list (family day-trips rather than official visits). It was the visit to the lower ranked uni over half term which pushed it firmly to the top of the list, but we still have 3 more visits to do, and plenty of time for his teachers, classmates and whatever he reads online to influence the decision in another direction.

I agree that university rankings need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I can understand why an employer might question why a candidate with As and A*s at A level would choose York St John (103 in the CUG) over the university of York for example (22 in the CUG).

DD is at an RG university in the top 25, but the graduate prospects are in the top 10.

I disagree - the higher ranked the university is, the higher quality the academics it attracts and the better quality teaching it can offer because those academics are at the top of their game. The research led universities offer better teaching and facilities and industry knows that.

It's not like an A level where their is a fixed syllabus for a degree. Degree content is determined by what areas of expertise are as priority for the university.
The top engineering universities have far better labs and equipment because they attract more funding.

As said many job positions now are removing the university list from it to get rid of the bias it can cause.

The best thing is to pick a University where they like the feel of the place, clubs or sports they are interested in and a course they will be interested in with reasonable costing field trips if applicable or opportunities.

My dad, school form tutor and some friends were horrified when I turned down attending St Andrews in place for a less well known but very outdoor sport orientated uni. Reality was one visit to St Andrews and I knew it wasn't for me!
I did well at the uni I attended because I enjoyed all of it and made lif long friends. Now have a career in STEM very related to my degree and the pay is decent!

I’d be more interested and was more interested, in the stats for subsequent employment in a relevant field. My daughter decided lateish to go to university, did all the research and applied to the ones that offered a relevant course and with a high proportion of graduates finding employment quickly after graduation.

University is about lots of things, but life is about putting food on the table and a roof over your head. Satisfaction comes from using the skill and knowledge gained, in your career. I see no point in spending three or four years in any kind of higher education establishment, to then find that there are no careers or trades that you have the skills for.

@WelcometoJam

I haven’t rttt. But I came across one comment: ‘The best and the brightest’ do not necessarily go to Russell group. 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. Find the best fit for your child.

I can very much believe this to be true. Private tutors and hoy housing from primary!

hot

@Foxyloxy1plus1

I’d be more interested and was more interested, in the stats for subsequent employment in a relevant field. My daughter decided lateish to go to university, did all the research and applied to the ones that offered a relevant course and with a high proportion of graduates finding employment quickly after graduation.

University is about lots of things, but life is about putting food on the table and a roof over your head. Satisfaction comes from using the skill and knowledge gained, in your career. I see no point in spending three or four years in any kind of higher education establishment, to then find that there are no careers or trades that you have the skills for.

Fully agree with this. But we have no worries on this score because DC's choice of subject is in high demand by employers.

Interestingly I noticed that Imperial is numbered 8 in the QS world ranking and 201 in the Times world ranking. I'm assuming this is an anomaly of the methodologies used which use (among other things) reputation surveys among academics. Imperial primarily focuses on STEM so may not rate as highly among non-STEM academics as a university that covers the whole range of subjects.

It is also worth noting the Uni rankings change.

So my parents' Uni was going through a poor patch when I was looking at Uni and was not in the top twenty the Uni I went to was in the top five.

25 years on parents Uni is back up in the very top rankings again and mine has fallen out of top ten.

They have both always been decent places though so I wouldn't stress unduly about specific places because they do change over time.

Honestly an ‘objective’ look at the rankings are deceptive. There are certain unis that are very well regarded (Exeter for Finance for example) rankings all over the place ...

Also for Finance rankings the University of Strathclyde is top in the Times rankings but nobody’s heard of it and it’s not considered a ‘very top tier’ uni compared to LSE which is ranked 3rd/4th

Imperial is generally a research top uni for STEM
I don’t know how people find things like this out really 😂

@FlyingSoHigh

I disagree - the higher ranked the university is, the higher quality the academics it attracts and the better quality teaching it can offer because those academics are at the top of their game. The research led universities offer better teaching and facilities and industry knows that.

I don't think that is true TBH.

If by 'higher quality academics' you mean that University A has Professor Smith who's in the running for a nobel whereas University B has Professor Jones, who is pretty good and won another £10 million grant last year, that's probably true.

But neither professor will be doing enormous amounts of teaching, especially day-to-day teaching. And a lot of the people who do will be much of a muchness across the board. I've got a colleague who currently teaches both at Oxbridge and at a very, very, very non-Russell-Group university; she remains the same person with the same research and experience, and her students get the same from her in both places.

Also for Finance rankings the University of Strathclyde is top in the Times rankings but nobody’s heard of it and it’s not considered a ‘very top tier’ uni compared to LSE which is ranked 3rd/4th

Don’t be so Anglo-centric @LateAtTate! The vast majority of Scots have heard of the University of Strathclyde, it is a major academic institution in our biggest city.

In fact I had heard of Strathclyde LONG before I ever heard of LSE.

To be fair as a Scot I've heard of Strathclyde, I think it used to be Glasgow Poly.
It has had a good rep for technical subjects for many decades.

But it highlights the class issues which are a major part of the UK in general and University discussions in particular.

There are a small group of ancient universities and the Russell group which have a particular place in society regardless of the actual quality of degrees.

Then you have the actual quality of degrees.

Some employers value one or the other, some both. To be on the safe side ideally you want a degree which covers both aspects.

@HaveringWavering i meant ‘very top tier’ as a uni that has a ‘brand name’. In the same way that Oxbridge don’ top the league tables for every single subject they teach. If you asked people to list unis they considered elite though they would be the top two. LSE has a similar brand, but of course only in the subjects it teaches as it’s a specialist school.
There are plenty of good universities like Strathclyde as you mentioned which are good academic institutions but don’t carry the same brand..people’s whole demeanour changes when you mention you’re an Oxbridge/LSE grad and they immediately think you’re super smart ... some of them even say it out loud 😂
Unless you’re an international student though name alone doesn’t make any difference job wise... class does but that’s a whole different discussion

@LateAtTate

Honestly an ‘objective’ look at the rankings are deceptive. There are certain unis that are very well regarded (Exeter for Finance for example) rankings all over the place ...

Also for Finance rankings the University of Strathclyde is top in the Times rankings but nobody’s heard of it and it’s not considered a ‘very top tier’ uni compared to LSE which is ranked 3rd/4th

Imperial is generally a research top uni for STEM
I don’t know how people find things like this out really 😂

I worked at Strathy for 7 years - it's a well-regarded university in Scotland. I was in undergrad admissions for a while and only 10% of applicants are made an offer, so it's competitive.

I know a few academics who left there to work at Glasgow (a RG uni) and absolutely hated it. Hated the culture, hated how stuffy it was. I know another who left to work at Oxford and absolutely despised it, so came back to Scotland to work at a "lesser" university.

I'm currently doing a PhD at a "shit" university and I've never felt happier or more included in my life. It's not a particularly research intensive uni so the overall rankings aren't great but it does well in THE young university rankings and the student experience is second to none. I've had some excellent opportunities that wouldn't have been available to me in a larger setting. I'm also teaching/collaborating with other universities because I'm of the belief that if you want to publish and succeed in academia, you'll make that happen regardless of the perception of your university. The degree is a foot in the door.

@Foxyloxy1plus1

I’d be more interested and was more interested, in the stats for subsequent employment in a relevant field. My daughter decided lateish to go to university, did all the research and applied to the ones that offered a relevant course and with a high proportion of graduates finding employment quickly after graduation.

University is about lots of things, but life is about putting food on the table and a roof over your head. Satisfaction comes from using the skill and knowledge gained, in your career. I see no point in spending three or four years in any kind of higher education establishment, to then find that there are no careers or trades that you have the skills for.

Tbh unless you are examining the raw data of each uni it's very difficult to gauge this as they can easily filter out things like people travelling, sickness etc and suddenly the percentage gaining graduate jobs is much higher. Its also great advertising so they do use filters to make the data better. Always best to read the asterisk alongside the claim!

It also depends on the skill of the coding done at each institution - a naval officer never used to be counted as a graduate professional code, a military officer did despite the same thing and a degree required to do the job!

It really depends on the subject and what you what you want to do with it. I come from a family of academics and all say university ranking is based on postgrad research, not under graduate degrees. None really enjoy teaching because they work in research, they have to do a but they are not lecturers. I have been to university three times, two were RG. The final one was where I had the best time and also came out with a highly respected degree in my field of work. It is not a former poly, but lots are at the top of their field in certain professions because they always focused on delivering degrees ready for the work place.

[quote LateAtTate]@HaveringWavering i meant ‘very top tier’ as a uni that has a ‘brand name’. In the same way that Oxbridge don’ top the league tables for every single subject they teach. If you asked people to list unis they considered elite though they would be the top two. LSE has a similar brand, but of course only in the subjects it teaches as it’s a specialist school.
There are plenty of good universities like Strathclyde as you mentioned which are good academic institutions but don’t carry the same brand..people’s whole demeanour changes when you mention you’re an Oxbridge/LSE grad and they immediately think you’re super smart ... some of them even say it out loud 😂
Unless you’re an international student though name alone doesn’t make any difference job wise... class does but that’s a whole different discussion[/quote]
@LateAtTate you said “nobody has ever heard of it”. That is not remotely the same as saying “it is not generally considered to be in the very top tier”. Perhaps the above is what you MEANT to say, but it’s definitely not what you said…

It is really important that HE makes the decision. None of his choices will disadvantage him, and he needs to be happy for the three, very intense years that he will be experiencing. Somewhere with a sport that he enjoys will give him a good outlet, and satisfaction in a non-academic area. ( My youngest chose to get a degree in music at the lesser regarded of his two choices, but it was ideal for him, and has worked out well, as he is making his way now in the world of sound design for film)
Much discussion of data analytics! He is what?17-18? Who knows what career he will end up in - let him choose a degree he wants, the career will follow. The working world is very dynamic.