To want DS to go to the best university?

[Oilrigger]

DS now has five offers from universities: three Russell Group, one a well-regarded uni but not RG and one a newer university (former poly years ago) offering him BBC (he is predicted AAB). The courses are pretty similar at all five unis (can't go into more detail because he would be furious if he found out I was posting on MN!).

He is adamant that he wants to go to the former poly because he likes it the most. He also reasons that he will have a more enjoyable and less pressurised time there and that he is more likely to get a good class of degree (2.1 or 1st) from the ex-poly - rather than a 2.2 from a Russell Group uni that he just scrapes into. So he is going to firm the ex-poly (he won't have/need an insurance as it is his lowest offer).

AIBU to want him to firm one of the more prestigious Russell Group unis and insure the former poly? DH says I am as it is DS' decision and he's the one who will be going to uni.

Can't they just look at a candidates LinkedIn page? Everyone dd knows has a very comprehensive LinkedIn profile including uni, school and degree grade

In the civil service at least the names aren’t revealed to those sifting through the applications so they couldn’t. Even in situations where they have the name the recruiters are going to follow the guidelines they have. What’s the point in giving yourself extra work by looking up people on the internet when you’re judging them by their application.

Can't they just look at a candidates LinkedIn page
Could be a bit tricky without knowing the candidates name.
Every application I have looked at in recent years has had all identifying details removed prior to shortlisting and I have only known who the candidate is at interview.

Can't they just look at a candidates LinkedIn page? Everyone dd knows has a very comprehensive LinkedIn profile including uni, school and degree grade

They can if they think it's relevant. For us it genuinely wasn't important which university someone went to. It's true as PP said that the graduate recruitment team was more active on some uni campuses than others. Doesn't stop anyone applying and being considered equally with anyone else, regardless of uni.
Caveat as previously stated: might not be true of all professions/niche roles but I know for sure that the majority of recruiters do not take university into consideration.

I worked years ago for what was then one of the big 5 consulting firms - they loved Oxbridge then Durham. That was a long time ago though.

I recruit graduates and our recruitment is blind, I don't see the candidates' CVs at all. However, that will only apply to his first job, and not at all employers. For subsequent jobs his uni will be on his CV and certain uni's do impress more.

Forgive me (but I have a teen figuring out what to do and where):
How on earth do Unis choose
How on earth do employers choose

Do the big employers still do milk rounds ir are they all expecting kids to canter about the country to do interviews? If they are are recruiting CV blind, how does that work?

@Madcats the cv blind will tend to be a standard application often looking at competencies looking at team work etc. The extent of ‘blindness’ will vary from personal details like name to university/classification, other employers etc. Most likely there would be maths and verbal reasoning tests too to cut the numbers down.

But… even with institution blind recruitment those from elite institutions tend to to be more successful in getting into grad schemes. That might be because they are cleverer or possibly more affluent so have had more chances to develop some of the softer skills or polish required (and therefore nothing to do with the university) or those universities might offer better preparation for grad recruitment either through the course itself (eg tutorial system at oxbridge) or simply peer pressure, higher expectations etc.

Good students can do well regardless of institution but the stats will be more in the favour of those at certain universities.

Whilst I am reasonably open minded, I absolutely think differently when I see someone who has studied a relevant degree or PhD somewhere well known for that subject (science).

The worst snobbery on that other thread was from overpaid lawyers.
I was told that DD's degree wasn't worth the paper it was written on by the snobbiest of the lot (1st class, accredited by the RBS from an RG university that wasn't top 10)

My own personal feelings are when you’re 18, you are an adult and responsible for your own decisions.

A popular MN myth. You are legally an adult at 18. However, a great many 18 year olds are not mature and responsible enough to make the right decisions without guidance.

I feel like a lot of MN view life as an airport with the ultimate goal being a seat in first class. It's such a joyless way to view life.

Oh, well said @Clymene - first class in many cases being a career in law or in the city with a 6 figure salary.

Have there ever been threads of strict/controlling parents who refused to let their kids move away from home for uni?

Sadly, yes, but on the WIWIKAU Facebook page @nandos12 and The Student Room. Often it is parents from other cultures who don't want their daughters to go away to university. They want them to go to the local university and live at home.

In many cases finances will come into it, which is why we need to get rid of the notion that students from non RG+ (by + I also mean, Bath, Loghborough, Lancaster and St Andrews) aren't worth employing. Many students go to the local non RG universities for many reasons not related to their academic ability.

How unpleasant

Yes, I want to change careers to optometry and the closest one is Salford. There are no RG or even red bricks in the area.

To correct something: 50% of lawyers don’t have law degrees. In order to compete, you need RG plus. You need an academic degree. University and degree matter.

Employers might not look at university , but RG still wins out overall. Elite courses at elite universities win out even more. Doctors do best of all. Scientists mostly get jobs. Arts students struggle. Plenty of students don’t get grad work at all. Ex polys do work related degrees very well and modern engineering and sciences. MFL is virtually untaught by them. Don’t try and go to a poly if you are great at MFL!

So on the job application, there might not be university but there could well be A levels and lots of other info. There might also be spelling mistakes, poor grammar and basically a poor application.

To answer a question, some elite employers do target certain universities. They really do know who they want!

I agree.

I got accepted into two RG universities and turned them both down to take a less prestigious university.

Although not as “prestigious”, the uni I went to did a very niche course which was EXACTLY what I wanted to do.

The RG unis would have eventually led me to the same place, but it would have taken a year more to get there; and I’d have less job specific training.

I was also able to have a better standard of living by living in a cheaper city. My money went much further.

Yes I do think some parents are a bit lazy/snobby and just look up RG universities, without actually thinking about how good a University actually is in that area or for that student. It takes time to investigate a University. I also think it’s so that parent can hold up their head to ‘other parents’. Honestly as soon as I I hear parents mention ‘RG’ I do judge them, not the way that they want!

Plenty of students don’t get grad work at all. Ex polys do work related degrees very well and modern engineering and sciences. MFL is virtually untaught by them. Don’t try and go to a poly if you are great at MFL!

Notable exception @TizerorFizz is Sheffield Hallam. Their MFL courses are great and v highly rated. Friend’s DD doing French and Spanish with business and loves it. 18 months spent abroad (not just the normal year) and graduate job prospects are fantastic. Other than that, I agree with you and can’t think of ex polys that are good for languages

My daughter attended a Russel group uni and found them to be very focused on their foreign students.She went into her course knowing no-one but most of the local students had arrived en masse from the local catchment schools so didn't socialise outside their friendship groups. Group Work was extremely difficult and she felt very isolated.Her masters was completed at an ex poly and she was so impressed with their teaching and the social aspects of the course.

MFL are greatly undervalued in universities overall. Eldest started the degree in a post 1992 and then they abandoned all MFL courses! She fortunately transferred to an RG uni for French and Spanish but even there the options were limited. The UK as a whole is shite so far as languages are concerned.

They opted for a PGCE in another RG uni with a bursary of £26k because the profession is so desperate to recruit languages teachers!! Now in 3rd year teaching having had two one year contracts but permanent full time now.

Many of the replies in this thread are crazy

Yes its important for your child to be happy, but life doesnt end at 21. Yes, "university experience" is great and fun and important, but not being poor when you are 30 is even more important. You only have to spend some time reading mumsnet threads (let alone looking around in daily life) to see the lives full of misery that many people lead. Sure, its "fun" to do an arts degree or attend a 3rd tier university in a "nice" city, but what are you doing to do when you are 30 years old and only earning £30-40k and having to check your bank balance at the end of the month when you go shopping?

The reality is that smart people with good degrees find it easy to earn a lot of money in the modern era. A halfway intelligent person in London with a decent degree should easily be on £80k+ by their early 30s. On the other hand, you could do a "fun" course in media at Huddersfield and tell yourself that earning £40k is "good enough", while you worry about rationing your heating in winter and try to decide if shopping in Lidl will let you afford to run a car. This is surely not the sort of life you want for your child.

The above replies claiming that post-1992 universities are "really better than people think" are especially disingenuous. These universities are mostly all crap and will always be crap. Sure its elitism, but the reality is that they mainly cater to students that aren't very bright. Sure, most of the students there do "get jobs" but they are rarely well-paying jobs, and most will just fall into the usual £30-50k mediocrity. I do sometimes wonder how many of the posers who say this are really academics at post-1992s who werent able to secure academic jobs at Russell Groups and are dealing with insecurity issues.

Without wanting to overly emphasise the racial issue, I do think that this issue of low standards is mostly a white issue. Its bizarre how many middle class white families seem happy to sit back and let their kids make awful decisions that will lead to life-long poverty just because "it makes them happy" in the short term. Its almost impossible to imagine this issue even coming up in an Asian family, since "go to the best university you can" is so self-evidently obvious that its axiomatic.

MFL is mostly a joke degree for not very bright students. So many Europeans grow up speaking 2-3 (or even more) languages by the time they even start high school. The idea that you should be "wasting" your degree trying to learn French or Spanish is completely and totally absurd. If you want to know hose languages then you should learn them when you are young.

A 21 year old MFL graduate literally has the same skills that a 12 year old Swiss kid has (who knows English, Dutch and French by default). Its absurd to say that you should waste your degree on this rather than learning an actual skill or academic discipline.

If you go to Oxbridge the employers seek you out. They nay not be allowed to ask but they know.

"If you go to Oxbridge the employers seek you out. They nay not be allowed to ask but they know."

Pretty much. If an employer is "institution-blind" then this just tells you that they dont value intelligence and are prioritising a diverse workforce, which is a huge red flag.

If you are smart/talented then you want to work for someone who will value your intelligence. The companies which actually pay real salaries (£100k+ in your 20s) all have an enormous Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE bias. Most buy-side firms (hedge funds, PE, VC) recruit exclusively from those universities and (as you say) dont do much public advertising outside of them. And the top law firms, investment banks, MBB, FAANG, relevant tech startups, etc all heavily prioritise recruiting from top universities.

Its only the mid-tier firms (accountancy, lower tier engineering, legacy tech, etc) who make a big deal of "not caring about institution", since they know that its unlikely that top graduates would choose those firms anyway, since pay isnt competitive.

Believe what you like. I done a maths degree from one of the above places and almost everyone in my class (including me) who wanted a City job got one without much effort. The idea that they would get rejected in favour of a candidate with a 2:1 from Southampton or Plymouth is absurd. I can only assume people posting this nonsense just dont live in the world in which these top jobs/degrees exist.