University Admissions - I'm willing to answer any questions!

[MrsBright]

I have worked in Uni Admissions at several different Unis, RG and non-RG, for over 20 years and am very happy to answer any general questions about UCAS/Offers/F&I Decisions/Clearing/Adjustment etc.

League Tables

Because they won't tell you if your child will find that course interesting or if they will enjoy being at that Uni.

Too often applicants/their parents/their teachers get over obsessed with League Tables and Rankings and think its like some sort of contest. If their child gets an offer/place from a Uni one of two teeny weeny points above someone else's they think they've scored some sort of social victory. They forget that all those tables are mostly measuring nebulous stuff that wont have any impact on the day-to-day student experience of that 18 year old.

30 years ago no-one had League Tables or Rankings (which are devised by newspapers to sell newspapers btw) and we managed to pick a Uni quite successfully by going to Open Days, reading the course description and thinking for ourselves. Amazing really. I had a fabulous time at a Uni that now scores nowhere big in your rankings. However, this didn't stop me getting postgraduate studentships and bursaries to do a Masters and a PhD at Unis at the top of your rankings or later my ability to get teaching work at a variety of Unis both here and overseas.

Guess what, both academia itself and most employers ignore League Tables - they dont rank applicants according to that Unis position on the League Table ('oh no, he went to Durham in 1996, that was the year they dropped 10 points wasn't it - better put him at the bottom of the list then'), they are far more interested in '2.1 or First', and what else that applicant did at Uni - placements, study abroad, internships, relevant holiday employment and voluntary work etc. In essence, a good CV and an interesting, enthusiastic person who has embraced 'being at University' and enjoyed studying their subject.

I'm not going to get into an online bicker on this one. This is my informed opinion as someone working within academia.

Asterick

Yes. Mistakes happen and if the applicant is interested and the Uni are willing, a Reject can be turned back to an Offer. Only UCAS can do this on their database - not at the Uni end - hence the phrasing of the email.

Your daughter needs to get any angst/frustration out of her head (tricky but worth it) and look seriously at which course she wants to do. Or take a year out to think carefully and reapply. This is too important a decision to use it as a way of 'getting back' at a Uni that has been a bit confused with its admin.

@Jeanne: REF is a massive exercise that can only be done once every 5 yrs. There's no need for REF to duplicate all the other surveys (annual) about student satisfaction, success in future employment, etc. Which ime University depts do pay close attention to, those survey results make such a difference in terms of keeping undergrad numbers up.

Thanks Mrs B for super-quick response. Yes, stakes are high as 'dream course' is funded and second choice is not. She's already had a year out because she had to redo some AS levels to get her predicted grades high enough to have a realistic chance of an offer. I'll advise her to phone UCAS ASAP. Thanks again.

MrsB - I see. I'm not sure you needed to call it 'bickering'. But using information from 30 years ago is ignoring the fact that, 30 years ago, far fewer people did degrees! And, with grants, more people could afford to think simply about 'enjoying' the course, and not whether it would help them to get a job.

I completely agree that no sensible person ought to be paying attention to minute details, like is Liverpool Hope marginally ahead of Manchester Met, or marginally behind (I focus on those because I think it's much harder to find information about universities unlike, say, Durham).

What people do need to find out is, if their DC is choosing between two universities and they know nothing about them, how do they stand relative to each other, year on year? Yes, league tables provide complicated information and need interpreting. But they can be very useful. What if you're someone who's never been to university and doesn't understand how it works?

I know you have a lot of specialist knowledge, but I think you are forgetting that many people don't have any, and struggle. My perspective on this comes from knowing people who came out of degrees they thought would set them up for jobs, who found those degrees were worth less than they thought, or didn't support them to do what they wanted. It makes me furious that people get - effectively - duped into going for a degree they think sounds fine, without knowing the context.

League tables usually tell you things like how many students drop out of the course, and sometimes you can find out how long it takes students to complete the course (ie., do lots of them take time out). These things matter. Students are getting into a lot of debt. It's fair to them that they use all the guides they can to work out whether it's worth it for them.

ragged - fair enough.

I don't think employers or academics rank applicants according to a precise position on a League Table Mrs B, but that's slightly different from the point that a degree from certain institutions is likely to be more highly prized than a degree from quite a number of others. That's not to do with League Tables, it overrides them, but there will be a broad correlation.

'social victory' - really?!

Also, I don't think there were Open Days thirty years ago were there? If there were, I certainly missed them!

I also need to correct the point about PhDs, MrsB.

30 years ago the situation was very different. This is something where I have recent experience - these days it is hard to get funding for postgrad work, and bursaries are practically non-existent. It is a really tough situation. If someone wanted a career teaching in universities, advising them to ignore league tables when they apply to university is absurd.

Perhaps MrsB is a scientist though, where funding is still far, far, far easier to come by than in arts and humanities. But yes quite JDM. The vast majority of those who manage to get PhD offers from the best unis in those areas still don't manage to secure funding - the collapse in funding has been dramatic over the past decade or so. Masters funding in those areas is if anything worse. The undergrad institution as well as the class of degree (including the individual marks and overall average mark) are both key.

Would she have done a Masters in science so long ago?

It is rare even now, I thought.

People (including OP) seem to be generalising a lot from their own experiences. For sciences there are definitely qualitative differences between courses at top, middle and low ranking institutions. In sciences it would be rare to get a PhD offer from a top institution coming from a low to middle ranking institution because the competition is usually very stiff and courses from the top places are considered much more academically challenging and better preparation for graduate work. On the other hand it's not true to say that funding for postgrad work is very hard: there is funding available for STEM and in some fields they are actually short of students, so would take students with less than ideal preparation for graduate work.

BTW I am also confused about "teaching work" at universities because in my research fields this simply doesn't exist: almost all academics are expected to be research active and there are virtually no teaching roles available.

Academics don't look at the detailed positions in REF or league tables (which they know are manipulable) but there is no way that an Oxbridge degree and a degree from an institution which is consistently towards the bottom of all league tables would be viewed as comparable for sciences. Maybe this is more flexible in other subjects but I think it is poor advice to suggest that students completely ignore league tables.

Yes, it is different today. 30 years ago I wafted off to university with a full grant (+ dole in the holidays) to do a subject I wasn't all that about. Everyone at my school went to university and you generally waved your finger about in the Brian Heap book and found something your grades fitted. There was no Russell Group, just Top Ones (Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol), Redbrick Ones and New Ones. And then there were polys. So you broadly knew where you were as far as reputation went, but there was little information on courses. And, oh bliss, the 2EE offer.

Today- all change. University costs big. Graduate jobs are scarcer and there is more competition from a larger amount of graduates and from EU applicants. No wonder parents stick their big oars in and want to help their dcs make the best decision.

That being said, ds's head is firmly in the sand and, like Scarlett O'Hara, he'll think about it all "tomorrow".

Sorry, spinoa, that was my generalisation, and you're right to pull me up on it.

I should say, funding for postgrad work is, in general, very hard to get, with exceptions, more of them in sciences than arts.

Teaching work exists where I am. I am a very junior teaching associate. I think these jobs are more common now. Mine isn't permanent, and is structured on the assumption I would get into a normal job after postdocs. So, I don't have the length of experience MrsB or other academics on this thread have, and I wouldn't post at all, except I really do feel strongly about telling students to ignore league tables.

And this is something I know about because the problems are problems my generation, and people I know graduating now, are having.

We can't afford to ignore anything that might help us figure out which degree is going to help us get a good job. Lots of people know the reputations of a very small group of universities. Far fewer would be able to judge the majority of universities, and their courses. And that's where most people end up studying!

I thought reputation was all, but have to report that a young person I know, who did Law (gasp!), Drama and Biology A Levels and then went to an ex-poly, has just this past year secured a training position at a Magic Circle law firm. I must admit as a dyed-in-the-wool MNetter, I was as I thought from my reading of threads that only 15As, 4As, Oxbridge degree (from approved college) + many internships sitting next to a high court judge (and of course Grade 8 bassoon plus a couple of county sports caps) would lead to a sniff of a chance.

I don't think reputation is all. I don't see how it can be.

Besides which, some ex-polys are good. Which is precisely why league tables can help.

I very often hear people talking about (say) Oxford Brookes as an 'ex poly' without noticing that it's consistently good for some courses. The point of league tables is to help people figure out how universities' strengths move around, and aren't tied to how they started out.

The thing about ridiculous numbers of GCSEs/irrelevant outside experiences does bug me too. But I've heard people on here, who're academics, say the same thing repeatedly.

There are as many unemployed graduates from Oxbridge than from many of what might be deemed 'lower Universities'. You do not leave an RG Uni with a barcode tattooed on your forehead or with some magic swipe card than guarantees you will have an instantly successful career and lifelong happiness.

MrsB, really, it's not all about Oxbridge and the Russell group!

It is about being able to choose the right university and course for you.

If you pick a course that has a good record of getting its students into employment in the kinds of jobs they want, then it may not matter whether it's at the 'Russell Group' (which is, by the way, nothing to do with league tables, and I don't know why you think it is).

Plenty of non-Oxbridge, non-Russell Group universities run extremely good, successful courses.

That is why it matters to read league tables.

They shouldn't be the only thing anyone reads, and they should be read carefully, but ignoring them would be a bad idea.

I think some people need to get rid of the idea that Polys were/are some sort of CSE choice for the less gifted. They were - and still are - each brilliant in certain areas and for some career areas provide a far more usable degree than a more traditional Uni. Polys brought in innovations to the UK education system like modular degrees, joint subjects, work placements, years in industry, study abroad etc etc, that the more established Unis subsequently copied.

Yes, we all want the best for our children. But sometimes that best isn't Durham.

MrsB, that is exactly what we have been trying to tell you.

You are the person who has been focussing on the 'big name' universities and insisting on ignoring league tables, which could tell people that many of the ex-polys do very, very well.

I've had enough of being treated like the hired-help.

Pick your fights elsewhere ladies. I won't be returning to Mumsnet.

Oh, come on.

You started a thread. No one is treating you like hired help - you volunteered to answer questions! I've explained where I'm coming from, and that I know my own limitations, but that I do (unfortunately) disagree with you, based on knowing how the situation works for people my age and younger.

I don't have the least intention of picking a fight, but these are people's children's futures, so surely it is important to work out whether the information being given is right?

'admin staff' employed to make decisions will not be clerical staff and will be graduates, often with postgrad qualifications as well.

I used to be one of these people ( central PG admissions, RG Uni) I also wrote the guidance admissions tutors followed to help them decide who to select. I agree with a lot of Mrs. Bs comments. One thing I would add is there is nothing more off putting than a mute prospective student being dragged around by an over eager parent on an open day or just generally on the phone, making general enquiries. Please let your child do all the talking!

I came here offering help/advice on the confusing aspects of UCAS and 'applying for University'. And I have received many personal messages from Mums who have welcomed and appreciated this. Thanks ladies.

However this thread has now been hijacked by the usual collective of abrasive Mumsnet yummy-mummys who have contrived to turn this into 'their thread'. For this reason I won't be returning.

OP kept well away from Oxbridge-RG-etc. except when other posters kept bringing it up.

OP screwed up by agreeing to talk about what posters kept asking, which was about choosing courses & Unis. She should have refused to comment. Some insisted her comments about procedures could only be interpreted in specific contexts (so Oxbridge or RG or post92 etc). Or that she was only saying what she said because of limited experience, & that it was impossible to offer good general advice. I've enjoyed the general advice on here & thank MrsB for offering it.

=====
Re Choices not Process: My problem is that all these league tables are measures of PAST performance. How many times have you heard that about financial advice? "Past performance is no indicator of future".

I see that, MrsB, and I do appreciate you're trying to be helpful.

But I disagreed with you on something, and I thought it was fair to say so.

FWIW I'm not a 'yummy-mummy'. I am, as I said upthread, a junior academic who has seen a lot of people go through HE in the past few years and who feels concerned about it all.

I don't have your level of experience, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to query what you post.