Russell Group versus highest ranked by subject and employability.

[Hassled]

Taking out of the equation variables like course content, desirability of location and so on, and looking at it purely in terms of future employability, is it better to have say a 2:1 in a Humanities subject from a Russell Group university, or from a university that is higher ranked in league tables for that subject?
As an example, Sussex (non RG) is higher ranked (in the Guardian league tables) than Birmingham (RG) for English Lit. Does that RG thing matter? Thanks.

A bit disingenuous Senua since I am sure you appreciate what it is actually saying is that graduates from a self selected group of 24 of the most selective universities were more likely to have work experience than students at all the rest and therefore match employer's declared priorities. Except that "all the rest" is not homogenously less selective, less focused on employability skills, facilitating work experience etc. Where I wonder would individual Russell Group unis figure in similar research compared with the likes of Bath and Surrey? We noticed that all the most selective universities we visited are now much more focused on giving students employability skills and work experience but Bath were actually always ahead of the RG pack on that one, actually by decades. So the advice I would take as a student would be to make sure whatever university I chose had a really good careers service, with a focus on giving students employability skills and opportunities for work experience and to not neglect to build my CV.

Sorry if it sounded disingenuous. I assumed that if I just said article here then it might not get many clicks but if I included some quotations then people might bother to read it.
Apparently the survey was included in a report by Universum who "provide actionable insights and brand activation services" Feel free to ignore them on that basis, if nothing else!

Hmm, work experience.

DS spent some time this year applying for internships to no avail. His perception was that public sector employers were casting their nets widely so there was not great advantage in coming from a "top" University. Internships with commercial financial institutions were seriously compettiive. I suspect it did not help that we know someone who did get a place at one of the organisations DS was applying to - and whose father holds a senior position with the same organisation. In fairness though DS is based in London so he can simply walk into high street employment agencies in the City and Canary Wharf and try to find a temp office job.

He accepts that next year he will have to try a lot harder as end of second year internships are effectively extended job interviews with employers, both private and public sector, often doing most of their recruitment this way.

DD is trying to jump the same work experience/volunteering hurdles prior to a medical school application, along plenty of reading and UKCAT preparation.

Am I the only one who feels that it is all too much. Our DC face a long lifetime of work. I accept they need to earn some money, but I would also like to see them take time off to see the world, grow up, have new experiences etc. Is a student who has used their vacations to spend long hours in a merchant bank going to be a better employee than one who has spent their time broadening their horizons, pursuing interests, or perhaps even relaxing?

Needmore Sadly as far as the culture in most of the banking industry is concerned the answer is no. They don't value any manifestations of a work life balance and perhaps that is why so many of the children of bankers we know, having seen the impact on family life and health of the stress and long hours that go into earning the large salaries are focused on careers that will be less lucrative but consistent with a better quality of life. It can be exciting and stimulating as well as lucrative but frankly workaholics and those willing to make the sacrifices in other areas of their life should apply. One banker we know sent an email around on deciding to quit (at the top of his game) "What is this life if full of care we have no time to stop and stare."

Actually quite a few banks have now clamped down on the work experience going to the children of friends syndrome and have put competitive selection processes in place in it's stead. As you say no shortage of candidates. We know a student from a famous banking family who assumed he would walk into a job, let alone internships but in the end could get nothing more than the odd day here and there, because it is getting harder to do your friend's a favour, he has now fallen back on using his patrician charm in the restaurant business. However in it's place are yet more prolonged competitive selection processes with online testing (often favouring those with numeracy / non verbal reasoning skills.) etc.

And travelling either before, or during your career, taking some time off the treadmill, are becoming more popular and are actually valued by employers we talked to at various careers fairs eg in the media / advertising /arts, outside the banking industry. It certainly hasn't harmed the career prospects of those who took time off to travel after university. They make you an interesting candidate, especially of course if you have worked to get the money together or worked whilst on your travels.

Senua According to "Universum" the UKs most attractive employer in the field of Law is Google

The website is packed with consulting bullshit strategy speak but not a word about who they are or what their credentials are.

I don't know what it is with these types of articles, but I can't really explain it articulately either to why I loath them. I read them but can't help but nit pick find holes and think it's some marketing ploy or subtle product placement. If I was to try and see anything objectively it is that the poor kids of this generation are increasingly driven to keep on proving and ticking the relevant boxes, it's like some obstacle/indurance test, survival of the fittest in order to furfill their dream jobs. These types of articles serves to put more pressure on students, some may say it's informative and it's a snap shot of the reality world of what graduates will face. It might be but it's grim, depressing reading all the same.
The comment about Russell Group University students being more ambitious, well that's merely a correlation or symptom since RG uni entry tariffs is pretty high compared to the rest theres only really Bath, St Andrews, Surrey and maybe a few others that have comparable entry tariffs of top tier RG uni, so by default will attract kids with exempler academic profiles who would inherently be more ambitious motivated to start off or they go to grammar /inde schools be conditioned to aim high. But then ambition or being ambitious is rather subjective means different things to different people. Personally I think the self employed, self made man/women are a ambitious lot, create something that started off as a mere vision to it being a sucessfully run either it being a small or a huge empire but being brave bold and taking the risk.

Interesting article looking at the issue from another perspective

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/city-corporates-destroy-best-minds

"The hero of this story is Gordon Chesterman, head of the careers service at Cambridge, and the only person we spoke to who appears to have given some thought to these questions. He told me his service tries to counter the influence of the richest employers.

It sends out regular emails telling students “if you don’t want to become a banker, you’re not a failure”, and runs an event called “But I don’t want to work in the City”. It imposes a fee on rich recruiters and uses the money to pay the train fares of nonprofits. He expressed anger about being forced by the government to provide data on graduate starting salaries.

“I think it’s a very blunt and inappropriate means [of comparison], that rings alarm bells in my mind.”"

Hmm, interesting but a bit deluded. Monbiot calls finance a "useless occupation" but I bet he has a bank account, a credit card, a mortgage, a pension. He rails about the "obscene hours that some new recruits must work" as an evil. He says "You are deprived of the time, sleep and energy you need to see past the place into which you have been plunged. You lose your bearings, your attachments to the world you inhabited before, and become immersed in the culture that surrounds you."

Instead, he suggests that people should do more enlightened things ... like teaching. From what I have heard a life "deprived of time, sleep and energy" describes exactly the work conditions of most teachers! (And other caring careers eg doctors)

I went into the world of finance after University. I went to presentation by Arthur Andersen where it was very obvious that they wanted a pound of your flesh in return for big bucks. I had sufficient brain cells to realise that working for them was not a good idea and went to a relatively smaller (but still a big player) company instead. As part of our induction we - eager beavers that we were - were instructed on work/life balance (long before it was even A Thing).

Not all corporates are evil and not all do-gooders will save the world.

senua I tend to agree, especially painting teaching in such an idealistic light when so many are abandoning their careers because it is less and less an environment in which they feel facilitated to do good. But then the Guardian needs graduates to make that decision to perpetuate it's core readership, and it is not immune to the values of big business either

But I do think that graduates are often going into banking with £££signs in their eyes, and into the big 4 because they panic and think it is time to settle down on the treadmill, or if they have spent summers on internships are already on it. So I do not think it is a bad thing if universities do try to open their eyes to other options, or even taking time off to grow up a bit and decide what is right for them. There is a big world out there and lots of ways to make a difference in it.

I'm surprised the figures going into finance and management consultancy and finance are only 60% for Cass and 28% for LSE. These Universities will attract both home and overseas students who already want to work in these fields and who have identified places and courses attractive to recruiters. If you were to ask round, certainly a reasonably high achieving sixth form in London, there will be a good proportion who want to go into the City and earn lots, and indeed a proportion of parents who will be encouraging this.

All night stints in the library start in the first term, as do visits to the carrers office to sort out the first summers internships, and networking at the regular breakfasts organised by big firms. The Univeristy may moan that they are effectively a vocational college for many. Academics at Cambridge (this was third hand but probably accurate) may say that teaching the masters degree in economics is dull because so many are there simply to add a pretigious reference to their CV.

Its not new. In my day, pre-big bang, when only the well connected got jobs in the traditional merchant banks and the rest of us relied on the milk round, actuarial science was the high paying but meritocratic profession. Technically hard but if you got a good degree, and LSE was the place to go, recruiters would be swarming. We, naively, wondered about this group who knew exactly what they wanted to do, and who determindly spent long hours in the library rather than hanging out with us in the student bar. Its a tougher world now, and that type of motivated/determined student is far better represented, perhaps even the majority.

The journalist seems to be applying his values to a diferent generation.

"Ivy League and Russell Group graduates would still have an edge when it comes to seeking employment as a result of employers’ declared priorities"

WHAT??? RG is trying to equate itself to Ivy League?? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Someone tell me it's a pisstake, please.