why does it matter where you do a degree?

[ssd]

me again (sorry)

I've been learning all about the degree process here and its been an eye opener for me

but something I keep reading confuses me

posters have said its important to do the right degree at the right uni

and that's what's confusing me

I've looked up a certain degree at the 4 uni's local to us

the entry requirements are as follows

first uni; AAAAB

second uni;AAAA/AAABB

third uni;AABBB/ABBBB

fourth uni;BBBC

now they all state the same qualification at the end of the course, so why are the entry requirements so different? is it just not worth doing the degree at the fourth uni even though you will have a qualification at the end of it? will employers poo poo the fourth uni degree?

honest answers please!

YeOldeTrout the Stoke graduates were definitely not employable in the area of law they wanted to go into. Ever.

Whether they did something related to law or something else I don't know. We lost touch a few years later.

Either way they didn't earn what they expected to. Not as lawyers anyway.

I felt they were very much let down by their school careers officers, who didn't have experience of sending students into the law and didn't understand the requirements.

We've gone from a time when Oxford, Cambridge, Durham & Edinburgh were the only universities, to when there's a underfunded ambition for 50% of all 18-25 year olds to be in some form of post-secondary training or education (from an elite to mass system) then the advantages conferred by the long-standing nature of some institutions over others are magnified.

But I'm also referring to junior faculty who are in their early 30s so started university 10-15 years ago. We are still mostly hiring ex-Oxbridge students or people educated abroad. However it is a subject in which there are sharp hierarchies at undergraduate and graduate level so may well not be representative.

Ahem. I think Glasgow is older than Edinburgh. Oh, OK. I don't think it changes my general point though ...

I felt they were very much let down by their school careers officers, who didn't have experience of sending students into the law and didn't understand the requirements

Yes, there's a thread in here giving that problem a bit of an airing.

it depends where you want to work afterwards as well
some places wont care, some will
you might also have a better chance of a first at a uni with low standards

Oh, OK. I don't think it changes my general point though

No, but it's really very important to me that Edinburgh isn't praised in favour of Glasgow for any an unjustified reason.

(DP went to Edinburgh)

I'm aware Edinburgh University currently is ranked above Glasgow, please nobody point that out in case he's reading

AyeAmarok

How do folk feel about using drop-out rates as a proxy for teaching quality? Seems to be a reasonable correlation to REF scores using these data....

My top 10-in-world Uni had a freshman dropout rate of 25% in the 1980s.
But it's improved to 82% now who graduate within 6 yrs of initial enrolment (nominal 4 yr degrees).
Sorry, Er, what were you saying?

But students drop out for many reasons, most of which have very little to do with teaching quality.

Such a measure would seem to reward universities such as Oxbridge for low drop out rates which were determined at the outset by the cohort of students.

On the plus side such a measure might stop university management teams from pushing departments to take less qualified students. On the minus side such a measure would lead to more pressure to pass students who should really fail, and it might also discourage departments from taking students who are known to be vulnerable to dropping out (those from difficult backgrounds, students with special needs etc etc)

The HESA performance indicator for this measure adjusts for factors like low-participation neighbourhood etc, so you can compare on a like for like basis. Still seems to be a correlation, at least amongst undergraduates under 21 (haven't looked at the other tables).

But there is no evidence that student dropout rate is directly correlated to teaching quality.

Sure, drop out rate may correlate with the REF - but in my opinion the main reason is likely to be the prior achievements and incoming levels of the cohorts. You can control for low participation neighbourhoods etc but you cannot control for entry grades when comparing institutions.

Consider twins who attended the same schools, one of whom got four A stars and went to Cambridge, the second of whom got ABC and went to a lower tier university via clearing. Right from the outset you know that the latter is more likely to drop out, as they achieved less well in school and achieved far lower A level grades, missing their predicted grades.

Good points, spinoa

Of course, those of us in universities know that we're being expected to make up for the last 18 years of socio-economic advantage. They can have as many "OffToffs" /TEFs as they like, it won't change the pattern of educational effects of socio-economic dis/advantage.

But the huge point we all forget is the the UK university system is amongst the world's best, and almost all people teaching in UK universities are really good at what they do.

It's a pernicious effect of league tables, REF, proposed TEF, that these measuring systems and monitoring imply that there's something to be worried about, that the quality isn't there.

It is. And none of us parents, academics, students should remember that.

None of us should forget that ffs more coffee pleeeeeeese

But the benchmarks DO take entry qual into account - so recognised the 2nd twin is more likely to drop out so the non continuation benchmarks adjusts for this....

stuff about benchmarks

I recognise obviously drop out isn't a proxy for teaching quality, but I think it's the nearest one there is. However I'm not a statistician or sociologist so was interested in others' views!

But these simplistic benchmarks don't account for the full spectrum of underachievement or overachievement in earlier grades.

In my scenario (identical) twin 2 got substantially lower grades at A level than he was predicted capable of and his (identical) brother got. His outcome at university is therefore likely to be worse than that of a student on the same course who got ABC as the "best" grades they were capable of.

Meanwhile a very bright student comes in from a poor school with relatively poor A level grades due to poor teaching at school - such a school may not be in a deprived area (i.e. low polar score) and may even be a superselective grammar (I can think of examples). The student flies at university with any decent teaching. A student on the same course got the same A level grades due to tutoring throughout his school years; that student's outcome is likely to be worse than his A level grades would suggest.

Etc etc.

I do think that dropout rates for some courses capture some aspects of teaching quality but they are too simplistic to use to measure teaching quality as a whole. (However, they would be a lot cheaper and easier to use than TEF is likely to be....)

We might also collect data on "Value added" which is what your 2nd example:

a very bright student comes in from a poor school with relatively poor A level grades due to poor teaching at school - such a school may not be in a deprived area (i.e. low polar score) and may even be a superselective grammar (I can think of examples). The student flies at university with any decent teaching. A student on the same course got the same A level grades due to tutoring throughout his school years; that student's outcome is likely to be worse than his A level grades would suggest

tracks.

Oh, but we do!

The TEF is going to be disastrous, I just know it ...

We've gone from a time when Oxford, Cambridge, Durham & Edinburgh were the only universities

Ahem.

Dates of foundation of UK universities:
Oxford before 1167
Cambridge 1209
St Andrew's 1410-13
Glasgow 1451
Aberdeen 1495
Edinburgh 1583
London 1826 - this is the date UCL was founded
Durham 1832

My SIL did law at Stoke Poly, got a training contract and worked for many years in the profession. But the clue is in the name - that was a long time ago.

Would the OP like to say what the subject(s) of interest might be? It might inform how much where you go matters. At the risk of being a tad provocative, if you want to study maths there really is a pecking order it's worth understanding, but if you are going to study Media Studies it really does not matter where you go - it's pointless crap wherever. More seriously, a medical qualification is a qualification to be a doctor wherever you go and the rankings, which might affect where you do house jobs, will matter less in the long run (I guess) and the competition so fierce most 6th formers will be glad to get an offer at all.

One thing that matters is whether your aim is to get a job. The last time we looked at graduates from an engineering degree we didn't even look at Oxbridge. We had problems with their graduates not working well with others, generally feeling they knew best and were above grunt work. We generally went for graduates from more technical universities.

My daughter was told in a careers talk by a big pharma firm they were not interested in the uni, or class of degree but were more interested in transferable soft skills.
I think the more prestigious unis tend to be populated with able students who then can fulfil this brief so it's a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't think it's much to do with the idea they are better unis.

That's unusual Hide, most graduate schemes for big companies stipulate that you can only apply if you have a 2:1 or above.