Can anyone kindly look at DDS current uni choices. Honest feedback most welcome

[drivinmecrazy]

DD is in the process of deciding which unis she will apply for after the summer.
Her plan is to study English and Spanish.
Current favourites are Royal Holloway, Nottingham, Queen Marys and Surrey.
TBH her heart is completely set on Royal Holloway at the moment.
We're due to start our visits next week.
Courses are quite similar so think it might come down to personal choice (obviously with the proviso that she achieves her predicted grades).
Anyone with any strong feelings either way on her choices? Any feedback very much appreciated.
It's our first time round with uni applications so stabbing in the dark at the moment!!

Need and Ron - unfortunately the evidence shows that there is a strong and persistent bias for access to certain professions, including law, finance, the civil service and media.

Obviously it's not possible to attribute it all to university attended but e.g. this report from the Bridge Group finds a consistent positive effect at every stage of the recruitment pipeline for attending a selective university, even controlling for a huge range of other background characteristics.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/497341/BG_REPORT_FINAL_PUBLISH_TO_RM__1_.pdf

Clearly if the panels are blind this can't be down to conscious bias but nonetheless something is going on. Maybe the education at those universities is better preparation for passing the tests, or the employers are more energetic in their recruitment efforts at those universities, or the careers services are more engaged with the employers. I don't know. But something is going on, and students should think about this, along with everything else, when selecting where to study.

Freias, I am sure that this is the case. However there will be several factors at work, and seen from the other side, having the right degree from the right institution no longer guarantees a phone interview, and on the couple of occassions DS has made it through to final assessment he has found himself there alongside applicants from places like Oxford Brookes and Westminster University. And these are for technical rather than generalist roles, so ones where having taken a more demanding course will count for something.

Other factors include:

1. Oxbridge etc, students have already got throguh one competitive selection process, so can be expeted to perform well in another.

1. Social capital helps. If your friends dad is a diplomat or architect, it iis more likely to be seen as a more realistic profession. So a MC applicant is both more likely to have higher aspirations and a better understanding of a wide range of professions. And do not underestimate the value of dinner table conversation. (Possible in both MC and WC households, but Amir Khan's surprise at mealtime conversations in last season's I'm a Celebrity, was a bit of an eyeopener.)

1. I have never been too convinced that good schools provide networks, but they do provide training. Training in stating your case - nothing like a good debating society or being a school prefect, training in engaging in a wide range of activities and putting yourself forward to run things, training in time management - say by taking four A levels rather than three, training in resilience. The last is a bit odd, but it is probably an advantage to come from a school where you are average and then find you are towards the top at University than the other way round.

1. We have noticed a difference between a top University where DS has not been unusual in working a consistent ten hours a day, seven days a week from his first year, to one slightly down the rankings where some students do this but not too many, with aim of University is often seen as the "experience" as much as the learning. One fear regularly expressed on MN is that Oxbridge will be nerdy or pressured. It is not unreasonable to assume that a student who thrives in that sort of environment will not only emerge with greater technical skills but be considered more employable.

1. There may be some teaching differences, though in fact DS has studied at a London University which provides equally good employment opportunities, but whose teaching approach is some way from the Oxbridge tutorial system.

6.The cost of a Masters degree.

The bar is probably already higher for those with social and educational capital, indeed to the extent that it is almost certain that DS' first job will be overseas. (He has already turned down one interesting research position at an American Ivy in favour of a funded PhD in the US.) I don't think this is a problem. If you want to achieve diversity within an organisation, some playing fields will need to be levelled, and the liklihood is that when you raise the bar, good applicants simply jump higher. But there is only so high it can go without risking too much adverse impact. Rather than complain about class and opportunity, more thought should be given to why some applicants do better, and then start building the needed social capital at an earlier point. My belief is that breadth of education and experience are as important, when it comes to employment, as grades achieved or the University you attend. Which is why OPs DD, whose choices all seem sound, should aim for the one where she will get most, from both academically and socially.

Needs I totally agree with everything you say, especially about social and cultural capital - that is built from birth, really, and as you say a great deal of it is about home life and personal exposure to a range of opportunities.

Me, my MC background and my Cambridge degree have also been rejected via sifting processes into graduate schemes, so I do know it's not an instant passport to success in those kinds of activities.

It's just one more thing that OP's daughter should consider - given that she's got a particular career in mind, is this university going to maximise her opportunities to do things that will help her get into that chosen career - and how important is that in the overall context of what she wants from a university?

I came to Nottingham for uni 16 years ago. Still here! Big enough to has all the trappings of the city, but small enough for it to feel like home. Hope wherever she goes, she enjoys!

Frieas, I had started to get slightly cross about possible unfairness, in a way mothers are allowed to, till I remembered I once landed a very sought after job, almost certainly because I was non-Oxbridge, female and had studied economics rather than humanities or classics (in those very long-ago days when economics was still seen as a soft option.) Change was needed...in a relatively small department we had no fewer than three old Etonians, and it soon became clear that I was one of the few who could read my way through the business section of the Times. However you still need to consider what the problem is, why it exists, why it matters, and how it would best be rectified, if you want to avoid doing more harm than good.

I have to say that it is more of an uphill struggle to be competitive in a highly competitive jobs market such as the FO, with English and Spanish from a lower ranked university. Spanish is good, but there are thousands of English grads. The filtering out can be a mystery in the first place, but it is likely the competition will be the creme de la creme academically and they may well be socially adept and skilled at interiews and in tray exercises as well.

In DD's law career, only a small minority come from non RG universities and even with RG there are only a relatively small number of the total that are truly represented in any number. The FO is known to be a premier office of State and it is not easy to get in due to stellar competition but it is not a bad aim to have of course.

Employers do not really care about course content when its English or History, for example. You may well love the Romantic Poets and Feminist Literature but employers are not bothered about what you studied on the course. Science or specialist courses are different in that knowledge is a stepping stone in the career path and especially in academia.

The latest research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies on HE rather backs up the standard view of the university pecking order but not necessarily subject pecking order.

One anomaly they pick up on is lower than average earnings for Cambridge English graduates! It also puts English grads very low down the league tables for salaries 5 years after graduation. Not far off the bottom in fact. Durham is the best university for English if you look at salaries apparently.

So if the OPs DD wants the FO, maximise chances by going to where is best for the career she wants rather than nice and quiet, nearish to home or the finer details of the course. The report takes ages to read but it’s interesting.

Bubbles, comparing the selection process for law and the foreign office is like comparing apples and pears. One is subjective and riddled with snobbery and bias, a bit like your posts, the other does actually attempt to make a judgement based on having the qualities needed to do the job well, regardless of subject and institution. It is not so much where the successful candidates come from, of course ones that have succeeded in selection before will have a better chance but whether a good candidate will get in wherever and whatever they have studied, and the chances are far greater in applying to the foreign office than law. Though shock horror I do know a few barristers and corporate lawyers who went to polys, they have probably pulled up the drawbridge now though......

We certainly some kind of filters to get the brightest people into those roles. If we can do that even amongst non graduates who messed up their GCSEs and it works at the foreign office that's fine but for the moment exam results and going to a better university tend to be wise filters when you have a large number of applicants - the sheer volume tends to mean people filter out a lot who may be good including a lot who may be very good from very good universities too of course - those people don't have some easy ride into every job either.

Xenia the initial sift to determine who is interviewed is purely via the online tests of reasoning and situational judgement. You can go online and look at them, they are completely blind to institution or even your name (since research shows that even having a name with social connotations can introduce buas). I could believe that in reality there may be filters to prevent candidates with backgrounds like Needmoreeeps son from being over represented but that just increases my certainty that if you have the qualities they are looking for it won’t matter that you chose a university that wasn’t in the mumsnets perceptions of elite.And let’s face it when you are making such a massive yawning divide between RH and say Nottingham then it really is a very skewed perspective. I have actually been part of assessment boards who recruited a candidate from eg Essex, and he did very well too, a star of his intake! There were a couple in that from Oxford who struggled, feedback was they developed a chip on their shoulder because they did not rise as fast as they felt they were entitled to and bitterness is not a quality that gets you far in building the networks you need to get things done in organisations.

I also think you need to focus in your decision on university on where you will do well as much as where the institution is in the rankings. There has been a lot of publicity recently about the problems Bristol has been having with the mental health of its students, and there is certainly a big drug problem there. Whatever the advantage going to Bristol might have in getting you into a law firm it won’t be an advantage if you cannot thrive in that environment. Whatever the rank of the university if you don’t get a 2.1 these days you will leave at a disadvantage and for some a smaller university in a less urban environment will enable them to achieve that

Wow! This thread has been a real learning curve. All the insights into post grad recruitment have certainly given us food for thought.
I had, clearly naively, thought that such strong bias toward certain unis was very much beginning to be consigned to the past.
I must admit I have had a nagging feeling about RH not being a RG institution might prove a minor disadvantage, but had reasoned that it's still a proven uni with a strong reputation and as long as DD strives for a first the RG element might be negated somewhat.
I'm glad I asked the question now as it has certainly given DD & I more food for thought. Though she's still heavily leaning toward RH.
I guess we will have to see if it lives up to her expectations when we visit next week.

I rather refute the suggestion that I’m a snob! I have only tried to suggest that recruitment is not as open as it might appear but that can be for a number of reasons. It know the initial selection for the FO doesn’t take university or degree into account but it may suit a certain type of applicant better than another. It is true that some universities are over blessed with the brightest people! We all know that so others are under represented in some careers.

The FO is also saying their recruitment has been affected by government cuts in recruitment so it is competitive. I think you can compare very competitive careers. The common objective is to give yourself the best chance. I don’t think that makes me a snob. It’s just trying to be realistic. There is published information on the backgrounds of barristers for example. I have not made it up. Like any other career, you can cut through this, but you give yourself the best chance by seeing where the majority of recruits come from. When an institution says it wants “the brightest and the best” one tends to know what that will, in reality, mean. I think the IFS research is illuminating too. All 79 pages of it. It backs up what I am saying. I guess that extensive research is snobby too!

Just work back from where you want to be and you cannot go far wrong. Had my grocery delivering son done that he could have gone straight into work with the only qualification he needs his driving licence which he passed at 17 perhaps......

What i don't want is parents and teenagers to be confused and think that first from Middlsex Poly will be up there with your first from Cambridge in many many many of the higher paid careers and make a mistake which narrows choices later. Also the harder the placxes are to get into the better they tend to be which is pretty common sense surely and is the same with jobs - those dead easy to get have low pay and there is nothing wrong with low pay of course - loads of people have no interest in high paid work.

That’s about what the IFS report says. I recommend the OP to read it so some of my comments are put into context and you will see that they are not anecdotal. I have no doubt what Xenia says is true but that doesn’t make me a snob!

I love Nottingham, did a PhD here and now work here too - great campus and it's the world's best city of course

I don't think it's being a snob to tell people who may not know which are the universities most likely to get them high paid jobs. I call it being kind.

The fact the civil service might be trying to widen its net is useful to know too but it would certainly not make me suggest teenagers choose a lesser institution deliberately unless that were the only one they could get into.

As I have repeatedly said it is true that successful applicants to recruitment that uses the assessment board strategy (and law does not) will tend to come from the more selective universities because they are a concentration of the brightest but it is wrong to assume that their success is rooted in where they studied as opposed to the personal qualities that the assessment board process is looking for. The end game does not automatically follow the institution it follows the individuals acquisition of those qualities whether by nature or nurture. And if Royal Holloway is the path that will best nurture an individual then it is the one they should take. OP the Russell Group is a political lobbying organisation, it is not in itself a measure of quality. There are some excellent courses at prestigious non Russell Group universities, nobody would turn their nose up at a STEM or business graduate from Bath for instance and some rubbish courses at some lesser ranked Russell Group universities, without making value judgements as I don’t know anything about Swansea but I am sure a criminology degree from there would be subject to some prejudice. However if they were a good candidate they would still be successful in an assessment board type of recruitment, but probably not in a purely subjective recruitment process!

I agree with that too. Just look at the career you want and try to look at where most of the new joiners came from in terms of university as that tends to show the reality of who was hired rather than what the glossy brochures might imply.

I know nothing about civil service assessments but I would guess that initially before the rounds of tests they are a simple screening by tick box for key statements such as recent evidence of engagement with wider community (the more impressive the better) as well as the usual academics? That could exclude graduates who have focused predominantly on academics.

DS and his gf were at Surrey and noticed in the last couple of years or so they had taken on far too many students.
The library was becoming more and more overcrowded
Not enough accommodation for freshers and they were being shipped out miles away
and the local cinema was hired out for lectures as the lecture halls are not big enough..

DS applied for the civil service fast track apprenticeship and got to the interview round, they sent a very detailed report on his interview. The area he fell down on was leadership skills (i think)

@drivinmecrazy I'm glad this has been useful, I was thinking it might have been a bit of a derail so glad to hear it's not!

As I said, employability is just one part of the bigger picture when choosing a university. First and foremost, your DD needs to be happy. But if she's aiming for an ambitious career path, she needs to be at an institution that will give her every opportunity to develop her skills, aptitudes and experiences that will help her succeed in the selection tests.

A big part of that will be to do with how challenging the course is and especially how the rest of the student body is. I know that I would not have done all the volunteering/internships I did at university if I hadn't seen my friends doing it first, I probably wouldn't have worked as hard either. Also things like the careers service. If they have experience of sending students onto particular grad schemes, they will be better set up to support students with the same ambitions. Just as certain schools are good at getting candidates through the Oxbridge admissions process, because they've done it so often. The aptitude test hasn't yet been invented that can't be coached for in some degree, sadly.

Freas The reasoning tests used in assessment board processes cannot be coached for beyond practising a maximum of ten papers to familiarise yourself with the format. The Occupational Psychologists spend a lot of time developing and constantly evolving the test questions so that they are not predictable and one of the tests of their quality is that you cannot improve your score beyond a few practise papers. Employers invest a lot of money in that process, as do private schools when they use them in selection (but Grammar Schools do not, hence the tutoring industry) .

I am sure you could prepare yourself for the situational judgement questions but my daughter did the online test for MI5 and thought it was all just common sense (which actually is basically what management is - and I speak from having an MBA!)

send No the initial sift is via the online tests of reasoning and situational judgement, when my DD did the MI5 test she had provided only the most basic information about herself and received an email within minutes inviting her to interview (but not to tell anyone!). It was clearly triggered by getting over a certain score in the online tests. We used to sift via a scoring system but not any longer.

And I am only telling you because she actually was fixed on a career in Science.......