League tables, Russell Group, prestige, etc

[purplegreen99]

I know this can be a bit of can of worms, but I want to try and understand what (if any) importance these things have to students and graduates.

Both my dd and nephew are applying to uni this year. It's a while since I was at uni so I've had a look at various league tables and things like RG membership to get an idea of which universities are considered the 'best'. RG didn't exist when I was a student, but I suppose there was still a hierarchy of the older universities, then the newer ones, then polytechnics, then HE colleges.

Both dd and dn have been told by their schools they should be looking at RG. But looking at various league tables, it seems that non-RG universities like UEA & Lancaster rank fairly high, whereas some RG like Liverpool and Cardiff, are lower.

How much does it matter? I don't think either dd or dn have any interest in careers like law, banking, etc where university does seem to be important. But I could imagine one or both of them doing postgrad study, so maybe if they end up applying for PG courses, being a graduate of a research-focused RG institution might be an advantage?

They both have shortlists of about 7 or 8 to whittle down, both with a mix of RG and non-RG, but all seem to be ranked in the top 20 or so. I've said to dd to choose the ones where she finds the course most interesting and felt comfortable at the open day with the town, campus, department, etc (obviously with a realistic mix of grade requirements too).

So perhaps I don't need to be posting this, but I am really curious, not so much about how universities gain their reputations, but how much the reputation matters to students who don't want to get into a top law firm or similar?

I reckon your advice is about right. If they're likely to want to do postgrad study then the research rankings for that subject are relevant- they don't have to stay at the same uni for pg but it's often more straightforward to.

The other metric I'd look at is employment stats for each course - don't overanalyse, as some of the stats are based on small sample sizes, but worth checking if any are significantly adrift.

If they're ever likely to want to work abroad, it may also be worth checking the QS rankings.

Soe people pick their spouse in small part on the university attended as a kind of filter as to whether they are not very bright or likjely to be very on the ball and on a high salary so ti may affect your later sex life as much as your earnings. If none of that kind of stuff matters to you go where you want to go but as a rule of thumb the harder it is to get in in terms of grades the better it will be for you, your life, your career, your earnings, your quality of fellow students etc. So aim high but have a good back up too as your fall back choice.

Also even 20 years in to many graduate careers recruiters do still look at status of institution attended.

Interesting that you find cleverness/ high salary/ top uni equates to good sex life Xenia. In my experience there's not a clear correlation - seems much more random than that.

I think it is very subject dependent, purplegreen. You are far better off going for one requiring high grades for many subjects but with shortage subjects, such as engineering, or nursing, where jobs are more or less guaranteed, it makes less difference.

I don’t think there’s much difference between lower end RG and Lancaster, Bath and several others. Bath is better than many RG universities.

However there has always been a pecking order. Years ago the older universities were “red brick” and people who went to Durham, Bristol, Manchester, UCL and similar were nearly always well thought of in my grammar school. The 1962 universities were liked because they were fresh and new and many arts students went to them because they had more modern syllabi. Polytechnics only required 2 A levels for their sandwich courses back in the day! So always a pecking order. However it blurs at the edges.

Employers want the best employees they can get and there are many more skills needed to land a job than the ones learnt at university. So always consider the subject and where the student would enjoy studying. A year in industry is often a bonus. If they cannot aim right for the top 5, look at what’s good for the subject, employability and what you need to do to get in.

Xenia didn't specify that it equated to a good sex life

Still, I managed to acquire my DH in my first week of redbrick uni 39() years ago, so although this was completely accidental rather than cunningly planned, I can't dispute that there can be more to uni than the rankings can show.

Sorry, OP, that wasn't helpful...

but with shortage subjects, such as engineering, or nursing, where jobs are more or less guaranteed, it makes less difference.

I don't think that's entirely correct re engineering. Sure, they should all be employable but the range of opportunities won't be the same.

Don't have profound thoughts on this other than as a current nearly-grad I really don't think it matters, but that might change when I get to applying for jobs, though I think the class of degree has more weight than where you got it from. And you'll be more likely to get a first somewhere where you're happy and supported. Hence back to my first intention in posting: UEA is wonderful. And if it's good for the courses they want to do, I would thoroughly recommend it from the bottom of my heart.

I think the class of degree has more weight than where you got it from

I'd take a bet that in many sectors, a 2:1 from eg Oxbridge or the top London unis will open more doors than a first from a 'new' uni.

I would have agreed until maybe this year Errol! After looking into graduate schemes in my area (humanities) I've found that a lot will just brutally cull by degree class, so in this situation all the 2:1 applications would be discarded regardless of where they came from. It may vary by sector though!

When ds was looking at universities we looked at subject league tables and how long the university had been in the top 5/top 10 for that subject. Ds is studying accounting and finance so we also looked at where the big four firms selected their trainees from and selected courses which offered a year working in finance.
His five choices included a mixture of RG and non-RG - eg Bath and Warwick.
The obsession schools seem to have with RG universities is amusing as it is a self-selecting group and not a guarantee of quality - imo.

I think the point is that employers don’t tend to follow the league tables, so won’t necessarily know that a non-RG was ranked say top 5 for your course when you attended. But most professionals or HR departments will have an awareness of universities with a good reputation, whether that reputation is truest deserved or not is another matter entirely...
Also since it’s come up, I did pick out my DH at university. RG University of London college in case it matters. And DH went on to do post-grad study and received a hefty non means tested bursary just for staying put. He did need a 2:1 in his undergrad though.
Not sure how relevant that is to you OP, I do agree with your advice to your DD though.

I think the point is that employers don’t tend to follow the league tables

In some STEM fields they'll be aware of the research ratings. I'm sure they don't care at all about some of the other metrics used in various of the league tables eg student satisfaction.

Dd1 got fairly mediocre A levels, (BCCD) but managed to get in to a top 30 Uni for her UG degree( in Scotland) ...she got a 2:1 .she then did post grad at RG uni
Has had no problems getting a job post grad( teaching abroad)..think the RG post grad was a help

I think any employer who wouldn’t consider an applicant with a 2:1 from Oxbridge but would take a 1st from the university of Nowhere that hands them out like Smarties is utterly nuts!!! Most sensible employers know who has done the rigorous degree and realise some students missed a first by one mark!

As for Engineering, grads from the “lesser” universities really can still get excellent jobs. If they have a head for business, smaller consulting engineers will love them and earnings can be very high. You just need to be the complete package.

Dd, STEM at RG, is being taught by a lecturer who went to one of the weaker post-92s for his UG - hasn't held him back!

I bloody hate hands them out like Smarties. The marking criteria for essay subjects are broadly the same at my non-RG fairly new and unheard of university as at Cambridge, I've just checked. At both, examiners are instructed to award the full range of marks, so I can't see that it's less likely that I'd be getting firsts if I handed in the same essays to Cambridge.

Bubbles - What about a degree class down, 2.2 from a top university v 2.1 at a lower ranked? What do you think happens with graduate schemes where they’re asking for a minimum 2.1 for your application to even be considered.

You need a reality check argument. It’s likrly Cambridge would be asking for much more work more often. If you really think that employers will consider you the same as a Cambridge grad, I think you will be disappointed.

I know what can happen with a 2:2. A friend’s DS unexpectedly got a 2:2 in Maths from Cambridge. It took him a year to get a grad job. He persevered though. It is with a nationally recognised public organisation and he is now being promoted and doing well. There were problems with his application in that he had never done a days work or internship. Personality was not great either. It was a struggle. It took another friend’s DD a year to get a job with a 1st in a fairly maligned subject from an ex Poly. That was more of a subject problem than a university problem.

I’m sorry about the Smarties term. However some degrees have 40% of grads getting firsts. This has been widely reported and everyone knows about 1st inflation. It’s hugeky debatable whether these young people are the brightest and the best all round educated candidates. These are not the top universities. That cannot be a rigorous degree. The young lady that went to the ex Poly went with BCD at A level. She got 103 in the Bucks 11 plus. 121 is needed for a grammar school. You could say she’s done extraordinarily well but you could say the 1st doesn’t rank well against a 2:1 from other more demanding universities. How can anyone compare her 1st with a 2:1 from Oxbridge or other very high ranking university? Yes she worked hard, found her subject but she’s still not very clever. It’s always about more than the degree. That’s why university and subject matters. Classification above 2:1 matters less.

Any University ranked in the top 20 is going to be a good institution. League Tables are heavily influenced not just by (somewhat spurious) metrics of student satisfaction, but also by measures of research quality, which means diddly squat for whether the teaching is going to be any good (indeed, academics are constantly pulled between teaching and research, so heavy-hitters in the latter may not be good at the former). Differences in league tables beyond the top 5 tend to be very marginal. Russell Group likewise means little in relation to whether the programme will be any good - there are some that are very good at teaching, and some that are, frankly, pretty poor.

The original advice from the OP is good: 'feel', the content of the course, the support available, location and so on are all likely to be good indicators of whether a student will enjoy the course; an important indicator of whether the student will succeed.

If there is concern over relative employment rates, there are stats for that that are far more robust than advice over the internet. UNISTATS can be used to compare similar courses at different institutions, and shows average earnings after graduation and % of students in further study or employment (after 6 months). These are just averages, and applicants need to bear in mind that earnings are skewed by the location of the University (i.e. London graduates earn more but have more to pay in living costs).

Jesus, Bubbles, it wasn't personal. Some people at Cambridge are dumb as hell, some people at all unis are dumb as hell. As you've pointed out with your Cambridge friends DS, having a good personality and relevant work experience helps. You're just coming across as snobbish tbh. Not everyone even has the opportunity to go to grammar school or Cambridge, no matter how smart they are.

Going back to the OP, clearly some people think the reputation of your uni is better than the grades that you get. But for me, and for the job I want to do, what you learn is way more important, and in my experience non-RG unis or certainly non-Oxbridge can offer more varied and diverse subjects and modules.

No expert and I don't work in HR or academia - but purely anecdotally, the people I know who did vocational degrees - where you come out trained to do a job, i.e town planning or surveying - at ex polytechnics are more successful and earning more money, more quickly, than the ones who did more academic courses at traditional universities. In those cases the 'calibre' of university hasn't really come into it.

I did an 'academic' course at a RG university and with hindsight I'd personally say - for a non-vocational degree aim for the best possible university, but for a degree with a clear career path this matters less (unless you're aiming for a highly competitive graduate position with a top employer who will have their pick of the best candidates).

I now work for a major blue chip organisation and on the few occasions I've been involved in graduate recruitment, the university itself has attracted less attention than the degree subject. Though I'm sure the very top class universities will always carry a certain amount of kudos, whatever the subject!

I agree that the feel and fit of the course is important. DS went to a University with high research ratings and notoriously low student satisfaction. It suited him, with lots of guest speakers, chances to hear PhD students present on their research and so on. It would not have suited everyone. "Teaching quality" is also an odd one. Some students will be delighted to be taught by a world expert in their field, and spend time reading up in advance to ensure they can follow. Others won't...

Bubbles - I don’t know wether you were addressing me also in your previous rant, but you still haven’t answered how does this disparity play out in graduate recruitment schemes where the criteria is for a 2.1 to even get your application looked at.

my experience non-RG unis or certainly non-Oxbridge can offer more varied and diverse subjects and modules.

DDs Cambridge degree contains much more diversity than if she'd done a degree anywhere else (even RGs) leading to what she wants to specialise in, simply because the intake and intensity of the work allows them to get through more stuff in the time. They can take the 'general then specialise' approach - breadth isn't much use without depth. (And they have to have done sufficient relevant internships before they can start their 3rd year)

For degrees where maths is important, the types of maths they can do in a course where the entry requirements includes A* FM is simply not going to be the same as one with the same title for which a B in maths, or less, is enough. This will affect the fields they can go into. To be sure, there are some roles where someone from the latter who has done good industrial placements and can demonstrate nous may be vastly preferable to some of the more academic types.

This is all really interesting. My gut feeling was that by looking at league tables, RG membership and grade requirements that we can get an idea of which universities to look at, and then dd (& dn for his course) have narrowed it down based on looking at the course, what they thought of the open days, etc. THey are both looking at STEM courses and then probably careers relating to their subjects. I'd forgotten about UNISTATS, though did look at it a while ago when dd was first thinking about uni. We'll have a look again. dd has a pretty good idea of which universities she liked best, but dn did 6 open days and liked them all, so I think he's hoping there will be applicant days to ask a few more questions and help narrow it down.

The grades they are ask for are a pretty good indicator. The worst of the 5 my son applied to last year (Nottingham which of course is not a bad university at all) was the one to make him an unconditional offer. The ones employers do not regard as highly tend to be those it is easier to get into.

the other down side of going for a lower ranking easy to get into one is your peer group will be similar people with lower grades and there is a higher drop out rate too depending on status of institution.

The sex/love matches points are not irrelevant either - if you go in for selective mating -someone as bright as you are who earns as much and is a good fit for you is easier if you are amongst people who are like you.

it would be good to see more published data on where people went to in certain jobs - eg you can see it instantly with the best barrister chambers as they have the CVs up there. You can see it with many private schools' teachers as the institution attending and degree is shown. Sometimes you can see it on linked in if people in jobs you want put up their university on the profile.

The points above about recruiters sometimes being a bit backward looking is not always wrong. Plenty of people have their own list in their head of the best places (for the jobs where you may well earn ultimately over £100k ) which may be what was the case 20 ytears ago and mind you is probably still a good order now with Oxbridge at top and places like Durham and the better London ones etc just below.