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?

😂😂😂 at the idea an academic earns 100k. If only!!

I don't think I said or implied academics earn £100k. I just didn't want to commit to a figure in case I were wrong. eg I suggested some teachers on £30k. We do hear about occasional super heads on £100k so I didn't want to get that one wrong as teachers would come on and say it is possible in teaching to earn a lot (it is but not for most).

You can earn a lot and not be under high pressure though usually once you have served your time and got well into a job. I don't feel particuarly high pressured these days at all and I mostly work at home.

Anyway I just want young people to make informed choices and know what is out there for them if they want it. Plenty of people pick low paid jobs and have very high pressure in the job plus low pay which is not a great deal to have either.

BlaaBlaa I agree with a general argument that job satisfaction, which will include things like congeniality, flexibility, location and security as well as salary, is the key. Most parents will say they want their children to be happy, not that they want them to be rich.

However in some fields academic salaries can be high. Not long ago we googled an academic (DS and DS are forever sending each other links to academic articles) to discover his salary, albeit at a US University (he had started in the UK) was huge. DS' PhD funding offer in the UK, to include some teaching, was also generous, better than starting salaries in many professions. (Though obviously he would have remained on the same amount for 4/5 years.) And a quick Google just gave me this, from a fairly old job ad. "The minimum starting salary at the LSE for an Associate Professor is £63,201 pa inclusive and for a Professor is £84,754 pa inclusive. In addition, this post will attract a significant market salary supplement which reflects current market conditions. In addition to a competitive salary the benefits that come with this job include an occupational pension scheme, a research incentive scheme with personal reward options, generous research leave (sabbatical) entitlement, a collegial faculty environment and excellent support, training and development opportunities."

I think the point may be that few jobs guarantee very large salaries, but many jobs, including academica, can open the door to high earning opportunities. (Look at Bath Univ!) So start as a graduate in a local authority and you could end up running a City authority, as happened to one of my peers. Most solicitors/barristers don't earn much, but some earn a lot, and so on. DH and I are not particularly money motivated, but have been willing to make the effort to earn what we need to, which in London is more than we would need elsewhere. The idea of earning for money's sake, so we can spend more, is not us. But others see money as a measurement of sucess. Oddly it is apparantly more common with lawyers and others who are effectively paid by the hour for their time.

One reason for us not giving DC too much when studying at University is a desire for them to accept that life is as good with "enough" rather than "more". I see being satisfied with what you have and being able to choose your occupation based on interest, as a real freedom. Which perhaps despite the detour helps answer the OPs question. (I also accept that everyone is different, and that the world would be less interesting if they were not. We need people who are ambitious and motivated and who want to be high earners, as much as we need people dedicated to their chosen field.)

It's all about making an informed choice. Which is why it's important not to narrow down your options by only considering jobs that pay in excess of 100k. Career decision making behaviour is incredibly complex and individualised - there are so many different factors and influences at play.

Regarding academic pay, it varies depending on subject and university. Not all academics are professors or even aspire to become one. A lecturer will earn around £40k ( but often less) and a senior lecturer will earn between£40-50k. Many will never progress past senior lecturer.

I've observed a general perception among academics that academic pay is lower than industry ... looking at stats for my subject area (chemistry) a couple of years ago this seemed to not really be true any longer. However, there's a significant issue for would-be academics - the eternal postdoc trap.

The implication is that most students could choose a career path leading to an extremely well paid job if they wanted to. I would question that.

We need people who are ambitious and motivated and who want to be high earners, as much as we need people dedicated to their chosen field

ambitious and motivated and dedicated to their chosen field not being mutually exclusive, of course (and yes, I did leave a certain part of the first quote out deliberately).

I see being satisfied with what you have and being able to choose your occupation based on interest, as a real freedom

Funnily enough, at a university open day yesterday, this was something that I was talking about with DD. My take being that I would rather that she ended up living at home with us again (although not for too long) when she graduated with a degree in a subject that she had found interesting, intellectually stimulating and enjoyable' than that she (or her siblings) chose a course / subject that she didn't actually really want to study, just because she thought it was the 'better' thing to do.

A job which is enjoyable, which feeds , houses and clothes and is of social value, would be my wish for our DC. I think there is room for us in the world; I'm sure we won't ever run out of folk whose main goal in life is to acquire riches beyond the dreams of Whatsit.

The leagues tables vary depending on what is rated. Some non-RG are rated highly following student satisfaction scores. I would use the World Ranking tables as they are a pretty good indicator of what are viewed the best. Your DD needs to decide what she wants to study and look for the best uni for that course. Also get out their and visit them. We travelled to Edinburgh, Leeds, St Andrews, Manchester, Exeter and Kings.

A super Head of a secondary chain (executive Head) earns way more than £100,000! All the grammar heads around here get more than that. Just look on their published salary data!

I did not ever say the university of Ksncaster was Nowhere. It’s clearly well regarded. I obviously meant those in the bottom 20 or thereabouts.

I also love the notion that anecdotes that are unusual must be “fake”. Such imagination from posters!

Oops - Lancaster.

..."named Bristol graduates as the 4th most-targeted by Britain’s top 100 employers, ahead of those with degrees from Oxford and Cambridge."

www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2018/january/high-fliers.html

I would be surprised if it were true about ahead of Oxbridge. Some of these surveys you need to take with a pinch of salt.

Xenia,

"The report confirmed that that top 10 universities most-often targeted by Britain’s top graduate employers in 2017 were: Manchester, Birmingham, Warwick, Bristol, UCL, Cambridge, Leeds, Nottingham, Oxford and Durham."

But not Edinburgh, Imperial or LSE. Lies, damn lies, and statistics?

I'd imagine a lot of imperial graduates (and Oxbridge) aren't targets for graduate employers because they'll be going on to postgrad. Not sure but I'm guessing LSE is relatively small so depends how they're doing their stats.

Errol, although that would also apply to those doing law post grad too - not sure if they include them in the statistics.