Employers sift applications by university ranking

[Ironoaks]

[[BBC News - Job applications 'filtered by university ranking'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49728941]]

This contradicts the advice I sometimes see on Mumsnet stating that employers are blind to the institution and only sift on degree classification.

Try again...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49728941

This is a “bears shit in the woods” story

If they sifted by degree classification someone with a 2:1 from Lincoln would be considered equally with someone with a 2:1 from Oxford. Of course that doesn’t happen.

In some professions applications from anywhere other than a small handful of universities just aren’t even considered. Harsh facts.

It's not surprising.

Uni A takes strong academic candidates on high grades.
Uni B takes students on two Ds at A level.
Two students leave with the same degree classification. Are we saying those students have demonstrated equal academic ability?

There's one regional university near me that I can predict poor subject knowledge from trainee teachers. How anyone can have a 2:1 or a first whilst not being able to talk about basic KS3/4 English knowledge is beyond me.

Obviously different rules professionally accredited courses (e.g. health care practitioners etc) as even if the university is ranked lower, their entry requirements are often higher.

Why would that be surprising?

This is why The Russell Group caught on as a concept - it doesn't perfectly map which universities have this kind of status, but it's a useful tool for those who don't just 'know' about reputation in selection for certain types of graduate jobs.

Now, if you are not aiming for that kind of graduate track, it should be irrelevant, or at least considerably less weighty.

But I know many MNetters don't agree with me, and do not think institution matters.

Of course. When I recruit I want the best and brightest, and that means the brightest from the best universities.

Our HR team also run schemes to encourage and support grads from some of the less well regarded London unis to apply (eg South Bank). But that's because their student population are often extremely bright kids who had tough starts or went to bad schools, and had to go to uni near home. We don't want to miss out on gems from there.

But a student from an average background who got mediocre A Levels and so went to a crappy uni won't be coming to work with us.

Every few months there is a bunfight over this on here, and usually soemone turns up saying their DC is doing a really niche course at a much lower ranked university but the industry say that they prefer people from their DC course than any of the top universities.

Meanwhile most people will agree that a History/ English/ Maths degree from a top top university is better than one throwing unconditionals to students when their typical offer is only DD at a level.

There's a weird thing in here in places where people accept there's a range of ability in school, but we have to pretend that for university everyone is equal.

I find the article annoyingly loose. It suggests that lots of employers filter by specific universities (which I doubt) as opposed to looking at A level scores which I’d guess is still pretty common.

@jayritchie

In law (the world I know) they absolutely filter by university FIRST. Then they might look at A level grades to distinguish between candidates that haven’t already been binned because they don’t go to the very limited number of “acceptable” establishments. They are actually more likely to look at work experience and any extra curricular activities at Uni though, A levels at that stage largely irrelevant as it goes without saying that graduates of top universities will have all had top A level grades

If they are institution blind I wonder if they are gcse/A level blind? If not then obviously the higher the school grades the more likely they're at a Russell group uni.

It simple answer is that 'it depends'.

1. Many employers will make use of the selection work good Universities have already done. An applicant who has got through Oxbridge interviews and met their academic standards and comes out with a good degree, is worth looking at. If you have loads of applications it saves money to filter by institution. To that extent the article is right.

1. The public sector is making real efforts to increase diversity, with some areas opting for an institution blind process. DS received a strong first and a distinction in his Masters from a world ranked institution yet failed to get beyond the first round for a public sector grad job where his technical qualifications were a perfect fit. The organisation is working very hard to increase its diversity, so we were not ot surprised he missed the cut, despite him wanting that job/career sine the age of 12. (FWIW they are very likely to want him when he has completed his PhD when he can be considered at an expert level and purely for his skills. Having the middle class capital that allows a Plan B means that organisations find true diversity hard to achieve.)

1. There are courses outside RG etc which specialist employers like. Finance at Bournemouth then into back room operations in JP Morgan. Product Design at Northumbria. Physiotherapy at Oxford Brookes. If you know you want to study film and theatre costume, then find the right course.

1. I agree with a pp about bright kids studying locally. The DH of a refugee mum I knew during playgroup days studied at Southbank whilst working nights in a filling station. He got the best engineering degree of his year and was quickly snapped up by a good employer. He was resilient, mature hard working, resouceful and bright. Easily the equal of someone from Imperial.

For the most part though, the article is correct.

Thing is that people aren't equal and universities aren't equal. I'd agree that, for a good proportion of the time, that is correct and anyone who thinks it shouldn't/wouldn't is hiding their head in the sand.

Yes, there are specialist courses at "lower" universities that are ranked highly.
Yes, there are exceptions, where someone's ability shines through, especially if they'd had a difficult time prior to A-levels.

Thinking about it. I had two friends who went to do Biology. One had an offer of ABB, another had an offer of CC.
The ABB achieved AABB and ended up with a 2:2 from what we'd now call a Russell group university.
The other got EENU at A-level, but they accepted her anyway. The N was in Biology and the U in Chemistry. The Es were general Studies and something like Psychology (can't remember exactly). She got 2:1 from what was then a "new university"
The second person was terribly indignant at the end that she wasn't considered for the kind of jobs that the first was getting offers from. She freely admitted she hadn't really worked hard in those 3 years, and had failed several exams over the way and retaken them.
It caused a lot of bad feeling between them because the second person said she was getting offers only because she had "chosen" to go to her university.

To the rest of us it was pretty clear that the second person would not have offered anything like the knowledge or ability of the first, but as far as she was concerned, she had a better class of degree, therefore she was better.

I thought this was simply logical and common in many industries?

There is a reason unis have different entry criteria. A lower ranked uni that has a lower entrance requirement, spoon feeds and hand holds students through the degree much more than that of a higher ranked one. The work itself is often "easier" The reason entrance qualifications are higher is because students with lower grades may struggle with the amount of self work required to keep up and achieve the required grades. Unis are very open about this.

As such an employer will look for in certain cases students who effectively did the tougher degree. Which is the higher ranked uni student. And then they look for those who achieved well at that uni.

An example would be a large law firm. They look for the top grads from the top unis. This isn't decisive but these will often be the top achievers.

Obviously I was aware that there is a bias.
I hadn't realised that it was done overtly and that it is quantified in this way.

There is a reason unis have different entry criteria. A lower ranked uni that has a lower entrance requirement, spoon feeds and hand holds students through the degree much more than that of a higher ranked one
Then enter the workplace or training and complain at being told they have to exercise a spot of independence (or in one case I came across tried to accuse a training school of bullying because they told them they had to read the books/poems they were teaching before teaching them! Apparently we should have provided them with summaries!!!)

To turn this on it’s head slightly, I work for large multinational, and in my specific area, we automatically exclude most private schooled oxbridge graduates........

Obviously I was aware that there is a bias. I hadn't realised that it was done overtly and that it is quantified in this way

It really isn't a secret. In fact many companies also publish stats on where their grads come from.

And if you think about it logically why wouldn't you as an employer if you're looking for a specific skills set. Generally employers want the highest performing and achieving employees. So if they target the top unis grads, then the uni has already filtered for them. Then they look at rhe degree qualification. It's not an exact science, and it's not exhaustive, but top companies make no secret of this.

If you've a limited time to look for the "best" candidates, and best being whatever criteria the employees sets, you're not going fishing in the lower ranked unis ponds.🤷‍♀️

In fact many companies also publish stats on where their grads come from.

Where those who were successful in open competition studied would be one thing. These are the only universities whose graduates we will even consider, something quite different. And rather ugly, some (it's okay, folks - yes, those of us of an obviously naive outlook) might consider it.

If they are institution blind I wonder if they are gcse/A level blind? If not then obviously the higher the school grades the more likely they're at a Russell group uni.

Or Bath, perhaps? Very few schools don't include it in their top universities our super clever year 13 got into this year list

Why is it a problem that employers sift like this?
There's no gain without pain, as they say (kinda). Why should someone who puts in 15hrs a week at an ex-poly have the same job prospects as someone who puts in 40 hrs a week at Cambridge?

The problem is that some parents, often those who haven't been to university themselves, hear the word "university" and suddenly think their children are very clever. Whereas, in reality, their dc are just going to a glorified college. But of course, lots of parents are far more switched on than that.

Peony99 then you will miss out on true diversity of talent in your myopic university. I would want the super academic along side the less book smart but ferociously street smart and the insightful and innovative and creative problem solvers and those with phenomenal social skills. Grades don't reflect these talents. In fact there is much evidence that the better one is at conventional learning, the less broad ones abilities in other intelligences. But hey, whatever works for you I guess.

Why is this surprising?

Academic success is important for a number of jobs. Academic success is necessary for entry to top universities and not for some others.......therefore, institution attended is a good, blunt instrument for filtering candidates. Isn't it common sense?

For jobs where there are huge numbers of applicants, they cannot read every application in detail or interview everyone, so they have to filter. This is an entirely sensible way to do it for certain jobs.

Arguing against this is like saying Unis shouldn't look at A Level predictions or results when making offers and offer absolutely regardless of those. Bearing in mind academic success at A Level is a good indicator of success in a degree (hardly surprising) then it makes sense to offer on that basis.

For jobs given to uni graduates without work experience, which require academic ability, filtering on uni makes sense. Once candidates have some experience in the workplace, their experience as well as their uni and qualifications count. As they become much older, experience increasingly counts......but until you've got experience, uni attended is one of the few bits of info. Of course, in highly competitive jobs, those who get the experience are likely (and increasingly so) to be from good universities.

It's a lie to say a degree from anywhere is equally valid for highly competing jobs. And to be honest, it's hard to see why anyone would ever think it is.

Outside of the most competitive jobs, uni attended will be less important.

lola , find me a university with a typical offer of DD at A Level!

People who haven't looked recently don't seem to realise (foundation degrees aside) the lowest typical offers tend to go down to BCC. Which, in the real world outside the MN microcosm isn't dire.

I am not disputing the facts of the case. I do, however , dispute that MN takes an 'opposite' view, as this thread is illustrating.

As we all (should) know Russell Group is self selecting and self promoting (my DS is going on a trip tomorrow aimed at promoting RG!) and does exclude many fine universities, such as Bath, Exeter (I think?), Lancaster and Loughborough. Nobody could suggest graduates from those unis aren't highly regarded.

We all know that Oxbridge candidates are highly sought after : this goes without saying. Everyone knows they are the academic cream.

I have to say yogi , that is one of the most sneering posts I have read in some time on MN...

It reads as if you feel the great unwashed aren't deserving of a university education .

Exeter is in the RG Club, however it only signed up along with Durham (yes that MN favourite Durham!!!!!) and York in 2012, so 18 yrs after the RG first self appointed. St Andrews, hardy the dregs, is another generally well regarded Uni that is not RG.

You have to credit their marketing success however.

Piggy:

“People who haven't looked recently don't seem to realise (foundation degrees aside) the lowest typical offers tend to go down to BCC. Which, in the real world outside the MN microcosm isn't dire.”

I work in a secondary school (non teaching but I know the pupils’ abilities and get to see the grades they get) and am constantly surprised at the high A-level grades given to some of them. Out of interest, About 6 months ago I looked at the number of A grades given out in recent years across the country compared to when I did my A-levels at the start of the 90s. Back then a B was a great achievement and an A was outstanding. I also compared the maths paper I sat in 1991 to one from a year or two back. The recent one appeared to be much easier. Language A-level exams strike me as being less rigorous now too. I just think it seems to be easier to get higher grades now. An A or B doesn’t seem that unusual.. 30 years ago those grades indicated that you were very able, academically speaking.

Some courses, like Primary teaching, used to require grades which weren’t that high. I am shocked at the points requirement for primary teaching these days, and sometimes surprised at the academic ability of those who get on the courses. I am often not surprised when I read of complaints by those working at HE that undergrads do not having the depth of knowledge or skills that they would expect.

I just think it’s easier to get higher A-level grades these days and I think that filtering candidates out using university ranking is sadly the result.