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.

Actually, the Cambridge website is a bit out of date (as is Birmingham's I noticed yesterday which doesn't seem to know about numbered GCSE grades!) because it still lists A Level subjects which no longer exist! Nice to know they are keeping abreast of educational developments...!

But , I agree with errol , ask. I teach a sneered at subject and, yet, students have got into RG (and Oxford) with it.

So many people have degrees these days that work experience is very important too. I mean, who cares if little Johnny has a good degree from a Russel group university if he’s never had a job and has no idea how to ‘work’?

I mean, who cares if little Johnny has a good degree from a Russel group university if he’s never had a job and has no idea how to ‘work’?

Well, obviously certain law firms, unless their list includes all 24 RG members?

People who haven't looked recently don't seem to realise (foundation degrees aside) the lowest typical offers tend to go down to BCC.

It’s not just about published offers though - universities now routinely accept students who’ve missed their offers, some by huge margins. That’s the brave new world with no caps on places that we are in.

I'm in a branch of Civil Service . Contrary to my preference you aren't allowed to ask on application forms where someone got their degree.

I know that agile but the conversation was about offers, not what is accepted!

I'm in a branch of Civil Service . Contrary to my preference you aren't allowed to ask on application forms where someone got their degree.

How do you filter candidates? Do they have to sit a Civil Service exam?

There's a separate test at our place for those that make the first cut, as it were. But at the first cut, we aren't allowed to ask where they went to university.
As a person from a deprived background who fought really hard to get to a Russell Group uni back in the day before student loans, I think it's a bit shit. But what I know.

The conversation is really about attainment of students on entry to university, or at least it should be. Focusing on “offers” is smoke and mirrors in the current higher educational climate.

Focusing on “offers” is smoke and mirrors in the current higher educational climate.
There's a huge amount of smoke and mirrors.
It's having a really detrimental effect on 6th forms. Previously, a middle ability student even if lazy would have to do some graft to get Cs to get to uni. Now they can pick a town or choose the local take anyone university and they'll get in on D's and even get unconditional offers when they're on the verge of dropping to 2 A levels (which isn't even full time level 3 study). There's no carrot to motivate or promote hard work because they know they'll get their 3 years extended teenagehood whatever happens. That affects 6th form outcomes because the lazy kids with nothing to work for can sit back and do nothing.

Then we're still expected to accept that a course full of lazy and/or not very academic students is comparable to a course with bright, academic and hard working students.

That’s interesting Bellini. How do you decide on first cut apart from a degree? Is there a rigorous interview process?

We publish a job spec and person spec for each role. You try and hit as many of the points across the form you fill in. No names are available to the people marking the forms. You are marked out of (I think) 4 for how well you demonstrate each point in the form (unless it's something we look for at the test day or subsequent interview) The applicants who "score " the highest make the first cut. And then they have the test day. That narrows the field. And then they have an interview.
Pay is shit. Terms are pretty good. "Prestige" is a bit good for your cv going forward.

Some big law firms are trying not to do so but when the civil service tried blocking out institutions they found a big rise in those from Oxbridge getting the jobs as they were head and shoulders over many others in terms of brains (obviously - who would be surprised by that!)

I always say go to the hardest to get into university that you can manage and work from there.

The problem with law is there are so very very very many applicants for every place - absolutely loads. Even when I applied I applied to 139 firms and had 25 interviews in London before getting a job. You certainly need at least AAB A levels in good subjects and a 2/1 but even that leaves masses and masses of keen people so something needs to be done to assess them and law is much more objective than many careers like journaliism as there are on line application tests and all sorts. Linklaters have just shortened the initial applicatoin form / process from 5 hours of itme to 90 minutes by the way for those applying this Autumn for 2022 start but even that is just the first hurdle. If you get through that you then move to interview stage as so many people will do well even on a first test like that.

This is not new though , when I started 30 years ago at a top 5 accountancy firm the whole of my intake of 120 went to no more than 10 universities. For the professions academic rigour is important and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise . For law in particular I am sure that part of the attraction of Oxbridge graduates is the fact that they are used to the work rate expected. It’s not that students at other universities don’t work hard but it’s in a different ( probably more healthy) way

Bellini - thank you for answering my question. That’s fascinating.

Is this news? I am part time so I am often roped in to sift through graduate CVs for our training programme (Inv Bank) and of course more credit is given to degrees from top unis. And we will have started encouraging applications, arranged internships etc for desirable candidates throughout their course.

And whoever claimed upthread that language A levels have become much easier should do some research. Language skills is something we particularly look out for but they are getting harder to find in native candidates. In my day, a long, long time ago, A level literature essays could be written in English or French and equal merit was given to answers in either language. Back then everyone wrote the essays in English but now most candidates would probably write in French because it's their first language.

www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/are-modern-foreign-languages-exams-too-difficult

I can't find a link to the actual study, what kind of people they surveyed, how those people were selected, what the actual questions asked.

it still lists A Level subjects which no longer exist! Nice to know they are keeping abreast of educational developments...!

Not everyone applies to unis straight from school. Some applicants may hold A-levels which no longer exist, so it seems reasonable to still include them.

I am sure I read an article about a big corporate which is removing universities when they anonymity applications to try and remove unconscious bias. Probably related to something about recruiting women in tech.

I have a friend who runs a company consulting on environmental engineering - has a preference for people with degrees from particular universities because he knows the curriculum covers areas which are particularly relevant. Though having said that, he's got quite a few prejudices I don't agree with him about, so he may not be the best example of best practice.

This is true EBear. I neglected to think of that because I prefer to think they are so anti some subjects they haven't even bothered to notice they have died a sad and dignified death

This whole thread is a bit disheartening. I didn’t realise the likes of Bath, Lancaster et al where still considered by some as not quite on par because they aren’t in the RG. DS2 is looking to study Management and hopes when the time comes to aim for Bath as one of the best based on its content and the placement opportunities. Lancaster has been recommended as well. Am I right in now thinking perhaps he should sod all that and just steer him towards to the RG .

shimy
Some people are bogged down in the specific RG lists. Others take the general principle that city universities with higher entry typically are well regarded compared to ex polys or colleges with lower entry.

Generally Bath and Lancaster are regarded as good, not too but still good universities.

Am I right in now thinking perhaps he should sod all that and just steer him towards to the RG

I don't think the report supports that conclusion.

It doesn't say how many employers actually use this sort of filter, and also wasn't clear what the filter was ( probably different for each employer) - the stats they had (4/5 vs 2/3 in full time work within a few weeks of graduation) related to RG but then it says 'It said firms used a tick-box system to filter candidates via the league table position of their universities.' - well, on many league tables and certainly for specific subjects Lancaster and bath rate higher than some RG.

Generally Bath and Lancaster are regarded as good, not too but still good universities.

This is quite telling.

The discussion isn't about people though, it's about employers.

Bath I understand is an excellent university.