How important are league tables?

[HairBobbles]

Obviously there are lots of tables and they vary slightly but how relevant are these in the long term?

My son was keen on a couple of places that rank 2/3 down the table but his dad is putting him off as focussed on rankings. He's capable of getting into one of the top ones but doesn't want to go to Oxbridge/Durham/St Andrews. Do employers favour people with a degree from a higher ranked university. He would be applying for an Mchem.

It's not considered good ( or fair) practice to shortlist/recruit based on university attended which is why some organisations have adopted 'blind' applications to try and eliminate unconscious bias.
These applications often also omit an applicants name for the same reason.

[quote Bluebris]@Parker231 I can understand how that would work at the interview stage, but what about the initial assessment? What happens if you get hundreds of applications, how can you filter /shortlist blind? Do you rely only on the company specific psychometric testing etc?[/quote]
Same process across offices worldwide. The first stage is an online 30 minute test - out of the thousands that apply it is unbelievable how many fail this mainly numerical test. Those who get through that are then invited to a short interview - strength based. If you get through that you are invited to a day long assessment in groups. Finally very few get invited by a partner or director level interview from which a very small number of offers are made for the graduate scheme. At no point are candidates asked about which school or Uni they went to.

However, to answer the original question. League tables matter but only to a point.
The biggest issue is that they all draw from and place emphasis on different metrics so it can be confusing.

Subject league tables are the most important IMO. Some universities may not feature highly in the overall league tables but might specialise in your chosen subject and have excellent links to industry.

I work in the city and help with recruitment. It is imperative the applicant went to a RG. We don’t even look at non-RG. This is consulting / finance. I also have seen similar at Unilever.

I simply don't believe this. I used to work at perhaps the most well known finance/consulting firm in the world and also at a magic circle law firm. My best friend is very senior in Unilever. We both went to the same non RG (but very well regarded) university.

OP your choice of university is important but not to the extent that you're damaging your career if you don't go to an RG uni.

Plus you can guide your child but it ultimately needs to be their choice. having been dragged around loads of universities with his older sibling, DS2 has announced that he's choosing his university primarily based on the amount of grass it has (green stuff not smoking stuff).

Alhough it is true that some law firms and others once you pass an initial psych type test, have AAB and a 2/1 or higher then do not look at the institution not all do that and plenty once you a a year or two older and people with whom you work and even people you might date will look at your linkedin profile and the status of the institution. That might mean they are narrow minded nasty people or it might mean they are senseble but it certainly does stay with you for life.

(When the civil service at one point ignored institution of degree they found they recruited more not fewer Oxbridge people purely because, surprise surprise, those who go to the hardest to get into places with the highest exam grades amazingly also tend to be the best people for those kinds of jobs - who would have thought it?)

Alhough it is true that some law firms and others once you pass an initial psych type test, have AAB and a 2/1 or higher then do not look at the institution not all do that and plenty once you a a year or two older and people with whom you work and even people you might date will look at your linkedin profile and the status of the institution. That might mean they are narrow minded nasty people or it might mean they are senseble but it certainly does stay with you for life.

Looking at university attended when considering who to date puts you firmly in the narrow minded category.

@Parker231 Thank you for the reply, that makes sense :)

As a very general and long term rule, you can't go wrong with RG plus Bath and St Andrew's.

Some universities may not feature highly in the overall league tables but might specialise in your chosen subject and have excellent links to

Yes. Assuming someone embarking on an MChem might actually want to work as a scientist rather than in finance or law, this is more relevant. For a lot of the more interesting jobs - in industry, not just academia - the main gate will be 'relevant PhD'. DH recruited chemists, in his field he'd be unlikely to get anyone from some of the 'top 10' because they simply don't have research groups working in his area. Whereas others in the top 30 might have world-class expertise in it. Iirc they probably happened to be RG but in some other fields that might not be the case.

The OP said her DS was looking at rankings 2/3 of the way down the table ... the ones she mentioned are in the top 30 (excluding guardian which is useless). The husband seems to think that's not good enough (and note the ones she mentioned are RG). He's wrong. Does he think Bristol and Manchester (which aren't showing in the top 10 on the lists I looked at) aren't good enough?

Anyway. The son should look in detail at a selection who are making offers at and just below his expected grades, and then make his pick of 5 - one (or two)'aspirational', one (or two) 'backup plan' and ~3 at his target level. Loads of good choices of big city, campus etc etc.

BIL does high level graduate recruitment (mostly STEM). He says there is no direct focus on RG Unis, instead there is a slowly evolving list of top Unis, and for example Bath is definitely on that list.

As another poster said, it seems sensible to find out where recent graduates with good placements have gone to Uni and focus on those.

FWIW the Heap guide 2021 has these Unis in order of target offers for Chemistry: Oxbridge, Durham, then as a group at AAA: Bath, Bristol, Imperial, UCL, Manchester, Queen's, St Andrews. Slightly lower down at AAB: Glasgow, Leeds, Kings, Newcastle, Nottingham, Southampton, Warwick, and York.

@audersandbaby

I work in the city and help with recruitment. It is imperative the applicant went to a RG. We don’t even look at non-RG. This is consulting / finance. I also have seen similar at Unilever.

Even now there is an effort to level the playing field? One of the big 4 recently announced their aim to increase percentage of working class grads.

*Ph& I saw that - gives hope to my private school son as he drives a van for a living so when he has children they might be shoe in at KPMG as my son has chosen a working class job.....

Thanks all loads of food for thought and a mixed bag of replies. I am still slightly confused but will dig a little deeper and visit a few places. He would definitely want to stay in the chemistry field rather than go into banking etc

@Piggywaspushed it’s really not me making the decision. I actually campaigned against it because it completely disadvantages minority ethnics. RG is just important. Bath is considered by every employer as an honorary RG, but St Andrews is two sided - often seen as the Oxbridge reject place. I’ll be honest, 90% of our workforce went to Oxbridge, the rest Durham, Warwick and a spattering of RG. And shockingly, majority are white men.

@PhDornot yes Big 4 are slowly implementing changes. EY was one of the first by getting rid of the 2.1 entry requirement. But if you look upwards, promotion is very white male and private school. It’s a shame. The issue with the working class quota is that it’s so hard to prove and quantify - there have been big 4 programs in place for this though for the last decade.

Consulting is the biggest place where university matters. Especially when you submit a CV for every piece of work you do (proposals). People care where you went to school. Predominantly they care about Oxbridge, Durham, LSE, imperial and THEN the RG. The bias is shocking. There are lots of companies popping up to help remove this bias but it’s amazing how still they filter through. Plus big firms target certain universities, unless you’re exceptional from a random non-RG, you will naturally be filtered out.

Looking at the UK universities with the highest number of the most 'highly cited researchers' for chemistry in the UK outside of Oxbridge, look at Liverpool and Imperial. For science subjects more broadly = UCL, Kings, Imperial, Bristol, Exeter, and in Scotland - Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen all do well. ( Durham - not so much, apart from space science).

[quote audersandbaby]@Piggywaspushed it’s really not me making the decision. I actually campaigned against it because it completely disadvantages minority ethnics. RG is just important. Bath is considered by every employer as an honorary RG, but St Andrews is two sided - often seen as the Oxbridge reject place. I’ll be honest, 90% of our workforce went to Oxbridge, the rest Durham, Warwick and a spattering of RG. And shockingly, majority are white men.[/quote]
How depressing

Predominantly they care about Oxbridge, Durham, LSE, imperial and THEN the RG

but presumably they've only cared about Durham since 2012?

St Andrews is two sided - often seen as the Oxbridge reject place

And Durham isn't...?

Also, they do realise that Durham was only let into the cabal - sorry, Russell Group - less than a decade ago, don't they?

Auders experience may be relevant to their field but really not to the chemistry profession.

@pamplemoussed

Looking at the UK universities with the highest number of the most 'highly cited researchers' for chemistry in the UK outside of Oxbridge, look at Liverpool and Imperial. For science subjects more broadly = UCL, Kings, Imperial, Bristol, Exeter, and in Scotland - Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen all do well. ( Durham - not so much, apart from space science).

Is there a website for this information? Liverpool certainly doesn't feature highly in any chemistry league table which maybe does demonstrate that they have limitations? Lancaster and Lincoln feature highly and are neither RG or in the list of usual outliers (Bath).

Lancaster is often cited in discussions on 'unis which aren't RG but are as good' along with Bath.
Lincoln seems to be rising steadily up, it may be somewhere that's being well run/attracts good students because it's a nice place... it's probably mistaken prejudice to automatically discount all the newer unis.
(I don't know what either is like for chemistry, just general observations).

There are more than league tables. DD had an offer from St Andrews but turned it down for a lower ranking Uni offering the same course. She decided that St Andrews was too remote for her and she wanted easy access to larger places with more facilities.

@ErrolTheDragon

Lancaster is often cited in discussions on 'unis which aren't RG but are as good' along with Bath. Lincoln seems to be rising steadily up, it may be somewhere that's being well run/attracts good students because it's a nice place... it's probably mistaken prejudice to automatically discount all the newer unis. (I don't know what either is like for chemistry, just general observations).

Lincoln has had massive investment and the new medical school is an amazing facility. Having some big partnerships with companies like Siemens Energy helps too.