How did your overwhelmed teen fill in their UCAS application choices?

[lljkk]

If you had a teen who found the UCAS choices very hard to make, how did they decide in the end?

I ask in case there is a way of choosing I haven't thought of so far.

Trying to keep this concise. Rather than Uni, After A-levels, DS/we would like DS to do a higher apprenticeship, but the process is very confusing, hard to get places. It seems like DS has to directly approach & sell himself to employers if he wants to stay local, persuade them they want to create an apprenticeship for him. DS won't directly approach & sell himself to employers. Else wait for adverts (may not happen) that could take him anyway in UK. Apprenticeship is Plan A but it might not happen.

DS wants UCAS application for a conventional course as Plan B, but he's overwhelmed how to narrow down to just 5. Within 3 hours travel time, there are dozens of possibly suitable courses at a tariff he might achieve. We have discussed Software Engineering, Data Science, Data Analysis, Computer Science. Looking at the modules doesn't help DS decide between them.

His only firm decision is a campus (not city) university. He's unlikely to consider Uni if his results or CCB or worse (can eliminate those tariffs). The filters on FrogUni & UCAS website are very limited.

Any other ideas how to choose?

I have never come across an 18-year-old who chooses a university on the basis of where their friends are going! This might be a consideration for a 10-year-old deciding on a secondary school, but for university? I have no idea who Xenia is, but telling your DCs to actively avoid universities where the student appear too happy is bonkers. Being happy is a good thing.

The whole idea of 'better' universities has rather gone out of the window these days – general league tables aren't really worth very much. The RG group traditionally scored highly because they were strong on research, but that is largely an irrelevant metric to 18-year-old undergraduates; in fact, there is a perfectly sound argument that the actual teaching may be better at some of the newer universities where the lecturers are less interested in their own research and more interested in instructing their students. The research element only really becomes relevant for further degrees.

Another common measure in league tables is entry standards which, while telling you something about the A level results of people applying, tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of the course, or indeed the level of the student at the end of their 3 (or more) year period of study.

Subject specific league tables tell you far more, and lots of former polytechnics are very good at particular subjects. To give just one example, if you are interested in automotive engineering, Oxford Brookes is as good as anywhere in the UK because lots of the car marques have bases and workshops in the area and they have a direct input into the courses. It's hard to know this from the league tables because they don't break it down into that much detail, but anyone who works in professional motorsport knows this.

The whole discussion is much more nuanced than merely saying x is better than y.

I agree with previous posters that a level 3 apprenticeship may be a better back up plan than uni and there are several in your area on the gov website. A degree is not required for a lot of IT jobs where skills and experience are more important.

Last year DS applied to uni for computer science and the pwc degree apprenticeship. Decided not to apply for other degree apprenticeships as wanted to concentrate on his Alevels. Got to the final stage with pwc but only 1 uni offer which he didn't want, so decided to take a year out.

It really has been the best thing he could have done. He applied for and was offered 2 level 3 apprenticeships (the level 4 ones were more than a year and really wanted work based experience not just Alevels). The job he didn't choose are still advertising so I don't think are all that competitive - obviously degree apprenticeships are different. He now thinks he'll stay with this company, possibly moving to a level 4 apprenticeship and maybe then level 6 although also looking at degree ones elsewhere.

He now doesn't want the standard uni experience and I think would have been frustrated with all the online lectures etc they're doing this year. He's found that he learns better on the job rather than purely theoretically and loves the monthly wage

The whole idea of 'better' universities has rather gone out of the window these days

Not with many employers it hasn’t. There are many professions where the first sift of applications is done by reference to university. The old hierarchies do still exist

@VanCleefArpels - where I work and our competitors and many of the firms we work with across the world use blind recruitment or are moving to it at graduate level to avoid bias. Neither of the DT’s had to disclose their school or Uni when applying for their graduate jobs.
Is there a particular industry or geographical area you are aware of that isn’t moving to this approach?

Applications for jobs outside of grad schemes advertised eg on LinkedIn or Indeed or via recruitment agencies are not “blind” - and so recruiters (or their agents) can sift or only propose candidates that meet certain criteria

@Parker231
I didn’t say your DC went to low ranked universities. However it’s true that too many DC are not made aware of the value of a Warwick degree over a Winchester one. Hence my MC and ambition comment. In some competitive areas of work university does matter. Employers set entrance tests and often the students from the top tier of universities do well in these so, although their school/uni isn’t shown, the best universities still get the most successful candidates.

Warwick has long been a top university for automotive engineering. But if university truly doesn’t matter, by all means do automotive engineering at university Z. This conversation proves that uni does matter. It’s links with industry and respect for the course that makes some better than others. Hence the comment about Oxford Brookes. The MC with ambitious DC know that.

Law in London is dominated by Oxbridge in respect of barrister recruitment and in many large firms. Durham too is popular and RG are overwhelmingly the choice of recruiters. If they don’t know where the DC went they certainly my choose the RG DC via other means! Manchester law degrees are more popular in Manchester.

I am confused why Manchester is seen as a not such a university compared to Durham.

Looking at the Times Higher Ed world rankings, Manchester is 50th and Durham is 162nd. Is this purely Mumsnet rankings that see Manchester as a poorer choice? Outside the UK, will many have heard of Durham University and know of its prestige?

World rankings vs long held perception that Durham is where Oxbridge rejects go. On the domestic front Durham def seen on the rung below Oxbridge and their typical offers reflect that

But it’s more difficult to get into than Manchester. World rankings don’t mean much to employers who recruit Law and other grads here. They know a Durham grad was pretty close to Oxbridge. Manchester told my DD she could more or less get accepted if two of her A levels were good grades. Less competitive course but Durham would never be in that position! Durham has few courses in clearing.

Although as I've already pointed out, entry standards only tell you it's harder to get into, they don't tell you anything at all about the quality of the teaching or the course, or indeed about the standard of the students on leaving university…

It might well be that Durham graduates are 'better' than Manchester graduates, but entry grades do not tell you that.

It’s part of a profile though. So why do world rankings say something different? Obviously employers look for different things in grads and of course not all Durham grads are world beaters. Quality of teaching is almost impossible for employers to have a view about unless it’s a stem course where the grad is employed for their knowledge. Even then the degree syllabus might not evaluate common sense or critical thinking or even any business sense. Some ex polys are better at that!

History? Who really knows? The grads are not employed did their history knowledge by and large. What employers respect is a rigorous degrees where they can trust the calibre of student as a starting point . Employers have all sorts of other tests to evaluate grads.

I don’t see why anyone would not trust Manchester but in tables produced in this country it rarely eclipses Durham.

Students are not great at evaluating their experience as they haven’t been to a myriad of universities to compare. What evidence is there that they are correct?

Quality of teaching is almost impossible for employers to have a view about

But they do have their A level grades? But because an employer knows (do they, in the world outside MN?) that the average Durham graduate would actually have been at Oxford or Cambridge, if not for a really bad day when they sat the MAT / HAT / STEP / had their interview / sat their last A level paper, they just know that the Durham graduate's AAA is superior to the Newcastle / Swansea / Liverpool gradiate's A A A that at they rejected at the first sift?

Well I would hope they didn’t on first sift. I would hope they were given equal consideration. But then other tests come into play. For Engineering you would never take Durham above all others. It’s up to employers but employment tests sift more than university and A levels these days. It’s not just about A levels and degree although MN thinks it is. It could even be about writing a coherent cv and having relevant work experience!

Some employers would wonder why someone with top grade A levels chose Swansea though. Some would see that as lack of ambition.

My best graduate recruit - now a senior exec in our team went through clearing to go to Canterbury. She got a 2.2 in English.

"Some employers would wonder why someone with top grade A levels chose Swansea though. Some would see that as lack of ambition."

I suppose it depends what a student wants to study. If it is Marine Biology then Swansea rather than Durham would be a better fit.

Not all 3 x A star students want to study law or history, their passions may lay elsewhere.

TizerorFizz, I agree with most of what you say, I was merely trying to point out that some of the metrics involved in university league tables don't really tell you very much – some people treat them like a kind of Holy Grail, but really neither Entry Standards nor Student Satisfaction measures tell prospective applicants anything about the course they are applying for. And Research Quality is largely irrelevant to a teenage undergraduate.

The belief that, for example, RG universities are de facto 'better' than former polytechnics for every subject, for all time is a notion which I think needs to be challenged on an ongoing basis.

@thing47
Yes I agree. I think the old polys can be brilliant for engineering and similar subjects. It’s what they were set up to do! However when it comes to general humanities subjects, possibly not. It all depends on the course and specialisms the universities can offer. Depends on career choices and ambition too. You would see Swansea as better for marine biology, but not Law

Also someone with a 2:2 wouldn’t get near many grad schemes now. Even a 2:2 in maths from Cambridge was a challenge to get a job - as a friend’s DS found out! After 18 months he was taken on by a public body but it was a struggle. So a 2:2 from the uni of nowhere will cause difficulty

@TizerorFizz - we interview blind so don’t know their school , Uni or grade.

So how do you select for interview? Cv with no typos? Test upon application? You might not select conventionally but you must select so how do you do it?

We don’t use CV’s for graduate recruitment. It’s an online application form, online assessment tests, full day at an assessment centre and finally a f2f interview with a Director or Partner in the department you are applying for. Candidates are rejected at each stage. We also have a summer intern programme and recruit from there as well. We use the same process in all offices across the world. Similar process for the apprentice programme for entry with A levels.

Many graduate schemes and certainly most competitive ones will stipulate a 2:1 or above in their adverts. Luckily other types of employment exist for those with 2:2s whose abilities flourish once they start working rather than at school or university.

I think the system is complex and difficult to navigate at first. I also think that many A level students are pushed into appalling to university by schools and sixth forms. University degrees are not always a passport to fulfilling and/or well paid career. Far too many students end up going to university studying degrees which do not prepare them for work when the alternative of an apprenticeship or vocational degree course would have been a better alternative.

Worth remembering that only a tiny percentage of graduates get recruited into “schemes” which have this admirably blind system. The majority have to approach recruiters, put their CV on sites like indeed.com or LinkedIn or trawl the same job adverts as anyone else

Unfortunately it’s a horrible competitive process. Where I work we are able to recruit worldwide the best candidates but still only 2% are successful each year.

When I left LSE (a long time ago!), I applied to three firms and got three offers.

Now, with so many more students leaving Uni and applying for a limited number of roles, it’s so much harder.