Rank your personal ranking for uk Uni’s

[lightisnotwhite]

I’ve read the league tables but interested to know what MN prefers in a Uni. Bristol for example ranks outside the top ten but MN is keen.

I think (based on these threads) Durham, St Andrews, York, Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Manchester, one of the London ones LSE?

Oxford and Cambridge are givens. So what’s next.

Yes, I see the points about why somewhere like LSE might be further down in the international league tables then someone applying within the U.K. might expect. Makes sense. Thanks!

A small university can give a much better student experience than a large one, particularly for undergraduates. But being small it’s harder to have a big reputation, there are just fewer alumni to big it up.

The other thing I wonder is why Oxford still advertise some of their Humanities subjects as requiring AAA to apply. Cambridge is AAA minimum for most Humanities and 2xAA for sciences.

But a quick look at the stats will tell you that over 50% of students who enter Oxford and Cambridge have achieved at least 3xA in their A-levels. So the reality is, even if you achieve 2xA or 1XA*, you are still going to be in the lower half of the cohort (in terms of A-levels achieved - I’m not talking about potential). More importantly, virtually nobody enters with the minimum Oxford requirement of AAA.

So why don’t Oxford just raise the criteria for certain courses to AAA and stop people with AAA applying and inevitably being disappointed? Its a waste of an UCAS option and everybody’s time. Obviously someone with AAA may well go in to get three A, but the Oxford have to make the cut somewhere and thousands are applying and being rejected with over the required predicted grades. So why make out as if AAA is feasible for Oxford entry when the statistical odds of that actually happening are so minuscule? Even at Cambridge, very few enter with “only” A*AA.

@anotherotherone I think Oxford is more interested in students' performance at interview and any relevant tests than it is in A level results.

Universities that don't interview may be more likely to ask for higher grades.

It's interesting though that Oxford and Cambridge take different approaches.

Yes, both unis say they take a holistic approach (which can basically mean anything). But still, the statistics year on year show that hardly anybody who actually gains admission to Oxford “only” achieves AAA. Over half the actual entry cohort achieve three grades higher than that.

It depends on what you are looking for in a Uni. DD wanted a good education but equally a good three years of fun. St Andrews and York both needed all A’s. Sone regard St Andrews as a higher ranking Uni. DD chose York as she thought St Andrews was too remote.
DS went to Warwick for his degree and stayed for his Masters. He liked the look of the course, he had friends going there and, at the time, his girlfriend also went there.

Many years earlier I went to LSE - only applied to London based Unis

@anotherotherone looking at it another way there are plenty of 3A* students who are rejected. As well as interviews, Oxford admissions tests filter candidates

Completely agree with @Parker231 but in DDs case she was choosing between offers at Durham and Exeter. Once she started chatting with the other offer holders, she felt Exeter was going to provide a better uni experience for her.

And my DS also went to Warwick (having turned down offers from "prettier" unis) as they offered a great course and the campus uni experience he wanted.

@Xenia

Good points except if you go somewhere were good people go then you are also going int a peer group which applies for high paid work a bit like not picking a sink school where most people don't do A levels. As teenagers are often influenced by their peers if you can pick a university where the "best" people go (however you define that) you might have that peer pressure to go for the higher paying jobs, be with people whose parents might be advising them well on better paid jobs etc etc.

Totally off topic my son had dinner the other night with 4 boys from school and we were chatting about why they had all now got good jobs - one is a quant at a hedge fund and doing very well (as he is excellent) - I think he did maths at somewhere pretty good in London; another is at a famous tech company; another just got a management consultancy job at a very famous company; and another has a job at the FT (and my son is the only one not in a job as does not finish his law studied until June when he will be a trainee solicitor). They are all hard working boys from a fee paying boys' school and all are BAME other than my son so have done very well. I also said their families are mostly in good jobs so I suppose that feeds down to encourage the child to want a certain lifestyle in terms of money too. They left school 5 years ago. Looking at where people end up not just on graduation but 5 or even 10 years down the line is always quite interesting.

Of course I accept plenty of people are not after high paid work in London and would be more than happy teaching and all kinds of worthwhile jobs.

Sometimes it's good to be challenged in different ways, Zenia. My kids managed a full set of A stars across A levels and GCSEs in what you would describe as a sink school. And got degrees from Durham and Cambridge plus in one case a post grad at a LSHTM. Allowing your children to mix with the hoi polloi doesn't necessarily condemn them you know!

My ds is applying to Universities this autumn and is currently looking at all the options.
The standard offer for Exeter for the course the wants to do (Computer Science) is a few grades lower than Warwick, York, Bath, Manchester, Durham etc. It does seem to have lower entries requirements than i would have expected.

That's simply because it's not an Exeter 'specialism'. Exeter's grades for English and history are probably right at the top end . This would be the same for York, for example, who were cited as an 'insurance uni' upthread but generally wouldn't be for music, English, history .

@Piggywaspushed

That's simply because it's not an Exeter 'specialism'. Exeter's grades for English and history are probably right at the top end . This would be the same for York, for example, who were cited as an 'insurance uni' upthread but generally wouldn't be for music, English, history .

They might offer at the top end but they let a lot of students in with missed grades. In fact they told DS on an English open day that that happened. He didn't go for it as a result.

int yet they chose elite universities, didn't they , not the local Sunderland University near where my family is from so in a sense they did the elite mixing in terms of brains rather than income at 18+ rather than 11+. Is that any different?

While I don't want this to turn into a point specifically relating to Oxbridge and league tables, there is something that I have been thinking about since a recent visit with DC. I wonder if the 'Oxbridge prestige' will become diluted in the next few years while other universities' reputations will be enhanced so that we move to a US-style provision of having several, and not just two, 'top' universities?

Having visited Oxford recently with dc for a STEM subject, the whole outfit was shockingly poor. Dc's lecture was boring, facilities tired and grotty, disinterested academics, mouldy....Meanwhile, other unis have really upped their game in this respect. Also, while we don't know how serious the move to 'university-blind' job applications is at the moment, there is no doubt that this move is happening and is likely to gather pace. Given the vagaries of the application process, which takes a lot of investment on the part of the applicant, will many prospective students simply decide not to apply to Oxbridge in the first place meaning that other universities will change their relative rankings very quickly?

@Xenia

int yet they chose elite universities, didn't they , not the local Sunderland University near where my family is from so in a sense they did the elite mixing in terms of brains rather than income at 18+ rather than 11+. Is that any different?

Spectacularly missing the point. At 11 there was no choice (as there isn't for most people in this country either through geography or lack of funds). At 18 with their stellar grades, there was. Too often on MN posters don't consider what it's like outside of their own income or geographical enclave. There are no grammar schools where we are. Not within 150 miles I reckon. And folk don't have the mo et to send private. We did as it happens but chose not to, preferring to have our children educated within their local community, and trusting them to do well.

well, my DD went and did a healthcare related degree in Plymouth, she applied for 4 jobs and got 4 offers of employment in and outside of NHS, she also got a job offer in Australia.

She has friends who went to many far more prestigious Uni's inc Exeter and Warwick but she is the only one who has got employment in their chosen degree & she is loving her new job.

Whilst not perfect Plymouth did very well in getting placements, support and on line during CV.

@FrancescaContini

I wouldn’t touch Bristol for my own DC with a barge pole after the way it treated Raquel Rosaria Sanchez. As an institution, it clearly lacks the ability to use critical thinking.

I agree

@LanaSQ

And what about student choice. St. Andrews does well on the back of William and Kate, yet my DC's visited for a day out, from their uni and were so underwhelmed. It is such a small place to have so many students. Quite claustrophobic for some.

How rude. At Andre's has been doing well since 1452. Its success does not rely on William having gone there 🙄

It is small, but it's a totally different vibe to huge city unis: it's friendly, welcoming, and the location is fabulous: town and gown, history, fab beaches...

St Andrews is lovely, my DD (and my DS this year) would’ve applied if it wasn’t so far away. And yes I don’t think William and Kate have anything to do with it’s popularity

Ah William and Kate. I wonder what their other choices were?

I saw this post recently on LinkedIn from a global people director. Her views on university and inclusiveness. An interesting read from someone successful who didn’t have an easy start.

“I was reading through some job adverts over the weekend and one company was advertising for a HR Director

One of the criteria was a degree from a The Russell Group university

For those who don't know what that is... it's the UK version of the Ivy league

It's a list of top universities that are deemed the elite.

Now I have a Masters but it's not from Cambridge or Oxford. Mine is from Demontfort, Leicester.

I studied in the evenings while juggling a 60 hour a week job and raising 2 son's .... I chose it because it was the closest so it meant that I could study, get educated and work, provide for my family and grow my potential for future prospects.

You see I'm just a lass from the council estate that pushed herself and paid her own way. My parents never had money, they could barely pay the bills let alone pay for further education.

So what's the point of this post....

Later in the advert the company talked about the importance of inclusion 🙄 ...

.....but you only get included if you are apart of the Russell group 🤔

So here's my view...

📚a degree is a degree regardless of where it's from

📚Not everyone has or can have the opportunity to have or get one...

📚Not everyone is able to study

📚Not everyone's circumstances are rosey and have 3rd generation family money and connections.

So let's try that again shall we...

I know many incredible professionals who have school qualifications then worked their way up through the ranks with hard work and learning in the job!

Stop TALKING about inclusion... and actual DO it.

STOP being such a snob with educational requirements that are academic and not commercial so doesn't mean you can do the job anyway!

START being inclusive ....reconsider your entry requirements for your vacancies.

(and before I get a whole host of noise about being qualified as a doctors, there are exceptions, I'm talking about jobs where no one gets operated on etc) “

@Parker231 - here here. Too much emphasis is placed on which Uni you graduate from. DP and I both graduated from old polytechnic’s and have done well in our career’s, him more so than me but both earning well over the average salary. I was a teenager parent, I had 2 jobs and a small child to raise when studying. I then moved us both to london on our own not knowing a soul. I have worked hard to get where I am. I think success often comes from within and a desire to do well. At 18 I never dreamed I’d be where I am now. And no I’m not massively successful in the city but I’m happy with my career and proud to have got where I am through sheer hard work and determination

Parker I wonder if in some ways, the inclusivity is already happening by virtue of the sheer amount of competition for jobs? Last year, employers such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Shell had over 100,000 applications for their graduate schemes, up 50% from the previous year in the case of the former. Given the numbers, these employers will be putting in further criteria for entry that are competency based such as more extensive pre-testing. This suggests that applications won't only be filtered by university name alone but by other metrics as well and all for a job that will demand everything you have from you for many, many hours per day(how did we get to this?)

I agree with you @Phos. DD had the grades for Manchester, York, Warwick and Bristol, but just didn’t like them.

I think Manchester Uni has just got too big. Someone told DS the number on the biology course and it was comparatively huge

Yes, that was what put DD off. The size of the university and the size of the city.

I'm actually quite happy with the concept of our DC having chosen the course and university which they decided best suited them.

Which is why DD chose Newcastle and none of the above. She turned down a scholarship from Lancaster as well.

Why do RG universities have such prestige? It’s all about research. Do students really care how much research the university they choose does?

Honestly the quality of research going on at any given university is largely irrelevant to an 18-year-old undergraduate. It is worth considering if you want to go and do post-graduate degree(s), but as an under-grad? Not really.

Teaching quality, course resources, student support, access to lecturers – to name just a few off the top of my head – are all more important. In fact, you will find some eminent staff who are renowned for their research don't actually lecture (let alone tutoring) the under-grads at all, in which case it's hard to make an argument for their mere presence being beneficial.