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.

UEA is definitely a victim of location snobbery (sorry @Piggywaspushed you should have copyrighted that while you had the chance ), it's a really solid university in many areas. I'm sure there are others – maybe someone could compile a list of the top 10 of good universities subject to location snobbery!

DD2 did her first degree at Nottingham Trent and one thing she liked about that was her fellow students came from all over the UK, there was no bias towards any particular part of the country. A couple of her friends were from the Midlands and others were variously from Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and London. It would be interesting to know if that is a trait of all universities based in the Midlands, or just of Nottingham Trent in particular.

We have younger family members and their partners (quite closely clustered together in age) who are about to go to, currently students at, or recently graduated from a real range of universities. From Oxbridge and Durham, to MN-esteemed RG to less fashionable and perceived middle-ranking ones and even Post-92s! One young couple within the family went to Durham and a Post-92 respectively, both now have completed the same graduate training scheme and doing the same job!

Marching Frogs, the Guardian table is interesting. For economics the LSE shows a significant improvement this year, possibly because their building works are finally completed and perhaps because they are seen to have had a "good lockdown". They are now ranked 13th, two places above Aberystwyth, three above Hertfordshire, four above Cardiff Met and five above Nottingham Trent.

With institution blind recruiting DS met people from similar places (Oxford Brooks, Westminster U etc) at interviews. Trouble was that the interviews included a competency test, easily within the grasp of someone at an institution which had demanded A* in Maths A level as a basic entry requirement and taught from there. A lot more problematic for those coming from institutions which did not cover as much ground. There again DS was sifted out at the initial online multiple choice personality (is that the word - he said it was weird and lots about whether he "strongly agreed or strongly disagreed, where as a statistician his response tends to be "show me the numbers first") test for a technical job absolutely in line with his Masters and did not even get as far as the first Zoom interview. Previously he would have been almost guaranteed an interview based on the strength of his academics from a well regarded (the course is generally considered the top in Europe) institution. The question then becomes who sets the questions for the initial sifts.

I believe Prince William got A, B , C and did history of art at St Andrew's whereas his brother was probably not bright enough for university so did not go. I don't think William did so badly that At A were wrong to reject him - as future King and only for history of art which must be one of the easiest subjects in which to get a place in many universities. However I certainly don't agree with any entry system for people other than the future monarch (where issues like personal security being important are key) getting in other than a fair system based on A level grades.

As for employers' attempts to recruit fairly - it is not easy particualrly given the volumes of gradutes. You need some filters but if you introduce too many people are put off applying eg Clifford Chance, law firm, found one thing that put disadvantaged people off most from applying was so many hours had to be put in on applications where most people rich or poor then do not get places (compared to old days of a CV sent in and then an interview if you are lucky). Making it fairer - psych tests, assessment days, written exercises before you get the interview etc etc can mean you put in 10 or 20 hours to get nothing and yo do that time after time after time.

I believe Prince William got A, B , C and did history of art at St Andrew's whereas his brother was probably not bright enough for university so did not go. History of Art seems entirely appropriate for a future king who will be custodian of the RF's art collection, the largest largest private one in the world.

I would argue that the system may seem fairer for all graduates but the lengthy process (times many applications) to land a coveted job would probably put off other than the ones who have the self-belief that they have what it takes to get the gig?! So it probably still favours the 'entitled'?

Prince William switched to Geography at St Andrews, Kate did Art History

@anotherotherone

I don’t think it would happen anymore that a royal would get into Oxbridge - or anywhere - without his resuited grades. Those days are gone, I think? Probably the reason they were able to wangle St As for William is that they could argue he needed a remote location to prevent paparazzi intrusion. St As has no train station and is in a remote location, so they probably argued it on privacy / security grounds. I suspect though, if Prince George etc want to go, they will need the grades!

Apparently there were boats ready to whizz him away from danger if needed. I’m glad they got to have a fairly normal time - whatever that is in a royal life

@Crackedpepper1

Newgirls I think that will take a long time

Given the numbers applying for graduate schemes and the ease of administering online testing these days, I can't help but think that university name will become diluted in the whole process. University name only really works when the process of getting a job is done on a more or less personal basis. However, if you line people up, get them to sit a test and take the highest scoring through to the second round, university name does not really come into play.

I think that’s a good thing too

With institution blind recruiting DS met people from similar places (Oxford Brooks, Westminster U etc) at interviews [...]There again DS was sifted out at the initial online multiple choice personality (is that the word - he said it was weird and lots about whether he "strongly agreed or strongly disagreed, where as a statistician his response tends to be "show me the numbers first") test for a technical job absolutely in line with his Masters and did not even get as far as the first Zoom interview..

Given that the university name is now only a small part of a person's application, we can expect to see other metrics come into play. However, if the traditional link between "top uni" = "top job" has been weakened (or, has it?), what will be the incentive for people to study hard to get to a "top uni" if that branding no longer does what it has done previously? Will this affect aspiration? Will, paradoxically, social mobility stagnate?

I think the biggest change will come from non traditional ‘unis’ eg tech firms doing their own training. Which they already are. Also more international options open up as they offer online courses. Eg why not study engineering with a German uni/company rather than in the UK. Or tech with an American uni.

Students will want amazing facilities eg laboratories or film/music studios and will be less inclined to spend money on grim student flats if their course can be done mostly online. Lots of changes ahead

Some seemed to have dropped out of fashion. Sussex and Hull I seem to remember were quite cool in my day. Kingston had a good reputation too. I don’t hear of them now.

Just to look at this from a different angle @lightisnotwhite, you could argue that a legitimate personal ranking would be how well particular universities appear to have dealt with the pandemic. After all, this has had a profound impact on students' university experiences and, in some institutions packed out because of the offer/grade mismatches of 2020 and 2021 means swollen cohorts of students will be working their way through the university system for many years to come.

Although criticised in some quarters, the National Student Survey (page link below) is already yielding up some interesting trend data. Virtually all institutions are showing year-on-year drops in student satisfaction but there are huge variations. Some have maintained 'above benchmark'* satisfaction for the overall satisfaction question (Q27) in both 2020 and 2021; these include, for example, Aberystwyth, Bath, Dundee, Lancaster, Loughborough, St Andrews, Stirling, Swansea, West London, West of England. Not a big list and quite a mix, with a strong campus and/or seaside element but certainly not exclusively so. Clearly graduate recruitment is not driven by employer perceptions of student satisfaction but might we see graduating cohorts from these universities proving to be more attractive to employers because their experience has been better, more productive etc.?

• see the report for definition

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/nss-data-provider-level/

Cracked, that is the issue. if my son with poor A level grades and a degree because of lack of work is to bt regarded on a par with someone who actually gets their finger out, works really hard, gets As at A levels and goes to a good university that is hardly fair. If low grades and bad universities matter no teenagers might find it more fun to spend their teens dating girls and drinking because come age 20 or 21 employers will not care less and the lazy ones will be on a par with the hard workers in this wonderful new world of institution blind recruitment.

Blind recruitment can be good. Why shouldn’t a bright teenager who lives in an area with a poorly performing school, limited A choices, no careers advice and be the first in their family to consider going to Uni but for financial reasons will live at home where the local Uni isn’t an RG not have the same employment opportunities as someone who went to the “right “ school and had family and school support to get into an RG Uni?
Btw - Having a good social life as a teenager is good not bad.
I want to recruit the graduates who will become the most successful employees . Where they went to school and Uni doesn’t mean they will be any good at their job.

Surely a good school should help a student shine in a blind interview. If it doesn’t, maybe it’s all just hype.

Blind recruitment is good because it gets rid of the hierarchies but bad because it gets rid of the hierarchies. I don't really know what to make of it. Will students still bother striving to achieve if their achievements won't be recognised? On the other hand, it disrupts the stranglehold that some unis have on the job market. Only time will tell how it pans out.

It means no one can rest on their laurels. You have to keep proving yourself.

@Xenia you are assuming every kid with less good A level results got them because they were drinking and dating girls. That's very funny. There are a variety of reasons why very bright kids might just miss the stellar grades, not least deprivation and a dodgy school. Mine got stellar results from a crap school but were lucky to have educated and motivated parents (and a house full of books). Some of my DC's friends weren't quite so lucky. They got slightly less good grades not because they were lazy or less bright but because of circumstance. It's these kids who would benefit from blind recruitment.
Honestly the lack of awareness on MN stuns me..

I agree with you @intwrferingma. Some posters are stuck in their wealthy middle class bubbles. They have no concept of education outside of their children's private education.

I am very aware that DD was lucky to go to a well regarded state comprehensive school in an area with a relatively affluent demographic. The school performs well and attracts good teachers. However, I know that not all schools in our LA are as good and not all children are as privileged.

int but in most schools whether good or bad ones you will find that as a general rule the children who work harder tend to do better. We can all see that in our own families and our children's friends. I absolutely support (as has always been the case with universities even in the 1980s when I went) the fact that if you get a brilliant outlier with good grades compared with everyone else in their sink school we give them extra credit for Oxbridge etc - I have no problem with that at all.

However if we move wholesale at graduate recruitment level for putting my son (lower grades) and a harder working sibling (higher grades) on a par that will mean those who cannot much be bothered with work to slack off even more in school and university because there will be prizes for all (ie treated on a par ) at graduate recruitment stage. I agree that weeding out the lazy from the disadvantaged at that stage - age 21 - is not that easy however.

At the end of the day it tends to work out okay as Tim nice but dim or Tim lazy as sin or disadvanted but very lazy or not very bright Tim will lose their jobs because of incompetence in due course in the cruel harsh light of capitalism whereas any Tim who got in despite low grades because he is clever or disadvantaged will do well as will the more typical Tims who both work really hard and are very clever - probably the two prerequisites to getting most good jobs at age 21.

But @Xenia while your generalisations may stand, they fail to take into account that that a child may not have been able to work so hard on academic studies but instead may have been working hard keeping their head above water, or working and contributing to the family income. These circumstances are very common, and those DC will have picked up multiple skills which will not show up in exam grades. I'm not talking rare examples here either - they are the children (now young adults!) my DC went to school with. They are capable, intelligent, hard working (though not in the sense you might recognise) and in many ways waaaay more deserving than my top grade children. And to return to the original post, will have attended different, lower ranking universities. But at the end of their degrees they will likely be more work-ready than perhaps (a generalisation) an Oxbridge grad like my son who hasn't had to graft in the ways they have. It's your definition of hard work that I take issue with

Creating a more equal society comes from the time a child is born ....... by university stage it's too late. Just watch "breaking into the elite" on bbc

It's not just about good grades and academic achievement it's also about confidence and the way you present yourselves ........

Blind recruitment is good because it gets rid of the hierarchies but bad because it gets rid of the hierarchies.

I think @Crackedpepper1 has nailed it! I'm not convinced blind recruitment is the best possible answer, but it is at least as good an answer as the lazy assumption that DCs who went to 'top' universities are de facto brighter than those who went to non-RG universities, or that they are more employable. Clearly that is not true.

If legal firms believe that professional exams are the best guide to who is likely to make a good lawyer, and that their data show people educated at RG universities are more likely to achieve well in those professional exams, then they are likely to continue to favour those universities. But that cuts both ways. If other professions have found that the university attended makes little difference to the suitability of any given applicant for the job, they are equally entitled to that view, and therefore to recruit blindly.

In my profession certain universities are considered to have a particularly strong course offering and attendance at one of those universities may give a job applicant a slight edge in getting an initial interview. But it would definitely not get an applicant the job over someone who went to a less well-regarded university but who interviewed better.

In DH's profession much greater weight is given to a job applicant who can illustrate, via their CV, an interest in/aptitude for the line of work beyond merely studying a relevant subject. Someone with a degree from, say, Bristol would not automatically be favoured over someone with a degree in the same subject and at the same grade from, say, De Montfort as experience has taught him that has little relevance regarding their employability.

Education, in its broadest sense, is something that can't be taken away from you. Children will have different access to good education which will be as much about having books in the home, parental backgrounds and and a stable family life as the sort of school you went to. Parents will normally want to give their own children as many opportunities to learn skills, build resilience, to gain qualifications, as possible.

To give opportunities to those who missed out earlier is laudable.

Getting into Oxbridge, getting a good job etc, will always involve an element of if your face fits or straight luck. However an educated young person with good emotional intelligence and resilience, will have plenty of Plan Bs. Durham or Imperial will deliver as good an education to an engaged and able student as Oxford. Don't get the dream job, find another way in to the industry and go from there.

The issue may be the reverse. In their efforts to widen access are employer and Oxbridge at risk of missing out of the best applicants, the ones that will thrive in their institutions and contribute to them.

Curiously though DS was weeded out at the first stage when applying for his dream job, (and the year before he had reached the fifth stage for an internship with the same institution and was told he was good enough to be accepted, just that there were not enough places, with but he reached the reserve list for the US equivalent, despite no US links.

Mine is
St Andrews
Cambridge
Oxford

The rest I rank by course, no real overall rating.