DS just asked me if it matters which university you go to

[Fadedpicture]

And I couldn't really formulate an answer.

I know Oxbridge and RG are more highly thought of, but from an employer's POV, how much difference does it make where you studied?

Is it different according to which subject you're doing or which sector you hope to work in?

Yes, maths

A maths degree is a highly respected degree. If he feels confident with Bristol, go for it. As back ups he has a wealth of universities to choose from. If he gets a 2:1 degree, then he’s always employable. I’m assuming he’s not wanting the very top of the maths tree, but as long as he meets the criteria for entry, he should have plenty of choice. I do think it’s always worth aiming high but it’s also worth aiming to be happy. Does he need to apply in the next few weeks?

Someone posted about not understanding why an English grad from Oxbridge would be particularly employable. I can think of a few reasons: high workload in shorter terms. Workload in vacations. Being able to discuss a topic in a tutorial having done research in a fairly short space of time. Getting there in the first place. Being a self starter and relishing hard relentless work. Having the confidence to advocate for your point of view with an expert. Ability to take on board and run with complex ideas and understand complex literature. Other degrees have some aspects of this, but not all.

Also Buckinghamshire New uni doesn’t offer medicine. Buckingham does.

"Criteria" is going to be different for him because he doesn't have Alevels - this foundation year is a L4 qualification.

He doesn't need to make an application for Bristol, if he scores highly enough, he's guaranteed a place, but he's looking to put a UCAS application in just in case he needs to lower his sights.

C’mon. She’s postitively gloating at how her sister isn’t likely to be successful.

To add to this, I have literally no idea where any of my colleagues or juniors trained - it simply doesn’t matter after graduation.

Obviously I know where my friends from uni ended up, and it is a complete mix. The one who has probably achieved the most (national leadership position) was a complete dosser at med school, nowhere near the top of the class. Hasn’t held her back at all. Our Gold Medal winner (came top of graduating class) is a totally normal GP (and very happy with that, very family-focused). I was totally undistinguished at uni, totally middle of the pack, and I’m a consultant in a very academic specialty in a London teaching hospital.

My sibling is an NHS consultant (or was until recently when retired at 55), Cambridge degree, also has a doctorate ( so a doctor with a doctorate as it were) and is a professor. I think the professional standing has genuinely been enhanced due to the fact os reading medicine at Cambridge. This can also be helpful for expert witness work (my siblings does loads of that very lucrative work). If you are before a judge and you have a load of qualifications including Cambridge that probably does help. So I don't necessarily agree that doing your degree in medicine at Sunderland University is going to be as good for your career as Cambridge.

Also it is not just careers where the place matters. Some people will date someone putting in criteria when choosing of type of university and check on the linkedin profile to see. Also the friends you make and the peer group can be better at some universities. There are just loads of reasons to pick somewhere where it is hard to obtain a place.

@Fadedpicture
I really think he has no option but to contact maths departments and see who would be ok with his qualification. Both at the level Bristol want and the next level down. Where would he be prepared to go? City (Bristol is such a difficult one to top!) or campus? Obviously there is somewhat of a pecking order because some unis might not accept a foundation course or will want other test/exam results. Therefore weed out the impossible and formulate a short list of possibles.

I think your sibling's circumstances are not the norm @Xenia. I know you tend to view things from a lawyer at a top firm perspective, but the vast majority of students aren't aiming for such a career.

Medical degrees are conferred by the GMC so it doesn't matter where you achieve your medical degree. All medical students still have to achieve a minimum of AAA (unless it is a contextual offer, or they do a foundation course first), a good UCAT/BMAT score and pass an interview - usually MMI. It is tough getting into any medical school. The main difference is the teaching methods.

It really depends what he wants to do, it has had no impact on any recruitment campaigns I've ran, we actually ask universities to not be named in CVs (only the qualification). But know it has more of an impact in other sectors of course, I suppose if I was hiring a lawyer or researching a doctor the institution would mean more to me than say hiring a cyber security architect.

@Xenia Nope, it really doesn’t make any difference within medicine. Most hospital consultants will have a PhD, and usually a masters or two. Really isn’t impressive as everyone has one.

Makes no difference which university you went to, nobody asks (or cares) after graduation. What matters are your post-grad achievements - publications, additional responsibilities, leadership roles etc. Which are down to the individual to seek out. I appreciate you won’t like to hear this as you are obsessed with Oxbridge and public schools, but it is true.

From an employers point of view (I used to recruit a lot of technology grads in uk public sector) it makes no difference.
Where it does it is usually because of biases (not aways unconscious) and many organisations are trying to remove bias from hiring decisions. So I'd expect university to be another factor that gets removed from the information hiring managers see, along with gender, age, etc. There is also class/socio-economic bias with Russell Group that isn't always helpful if an organisation is trying to be more diverse. On the other hand others will see it as positive as it's perceived as a signal of class.
Yes, there will be universities that are more renowned in a subject but that doesn't mean their students are any better than those from elsewhere. In fact, sometimes the opposite.
I also think Russell Group is well over rated. It's an historic association that bears no relationship with the quality of an institution. While probably all RG unis are good, they are by no means all better than non RG and for many subjects are poorer than many.

You can become a medical professor without being a doctor in medicine first - many are specialists who then gotten doctorates. Those types of professors tend to be Oxbridge grads. But Cambridge’s Medical professors who are / were proper doctors rarely come from just Oxbridge. I researched this a while ago for one of my nephews. A lot of them graduated from Leicester / Nottingham

I personally find a working class parent who put themselves through the local uni through sheer bloody determination whilst juggling childcare and a non supportive family far more impressive than a Boris Johnson type who sails from top private school to Oxbridge/ Durham/Bristol.

That's no recommendation

@WorldLeaderPretend , why are they better? Neither will have had any control of what class the were born into, and probably didn't pick which school they went to.

I went to the local state school and got into university. Does that make me less impressive because I didn't leave school at the earliest opportunity then had children and then studied?

@YoureTheTop no need to take it personally, it's evident the point that's being made, coming out of uni with a degree at 21 with no responsibilities is a different achievement to someone who did it with other responsibilities, it just is. Just as I'd be more impressed by a candidate who worked alongside a degree and got the same grade as someone who doesn't, it tells me something about the former, not necessarily anything negative about the latter. Let's face it the amount of people with degrees these days a degree in itself doesn't do very much to set someone apart anyway; especially a 21 year old graduate.

Me too!

I went to the local state school and got into university. Does that make me less impressive because I didn't leave school at the earliest opportunity then had children and then studied?

Yes it does. Sorry.

BIL is very high up at Cazenoves with this degree! Won't say actual role as outing. Also from a less well regarded uni. Sometimes you get there with hard work and determination.

@titchy, sorry, but I don't share your view. I'm not worse than someone because I followed a more traditional path. I did go back to uni when older, but it didn't change my intelligence or work ethic, and it didn't make me a better person (but did set me on to a different career path).
I'm not a better person because of what class I was or wasn't born into. I don't look up or down on people because of their socio-economic background.

I didn't say you were better or worse, but it is far less impressive getting a degree if you've gone at 18, than if you've gone at 30 as a single parent with two kids.

It's not a reflection on your academic ability or work ethic. But it is significantly more difficult to complete an undergraduate degree if you're older (or blacker, or poorer or more disabled etc) - loads of evidence to support this.

@YoureTheTop you're taking this way too personally, it's not about being a "better person" but just factual that there is more to infer about a person who has gone through hardship to get a degree vs someone who hasn't, that's not even to say it is a true representation of the candidate's abilities but the former would certainly be able to more easily demonstrate a wider variety of skills. In the eyes of an employer, not some kind of moral compass.

I'm not taking it personally, but what I take from it is that pp think that if there were two candidates, say Anna and Bella. Both new graduates and both got a 2:1.
Anna a single mum from a working class background and had gone to uni in her mid 20s, and Bella, middle-class, went to uni straight from school.
Anna is the better candidate because she is working class and decided to put herself through uni.

@YoureTheTop not sure where you're getting class from. If Bella went to uni, didn't have a job, didn't have the financial pressures of adulthood because she was supported by parents and got a 2.1, but Anna got the same grade having juggled a job, a child, a home etc, then surely you can see Anna's is the bigger accomplishment and why an employer might put more weight to her degree? ( looking at in isolation).