Campus universities

[PinaColadaBaby]

I know most universities have a campus of sorts but DD is looking for a traditional campus university - where all the teaching, 1st year accommodation and sport are in one place. So, by this criterion, Leicester and Leeds for example are not campus, whereas Nottingham is.

Traditional campus universities that occur to me: Nottingham, Birmingham, Exeter, Warwick, Essex, York. Do you know of any others please?

Each university will have an algorithm for classifying degrees.
And sometimes departments within the same uni will have different rules. Cambridge engineering sticks to awarding 30% firsts, 50% 2:1, 20% lower. There are quite a lot of other engineering courses - with with lower entry requirements/achieved tariffs - which award significantly more firsts, as do other Cambridge courses.

My flipping ex-poly uni didn't do bastard rounding up on my 69% overall last year! (Yes I was very very bitter) I ended up appealing an unfair placement mark which was dramatically upgraded on recalculation from the evidence (because surprisingly "they're a bit annoying and we don't like them" isn't sufficient grounds for knocking 10 percent off someone's mark) and that pulled me over the 70% border into a first - but it was definitely NOT done automatically or anything like that. I had to go right through the process and it was done very very strictly and factually based only (no accounting for hurty-feelings) before I had the mark recalculated and the degree reclassified and it took bloody months to sort out.

@singingstones
Your recruitment policies are up the creek if you choose people who cannot be developed. If you are asking an Oxbridge grad to be the same as an apprentice at 18, I would query your graduate training programme too. Both seem questionable to me. You also cannot expect grads to be the finished article. In engineering, years more development and guidance is needed. Maybe your company should not recruit grads if you can get away with cheaper 18 year olds? It seems no professional exams are involved snd your grad is a square peg in a round hole! Look at why they were chosen and learn the recruitment lessons!

@TizerorFizz The point I am making is that it seems strange for employers to be at all concerned with where someone studied when it surely has hardly any bearing on workplace performance. My little story is just an example - an Oxbridge first with no benefit to an employer at all because it's the personal qualities of the candidate that make a difference.

A few points in reply below:

Your recruitment policies are up the creek if you choose people who cannot be developed.

I guess - they all say the right stuff at interview and it can be difficult to know who will be prepared to work hard and who won't until you try them. This person is a good talker so no doubt interviewed well (I wasn't there) and they are certainly bright enough to be developed if they wanted to be.

If you are asking an Oxbridge grad to be the same as an apprentice at 18, I would query your graduate training programme too. Both seem questionable to me.

Not asking this at all, quite the reverse. Although similar in that both are entry level designed for people with no experience of the industry. The traineeship is for a specific role for which a degree is useful, the apprenticeships are broader and aim to give people experience across many roles and depts.

You also cannot expect grads to be the finished article.

It's training them from no knowledge or experience whatsoever, no expectations of them being the finished article (even in what is a fairly junior role) by the end, let alone the beginning!
I'm only talking about one person though, most people do progress more than them in their training year. The one before has seen their career really take off, doing amazingly well (Sussex grad).

Maybe your company should not recruit grads if you can get away with cheaper 18 year olds?

Money isn't the motivating factor for recruiting the 18 year olds, it's about diversifying the workforce. Plus they are not doing the same thing and graduates are better placed for the traineeship role, firstly because it's not really suitable for an 18-year-old, but also they need experience of research and writing.

In reply; if you want hard work, you presumably know an Oxford grad has probably had shorter terms and a higher workload than any other grad? Therefore I would be querying why this person passed all your selection tests. Presumably far more than interview? If just interview, you do need to look at how you select!

You compared the 18 year old with the grad. You implied the grad was useless and wasn’t as good as the 18 year old. Just about how much they work. Nothing about intellectual quality, different requirements for research and writing or that you are comparing apples and pears. Now you say they are not doing the same work. I think you just don’t like Oxbridge grads for inverse snob reasons.

Maybe you should get involved with selection if others don’t get it right?

They work on a bell curve?
So a bright hardworking student could get a 3rd from Oxbridge despite getting high percentages in all the exams just bc other students there are marginally brighter?
So that student could attend another Uni and because of the bell curve would get a 1st?

Not 'Oxbridge'. One specific department. Afaik not many 3rds, the lower 20% mostly 2:2s.

@ErrolTheDragon but you get my drift? Seems a tadge unfair. None of my DCs will be attending Cambridge for engineering or anything else for that matter so I’ve no skin in the game but it does seem unfair. Especially when some grad schemes are uni blind but want 2:1 minimum.

Yes, grad schemes which just filter by degree class are going to be unfair because there is no standardisation between courses/unis.
(Engineering isn't really about generic 'grad schemes' and will look more at what applicants have actually done so it may be less problematic ... that particular course doesn't have employability problems, it was just an illustration of the lack of standardisation).

I know what you’re saying and thank heavens for this Cambridge engineers! But yes, there should be some standardisation.

Lancaster has a really great feel. They didn't do the exact course my ds wanted in the end but we really liked it. Warwick was nice, but something about Lancaster just gave it the Edge. Having a good set up for the first year is more important than for successive years, IMO. Much more sociable to be all in the same place, by the time you are moving out in the second year you are likely to have established friendships. Bristol is a great city to be a student but its far from all in one place for first years.

Your DD should definitely do the open days it makes a bit difference. Some Unis like Durham have a very specific feel that wont be for everyone. Although I personally think the offer holder days give a better feel.

This is correct. if you look on the student room and Reddit people share their stats ( achieved or predicted grades) when they are waiting for offers or when they receive / offered or get rejected. Its insane 4/5 A Levels (many of which at A) or 43/44 IB points predicted/achieved for many of the the most competitive courses at the gold triangle / Russell group. There are currently people who have been rejected with 3/4 As achieved! Its insane.

BTW Do you mean Biomedical Sciences? From what I have heard many medical students out this down as their 5th UCAS choice because you can only apply to 4 medical schools. So it may be slightly less competitive than Medicine.

not sure why some of that is bold. It was not intentional.

@Socrateswasrightaboutvoting not sure why some of that is bold. It was not intentional.

It's bold because it is between 2 asterixes.

Thank you

In reply; if you want hard work, you presumably know an Oxford grad has probably had shorter terms and a higher workload than any other grad? Therefore I would be querying why this person passed all your selection tests.

This is the point - I can't comment on the selection process because I wasn't involved and don't know how competitive it was. But it's just an example to show how irrelevant the university is, because personal qualities matter more. Someone capable of working hard at their degree subject will not necessarily translate to someone who is valuable in the workplace. For employers, the latter is more important than the former. Expecting place of study to tell you much relevant about a job applicant is faulty logic.

Re the rest, I wasn't trying to make a point, just answering the questions you asked, I thought it would be rude to ignore them.

Yes, grads and apprentices have different roles, but both are entry level starting from scratch and it is interesting to compare people's approaches. It varies from grad to grad and apprentice to apprentice because as I keep saying, personal qualities are the thing.

(I don't have a problem with Oxbridge grads, the useless one we have at the moment is just a convenient example for positing that university doesn't tell you very much of value as employers.)

Asterisks.

That's why people who've hung around the HE board for too long tend to spell out 'A star'.

Thank you :)

Thank you :)

@SoTedious
I don’t agree personal qualities matter more. They are part of the overall mix. A good selection process teases everything out. If you don’t actually need someone with demonstrated intellect, don’t recruit them. Someone educated at Oxford is inevitably bright with top A levels. if you prefer personality, recruit with that in mind. It doesn’t sound like you need a grad at all if personally matters so much.

DH requires civil engineers. They absolutely don’t need a degree from a top university but they really do need to demonstrate competence in the selection tests. That’s the determining factor. Not chat at interview. Any employer not getting the right people does need to look at their recruitment policies. It’s an expensive mistake.

Thank you! :)