DD is prioritising student satisfaction so ruling out a lot of RG unis

[Satisfiedstudent]

My DD thinks student satisfaction is one of the most important factors in university decision-making so she is ruling out a lot of the top universities. She says most of the Russell Group unis are very poorly rated and whenever I suggest somewhere (Cardiff, Birmingham…. ) she whips out the Sunday Times guide book my mum bought her and promptly dismisses it. My DH thinks this is reasonable as a happy student is more likely to do well but I am not so sure that student satisfaction is the be all and end all and wonder what you all think?

@TizerorFizz - not all 18 year olds know what they want as their career. DS did but DD didn’t - she chose her degree course based on where she could party and what course she would find easiest- by the end of her degree she knew exactly what she wanted to do - applied for two and got the one she wanted most with the EU. She’s now done a post grad course along side working and is flourishing in her career. Sometimes it takes a few extra years to work things out.

I am with Tizer on this - that future life plans and careers matter. However I certainly agree with what someone else said above - that just because something is a norm (re. visits) in one family does not mean everyone is the same. I tended to drive them to university and visit about once a year in addition but just because of work and other children at home and that was similar to what my parents did with us in the 1980s)

As for the the boys linked study above - I think it is commonsense rather than needing a study. Leaving parenst are 18 is a rite of passage and forces children to be independent and grow up. It is also a bit like the Amish's rumsringa at a similar age - chance to live away and do things not under your parents' noses and without parental interference. It is freedom and also hugely good fun for many - years away from parents and not yet in full time work. UK children may be more independent than those in some other countries, so there may be cultural differences to. Even in the 1940s my mother going away to residential teacher training college for 2 years only about 20 miles from home was hugely life changing - she made friends for life (it was female only and Catholic) and just looking at all the many photos they all took in their gowns when they finished and the groups of very happy girls - it was a passport to another life and career and led to her teaching career and meeting my father and indeed my own existence.

'Going to university', 'getting a degree', and 'knowledge' are all related, but not quite the same thing.
You can get a degree without going away to university.
You can get knowledge without a degree.

In fact, there are many professional qualifications on the same level or higher as a degree (NVQ level 6, or 7) but somehow people look down on this because it's 'not a degree'.

Similarly there are online courses, short courses, even free textbooks etc you can read and download.

Of course, one would argue that going to university, and being with other young people, debate discussion etc fosters critical thinking but I don't see this in a lot of the graduates I interview. They seem to be 'following the mark scheme' and incapable of thinking outside the box. Our school leaver apprentices put them to shame.

in fact, I would go so far as to say all this hothousing stamps out curiosity and innovation. kids don't have time to experiment. They need to be perfect. True understanding comes from pushing intellectual boundaries.

I can assure you that many grads don’t aspire to much at all. Just earning is an achievement. I know loads who are working for charities and in poorly paid jobs, even with a masters.

I wouldn't say that working for a charity or in a poorly paid job is necessarily from a lack of aspiration or a "poor career outcome". Not everyone is motivated by money, some people are more interested in making a difference, personal fulfilment and enjoyment, as long as the pay is enough.

Sad if students aim from Uni is money they could earn. Many worthwhile interesting jobs don’t pay more than an average salary

Sometimes satisfaction surveys are a bit of an echo chamber as those who are unhappy will definitely fill it in whilst those who have a great time often don’t bother…
I would visit first and speak to students/get a feel for the place.

Well said @SoTedious and @Parker231.
Is it a coincidence that those on here who advise focusing on highly paid careers are always the well paid lawyers and financiers? It's always the same posters.

DD has always wanted to work in health care related professions. It isn't well paid, but it is what she wants to do. Having health issues herself she doesn't want a 60 hour a week job that burns you out after a few years. And she would hate a desk job.

@RampantIvy - I confess I work in corporate finance but lucky enough to be retiring this year at age 50. When DT’s were born both DH and I took our foot off the career paths we were on to continue with interesting careers but less hours and much more family life.
I went to Uni with no idea of what I wanted to do but got interested in a graduate programme with lots of different opportunities.

@Parker231 your views aren't typical of those held by some of the others I see on here. There are many ways to a fulfilling career. For some money is the only motive for others job satisfaction is more important.

But I think we can sll agree that everyone wants to be well recompensed for what they do, whatever they choose to do.

I find the idea that all 18 year olds know what they want to do in life – and hence can choose their A levels and degree course accordingly – absolutely bizarre.

Across all my 3 DCs friendship groups I would say only 3 knew what they wanted to do at that stage – 2 wanted to be doctors and 1 wanted to be an actor. Some of the others may have had some ideas, but to the extent of choosing their academic subjects, no way.

@SoTedious I was responding to a poster who thought all Dc enter university wanting a good job afterwards. I’m merely pointing out lots don’t get them. Whether they really want those low paid jobs is another topic. Grads do take low paid jobs anyone could do. Grads are not employed in graduate jobs. That’s my point. I don’t care if it stacking shelves or working for a charity rattling a tin, but saying that’s what they aspired to is pushing it. What it shows is we need a proper appraisal of grad jobs and “best fit” courses and how to put together a meaningful cv.

Plus are we really happy as a nation to spend billions of £ on student loans so grads work in non grad jobs? Thousands every year do this and barely pay back any loan. Surely investment by the uk should be checked for value?

@thing47 Obviously not all 18 years olds but stem Dc have clearer objectives. Apprentices must know! It’s how you get employment . Others need, if possible, to give serious thought to it. Or, as we all know, jobs that please DC are not available to them. Lack of sensible work on cv. Lack of doing anything extra beyond the degree to stand out. Not writing well. Plus we also know around 12% of graduate work is done by non grads. So the degree surely needs to count?

We can all find Dc who didn’t know what they wanted to do and they mostly don’t do science or vocational degrees. We know some degrees have better employment stats than others, but most advisers ignore that info. The conversation is important. Naturally some never know. Some work it out. Some are never going to get what they want due to ludicrously stiff competition Others get on really quickly. Others won’t ever buy a house and will stay at home. Surely talking about the future and planning makes sense?

'Well recompensed'? What does that mean?

There are always massive arguments about salary. And they always involve teachers/nurses vs lawyers/bankers.

There's a whole world of other jobs and paths in between that somehow get ignored. Not to mention that for the former it's more about workload rather than base salary.

At the end of the day we need an educated population, yes, but going away to university is a massive financial commitment. Fair enough if students go to explore, and open their minds. But many just see it as an avenue to 'get a job' and are disappointed when their earning capacity isn't more than their non-uni educated peers.

Believe it or not, despite people going on about 'free uni' etc we have one of the most educated populations in Europe, based on 2021 statistics age 25-34. Has that translated to better productivity?

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Educational_attainment_statistics

https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=GBR&treshold=10&topic=EO

I had a lot of faith in academic education but with what I have seen since I've been senior enough to recruit and gotten more involved in training - it's really just a piece of paper. I don't find graduates more productive, more easily trainable or quicker off the mark than non-graduates, solely based on the fact that they have a degree!

There’s a big difference between grads though. Remember some courses are very “taught”. Some parents value this very highly and cite that as a major reason why Dc chose that university. Others expect DC to do far more research themselves and be guided. Universities offering greater breadth of courses and options means a better insight into a subject. Writing essays helps a lot too. Working at a fast pace also helps when grad works. As you can see, many parents don’t remotely care about productivity of the uk. That’s for others to worry about.

We probably don’t see much difference between those with degrees and those without at the margins. So having less get a degree doesn’t matter if companies trained and day release was widely available. The problem is that it isn’t as much as it should be so the default position is a degree.

The fact that more degrees
holders hasn’t improved productivity is not surprising. So many don’t work in anything productive. People need far more skills than a degree gives. Not enough bother to do anything extra to improve the cv. Expectation can certainly exceed ability.

I didn't go to a Russel group - and it was still top 10 in the country. Hasn't affected my work at all.

People put too much store by the RG branding.

That’s interesting as I think my son is considering that but was worried it’d be too quiet/isolated, we don’t know the area and I haven’t been to Canterbury for many years. We should explore that option.

I visited with a friend as their DS was there. Lovely city and campus and easy access to France for stocking up with beer at the hyper market!

Late reply but we’ve investigated it online. It does do his preferred course but it’s a very difficult journey for him from where we live so that will have to be taken into consideration (not just the length but the trains and changes and costs).

While happiness is important, using times ranking of student satisfaction as the holy grail to pick a university is a naive and immature way to go about it.

Well this is very much thrown into question now with university blind recruitment. If a potential employer will not know which university you went to how valuable is it to attend a top ranking university? Surely then better to look at happiness, drop out rates etc

Does it though?

DS went through several rounds of recruitment for various public sector and think tank internships, and came across fellow candidates from places like Westminster U and Oxford Brooks. Final round, and others emerged ashen faced from what DS thought had been a reasonably easy competency test. Truth is the LSE has a cohort that mostly enters with an A* in Further Maths and is highly motivated. First or 2.1, econometrics students from there will have covered a lot more ground. At the end of the day some employers for some jobs will be looking for technical skills.

With all this student satisfaction stuff. In my head the first think I think off is this "you go to University to study and get an education so you can get a job. The social/party life is secondary"

That isn't though because the employer looked at the CVs and picked those from LSE. Its because those who got into LSE in the first place are likely to have needed immaculate grades and further maths to get in. So they will naturally do better in assessments and this is I think borne out by the current limited amount of research done on university blind recruitment. It's actually increased the number of offers to candidates from top universities since there is no active, deliberate selection of those who went to lower ranking universities.

So the upshot of that is that if you're an A* candidate then with university blind recruitment it shouldn't really matter which university you go to. You can pick one that scores highly on the happiness scale if thats where you want to go.

I don't understand your point. . Public sector assessment usually starts off with some sort of situational judgement type test, then a Zoom interview. These will be institution blind, so no chance of the employer selecting those from LSE over those from Westminster U, though I assume there are some sorts of filters, like perhaps getting a first in your first year exams and having studied certain subjects. At some point after that a much smaller number of applicants will be invited for in-depth interview including group exercises and a competency test. The competency test is what will sink those who do not have a strong technical background.

Weirdly when applying for his preferred job, where an LSE Masters in Econometrics would have traditionally guaranteed an interview, especially as he had narrowly missed an internship the previous year (he achieved the standard required but not enough places, so essentially runner up) DS was filtered out at the situational judgement stage, so did not get as far as initial Zoom interview, though he did get onto a reserve list for the US equivalent.

(DH is a public sector economist and he says having the sifting done centrally, though technically fairer, means that the candidates he sees tend to be very samey. No room for the interesting and quirky who have unusual skills or background that might be of use to the team.)

Modern recruitment is very odd and there will be times when having the skill set or having studied at a well known institution does not appear to help. But you can't take education away. It is worth placing weight on a degree course that will give you good quality learning that is likely to be of use in your chosen career. I note the NHS has just announced they will drop using the Situational Judgement test to allocate new doctors to their foundation year posts. Instead students will put down preferences and then places will be allocated randomly.

For some jobs like law the process starts with typing in various grades eg for some firms needing at least AAB, then passing the psych tests - Watson Gl, then you may be looked at by a human in HR if your scores are high wherever you went.

I do think university is a bit like picking a secondary school - if your children are surrounded by others who aim high they are likely to do so too - peer pressure so even if there is as much chance getting the job of your dreams from Sunderland ex poly as Durham it can be better to pick Durham