York, Durham, Exeter

[GodessOfThunder]

These universities seem feature in a disproportionate amount of discussion on Mumsnet as institutions commenters see as desirable for their DC to attend. Obviously they are well regarded universities, but why do they attract more discussion here than other Russell group universities, especially those in northern and midlands post-industrial cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham and Birmingham?

A few possible reasons were suggested by DH:

• They enjoy an undue level of perceived prestige due to being in smaller old cities/towns like Oxbridge
• The Mumsnet user base is skewed towards the SE and biased against post-industrial cities. Mumsnetters are less likely to be familiar with them and hold “grim up north” perceptions.
• There is a “showing off” factor in starting threads and commenting that DC has applied for, or attends, these institutions - the same goes for the “Oxbridge support” threads, the like of which you never see for red bricks.

Does anyone agree, or are there other explanatory factors?

Thanks @PPiggywaspushed - yes, I always highlight for those NI DC considering QUB, that it could be quiet at weekends, as a lot of its students go home - very similar to TCD, UCD and DCU in Dublin.

But more just being an information service as opposed to a 'Don't go there' lol.

It's positives, aside from getting a high quality education, are small city, cheap accommodation and cost of living, and easy access by train and bus to beautiful countryside and beaches etc

Contextual offers are a bit of blunt instrument, to be sure. The processes and procedures could definitely do with some refinement.

I don't agree about unintended side effects, however, as contextual offers have a fairly limited purpose – all they do is encourage pupils to apply to universities they might not otherwise have considered.

Most companies and professions which recruit graduates aren't interested in A level results, they just want people with degrees. Similarly if you are applying for a Masters the vast majority of universities do not ask for your A level grades. A levels are really just the gateway to the next stage.

Much appreciated

Good list from send -
"If you rank the universities by their average entry standards as per CUG, removing the Scottish universities the list is as follows
1.Cambridge
2.Imperial
3.Oxford
4.LSE
5.UCL
6,Durham
7.Bath
8.Bristol
9.Warwick
10.KCL.
11.Manchester
12.Exeter
with York at 17."

That is not out of line with my views (nor 1982 when I went even... when I ruled out London , didn't try Oxbridge and Durham and Bristol didn't make ie offers and I went to no.11)

So on this which was also my point
"Delphigirl · Yesterday 22:10
So are exeter and York mediocre unis that rich white kids go to so they meet more of their own and mumsnetters rate disproportionately for their quality, or elite institutions that kids from poorer backgrounds would love to go to but the concentration of rich kids acts as a barrier to entry?

because after 23 pages I am no longer sure"...

We can probably agree the univertisites on send's list are all pretty good as have high entry requirements so if private schoolers go more to one of them and state schoolers another it doesn't really matter too much particularly as no one is saying any of these goods ones are 100% private school pupils or 100% state.

In fact, using entry standards as a metric is pretty pointless unless the student in question is intending to become a lawyer. Most other professions won't give a monkey's about your A level results as a graduate, and nor will the vast majority of universities if you wish to undertake a higher degree.

Adding the actual scores makes for a quite interesting distribution. Calling slightly into question the inference from the statement from this Durham and Exeter do end up with students with high entry standards. On the basis that the simple placement ranking does not show that the Exeter average entry score is far closer to York's that it is to Durham's.

As per Send's list Cambridge is top with 209 from a maximum of 212. Imperial and Oxford very close behind. The scores then fall away quite sharply.

Durham 6th with 185, 24 pts less than Cambridge; whilst Manchester completes the top 10% with average entry score of 167; 42 less than Cambridge. Apply that 42 pt gap again takes us just into the third of unis with the lowest scores, although that again is a slightly simplistic approach.

Exeter on 164 just behind Manchester, and much closer score wise to York's 157.

Surrey's overall placement of 13th in the CUG perhaps raised some eyebrows; and entry wise, though in the top 30%, it has a score of 143

I was perhaps most surprised by Oxford Brooks, 46th in the overall table, expecting maybe a mid-range score; whereas it comes in at the edge of the lowest 20% with 118.

The scores then fall away quite sharply.. That is likely to be contributed by which universities have very strong STEM or economics departments and therefore a higher frequency of students with 4 A levels due to FM A level being the norm.

Good points including about Exeter. It used to be thought lower than Durham, Bristol etc and sounds like it still is, although still good.

The interesting point above that choosing by how hard it is to get in a(ssuming that is mostly an academic test, not that you are impoverished, (what is probably my main metric)) is only worth doing if you go into law, I am not sure that is really the case. My sons' friends who have gone into big banks, larges accountancy practices, one is a quant, basically all the very high paid graduate jobs I bet it helps to have gone to a very hard to get into university and that you have very high grades. Any job that in essence requires a high IQ it probably helps to have a high IQ, high exam grades and went to a university with similar other people for a whole raft of reasons.

My sons' friends who have gone into big banks, larges accountancy practices

All fairly similar city jobs though.

Obviously I'm influenced by what DD's friends did and geographical location, but as she did a STEM degree she and her friends are either involved in scientific research or healthcare careers, and two of them are prison officers.

DD said she would like to experience living in London at some point, but it isn't a forever goal for her.

My sons' friends who have gone into big banks, larges accountancy practices

most of the larger accountancy and consulting firms use blind recruitment so the Uni is irrelevant. My best graduates did not come from a RG.

Any job that in essence requires a high IQ it probably helps to have a high IQ, high exam grades and went to a university with similar other people for a whole raft of reasons.
Assuming that the quality of academics is equivalent, it is still very likely that the teaching style and syllabus content will be adjusted down at university A if their students are on average have lower entry qualifications. A high IQ student will therefore be less challenged at that university unless they are self starters who actively seek opportunities to develop themselves independently of what their fellow students are doing.

Does being an accountant or working in the City require a higher IQ than other typical graduate jobs?

Define “best”. Most in some jobs are from RG. Not just law either.

Also many firms do look at A levels @thing47 . Maybe not in your world, but in many others the whole person is considered, especially in firms employing grads with a humanities degree. Although it by no means influences a final decision, it might cut out someone with CCC at A level from a long shortlist. Of course other skills and attributes are considered but it’s surprising how interviews and tests still give RG plus grads the edge in employment. There’s some movement but not much. Many choose RG plus for masters after non RG degree don't they? Why is this?

There is also far too much reliance on employers not looking at info about a student on mn. It’s not the case universally. Far from it.

I meant to add, the issue with QUB is that for mainland based students, they fly in and out. Quiet weekends might result in a lot more flights home which is not desirable. Plus, for law, the student isn’t really networking as effectively as they might say, in Manchester, with regard to employment. This might not matter, but it could.

Definitely not - I’ve a 1st from LSE but it hasn’t made me a better accountant that someone who joined with A levels and worked through the apprenticeship programme or went to a Uni never spoken about on Mn

@boys3 I think Surrey is popular as it’s very safe and middle class. Anecdotally, if you cannot get to Exeter, Surrey is the back up and respected. It depends very much how you view entry standards. It’s seen as very good for those who probably get top 15 but who have potential. It isn’t really top 15 in the eyes of many but it might be gaining as Newcastle and Liverpool seem to loose their standing in the rankings. The comfortable, quiet nature of Surrey is a big draw.

You also don’t really understand Oxford Brookes. It’s loved by the less academic privately educated. They often get jobs that punch above the university. The draw of Oxford is huge and it has easy access to/from London. Certainly seen as similar to Reading and Royal Holloway with Surrey sitting above these.

Indeed, @RampantIvy it's so funny, whenever I point this out it's always the same few posters who jump in with 'oh they're really important for this, that and the other job', all of which turn out to be in law or City finance. Newsflash: there's a whole world of other professions out there where your A level grades will not matter if you have a degree. What percentage of graduates go into law or big City finance jobs? Maybe they're over-represented on MN, but IRL, a tiny number.

All A level grades tell you is how someone performed across 3 or 4 subjects in exams taken when they were 18; they tell you vanishingly little about what they are capable of 3 (or 4) years later once they have a more focused approach, and once the inequalities of schooling have (to a certain degree, sic) been levelled out. And @Xenia if you think the 'brightest' 18-year-olds will de facto be the 'brightest' 21-year-olds, that belief is not born out by any of the pedagogic educational research. About 2% get top grades all the way through school and university, the rest experience peaks and troughs during their education.

Many choose RG plus for masters after non RG degree don't they? Why is this?

@TizerorFizz I don't know (as in, I'm not privvy to any data on the subject) but I would hazard a guess that this is because the raison d'etre of the RG is its reputation for research. So if you want to get into research it makes sense to target those institutions for higher degrees.

I don't think it is because they are perceived as 'better' per se, but they might offer more opportunities for involvement in original research, and the chance to work for someone renown in the field.

For me, at least, this thread has illustrated the need to question many of the perceived hierarchies around education and employment that get presented as unassailable truth: which universities are “best”, what employers’ supposed preferences are, which jobs are “high IQ”, A level results, and so on.

Some will resist as their personal self-esteem, for various reasons, is tied up with Durham being, say “second only to Oxbridge”, or Exeter being somehow more prestigious than a bunch of its peers. But for everyone else, doing so opens up more options and opportunity.

Well I certainly know plenty of you g people who got good but perhaps mediocre A level grades who are now earning a lot of money in law and finance and consulting. And some (DD included) who had top grades throughout who went into academia and won't be earning anywhere near as much.

She dodged finance despite her 'top' maths degree and top A level results. She can see contemporaries earning far more but so far isn't . Complaining. He work is very interesting indeed,

My rambling point is that it's also about choice.

Maybe they're over-represented on MN, but IRL, a tiny number.

I think they're possibly over represented in my life too. Of my Durham cohort, everyone (bar a couple) went into law, investment banking, consultancy and accountancy.

The same is broadly true of the parents I've met through school, although I know a fair few doctors. But property is expensive so I guess you get a higher than normal proportion of high earners amongst your peer group, often in law or finance.

Godessofthunder "These rankings seem to support that quite a few of Mumsnetters “favourite” universities (Durham, St. Andrews, York, Exeter) aren’t exactly world-beating, or even in the second tier behind Oxbridge when one looks only at the UK institutions listed.

Exeter and York are consistently in the top ten for many of their respective departments and this is a fact that's been well known for decades.

Both have won the ST's "University of the Year," and both frequently make the short list. York is extremely highly regarded for English and history. Its chemistry and biology departments make the top ten across most of the tables in most years. To suggest that Exeter or York are in some way sub-par academically, is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being white, rich and clever. There's an undercurrent on some of these threads that seems to be insinuating that there are innate character flaws in people who happen to be privileged.

If the top universities, mentioned on this thread, are enrolling students who are white, rich and stupid, then that would be a talking point.

There's no evidence of that nowadays, even though that may have been a widely held suspicion about past admissions practices at some places.

As mentioned by another poster, students need to be able to integrate with people that they might not have had much familiarity with before university.

The best jobs will be highly populated by the rich and clever as they have had a head start in life. A prospective employee will have to fit in with these people, as these types will predominate. Otherwise, the student with ingrained prejudices is going to have a hard time getting on and advancing in the workplace.

Being open minded and accepting can get people a long way ahead.

That said: nobody likes a conceited twit, who's oblivious to the leg-ups and unearned privileges that they may have been lucky enough to have had.

Do you happen to be a Conservative Party voter by chance?

@thing47 I think you mention your STEM DD all the time. It’s perfectly reasonable for others to reference university and careers for their DC too. You might not like the careers, or their choices, and find them tedious but that’s MN for you.

I have a DD doing interior design. Didn’t go to any uni ever mentioned. (Except on one specific thread) and is not going to do a masters. Neither of mine have that. Unlike most mn Dc. Certainly no PHDs either and they are not going to teach. The overwhelming advice dished out is from people who teach.I suspect many have done school/university/school or university. No other world of work at all. At least I have worked and volunteered in a number of settings snd DH ran a hugely successful engineering consultancy for decades. Self employed people are very much under represented on here.

I actually laugh at engineering threads where Cambridge and Imperial are the only unis considered and even if DC is BBB predictions the conversation gets round to these two. Nowhere else has any value at all apparently. Often this is steered by posters with no experience of engineering employment but just have had DC recently at these two elite unis. So it’s definitely not all law snd finance and I try hard to only mention law if poster actually asks what to do for that career as indeed does Xenia. Others are, of course, totally free to mention being a mechanic , driving a train and hairdressing.