University snobbery

[nysw]

Just wondering if anyone has come across this from adults/parents?

That is all

My DD (who's going through the process now). And it's because of what everyone tells her. She applied unsuccessfully to Cambridge and to see people's eyes light up when she told them she was considering applying made her think it was the holy grail. She now has the choice of Durham vs Bath, and Bath I think is better for the course, but two people (not particularly knowledgeable) have said 'oh Durham is so much better'. So now she thinks she should go there. She's a very unassuming kid I'm surprised how influenced she's been by the 'reputation' of whatever uni.
As for league tables: Oxford is rated number two for her subject, but it doesn't even offer it at an undergraduate level. I don't understand that at all.

Hardly. Since you brought it up, I am not British and only came here well after my PhD. DH attended one of the more well known Cambridge Colleges, received a Distinction at Part III (look it up - the most difficult MSc programmes in the world) and turned down the offer of a funded PhD at Cambridge for a red brick where the research was more to his taste. Looking back, it is difficult to imagine that the choice could have hurt his career.

You do not seem to appreciate those who value deeper qualities than a name

Yes, all my life. I went to an ex poly, it was a very good place to study a vocational course like law. I could have got in other universities with a snob value with my a-levels. I don't regret my choice and made the best decision I could have at the time. University choice is largely based on class and privilege.

Though Sheffield was my first choice, and I didn't quite get in with my grades. I didn't look at Oxford or Cambridge or anywhere south of Warwick. Too expensive to live, too posh etc.

We live in the south east now (18 year old me would have laughed at how posh and expensive) and DD1 only looked at universities up north, apart from Plymouth, without any direct influence from me! She is going to Sheffield, though didn't quite get in with her grades either last year and took a year out. It felt meant to be, somehow.

I didn't think there was that much snobbery about it until dd got her place at Bath. She chose it for the course with placement...

Boss asked me where she'd got, and when I said Uni of Bath, she said "Oh, not going to a Russell group?"

Just thought - wow... how sad that you can't just be happy - Dd is.

Not to mention of course that the most academic course is not necessarily the one that will open most doors especially in creative fields. Of my friends from my youth the one who has almost certainly had the most interesting career is someone who went to Manchester Poly to study textiles- and she's made plenty of money too. She was plenty bright enough to have gone to a "good" University and was indeed told by many that she was wasting her talents by not doing so. But it wasn't the life she wanted and I'd say her decision paid off.
There is something of an assumption on here that academic excellence and well paid white collar jobs are what everyone should aspire to but in reality that isn't the case. (And I did a traditional degree at a now RG University and then had a well paid career so no sour grapes here - I just recognise that other paths to happiness and success are available!)

The poshest and richest people I know have DCs at Bath. So I really do not think it is not posh. In fact, I know plenty of people who would never apply to Oxford or Cambridge even though their DCs do stand a chance. They actively look down on it, I am not joking. Each to their own. They think Oxbridge is nerdy middle class wannabes. So there is really no generalising.

I find this thinking slightly baffling and it smacks of desperately trying to ignore where someone went to University and what their degree was. Why? Inverse snobbery? Chip on the shoulder? Anti-intellectualism? I suppose it depends on the role you're recruiting to, but usually - how can their degree not be important!? If that's the case, then why recruit graduates at all?

If you want to select on skills, then why wouldn't you consider their qualifications and training which are evidence of their skills? If you want to recruit on passion, then why wouldn't you consider the energy, motivation and hard work to achieve the school results necessary to attend a top University? Eagerness to learn - do you not think they have this in spades if they did well enough to attend a top uni and then go on to do well there, and then go on to be shortlisted for a good job interview? It's not about 'treating them differently'. It's about acknowledging that they have achieved something impressive already and that means something. Surely that should be a part of the evaluation process. Or does it mean nothing to you?

It seems to me that you are ignoring real, actual achievements and are trying to recruit based on a feeling about something that may or may not be true. Why not use both? Does it mean nothing to you that a student has the skills, motivation, discipline and hard work to get into Oxbridge / Golden Triangle / RG and then thrive there? You can't seriously say that a good degree from Oxford is the same as one from Brookes!? I think your reverse snobbery is the problem here.

The value of a degree is in personal development, not a tick box achievement. If an Oxbridge graduate is really capable of the job, then they should outshine everyone else at the interview. Why should they need to rely on university name?

You are the one relying on feeling based on university name. Graduate recruitment relies on objective performance during the application process. We recognise that those perform well don't necessarily come from the top universities. So we have open competition.

Why do you think past achievements should be part of the evaluation process?

To get the best young people for the job, recruiters these days need to get away from helicoptered middle class DCs AND from poorer DCs held back by their parents/poorer quality schools. So they use their own processes to discover real innate talent and drive. Psychometric tests etc and different types of interviews are the norm. Why should any graduate be defined by their parents, what type of school or uni they went to. And it works both ways. Plus most businesses have found that teams are far more innovative if they are diverse.

I think some of the higher tier universities rest on their laurels. I have a family member who works at a RG uni and backs this up. I’ve heard similar about Bristol, Newcastle to name two. In terms of boring lectures/late or poor feedback. The lower tier need to work harder to attract students. A lot of them are graded gold on their teaching quality. It’s definitely not black and white. I think employability stats are key. Looking at added value and how they help students differentiate themselves. Also disability support is important and non existent at some universities.

Yes quite. Cambridge/Oxford largely didn't even do the sort of design courses DD1 was interested in.

It is a complicated topic.

1. Clearly it is a fact that some universities have people with very high grades who go there and others with people with very low grades. So saying people with high grades got to X is a fact, not snobbery or a lie.
2. There will also be some universities where people with rich parents go which I suppose is not necessarily those which need high grades as you can be thick as a plank and rich of course.
3. No one should be rude to anyone about where their children are going or insensitive or put their foot in it.
4. If people have career plans it can be best to look at linkedin profiles of previous students who are now in first graduate jobs of the kind of job the student wants to see where they tend to go.
5. The other issue is even if a course is brilliant but requires low grades and is not very popular that affects the type of other student on the course eg if they are not working much or have a high drop out rate or not going after the kinds of jobs you might want that peer group difference can mean university life is a bit different so something to consider.

@gldd your assumptions about employees from RG unis are totally wrong in my experience. Some of the best junior staff I've worked in (in tax) have been from ex-polys, or didn't go to university at all. It's nonsense to say that those who got the highest grades at school are the hardest working/most motivated as that's clearly not true! I only need to look at my own daughter who achieved As and an A star on the back of a very sociable year 13 and a few all-nighters at the end! Obviously some high achievers have worked very hard, but some are just naturally good at taking exams/working quickly under pressure etc and these skills don't necessarily mean much in the workplace. And actually, my son, who is adamant he won't be going to uni (although he might get a degree through a degree apprenticeship if he does well enough) is way more ambitious and motivated than my daughter - that's part of the reason he's not interested in spending three years and all that debt on 'the uni experience'.

None of that is to say that graduates from RG unis shouldn't be hired! But they need to have the right commercial awareness, people skills etc and their prior grades don't say much about that, hence the interview and psychometric testing.

I think the greater difficulty comes in shortlisting. The pre selection can be based on all sorts of things. Lots of employers don't want to waste time on people who won't be a good fit. Lots of employers in the uk aren't huge either. MN always thinks they are. Many are not sophisticated recruiters. They just have a relatively straightforward set of criteria and see who fits best for interviewing. In practical areas of work, RG won't necessarily matter. In fact RG doesn't offer lots of practical courses. If you are recruiting for a general role, there might be a number of reasons to interview or not interview. Totally depends on what type of person is needed.

Well, in certain accredited, professionally-based degrees it is a tick box achievement (medicine, engineering, e.g.). A certain, professionally-mandated standard must be met. All things being equal, I would prefer someone with the highest achievement and skills operating on me or fixing my aeroplane. It's not a case of relying on university name alone - obviously not - but I don't see how you cannot take into account prior attainment at school, and then University, when determining achievement.

It's not a 'feeling' when one student gets three A stars and another has three Cs - one has clearly done better and is a more capable student. Yes, there are differences in schooling and parenting and opportunity, of course - but the exam hall is a fairly meritocratic place - everyone has the same chance of doing well when they go in.

'We recognise that those perform well don't necessarily come from the top universities' - of course, and that's good. I am absolutely not arguing against open competition (as you seem to think I am). I am arguing that describing any degree from any institution as equal is madness and that past attainment is very obviously important. It is clearly not the only thing, and the evaluation process will hopefully draw the others out.

'Why do you think past achievements should be part of the evaluation process?' Er, because they're an indicator of skills, motivation, capability, ability to work hard and focus, etc etc. Why do you think they shouldn't be?

It’s definitely a Mn issue which is very naive as many excellent employers are recruiting blind as where you went to school and Uni isn’t relevant.

Not overall. That doesn't mean that the others are bad, or that your child will have worse outcomes if they go elsewhere.

There are some that rank highly for particular courses - e.g. Sussex ranks #1 globally for Development Studies, UCL #1 for Education, Liverpool #11 for Veterinary Science, Leeds #14 for Geology, Manchester #14th for Chemical Engineering.

Overall, a research study at Durham a few years back put the universities into 4 buckets (see pic). Using a football analogy, you could categorise them as follows:

Cluster 1 - UEFA Champions League (Oxbridge)
Cluster 2 - Premier League
Cluster 3 - Championship
Cluster 4 - League

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03054985.2015.1082905

You're conflating two different things here.
All degrees are the same - of course not. Some are more academically rigorous than others, different modules, etc.
If this is relevant it's taken into account, but we're talking about generalist schemes here.

Where you're going wrong is equating academic achievement to motivation, capability, and other personal traits. You have a very simplistic view, stating that 'everyone' has the same chance in exams. Are you really saying that a well-fed child, with a warm , quiet comfortable home to study in. Has the same chances as a young carer has to look after a parent and possibly other siblings? You acknowledge differences in parenting and schooling but are somehow blind to how this affects exam performance.

Not only that, the ability to focus and pass written exams aren't what's valued in the workplace, beyond a minimum standard. I've interviewed many bright graduates, even from Oxbridge who were clearly very intelligent. But they couldn't communicate effectively as a team, lacked common sense and resourcefulness. Could only 'work hard and focus' when they had set goals. They didn't do so well in a workplace setting with competing priorities and vague targets, interpersonal conflict and changing deadlines.

As employers, we have our own tests to ensure that employees are capable. We interview students, talk about their past experiences, etc etc all of that build a complete picture of a graduate.

The Big4 accounting firms for example are mostly CV blind now and the majority of their graduates, even from erm 'lower ranked' universities pass difficult professional exams while working. They're clearly capable.

Also if you look at a lot of 'top surgeons' they didn't go to the 'top' medical schools but they're all qualified and obviously skilled and capable. If you prefer a university name instead of professional achievements, go right ahead.

FYI I went to LSE , my best mate's currently doing a PhD at Oxford (after a Masters in the same place) and we can 100% confirm.... The book smarts are not always the best hires.

Despite blind recruitment what proportion come from lower ranked universities?

You need higher grades to get into some universities than others, and some courses are known to be preferred by employers. It's unrealistic to pretend that all universities are exactly equal.

I agree, but the snobbery from one or two posters on MN is unbelievable.

@ASighMadeOfStone One poster actually told me that DD's first class STEM degree from an RG university wasn't worth the paper on which it was written! (I only mention the class and group the university belongs to in order to illustrate the horrific snobbery from said poster).

I also think that some posters on MN, albeit a small minority, are unable to see outside their own bubble of big 4/magic circle/city financier/London career and cast aspirations on those who appear to lack ambition because these careers aren't what many young people aspire to.

There are huge differences in the quality of universities in the UK and in the student cohort. They are not the same. In particular it makes a massive difference in one's learning to attend a university with high achieving academically curious students over one where the students are going through the motions. I don't understand why people don't get that.

I get that @Waferbiscuit, but some posters think that unless it is a top 10 university why bother going, which I feel is the wrong attitude. It isn't a case of Oxbridge or a university languishing at the bottom. It is more finely nuanced than that.

DD is planning to do a vocational healthcare related post grad degree. This kind of degree is not found at top 10 universities, but as it is accredited by a professional body it doesn't matter where you do it.

Health is almost certainly an area where skills matter more. If you were recruiting a history grad for a different role, you would have different requirements. Also why are we having this cloak and dagger about some evil posters? Is it “they know who they are”? Seems a bit off. Also posters are allowed to have different views. How boring to agree all the time.

It’s now being recognised that uni blind can often produce the same results as not uni blind. It’s not making others more capable or better at the selection tests. I’ve actually heard it’s doing the opposite. However employers should do what suits them but no one employs a history grad when they are looking for a health grad. It’s usually the grads with transferable skills who are competing against each other in huge numbers. Not sure there is evidence that those with CCC at A level are doing better.

I saw a post saying employers don't look at university grades whatsoever now.

This I disagree with. Barring them having extenuating circumstances like mental or physical health issues. I'm not going to hire someone with a 3rd. They clearly don't know their stuff.

I think it's sad to read that some dc (or parents posting) do not even consider applying to Oxford or Cambridge because it's 'too posh' 'too expensive'. There is a lot of work going into widening participation and encourage applications from groups who traditionally would not apply.
I think the blind recruitment issue is interesting. IMHO having watched my dc and friends dc go through graduate applications I think there are clearly advantages felt by dc attending some universities. Bath and Birmingham (for example - I have knowledge of these universities) have excellent industry links, lots of courses with placement years and I'm sure their grads are perhaps better placed when applying - they perhaps have more insider knowledge or work place skills. Equally many tech and finance employers heavily promote themselves at Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick and Imperial - students attending their recruitment events will be clearer about what recruitment entails, testing etc. So although HR may not look at what University a dc attended you can be fairly sure that some employers will be encouraging applications from particular universities

Bath is an excellent university. It isn't Russell Group though.
While employers may attend career fairs at certain universities,many are organised by students themselves, and there's a lot of information online. Everything you say about online tests etc isn't a secret sites like Target jobs and milkround have lots of info.
I'm sure your DC knows this but If you go to forums like TheStudentRoom, some people even discuss the process and questions in detail!

I do think more prestigious universities have a better career service however many 'vocational' universities which emphasize placements do so as well.

The upshot of it is, the advantages of a prestigious university are seen in a candidate's approach to the application process. Their university name is meaningless. They're unlikely to have benefitted from all of this if all they did was study and get a First. Which is what PP was insinuating, their grades and university name alone deserve extra consideration