Guardian university rankings out yesterday

[TheJollyCoralEagle]

The Guardian University rankings were published yesterday (The Daily Mail rankings are out today as well, but I don't really want to reference that otherwise this might take a political detour which isn't relevant to the conversation)
The usual subjects are at the top. Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, Durham etc. What is interesting is further down. Established, high ranking globally, Russell Group unis like Newcastle and Nottingham at 62nd and 63rd, but Chichester at 26th and Bolton at 32nd
And then the variation between the league tables. Bolton for example is 108th in the CUG and Chichester at 79th.
I know the Guardian uses different metrics to CUG (and the others) but the rankings must have some relevance to each other?
Some good advice is to go look at the subject league tables but even there, that isn't always useful. My son wants to do Quantity Surveying. Speaking to Quantity Surveyors in practice they generally regard Oxford Brookes as one of the top universities for Quantity Surveying yet Oxford Brookes comes in at 12th on the CUG Quantity Surveying rankings. And for Magic Circle law recruitment or investment banking for example, apparently the vast majority of their recruits come from a handful of targeted top universities, but some other universities feature highly in these relevant subject rankings.
I know rankings aren't important for everyone. Some people just want to go to a university that they like for the experience, the city, their friends are going there, it's close to home etc, but for students concerned about getting a job and having to choose between more than 100 universities it's a bit of a minefield!
I know recruiters aren't supposed to look at which university you went to, so maybe rankings aren't such a big factor in the job market any more, but let's not kid ourselves if rankings/reputation/kudos weren't important most students would be going to Leeds Beckett, Northumbria, LJU or Nottingham Trent to have a great social life!

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2024/sep/07/the-guardian-university-guide-2025-the-rankings?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I’d disregard this list. Always choose from research universities.

A lot of law firms now just blank out the school and the university from applications that are passed to sift. So they are otherwise assessed in the normal way.

So are we talking our kids to forget about academic results but just to be shut not at interviews and work out what employers want?

One reason some employers who have very very large numbers of applications have to have a first sift is just pure weight of numbers and not the time to look in detail at everyone. That is often these days with some test like a Watson Glaser and perhaps making people also resit it in person on interview date in case in advance for the first round they are a cheat and had someone else do it. They will also perhaps have minimum academic requirements which of course we want - we need doctors who are able to understand medicine. You can have all the brilliant bed side manner in the world but if you slice the wrong bit of the body because you didn't understand the course then that is not the way we want to go (similarly with my profession law - if you are brilliant with clients but get the contracts all wrong and the client loses £100m then not good....)

I would certainly encourage teenagers to do as well as they can in A levels (and GCSEs) and then at university and go to the hardest one they can get into for a vast range of reasons - meeting different people, perhaps quality of research, even just the peer group can be useful (if all your friends are going into good jobs and you are chatting about applications etc that I think does help if you want your child to have similar aspirations).

Mind you I am particularly bad at all this - I had 25 final interviews during my LLB before I got an offer which is probably a record and have no idea what to tell my lawyer children about what to say at interviews or what employers really want. I told one to wear a suit and tie for one online in house law interview (which he wore) and the senior men interviewing him were in hoodies.

Apologies I don’t understand this so I’m not sure whether it’s a question to me.

to clarify I don’t actually do blind recruitment since I now work in a different role but having initially been against it I do actually think its fair in relation to schools attended. That’s because A level grades are standardised. I don’t think it works in the same way for university degrees since they are not standardised across institutions. However a lot of employers are now doing it. That means the rankings will become increasingly irrelevant.

DS has fabulous grades from a top uni but he struggles with the psychometric and corporate culture tests. It's quite hard to figure out what the right answer is.

Looking beyond the holistic pathways and hardwired thought leadership this Boston Consulting Group piece from last year is interesting

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/ten-lessons-for-universities-prepare-students-future-of-work

though it is not necessarily a deep dive

Sadly, The Guardian is increasingly woeful. I used to be a member but too much of its output was too silly. It's like it's run by a bunch of teenagers (and that's very rude to most teenagers. I think my DD would do a better job.) Maybe Owen Jones was in charge of the list?! That would explain its lack of grasp on reality and it being totally unhelpful.

So only the ones passed initial selections, education background will be blinded.

Education should provide outcomes, not just outputs.

I have wondered when posters have said that their child rejected the chance of a school leadership position in order to focus on grades, and because no one reads a PS anyway. (In fairness we have known a couple of kids where the school advised that they pause everything in order to make the grades they needs to meet either a Common Entrance or a medical school offer, but these were specific examples. Learning to balance the work hard play hard is normally a good thing.)

Resilience, engagement, emotional intelligence, social and team working skills all matter and are part of a child's education. F2 DD has just completed a three week horror schedule of nights and longs on a busy ward full of very sick patients. Her UCAT score will have counted for nothing, and her A level grades for only a little. What will have helped include having been a prefect, having had a demanding schedule of sports training before and after school, or having worked as a chalet host where changeover days could last 16 hours or more.

Yes, top Universities select, so can be used as a quick way for employers to filter applicants. However they won't be the only Universities with suitable candidates and, depending on the alternative filters that are used, blind recruitment may be better or fairer. However apart from perhaps some very specialist jobs, employers will want to see applicants who are rounded and capable, and who can keep going even if the going is tough.

My guess your son is too nice. They want someone that will be more assertive etc.

Well they are at my place - which is a top 10 university. I teach 1st years (am a v senior researcher).

In the Humanities in particular it’s important that students have access to cutting edge ideas.

Dd is doing a degree in theology and at least one of her tutors has done extensive research and written many books. It's really important!

@Ciri

I think you make a good point but I do feel in reality Oxbridge will always be Oxbridge and Oxbridge graduates will still tend to rise the top. I think this explains partially the competition for places.

If blind recruitment is out in place can it truly did an Oxbridge bias for ex ample. If Oxbridge graduates do well in the blind assessment and still keep getting the jobs won't someone say 'well the question a we are asking are biasing toward s Oxbridge educated people so let's try something different'. I am conscious of a public sector scheme where the questions that can be asked are really quite prescribed and don't really allow people to 'shine'. There is an inclusive drive in this sector and I feel as if the profession wants a diverse set of new recruits rather than the best. I think this is a little bit debatable and I know a lot of professionals in the field have reservations. It might vary from sector to sector.

Quite possibly though a good team includes different personality types. A team full of "leaders" runs the risk of being seriously dysfunctional. You need the person who organises the office Christmas lunch and collects the signatures for the Get Well Soon card. You need the nice person who listens in meetings rather than compete for attention, who quietly gets on with stuff when a deadline approaches. Too many alpha types is wearing and part of my concern about HR setting tests that do the filtering. A sensible manager if responsible for recruitment and already aware of too much competition within the team might actively seek someone with a complementary personality.

@mids2019 I know exactly what you are saying. An interview should be a two way exchange. Not merely a set question and one answer. Themes should be developed and explored.

Im HR qualified but some years ago, as a school governor, we needed a new head. The school’s improvement partner came along and wanted the same questions to all candidates (fair enough) but wasn’t happy that I followed up on answers. He said it wasn’t fair because different candidates got different follow up questions based on their answers. My position was, and remains, that it’s not fair to not ask for clarity if an answer is slightly confusing or very interesting! . You should probe and get a fuller explanation. If you don’t, you might not get info you need and interviews are about both parties making sure they are right for the role. A drive towards shutting down discourse is not likely to give the interviewers the full picture to set against the criteria for selection. It’s common sense really but we keep on reinventing the wheel for the next fad that comes along.

Yes. Most organisations need different types of people in a team. However knowing the types in the team already can mean employers look for those who will complement. They might actually need a leader not a follower. Or a good confident speaker or a quiet back room person. This is why the person spec matters.

Yes, same with choosing children aged 5 for a school even - you don't want 25 very noisy ones. You want a mixture. Same at most offices.

https://www.leedstrinity.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/law/#course--entry--content

So if we take blind recruitment it would be a perfectly valid exercise to interview Leeds trinity graduates (no A level tariff) alongside Oxford graduates for legal positions. We would have the situation where either the firm is wasting interview time or there is a realistic prospect of the Leeds trinity graduate getting the role. In all honesty which is the more likely scenario?

It seems to me for logistical reasons you need some filters for blind recruitment. The problem is of that filter is say university degree class you may be interviewing your 1st class Leeds trinity graduate and not your Cambridge 2:2 graduate who narrowly missed a 2:1. If we use experience or a private statement then the private statement could have been written by an external source or the course designers of Leeds Trinity could pack in work experience at the expense of academic content to get their graduates at least through the door to interview. Seems to me this may not be the best way to recruit talent.

Blind interviews seem to often used at least in my experience in the public sector where there is an established inclusivity ethos. For an example a hospital trust may be under pressure as a major local employer to select candidates from deprived boroughs in its loclaity . Personally the questions I have seen that have to be put forward to candidates do not stretch them or allow more in depth questioning all in the interest of fairness. The questions are designed to not bias towards middle class applicants by having questions of a difficulty rating such that they are more likely to be answered well by a graduate of a higher status institution. The process discourages talent applying and results ime some unfortunately poor choices which has consequences in their employment.

Perhaps online, timed, remote aptitude tests? Low effort for the firm and scalable.

Yes, people could cheat. But this is the case for most university exams and essays too. (DD would dearly love to have final exams in person, and proctored, but her “prestigious” university can’t be bothered.)

My DS is being interviewed by AI. very disconcerting.

Cheating might get you past a the initial filter but you'd be liable to fall down at the next hurdle if you got through to in person interviews.

despite the Guardian officially being one of the most respected UK media outlets for the quality of it's reporting

😂😂😂😂😂😂

I hope this does not come across as insulting but if we take science and those that have traditionally made great strides in scientific endeavour the majority do come from Oxbridge.

But that could simply reflect the age of the university. The only universities that existed prior to 1800 were Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen (plus Marischal College which merged with Aberdeen in 1860) and Edinburgh.

There were obviously some major scientific strides before 1800, eg Newton but the pace accelerated later. Manchester was home to some significant work.

Wait... what?
How would that work? What subject for?