Don’t necessarily aim high with uni choices!

[Operafanatic]

My DC had four RG offers and got Astar AA at A-level. They knew they didn’t want to go into law (where uni status still matters) so chose their uni based purely on the course and lifestyle they liked the most. We supported that - despite their prestigious private school's objections (they advocated RG unis only - mainly, I think, because that was/is a performance measure for schools). DC graduated from Swansea last year with a First and is now working in civil service fast stream. If they had gone to another uni, I am not at all convinced they would have got a first - being top of the pack (rather than middling as at school) gave them confidence. More importantly, had the time of their life at Swansea - such a super uni with very high student satisfaction! So question the advice to aim high - sometimes it is better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond! Am mentioning this because my DD in year 13 (predicted all A stars) is about to do the same - Exeter rather than Imperial or Warwick in her case. Eldest DC found that every grad scheme he applied to was university blind anyway!

Exeter is RG so that part of your post doesn’t make sense.

The shift towards uni-blind and uni-agnostic is a good thing. Where there is an issue is at the 2.1/2.2 boundary rather than 1/2.1 boundary in that a 2.2 from Oxbridge might lock you out from some schemes, though more are now relaxing to a 2.2/3 threshold.

Critics of semi-automated multi-stage testing need to appreciate it allows a broader range of applicants to be initially considered and, though time consuming and potentially brutal, is more of a level playing field than one where prejudices can filter unfairly and to the detriment of the organisation as well as individual.

An anonymous forum like this does reveal finely graded prejudices exist. Exeter is serially described as 'obviously' better than Southampton when that is not necessarily the case (depends on course and what the student gets out of it); Southampton, as a port city with a mostly 1970s campus and an intake less skewed to independents and grammars 'presents' less favourably to some students and their parents and so you get a dynamic of socio-economic concentration which does not necessarily reflect students' potential as employees despite what some recruiters or general observers might believe. Uni-blind and uni-agnostic processes help cut through that.

As for the ex-poly vs RG debate, in my experience, some of my very best recruits have come from the likes of NTU, MMU and Northumbria.

Uni-blind or agnostic is fine if the criteria used to sift are themselves independent of the differences between each university.

If an employer uses an aptitude test to select for interview, then obviously it shouldn’t matter which university an applicant went to.

However, if what they do is ask for university degree class, but not actual university, that would be a little odd, because some degrees are harder than others. However, IF they did that, then A-level grades would start to be more important as that would be another way to sift.

Hmm, I'm not sure your DS' experience is the full picture OP. Great that things are working out for him. All I would say, is that the level of professional opportunities that can come their way while at unis like Oxbridge or Imperial / LSE etc are quite significant. Often they don't even need to apply for 'blind recruitment schemes' as they've already been headhunted via their LinkedIn profile (especially if they've got a First and a strong work experience / internship profile).

If you are Uni-blind, why stop there? Why not remove any information about the candidates at all and simply go on independent aptitude testing? Graduates under such a scheme would hopefully have developed aptitude from their degree but it wouldn’t rule out gaining it elsewhere.

The Spectator do this for their internships, I think if you try to slip information like university into your application it knocks you out of the running: https://spectator.com/article/the-spectators-2025-no-cv-internship-scheme-is-now-open/

Even if the application is uni blind I suspect it’s reasonably easy to identify someone’s broad educational background at an interview. My extremely wealthy friend’s son looks wealthy and polished. His clothes are expensive, he is permanently lightly tanned from ski holidays, Barbados for new year, Croatia at Easter, summers at their villa in Spain. He did his year out at JP Morgan in New York thanks to his dad having a connection there. His response to questions like ‘tell me a time when you overcame a problem’ begins with phrases like ‘When I was captain of the polo club…’

He’s no rocket scientist but his appearance and demeanor quietly scream top independent school and posh RG uni. In short, he looks like a Big 4 finance bro and that’s exactly what he’s doing now.

The other thing, I guess, is that we put a lot of store by the grades and/or uni when actually the degree is only one part of the puzzle. For most jobs people don’t need to be superbrainiacs, or in depth subject experts - they can be taught that on the job. Employers want to know if they have leadership shills, can work as part of a team, align with the company culture and values, will have a positive impact on the organisation - all that stuff which can be developed at any uni - if anything the new unis are hotter on employability skills because they recognise their students may need to knock the door harder than students from other institutions.

Yes, that is what the OP is saying. But in my experience of finance jobs, university blind recruitment is not a thing. So it depends what job your DC is interested in.

Fast stream only needs a 2:2 though, so if he did get a lower degree from an RG he’d have still got in… (Not pissing on chips btw - one of mine also a Fast streamer with a 2:2…)

Edited to add: as with lots of other grad schemes it takes lots of practice to get through all the different assessments - my dc applied to many over a couple of years and the hit rate was definitely better in their second year of applying.

The benefit of working hard at a uni (whether Oxbridge or somewhere lower in the rankings) is presumably that you get a great education and develop yourself as a person?

Given that both Oxbridge and LSE will have many more suitable applicants than can be given places not sure why the ones lucky enough to get in should then be given a leg up in applying for jobs.

I think we can be quite limited in what we call "graduate jobs" and skills.

In my field you don't need a degree but the graduates who come in at lower levels tend to rise higher and faster. On the whole they're more flexible, willing to learn and ambitious - of course there are exceptions to this but it's noticeable as a trend.

Your extremely wealthy friend has something else a big financial institution would consider very valuable that other candidates of lesser wealth won’t have - very wealthy contacts. Most firms would be very keen to get someone operating at that level of wealth on board to make use of them and attract their business. If he does a halfway decent job of whatever he is given to do in the role they give him then that would be an extra.

In terms of universities developing employability skills - from what I hear from people recruiting graduates, the opposite is the case.

Is that because they are graduates? Or are they graduates because of it?

@HPFAWhy shouldn't people e.g. those at Oxbridge who have to work harder for their degrees benefit?
@MayaPinion So are you suggesting that uni blind recruitment favours those from wealthy backgrounds rather than intelligence?

I think MayaPinion is saying’blind’ recruitment isn’t particularly blind.

Yes, I’m saying blind recruitment isn’t particularly blind. I’m also saying quite a few professions are ‘old boys’ clubs, and knowing the right people, wearing the right school tie, and having the right accent, is a passport into them. People are more likely to like and trust people who are similar to them.

One person's experience does not a statistic make.
It may have worked out for one child; I can give plenty of counter examples too.

Many places have found that uni-blind applications actually works the other way: their Oxbridge numbers go up as do the numbers from top unis.

Yes, it might mean they get a first without having to work as hard, but is that necessarily a good thing? Depends on the child. For some they'll work hard enough to pass but not soar wherever they are; for others they will push to be the best they can whatever.

Yes. 100%. I repeat again - my son got A star AA at A-level. His cousin got 3 A stars at A-level. My son got 10 GCES - two grade 9s but otherwise 6s and 7s. His cousin got 10 grade 9s and 1 grade 8. Both read the same degree (Modern Languages) - at the same time - but at different unis (graduating 5 months ago). My son got a First from Swansea. His cleverer cousin (there is no debate in our family about that) got a 2.1 from Cambridge. It is absurd how ppl try to say all degrees are equal - they really are not! Uni blind applications treat them as such though…. My son has benefited from this enormously. Plus he has had a much more relaxed and fun uni experience than his Cambridge cousin. I am not seeking to provoke conflict, just to question the “aim high” mantra prevalent on MN.

Yes we found this - uni blind until final stage. Fair enough I think. Ppl on here seem to think most recruiters aren’t uni blind - whereas most are until final stage(s). Just read articles in press about top grad schemes - AI does the screening!

He'd better hope he's not heading to treasury if he's got university status anxiety anyway

how strange - as I said all successful fast-streamers call themselves fast-streamers - uni irrelevant now. No anxiety at all. Maybe this is (to be charitable) a “meant-to-be funny” in-joke? 😂. Forgive me for not getting it.

Then my question becomes, what made the Swansea course better than that of other higher ranked unis?

Sorry, this is naive. ‘Better’ depends on your YP’s interests and learning style. My DS studied Modern Languages - he did not want a literature-heavy course (so ruled out Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol immedately). He wanted a campus uni. He wanted to go to somewhere where Modern Languages were secure (Nottingham was one of his offers but we ruled it out on open day as they didn’t seem to be committed to it - 4 years later (last month) they cut MFL). He wanted varied modules - film, teaching, translation/tech. He looked at contact hours, assessment methods etc. Finally, DS wanted to be by sea - why not, we are urban. Is this a serious question? Have you really never thought about any of these matters? One of his school friends - a brilliant linguist - ruled out Oxbridge coz she hated the literature-heavy MFL course. She got a First from Newcastle.

I have to work with young civil servants sometimes and this explains their attitude!

So your dc did what most other students do - choose a course they wanted to study, in a place they wanted to live with appropriate grades. This is normal.
You say HE ruled out oxbridge? Surely that wasn’t an option anyway with those gcse grades? It wouldn’t have been ‘aiming high’ it would have been unrealistic. Are you sure you/he haven’t had a lingering feeling of doing less well than the high achieving cousin and now experiencing a bit of schadenfreude now that your dc seems to have ‘caught up’. Did the grandparents talk about the Oxbridge gc a lot?
An oxbridge degree will always have a prestige beyond getting a first from elsewhere though.

But the cousin who went to Cambridge….went to Cambridge. That will still open doors, whether that’s now or in 5 years time. Tbf, getting onto a degree choice for MFL has never been easier than now, it’s just not as competitive as it once was. Getting onto a dentistry degree however, now that’s the tricky one.