Top 20 Universities - a question

[Samsonknight]

Many people my age who will be going/applying to University for the first
time, are mesmorised by the reputations of prestigious universities. So it
is widely believed that if you goto a somewhat "prestigious University" the
chances of getting a job at somewhere "prestigious" with a good pay salary
are higher then the person that got the same degree with the same
qualification at a "lesser university".

Is the above true? My own personal view on this whole issue, is that it
comes down to working experience more then anything else, and the applicant
(who is applying for that position) personality. So, providing that you get
a good degree 2:1, 1st, then the above should not matter so much. Or am I
wrong?

[geletine]

I feel of the same opinion, some "prestigious Universities" have
undergraduate masters courses, where others may not.

I am hoping the days are changing when this happens, as many have
identical courses as you mentioned.

Prestigious Universities are the first universities that still exist,
within time this attitude should dissapear as they find out the
subjects are tought at a variety of unversities.

I am glad your bringing up good topics.

[Stuart Williams]

Post by geletine
I feel of the same opinion, some "prestigious Universities" have
undergraduate masters courses, where others may not.
I am hoping the days are changing when this happens, as many have
identical courses as you mentioned.

Why do you think this masters/bachelors issue is important? Scottish unis
churn out MAs over four years, while an Oxford Chemist after four years
gets his BA (Hons). Who cares what the letters are? The well-informaed
recruiter knows perfectly well what each degree course involved and what
the likely calibre of graduates from it are worth.

Post by geletine
Prestigious Universities are the first universities that still exist,
within time this attitude should dissapear as they find out the
subjects are tought at a variety of unversities.

Dream on. The prestigious universities don't hold their position through
mere historical precedence: they have built up a stock of academic
capital which is most unlikely to be emulated by ex-polys or many late
60s foundations, though the latter can often boast of certain individual
subject areas where a department has been lucky enough to have
exceptional professors.

SW

[geletine]

I feel of the same opinion, some "prestigious Universities" have
undergraduate masters courses, where others may not.

I am hoping the days are changing when this happens, as many have
identical courses as you mentioned.

Prestigious Universities are the first universities that still exist,
within time this attitude should dissapear as they find out the
subjects are tought at a variety of unversities.

I am glad your bringing up good topics.

[Stuart Williams]

Post by Samsonknight
Many people my age who will be going/applying to University for the first
time, are mesmorised by the reputations of prestigious universities. So it
is widely believed that if you goto a somewhat "prestigious University" the
chances of getting a job at somewhere "prestigious" with a good pay salary
are higher then the person that got the same degree with the same
qualification at a "lesser university".
Is the above true? My own personal view on this whole issue, is that it
comes down to working experience more then anything else, and the applicant
(who is applying for that position) personality. So, providing that you get
a good degree 2:1, 1st, then the above should not matter so much. Or am I
wrong?

If you look at the recruitment patterns of firms like KPMG or Merrill
Lynch or McKinsey, then the answer is yes - their recruits are
overwhelmingly Oxbridge/Imperial/Bristol etc etc. Possibly, science-based
firms are more broad-minded, but I don't have so much anecdotal evidence.

One of the problems with your view is - how do you get "working
experience" that is valuable, except by taking internships with KPMG et
al? If you're heading for Thames Valley, they won't be taking you on in
the first place.

Second, "personality" is not a particularly meaningful concept, divorced
somehow from academic excellence and a CV-ful of interesting placements
and activities. Just what those who are graduates of prestigious
universities have already got.

SW

[geletine]

To sum it up, whoever gets into a Prestigious University, presuming
there get at least 2 1 will get the better job, which brings back the
issue about equal education.

Aless funding is shared out equally , minority students are always
going to get ahead of the majority, and we live in a supposed
democracy.

[John Porcella]

Post by geletine
To sum it up, whoever gets into a Prestigious University, presuming
there get at least 2 1 will get the better job,

Assuming, of course, they are motivated to apply for "better jobs".

which brings back the

Post by geletine
issue about equal education.

Education cannot be equal, for no other reason that people are of different
skills, abilities, motivation and potential.

Post by geletine
Aless funding is shared out equally , minority students are always
going to get ahead of the majority, and we live in a supposed
democracy.

Democracy is the rule of the mob, it is not necessarily about equality of
treatment.

[John Porcella]

Post by Stuart Williams
One of the problems with your view is - how do you get "working
experience" that is valuable, except by taking internships with KPMG et
al? If you're heading for Thames Valley, they won't be taking you on in
the first place.

My point exactly in another post!

Post by Stuart Williams
Second, "personality" is not a particularly meaningful concept, divorced
somehow from academic excellence and a CV-ful of interesting placements
and activities. Just what those who are graduates of prestigious
universities have already got.

Of course, but if many candidates have superb CVs, then it might be
personality (or 'fit') which could make the difference.

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Many people my age who will be going/applying to University for the first
time, are mesmorised by the reputations of prestigious universities. So it
is widely believed that if you goto a somewhat "prestigious University" the
chances of getting a job at somewhere "prestigious" with a good pay salary
are higher then the person that got the same degree with the same
qualification at a "lesser university".

A reasonable assumption! It is not for nothing that some universities are
tougher than others to get into.

Post by Samsonknight
Is the above true?

Generally, yes.

My own personal view on this whole issue, is that it

Post by Samsonknight
comes down to working experience more then anything else,

But how do you get QUALITY working experience? Work experience is, for
example, having a fortnight's experience coding cheques with a high street
bank, but quality work experience is a summer internship with one of the
more prestigious City merchant/investment banks.

and the applicant

Post by Samsonknight
(who is applying for that position) personality.

Okay...

So, providing that you get

Post by Samsonknight
a good degree 2:1, 1st, then the above should not matter so much. Or am I
wrong?

Wrong, I am afraid, in my experience! With so many good candidates, and so
many now getting 2:1s, for the best paid jobs in the City, you really need
to have gone to one of a handful of universities to stand a reasonable
chance. Obvious, there are always exceptions, such as having a relative in
an influential position, or having some rare skill.

[Samsonknight]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Samsonknight
Many people my age who will be going/applying to University for the first
time, are mesmorised by the reputations of prestigious universities. So it
is widely believed that if you goto a somewhat "prestigious University"

the

Post by Samsonknight
chances of getting a job at somewhere "prestigious" with a good pay salary
are higher then the person that got the same degree with the same
qualification at a "lesser university".

A reasonable assumption! It is not for nothing that some universities are
tougher than others to get into.

Post by Samsonknight
Is the above true?

Generally, yes.
My own personal view on this whole issue, is that it

Post by Samsonknight
comes down to working experience more then anything else,

But how do you get QUALITY working experience? Work experience is, for
example, having a fortnight's experience coding cheques with a high street
bank, but quality work experience is a summer internship with one of the
more prestigious City merchant/investment banks.
and the applicant

Post by Samsonknight
(who is applying for that position) personality.

Okay...
So, providing that you get

Post by Samsonknight
a good degree 2:1, 1st, then the above should not matter so much. Or am I
wrong?

Wrong, I am afraid, in my experience! With so many good candidates, and so
many now getting 2:1s, for the best paid jobs in the City, you really need
to have gone to one of a handful of universities to stand a reasonable
chance. Obvious, there are always exceptions, such as having a relative in
an influential position, or having some rare skill.

Yeah, thanks for the info , I just wanted to know what other peoples views
on this are.

What you have said above has also crossed my mind, but then again I have
heard of cases where individuals "work their way up" into more powerful
positions, yet they may not possess the level of education that you have
described. I also know of people who, despite having a 2:1 from oxford etc,
still cannot get a decent job soley because of the fact that they get
dismissed due to no pre-working experience in that field.

Okay, so this brings me to my next point. If having a degree at so and so
prestigious university is of such importance career wise, then why do
polytechnics/less prestigious universities still exist? I mean in all
fairness, if someone goes to a polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and
competes with another applicant who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc
in the same subject area, then they will in theory have no chance in getting
that job -hence their degree is just a waste of time and money. Therefore
wouldn't it be better scrapping these "universities" altogether or just
limit the courses they provide into the more vocational ones , as by doing
this it could save many students time and money.

[geletine]

Samsonknight, i cannot ask for a better response.

A prestigious university has the same subjects , same course work,
exams as a less known university, why not certain universities have x
subjects and other have y subjects, instead of each univesity battling
against each other at the same subjects, I understand availability is
proberly the answer you are going to tell me, but it does not answer
the inequality question, which should not turn to dust.

"Democracy is the rule of the mob, it is not necessarily about equality
of
treatment. "

That could apply to totalitarianism or even fascism, in reality thats
what we are giving and named Democracy.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by geletine
A prestigious university has the same subjects , same course work,
exams as a less known university, why not certain universities have x
subjects and other have y subjects, instead of each univesity battling
against each other at the same subjects, I understand availability is
proberly the answer you are going to tell me, but it does not answer
the inequality question, which should not turn to dust.

But a prestigious university does not have the same subjects, same course
work, same exams as a less known university. University degrees are not
like A-levels. With A-levels, there is a national exam board which
sets the syllabus, sets and marks the exams and the assessed coursework.
With university degrees, universities set their own syllabus, and set and
mark their own coursework and exams. Therefore even if the names of
the degrees at two universities are the same, the style, content and
standard may vary considerably.

This doesn't seem to be that widely known. I often get students who have
done well the 1st year of a degree in a less prestigious university
come to me and ask for direct entry to the 2nd year where I'm admissions
tutor. They are generally shocked and surprised when I say "I'd be happy
to admit you to our 1st year, but I can't admit you to our 2nd year".
They say "But I've been doing the same degree". No, they haven't - they've
been doing a degree in the same subject, but where the material covered in the
1st year is very different, sometimes less extensive or of a lower level,
sometimes just with a completely different emphasis to our 1st year. Since
our 2ns year cpurse units follow on from and develop from our 1st year
course units, they are simply not qualified to take them, they havem't had
the necessary preparation.

Matthew Huntbach

[Samsonknight]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by geletine
A prestigious university has the same subjects , same course work,
exams as a less known university, why not certain universities have x
subjects and other have y subjects, instead of each univesity battling
against each other at the same subjects, I understand availability is
proberly the answer you are going to tell me, but it does not answer
the inequality question, which should not turn to dust.

But a prestigious university does not have the same subjects, same course
work, same exams as a less known university. University degrees are not
like A-levels. With A-levels, there is a national exam board which
sets the syllabus, sets and marks the exams and the assessed coursework.
With university degrees, universities set their own syllabus, and set and
mark their own coursework and exams. Therefore even if the names of
the degrees at two universities are the same, the style, content and
standard may vary considerably.
This doesn't seem to be that widely known. I often get students who have
done well the 1st year of a degree in a less prestigious university
come to me and ask for direct entry to the 2nd year where I'm admissions
tutor. They are generally shocked and surprised when I say "I'd be happy
to admit you to our 1st year, but I can't admit you to our 2nd year".
They say "But I've been doing the same degree". No, they haven't - they've
been doing a degree in the same subject, but where the material covered in the
1st year is very different, sometimes less extensive or of a lower level,
sometimes just with a completely different emphasis to our 1st year. Since
our 2ns year cpurse units follow on from and develop from our 1st year
course units, they are simply not qualified to take them, they havem't had
the necessary preparation.
Matthew Huntbach

So how can you tell a good university from a bad one? I would look at league
tables, but I have read on here a few times that they are not a good source
for this.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
So how can you tell a good university from a bad one? I would look at league
tables, but I have read on here a few times that they are not a good source
for this.

The words "good" and "bad" here are not the best ones to use. What you
call a "bad" university may do a very good job at taking academically
weak students and giving them relevant training - that's good in its
way, not bad.

What you probably mean is "Which are the universities which are appropriate
for my qualifications?". You'll know the ones where your qualifications
are below what they teach to - they'll reject you. But if you apply to
a university where your qualifications are well above the level they teach
to, they'll welcome you with open arms, and that's what you want to avoid.

League tables can offer some sort of guidance, the caution I've given
about them in the past here is not to be over-reliant on them. Those
around the top will be the "good" universities in your terminology,
those around the bottom will be the "bad" ones, and those in the middle
will be the middling ones. But don't think a difference of two or three
places in position means very much. If the main reason you choose
university X over university Y is that X is three places higher in the
league tables than Y, you're being silly - a difference that small
is just minor fluctuation and the positioning could easily have gone the
other way had the figures been weighted slightly differently. A difference
of even ten places probably doesn't mean too much, but a difference of, say,
twenty places is likely to indicate something worth taking into
consideration when making decisions.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What you probably mean is "Which are the universities which are appropriate
for my qualifications?". You'll know the ones where your qualifications
are below what they teach to - they'll reject you. But if you apply to
a university where your qualifications are well above the level they teach
to, they'll welcome you with open arms, and that's what you want to avoid.

As Groucho Marx put it:"I only want to be a member of a club that won't let
me join!"

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
So how can you tell a good university from a bad one? I would look at league
tables, but I have read on here a few times that they are not a good source
for this.

Think about what career you want and then find out if they are fussy about
what was studied and where. For instance you might find that entry is
prohibited unless so many UCCA/UCAS points have been scored, irrespective of
degree class.

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by geletine
A prestigious university has the same subjects , same course work,
exams as a less known university, why not certain universities have x
subjects and other have y subjects, instead of each univesity battling
against each other at the same subjects, I understand availability is
proberly the answer you are going to tell me, but it does not answer
the inequality question, which should not turn to dust.

But a prestigious university does not have the same subjects, same course
work, same exams as a less known university. University degrees are not
like A-levels.

It is years since I attended an Italian university, but I believe that there
is a high degree of centralisation from Rome.

With A-levels, there is a national exam board which

Post by Matthew Huntbach
sets the syllabus, sets and marks the exams and the assessed coursework.
With university degrees, universities set their own syllabus, and set and
mark their own coursework and exams. Therefore even if the names of
the degrees at two universities are the same, the style, content and
standard may vary considerably.

You are referring to the UK.

[John Porcella]

Post by geletine
Samsonknight, i cannot ask for a better response.
A prestigious university has the same subjects , same course work,
exams as a less known university, why not certain universities have x
subjects and other have y subjects, instead of each univesity battling
against each other at the same subjects, I understand availability is
proberly the answer you are going to tell me, but it does not answer
the inequality question, which should not turn to dust.
"Democracy is the rule of the mob, it is not necessarily about equality
of
treatment. "
That could apply to totalitarianism or even fascism, in reality thats
what we are giving and named Democracy.

Nonsense!

A fascist dictatorship involves the rule by one person, not a mob.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...] I also know of people who, despite having a 2:1 from oxford etc,
still cannot get a decent job soley because of the fact that they get
dismissed due to no pre-working experience in that field.

No, no; if it was *solely* for that reason, then no-one would
ever be able to start [decently] in that field. Some people are just
plain unemployable, with or without a 2.1. It isn't always because
they are mildly insane or outright insanitary; there is also a sort
of "otherworldliness" that afflicts some students. If they're good
enough, they can sometimes do research, and even get permanent jobs in
academe [some of the very worst lecturers are there for that reason],
but those who aren't quite that good are lost causes. They tend to
concentrate at Oxford, but every university has them, at around the
1% level. The incurably insane/insanitary are also at around that
level, so you already have a 3% unemployment rate ....

Of course, your acquaintances may have been in other categories;
including those who cannot write begging letters or CVs for toffee [?5%],
and those who think any job below managing director is unworthy [?2%].
There you go -- around 10% of 2.1s, even from Oxford, can expect to be
unable to get jobs, at least until they learn to write/wash/whatever.

Okay, so this brings me to my next point. If having a degree at so and so
prestigious university is of such importance career wise, then why do
polytechnics/less prestigious universities still exist?

Um, because they can each attract thousands of students? And
because any city or region that wants to retain its bright youngsters,
to attract hi-tech employment, to create highly skilled employment
[and also thousands of jobs for cleaners, caterers, secretaries, ...
from the local community] needs to have at least one university.

I mean in all
fairness, if someone goes to a polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and
competes with another applicant who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc
in the same subject area, then they will in theory have no chance in getting
that job

Not "no chance". Employers -- at least, *sane* employers --
are not looking just for a 2.1, but for other skills as well, such
as ability to give presentations, work in groups, work to deadlines
and so on. Plus personal qualities such as grooming, confidence,
integrity, .... And one of the skills that bright people bring to
job-hunting is finding their own niche -- the job that *they* want
and other people don't.

-hence their degree is just a waste of time and money.

Even if your preceding argument was correct, this conclusion
would be false. Education is not, and never should be, just about
getting a job, important as that is for most young people. It is
also about personal development and fulfilment; and about learning
how to learn; and about "networking" [etc].

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...] I also know of people who, despite having a 2:1 from oxford etc,
still cannot get a decent job soley because of the fact that they get
dismissed due to no pre-working experience in that field.

No, no; if it was *solely* for that reason, then no-one would
ever be able to start [decently] in that field. Some people are just
plain unemployable, with or without a 2.1. It isn't always because

Well that was the reason they had given them for why they were rejected. But
yes, your right, there is more to this then meets the eye.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
they are mildly insane or outright insanitary; there is also a sort
of "otherworldliness" that afflicts some students. If they're good
enough, they can sometimes do research, and even get permanent jobs in
academe [some of the very worst lecturers are there for that reason],
but those who aren't quite that good are lost causes. They tend to
concentrate at Oxford, but every university has them, at around the
1% level. The incurably insane/insanitary are also at around that
level, so you already have a 3% unemployment rate ....

Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Of course, your acquaintances may have been in other categories;
including those who cannot write begging letters or CVs for toffee [?5%],
and those who think any job below managing director is unworthy [?2%].
There you go -- around 10% of 2.1s, even from Oxford, can expect to be
unable to get jobs, at least until they learn to write/wash/whatever.

Okay, so this brings me to my next point. If having a degree at so and so
prestigious university is of such importance career wise, then why do
polytechnics/less prestigious universities still exist?

Um, because they can each attract thousands of students? And
because any city or region that wants to retain its bright youngsters,
to attract hi-tech employment, to create highly skilled employment
[and also thousands of jobs for cleaners, caterers, secretaries, ...
from the local community] needs to have at least one university.

I mean in all
fairness, if someone goes to a polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and
competes with another applicant who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc
in the same subject area, then they will in theory have no chance in getting
that job

Not "no chance". Employers -- at least, *sane* employers --
are not looking just for a 2.1, but for other skills as well, such
as ability to give presentations, work in groups, work to deadlines
and so on. Plus personal qualities such as grooming, confidence,
integrity, .... And one of the skills that bright people bring to
job-hunting is finding their own niche -- the job that *they* want
and other people don't.

Which are all skills required for any individual planning to do a degree at
a top 20 uni. So if addition to them skills, if an individual from lets say
Bristol, has those personal qualities that you have mentioned and is
applying for the same job as someone from Thames Valley, who also has the
same skillset , degree as the individual from Bristol, the individual from
Bristol is probably going to have first preference because they went to
"Bristol".

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

-hence their degree is just a waste of time and money.

Even if your preceding argument was correct, this conclusion
would be false. Education is not, and never should be, just about
getting a job, important as that is for most young people. It is
also about personal development and fulfilment; and about learning
how to learn; and about "networking" [etc].

But couldn't I get that by doing vocational courses at my local community
college for a fraction of the price? Whereas, if I went through the whole
universty process, I would (depending on when I start) be in £15k+ debt by
the end of it. So, is it really worth it? - if at the end of it all I am
unable to get the type of job that I wanted to do because of snobbery of
this kind.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
they are mildly insane or outright insanitary; there is also a sort
of "otherworldliness" that afflicts some students. If they're good
enough, they can sometimes do research, and even get permanent jobs in
academe [some of the very worst lecturers are there for that reason],
but those who aren't quite that good are lost causes. They tend to
concentrate at Oxford, but every university has them, at around the
1% level. The incurably insane/insanitary are also at around that
level, so you already have a 3% unemployment rate ....

Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

The "insanity" may be a refusal to conform to the requirements of a job
in a large corporation. Such people may be perfectly intelligent, able
to cope with a degree programme, able to do well on it. But they are
just not going to fit into a role which involves turning up at 9am every
day dressed in a suit, sitting at a desk, interacting with clients, and
doing what the boss tells you. They may find another role in life - as
Andy suggests in some cases as an academic, but that's just one of many
possibilities.

In fact there's often a thin line between the sort of "insanity" Andy
mentions and genius. Some of the most difficult decisions as admissions
tutor involve people who are obviously very bright but also obviously
somewhat abnormal in personality. But sometimes it's a personality
trait that isn't apparent at the start and develops as they proceed
through the degree. In some cases the insanity seems to be linked to
cannabis or other drug use, though what causes what is a matter for
argument.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Samsonknight
Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

Insanity is not a disqualification; some would claim it to
be an advantage, esp at Oxbridge. There is very little distinction
between insanity and genius.

[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Which are all skills required for any individual planning to do a degree at
a top 20 uni.

Not really. If you have AAA in maths, fmaths and physics
then no univ outside Oxbridge is going to turn you down for a
maths degree no matter what the rest of your UCAS form says.
[Short of "axe murderer", anyway.]

Post by Samsonknight
So if addition to them skills, if an individual from lets say
Bristol, has those personal qualities that you have mentioned and is
applying for the same job as someone from Thames Valley, who also has the
same skillset , degree as the individual from Bristol, the individual from
Bristol is probably going to have first preference because they went to
"Bristol".

Very possibly. But that's just saying that "other things being
equal", a degree from Bristol rates higher than one from TVP. In real
life, other things are not equal. The 2.1 from TVP is perhaps competing
with a 2.2 from Bristol, or with a scruffy urchin, or with someone
who has never done a project, or with someone whose CV is a handwritten
and irrelevant scrawl.

[Education:]

Post by Samsonknight
But couldn't I get that by doing vocational courses at my local community
college for a fraction of the price?

There you are again: "vocational courses". OK, for many,
even a large majority, of univ students, the piece of paper with
"2.1 -- Job For Life" written on it is the be-all and end-all of
why they are doing subject X at university Y. Even so, I hope
that *something* of what education is about rubs off. You need
to raise your sights! No matter how excellent your local college
is, "by definition" it is parochial. One of the things we need,
as a community, is for our young people to spend quality time in
other parts of the UK [EU, world], mixing with people [staff and
students] from all over the world, and getting to understand where
they are coming from, both literally and metaphorically.

Post by Samsonknight
Whereas, if I went through the whole
universty process, I would (depending on when I start) be in ^#15k+ debt by
the end of it. So, is it really worth it?

Only you can answer that. If financial problems really do
stop you going to university, that's a problem for society [and if
I had to point to one single thing that this govt has done that is
profoundly wrong, wrong, wrong, it would be not so much tuition
fees per se as the attitude that brings them about]. But if it's
a serious question for you -- "I can afford this, but is it worth
it?" -- then I'm afraid the answer *may* be "No, education is not
for you". Your decision ....

Post by Samsonknight
- if at the end of it all I am
unable to get the type of job that I wanted to do

Why do you have so little faith in your own ability?

Post by Samsonknight
because of snobbery of
this kind.

Snobbery? All you have pointed us at is the fact that a
degree from a top university is better than the same degree from
a bottom university, "better" in the sense of "more valued by
employers". Yes. So? Top Univ has better libraries, better staff,
better students in general, offers courses that are better "informed"
by current research, attracts better seminar speakers, ..., than Bog
End Former Poly. That doesn't mean that BEFP is a waste of space.
It has its own niche, and it may well do a really good job of taking
ugly ducklings and turning them into swans [while TopU may be a total
disaster for weak students]. If it merely turns out failures with
chips on their shoulders about discrimination, *then* it is doing a
rotten job.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

Insanity is not a disqualification; some would claim it to
be an advantage, esp at Oxbridge. There is very little distinction
between insanity and genius.
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Which are all skills required for any individual planning to do a degree at
a top 20 uni.

Not really. If you have AAA in maths, fmaths and physics
then no univ outside Oxbridge is going to turn you down for a
maths degree no matter what the rest of your UCAS form says.
[Short of "axe murderer", anyway.]

Lol.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
So if addition to them skills, if an individual from lets say
Bristol, has those personal qualities that you have mentioned and is
applying for the same job as someone from Thames Valley, who also has the
same skillset , degree as the individual from Bristol, the individual from
Bristol is probably going to have first preference because they went to
"Bristol".

Very possibly. But that's just saying that "other things being
equal", a degree from Bristol rates higher than one from TVP. In real
life, other things are not equal. The 2.1 from TVP is perhaps competing
with a 2.2 from Bristol, or with a scruffy urchin, or with someone
who has never done a project, or with someone whose CV is a handwritten
and irrelevant scrawl.

I see.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Education:]

Post by Samsonknight
But couldn't I get that by doing vocational courses at my local community
college for a fraction of the price?

There you are again: "vocational courses". OK, for many,
even a large majority, of univ students, the piece of paper with
"2.1 -- Job For Life" written on it is the be-all and end-all of
why they are doing subject X at university Y. Even so, I hope
that *something* of what education is about rubs off. You need
to raise your sights! No matter how excellent your local college
is, "by definition" it is parochial. One of the things we need,
as a community, is for our young people to spend quality time in
other parts of the UK [EU, world], mixing with people [staff and
students] from all over the world, and getting to understand where
they are coming from, both literally and metaphorically.

Good Point. One of the many reasons why I have applied to mainly Scottish
universities at the start of this year through UCAS. I felt that getting
away from London would be a good thing for the reasons you have mentioned
above.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
Whereas, if I went through the whole
universty process, I would (depending on when I start) be in ^#15k+ debt by
the end of it. So, is it really worth it?

Only you can answer that. If financial problems really do
stop you going to university, that's a problem for society [and if
I had to point to one single thing that this govt has done that is
profoundly wrong, wrong, wrong, it would be not so much tuition
fees per se as the attitude that brings them about]. But if it's
a serious question for you -- "I can afford this, but is it worth
it?" -- then I'm afraid the answer *may* be "No, education is not
for you". Your decision ....

Well it is getting more expensive now. Top-up fees are only just around the
corner.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
- if at the end of it all I am
unable to get the type of job that I wanted to do

Why do you have so little faith in your own ability?

I have had so many "mathematical knock-backs", rather demoralising. Only now
I am realising my full potential - so late in the day, I wish this could
have been addressed much more earlier on. But anyway my original comment was
based on me talking as though I was in that situation, I am not.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
because of snobbery of
this kind.

Snobbery? All you have pointed us at is the fact that a
degree from a top university is better than the same degree from
a bottom university, "better" in the sense of "more valued by
employers". Yes. So? Top Univ has better libraries, better staff,
better students in general, offers courses that are better "informed"
by current research, attracts better seminar speakers, ..., than Bog
End Former Poly. That doesn't mean that BEFP is a waste of space.
It has its own niche, and it may well do a really good job of taking
ugly ducklings and turning them into swans [while TopU may be a total
disaster for weak students]. If it merely turns out failures with
chips on their shoulders about discrimination, *then* it is doing a
rotten job.

I understand, when making that comment I was under the illusion that a
degree from any university is relatively similar content wise.

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

Insanity is not a disqualification; some would claim it to
be an advantage, esp at Oxbridge. There is very little distinction
between insanity and genius.
[...]

Post by Samsonknight
Which are all skills required for any individual planning to do a degree at
a top 20 uni.

Not really. If you have AAA in maths, fmaths and physics
then no univ outside Oxbridge is going to turn you down for a
maths degree no matter what the rest of your UCAS form says.
[Short of "axe murderer", anyway.]

True, but going to a former poly would pretty much preclude working for some
employers, even if this student got a First cum laude.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[Education:]

Post by Samsonknight
But couldn't I get that by doing vocational courses at my local community
college for a fraction of the price?

There you are again: "vocational courses". OK, for many,
even a large majority, of univ students, the piece of paper with
"2.1 -- Job For Life" written on it is the be-all and end-all of
why they are doing subject X at university Y. Even so, I hope
that *something* of what education is about rubs off. You need
to raise your sights! No matter how excellent your local college
is, "by definition" it is parochial. One of the things we need,
as a community, is for our young people to spend quality time in
other parts of the UK [EU, world], mixing with people [staff and
students] from all over the world, and getting to understand where
they are coming from, both literally and metaphorically.

Yes, perhaps, but should the state be paying for this?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
- if at the end of it all I am
unable to get the type of job that I wanted to do

Why do you have so little faith in your own ability?

I suspect that what SK means here is that even if capable and able, if the
'wrong' university has been attended then the doors are pretty much shut for
certain firms.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Samsonknight
because of snobbery of
this kind.

Snobbery? All you have pointed us at is the fact that a
degree from a top university is better than the same degree from
a bottom university, "better" in the sense of "more valued by
employers". Yes. So?

So things are not really equal! I think this is the point being made! For
a young person, this can come as a surprise. The more elderly amongst us
learnt it through bitter experience.

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Why are these insane individuals let onto the degree course in the first
place?

They got the right grades and either were not interviewed or did not display
symptoms if they were!

Post by Samsonknight
Which are all skills required for any individual planning to do a degree at
a top 20 uni. So if addition to them skills, if an individual from lets say
Bristol, has those personal qualities that you have mentioned and is
applying for the same job as someone from Thames Valley, who also has the
same skillset , degree as the individual from Bristol, the individual from
Bristol is probably going to have first preference because they went to
"Bristol".

If you are thinking of certain City employers, then the fellow from TV would
not get an interview at all.

Post by Samsonknight
But couldn't I get that by doing vocational courses at my local community
college for a fraction of the price?

"Fraction of the price" for whom? Vocational courses at FE colleges are
typically subsidised by the state at about 75% (reducing to 70% soon). If
the person is young or on benefits then these subsidies can rise to 100%.
It may be cheap for the student, but dear for the state.

Whereas, if I went through the whole

Post by Samsonknight
universty process, I would (depending on when I start) be in £15k+ debt by
the end of it. So, is it really worth it? - if at the end of it all I am
unable to get the type of job that I wanted to do because of snobbery of
this kind.

There's the rub!

[John Porcella]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...] I also know of people who, despite having a 2:1 from oxford etc,
still cannot get a decent job soley because of the fact that they get
dismissed due to no pre-working experience in that field.

No, no; if it was *solely* for that reason, then no-one would
ever be able to start [decently] in that field.

No! No! No! There are sometimes work experience courses or summer
internships available which occur before working in the field as a graduate
career.


Some people are just

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
plain unemployable, with or without a 2.1.

True!

It isn't always because

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
they are mildly insane or outright insanitary; there is also a sort
of "otherworldliness" that afflicts some students. If they're good
enough, they can sometimes do research, and even get permanent jobs in
academe [some of the very worst lecturers are there for that reason],
but those who aren't quite that good are lost causes. They tend to
concentrate at Oxford, but every university has them, at around the
1% level. The incurably insane/insanitary are also at around that
level, so you already have a 3% unemployment rate ....

Heh-heh!

[Becky]

Post by John Porcella
No! No! No! There are sometimes work experience courses or summer
internships available which occur before working in the field as a graduate
career.

For what I'd like to do, there are internships in abundance but few of
them are paid. I've applied today for the one paid internship (£50
per day) I've come across, but I'm sure the competition will be huge.
My family isn't able to support me for the duration of an unpaid
internship - and, being 24, I'm not sure I'd really like them to - so
it leaves me in a difficult position.

This actually irritates me rather a lot. I appreciate that these
organisations and individuals (think tanks and other research
organisations, some of the bigger charities, even MPs) don't have money
to throw around, but even an honorarium would be something. It's an
irony not lost on me that many of these are left-leaning organisations
specialising in social inclusion and the like, yet they effectively
exclude potential employees on the basis of their income.

Instead, I'm applying for jobs sort-of-related to what I'd eventually
like to do, in the hope that I can make a 'sideways' move in a year or
so into the area in which I'd like to work (or at least put a bit of
money behind me and reconsider an unpaid internship later). While I
recognise that this is a pretty normal way in, it's still really bloody
annoying that there are other avenues from which I'm debarred due to my
financial background.

Becky

[John Porcella]

Post by John Porcella
No! No! No! There are sometimes work experience courses or summer
internships available which occur before working in the field as a graduate
career.

For what I'd like to do, there are internships in abundance but few of
them are paid. I've applied today for the one paid internship (£50
per day) I've come across, but I'm sure the competition will be huge.
My family isn't able to support me for the duration of an unpaid
internship - and, being 24, I'm not sure I'd really like them to - so
it leaves me in a difficult position.

This actually irritates me rather a lot. I appreciate that these
organisations and individuals (think tanks and other research
organisations, some of the bigger charities, even MPs) don't have money
to throw around, but even an honorarium would be something. It's an
irony not lost on me that many of these are left-leaning organisations
specialising in social inclusion and the like, yet they effectively
exclude potential employees on the basis of their income.

Not really inconsistent at all! The left seems to have a disgust for money.
You want to work for pseudo-left politicians like the champagne "socialists"
who appreciate a good income!

[Becky]

Post by John Porcella
Not really inconsistent at all! The left seems to have a disgust for money.
You want to work for pseudo-left politicians like the champagne "socialists"
who appreciate a good income!

Sorry? The left has a disgust for giving people a wage?

Becky

[John Porcella]

Post by Becky

Post by John Porcella
Not really inconsistent at all! The left seems to have a disgust for money.
You want to work for pseudo-left politicians like the champagne "socialists"
who appreciate a good income!

Sorry? The left has a disgust for giving people a wage?

By 'money', I was implying plenty of it, not a minimum wage.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Samsonknight
Okay, so this brings me to my next point. If having a degree at so and so
prestigious university is of such importance career wise, then why do
polytechnics/less prestigious universities still exist?

Because there are not enough places at the more prestigious universities
for everyone who wants to do a degree.

Post by Samsonknight
I mean in all
fairness, if someone goes to a polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and
competes with another applicant who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc
in the same subject area, then they will in theory have no chance in getting
that job -hence their degree is just a waste of time and money.

It is not the case that *every* job opening which asks for a graduate
insists that graduate comes from one of the more prestigious universities.

While going to a more prestigious university may make it easier to get
into certain jobs at certain companies, once you have a job and are
looking to move to another, no-one cares what university you went to.
All that matters is how well you did in the previous job. These days
most people don't stay in the same company for life. So going to a less
prestigious university isn't going to scar you for life.

Matthew Huntbach

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is not the case that *every* job opening which asks for a graduate
insists that graduate comes from one of the more prestigious universities.
While going to a more prestigious university may make it easier to get
into certain jobs at certain companies, once you have a job and are
looking to move to another, no-one cares what university you went to.
All that matters is how well you did in the previous job. These days
most people don't stay in the same company for life. So going to a less
prestigious university isn't going to scar you for life.

It might do! If going to the wrong university stops somebody getting into
their preferred firm or career, then they are fried for life.

[b***@yahoo.com]

I know nowt, but from those of us who took up Job offers fin Corporate
Finance with a Big-4 accountancy firm (by far the most competitive
department), the Unis were Ox, Cam, Imperial, LSE. Otherwise one from
each of: Bristol (me), Trinity College and some foreign place.
Hmmmmm...spot the trend...and this is in the league below the 'top
tier' city jobs (in most peoples views, i personally wouldn't change my
offer for any top-IB).

On the other hand, just speaking for Bristol, there were a LOT of
people that i would never employ. Yes they went to Bristol, but....you
get the idea. On the other hand, I think they'd still get considered on
a disproportionatly higher basis than those from the bottom 70% of the
league tables.

On that CV, just having a 1st won't really get you anywhere. You'd have
better have done a HELL of a lot outside of that course to impress
recruiters. They test SO much more than academic ability at assesment
days and being from a top Uni is far from guaranteed to get you through
that. From what i gather, they have a big skills matrix that they fill
in for everyone...and you either make the cut for further consideration
or you don't. The degree class is just one tiny cell in that. I think
all that stuff about them considering everyone individually is
bollocks...they tick the boxes and the computer sifts. With 10:1
apps:places, would they really do anything more time consuming? But if
it comes down to 2 equally 'skilled' candidates, the fact that all
degrees are not really created equal might come into it. But as has
been said, one you're in, no one cares!

[John Porcella]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah, thanks for the info , I just wanted to know what other peoples views
on this are.
What you have said above has also crossed my mind, but then again I have
heard of cases where individuals "work their way up" into more powerful
positions,

True, but the problem nowadays is getting in at all...you have got to be in
it to be able to climb.

yet they may not possess the level of education that you have

Post by Samsonknight
described. I also know of people who, despite having a 2:1 from oxford etc,
still cannot get a decent job soley because of the fact that they get
dismissed due to no pre-working experience in that field.

I am not surprised! There are so many good applicants that some employers
can be very picky.

Post by Samsonknight
Okay, so this brings me to my next point. If having a degree at so and so
prestigious university is of such importance career wise, then why do
polytechnics/less prestigious universities still exist?

Where do you think that folk with less good 'A' levels go?


I mean in all

Post by Samsonknight
fairness, if someone goes to a polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and
competes with another applicant who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc
in the same subject area, then they will in theory have no chance in getting
that job

Not just theory, but in practice they will be wasting ink filling out an
application form.

-hence their degree is just a waste of time and money.

Not necessarily! There are jobs outside of the prestigious employers e.g.
government, charities, hospitals, teaching!!

Therefore

Post by Samsonknight
wouldn't it be better scrapping these "universities" altogether or just
limit the courses they provide into the more vocational ones , as by doing
this it could save many students time and money.

Hmm, an interesting point. It seems to be government belief that the more
educated the workforce the better this is for the economy. This seems to
explain the irrational 50% target. However, it has left the UK short of
people in certain skill areas, such as plumbing. So whilst I do not
entirely agree with you, you do have a valid point.

[Mark Thakkar]

Samsonknight,

If having a degree at so and so prestigious university is of such
importance career wise, then why do polytechnics/less prestigious
universities still exist? I mean in all fairness, if someone goes to a
polytechnic, comes out with a 2:1 and competes with another applicant
who has a 2:1 from York/Oxford/Bristol etc in the same subject area,
then they will in theory have no chance in getting that job -hence
their degree is just a waste of time and money. Therefore wouldn't it
be better scrapping these "universities" altogether or just limit the
courses they provide into the more vocational ones , as by doing this
it could save many students time and money.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but for reasons that haven't been given.

Matthew points out that there aren't enough places at more prestigious
universities for everyone who wants to do a degree. That's true, but it
invites the question: *why* do all these people want to do a degree? Is
it perhaps because degrees have become mandatory for all sorts of jobs?
And why have they become mandatory for all sorts of jobs? Is it perhaps
because more and more people have them, so that they have become a handy
initial stage for a paper sift of applications? And if so, how has this
circle arisen? Here's a tentative suggestion: could people's increasing
geographical mobility have increased the number of applications for a
given position, prompting employers to become more mechanical with their
selection criteria? It's just a thought, and a historically uninformed
one at that, but perhaps someone older and wiser could help me out here.

Andy says education isn't just about getting a job, so just because a
degree from a TVU equivalent doesn't get you a job, that doesn't mean it
was a waste of time and money. But the romantic idea that being in
education is intrinsically good, regardless of how or about what one is
being educated, might not apply equally to TVU and to Nottingham. Let's
agree that reading is intrinsically good - does that mean it's good for
people to spend time reading the instructions on packs of toothpicks?
Obviously not, because that's not what we meant by 'reading' when we so
readily agreed to call it intrinsically good. Likewise with education.

To put it more directly, I can see precious little reason for the absurd
proliferation of pseudo-academic degrees besides their apparent value to
employers - and I would bet my bottom dollar that, if pressed, employers
would have to admit that they'd rather take on people with some useful
experience or knowledge than people who have spent three years partying
under the seemingly sacrosanct pretext of receiving an education.

Mark.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Mark Thakkar
Matthew points out that there aren't enough places at more prestigious
universities for everyone who wants to do a degree. That's true, but it
invites the question: *why* do all these people want to do a degree? Is
it perhaps because degrees have become mandatory for all sorts of jobs?
And why have they become mandatory for all sorts of jobs?

Chicken -- egg -- chicken -- egg -- chicken -- egg ....

But don't forget two other dimensions [which I keep bringing
up, and everyone ignores in every newsgroup where I mention them].
Firstly, the international. It is *no use* us getting all stuffy and
high-minded about HE if the only result is that *our* young people
can't get jobs in [say] hotel management, carpet laying, plumbing
because they face opposition from young Germans, Finns and Americans
who want the same job and can wave degrees at the employers. We *have*
as a country to work to [within reason] the same standards as other
countries, to call the same standards by the same names [univ, degree,
diploma, PhD, whatever], and to have similar proportions of people
going in to HE.

Secondly, people deride the 50% target partly by not knowing
what it actually means [and how it relates to numbers achieved some
decades ago and/or in other countries] but also partly by not
understanding how it is made up. We *long ago* reached the stage
where a large majority of middle-class males went to univ. We have
more or less got to the same position with middle-class females.
It's not before time if our brighter working-class children get the
same chances and aspirations. [Address your concerns about tuition
fees etc to the govt, not to me.]

Post by Mark Thakkar
Andy says education isn't just about getting a job, so just because a
degree from a TVU equivalent doesn't get you a job, that doesn't mean it
was a waste of time and money. But the romantic idea that being in
education is intrinsically good, [...].

That's going too far. There are plenty of people who should
not be in education [not necessarily because they are ineducable].
My complaint is with the notion that HE is "all about" jobs.

Post by Mark Thakkar
Hold stick near centre of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth.
Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion.

Glad you mentioned "stick" there.

[jrg]

Post by Mark Thakkar
Andy says education isn't just about getting a job, so just because a
degree from a TVU equivalent doesn't get you a job, that doesn't mean it
was a waste of time and money. But the romantic idea that being in
education is intrinsically good, regardless of how or about what one is
being educated, might not apply equally to TVU and to Nottingham. Let's
agree that reading is intrinsically good - does that mean it's good for
people to spend time reading the instructions on packs of toothpicks?
Obviously not, because that's not what we meant by 'reading' when we so
readily agreed to call it intrinsically good. Likewise with education.

I'd guess that the number of people who do a degree which ends up not
being of direct use to their job is at least vaguely similar at both
prestigious and non-prestigious universities. So your argument cannot
(?) rest on the idea that my or your degrees are of more benefit to the
economy than those with similarly non-vocational degrees from less
prestigious universities.

I'm interested, does this mean you do believe in the romantic idea that
education is intrinsically good, as long as that education is taking
place at a certain level?

James