if you don't get into a Russell Group university, skip going altogether

melysion

Mrs_Soup wrote: »

Depends a lot on subject. I work for Reading and they are top in the Uk for Agriculture. My old employer is a very new university and while I wouldn't chose them for some subjects they were very well regarded for Design. I don't think many people outside the university sector even know about the Russell group.

That's a very good point. I did my Masters at an old polytechnic that had an absolutely terrible reputation for everything other than what I was doing (Computing and Mathematics).

I did my PhD at Reading I'm guessing it's not a Russell Group uni but didn't do me any harm

GothicStirling

No. I went to Stirling (top 50 New university) and studying for a second at Leicester (1994 Group) at both universities I've been taught by world authorities in their field. My sister is at a Russell and swears never to attend another one (she's applying for Masters at Stirling, where there a number of authorities teach/supervise her subject.)

The problem isn't where your degree came from, but you. It's your ambition and motivation. If you don't have the skills to get a good job, then go develop them through college and volunteering. No-one is going to knock on your door an offer you a dream job, start knocking on theirs!

jamesmorgan

matt10001 wrote: »

I did not go to a Russell Group university, is my life doomed? Will I not get a decent job? Also is it hard to join a graduate scheme without going to a Russell Group university?

Job prospects will be determined more by choice of degree subject and quality of your CV than university choice. The Russell Group's main strength is the quality of their research, so if you want a job in research it would be advantageous to have a post-graduate degree from a RG university (less important where you get your undergraduate degree from).

Regarding formal graduate job schemes these are very competitive. Only about 7-10% of graduates are able to get on these schemes. You will typically need strong A-levels (A's and B's) and a strong CV (especially relevant work experience). More of these types of candidates will attend RG universities, but attending a RG university will not necessarily give you any additional advantage (assuming you are studying a rigorous degree subject).

amiehall

A lot of grad schemes require high numbers of UCAS points before you're eligible to apply as well as your degree.

The scheme I'm starting on requires 340 points which is AAB. This has the effect of removing a lot of applicants from less prestigious universities. If you have solid A Levels and go to a non-Russell university, I can't see that it would affect you. They don't seem that interested in academic record once you've achieved the base requirements.

Denning.

No.

Ex-polies excel at many subjects which Red Brick can't even get a look in.

Degrees are a tool, they might get you pass one roadblock but that is it, few employers really care about it, experience trumps it every time.

I'm not a fan of grad schemes, a small minority are worth it IMO, most are little different to normal entry.

GothicStirling

amiehall wrote: »

A lot of grad schemes require high numbers of UCAS points before you're eligible to apply as well as your degree.

The scheme I'm starting on requires 340 points which is AAB. This has the effect of removing a lot of applicants from less prestigious universities.

You see, this is why I dislike Graduate Schemes. More and more graduates are coming through with non-traditional qualifications. I failed 2 A levels and went to the OU before attending a brick and mortar, my sister was accepted by a Russell after completing a Foundation Year. Both of us have worked for the Civil Service, my sister works for the university during the summer and UNESCO. These employers are wilfully ignoring talented graduates, because they didn't do it the 'traditional' way.

TrickyDicky101

Personally, I think there are many jobs that simply don't need any degree at all (whether from Red Brick or ex-Poly or New), and I'm not referring to minimum wage or low paid jobs. Degrees are overrated.

jamesmorgan

GothicStirling wrote: »

You see, this is why I dislike Graduate Schemes. More and more graduates are coming through with non-traditional qualifications. I failed 2 A levels and went to the OU before attending a brick and mortar, my sister was accepted by a Russell after completing a Foundation Year. Both of us have worked for the Civil Service, my sister works for the university during the summer and UNESCO. These employers are wilfully ignoring talented graduates, because they didn't do it the 'traditional' way.

Formal graduate schemes only take in a very small % of people who graduate each year. They are massively over-subscribed so employers can choose any criteria they wish to filter numbers. Even filtering with A/B A-levels they are still left with huge numbers to choose from. Clearly there will be many talented individuals who fail to meet this filter, but as long as the employers are happy with the quality of the graduates they recruit there is no real benefit in them changing the system.

I do put some blame on schools who don't explain this clearly to their pupils early on in their schooling, so that pupils understand the implication that their academic performance will have on their later career choices. In particular the concept of equivalence to A-levels for non-standard qualifications. These qualifications may be equal in terms of school league tables, but not in the eyes of potential employers.

GothicStirling

jamesmorgan wrote: »

I do put some blame on schools who don't explain this clearly to their pupils early on in their schooling, so that pupils understand the implication that their academic performance will have on their later career choices. In particular the concept of equivalence to A-levels for non-standard qualifications. These qualifications may be equal in terms of school league tables, but not in the eyes of potential employers.

As I said, I don't think this is particularly fair on students who don't particularly flourish in a school environment or have come from disadvantageous background. My sister for instance struggled a lot at school, and wasn't until her mid twenties that she decided she would like to go to university. Not that it has stopped her, she's previously worked in management and for The Department for Sport and Culture as a Civil Servant. She has aspirations to work for UNESCO (she's already done work for them on a WHS) and applying for an internship. I'm doing a second degree so I can train as a History teacher, and mainly interested in adult education, to give others the chance that I got at 26. It makes me feel sad that certain employers are ignoring who are motivated and committed to improving their lives.

mustang121

My brother works for Cambridge university as a physicist and is reluctant to leave as it gets excellent funding for the latest lab equipment and exciting new projects from all types of Global companies.

As for getting a job? He began his degree from Loughborough university and because he achieved the best results, was plucked to do a PHD at Cambridge...and we come from a working class background.


The type of university and social back ground is all meaningless what counts is the course, grade, skills and determination.