Will my university hinder my chances of getting the job i want?

melancholly

they want AAA because they have far more applicants than places and can afford to be picky. supply and demand. the league tables are driven by staff/student ratios, research funding, student feedback, student employability etc etc - not all about students failing. in fact cambridge is one of the few places that doesn't offer re-sits (medics and vets aside) so if you fail, you just have to leave. the information in your posts seems to be based on what you think might possibly happen rather than fact!

your view of higher education sounds like someone trolling so i think i'll not feed you any more after this post

Lokolo

Thats fine thats you're opinion.

But of course student staff ratio, student employability and student feedback has nothing to do with how good/bad students do whilst actually at uni and other qualifciations such as A Levels... (if you can't tell, I am being sarcastic).

And my view of higher education is how is it because of peoples stereotyping thinking Oxbridge students are better than anyone else, which I disagree about immensely.

mikewebs

Let's be honest. Oxbridge are well established institutions but unfortunately they can turn out some twits I draw your attention to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04/boris.london08?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront I realsie that not everyone should be tarred with the same brush but come on, Boris is not a good advert for Oxford is he?

kiddy_guy

No, but on the law of averages a 2.1 from Oxford is better than a 2.1 from an old Poly.

I went to Warwick, and my old housemate failed to pass the first year at Warwick - not even passing the minimum 40% rate. He then went to do his 2nd year at Cov Poly and got a 2.1 at his finals.

If people want to think that the quality of teaching is the same and the worth of the degree is equal, then by all means, but it is delusional. In terms of differentiating between 2 candidates, the University is probably marginally important - the OP will not find his chances harmed by his degree location, but by the fact he hasn't got a first. When choosing prospective employees I don't discrimate on University, Classification or Course - but the fact remains that I know a degree from X isn't going to be as good as one from Y.

Blacksheep1979

Lokolo wrote: »

I think thats wrong. All universities have standards which they have to keep up to continue the courses.

Personally I don't see a difference between universities apart from the arrogance of some people.

And where did your friends go that 'earn £70k as a bonus after 3 years'?

You think? Well that's obviously where you started to go wrong - yes all universities have standards, some are a lot lower than others. You don't see a difference between them? Well maybe that's because you're not educated enough to see the difference between the likes of Stephen Hawkins and my old A' level physics teacher. As for friends earning large bonus's they went to top 10 unis and work for the likes of DB and GS, both of which I know wouldn't even glance at someone from an ex-poly and there's a reason for this.

This ex-poly bashing is unfortunately for the op for a reason but if he has enough about him he'll be able to get into a decent MA at a decent uni and that will all be forgotten. There's no point blinkering people into thinking polys are as good as traditional unis as for 9/10 subjects they're not and there's no point in pretending they are - that's why they command higher entrance grades.

Lokolo

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

You think? Well that's obviously where you started to go wrong - yes all universities have standards, some are a lot lower than others. You don't see a difference between them? Well maybe that's because you're not educated enough to see the difference between the likes of Stephen Hawkins and my old A' level physics teacher. As for friends earning large bonus's they went to top 10 unis and work for the likes of DB and GS, both of which I know wouldn't even glance at someone from an ex-poly and there's a reason for this.

This ex-poly bashing is unfortunately for the op for a reason but if he has enough about him he'll be able to get into a decent MA at a decent uni and that will all be forgotten. There's no point blinkering people into thinking polys are as good as traditional unis as for 9/10 subjects they're not and there's no point in pretending they are - that's why they command higher entrance grades.

I don't think it is. The reason is because of demand. As someone said earlier, the higher you are in the league tables the more people that want to apply. So you up the requirements to cut it down.

This then have an ever lasting effect that as you get the better students, you are the better uni. I am sure if my uni had 1000 4xA A levels then it would be just as good as something 50 places higher.

And you're saying that the reason Steven Hawking i so much better than your A Level physics teacher is because of the university he went to? I'm sorry but thats not right at all, some people are more talented than others, its the simple fact of life really.

But I don't think its fair to say that the OP is going nowhere in life because of his university and that he should be elsewhere, its the fact people look at a university and go 'oh its an ex poly it must be s***', which is clearly not true at all.

To be honest, its just like football. Once you are at the top there is very little chance you are coming down. Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal have hardly moved in years and years because of demand, because of this demand they can get more money, which then means they can stay at the top. Its the same with universities, once they are at the top they will stay at the top because they can. But then again, Wycombe (3 leagues below) drew with Chelsea 1-1 in the Carling Cup last season! And I know I know its not exactly the same but theres not so much of a difference that that people aren't going to do well in life because of the university they go to.

Personally I can't see myself being that different to someone else on the same course to me at a better university. I got A B C in my A Levels, same as someone else in my school who is at York for Maths. One of my maths modules, I studied matrices in first semester he didn't even start studying until his second semester!

[edit]

Times ranks York as 13th for Maths. Guardian marks as 26th. Compared to my uni which is generally around the 70s and 80s for things.

Blacksheep1979

Lokolo wrote: »

I don't think it is. The reason is because of demand. As someone said earlier, the higher you are in the league tables the more people that want to apply. So you up the requirements to cut it down.

This then have an ever lasting effect that as you get the better students, you are the better uni. I am sure if my uni had 1000 4xA A levels then it would be just as good as something 50 places higher.

And you're saying that the reason Steven Hawking i so much better than your A Level physics teacher is because of the university he went to? I'm sorry but thats not right at all, some people are more talented than others, its the simple fact of life really. [edit]

You do go to an ex-poly don't you? That's why you can't understand the finer points here.The quality of staff and facilities at proper universities is in general far far superior to that of lower rated universities. Also the content of courses is of a higher quality - you can't expect someone who got CCD (again in general) to be able to study and understand principals to the same level as someone who got AAAA.

Lokolo wrote: »

But I don't think its fair to say that the OP is going nowhere in life because of his university and that he should be elsewhere, its the fact people look at a university and go 'oh its an ex poly it must be s***', which is clearly not true at all.

To be honest, its just like football. Once you are at the top there is very little chance you are coming down. Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal have hardly moved in years and years because of demand, because of this demand they can get more money, which then means they can stay at the top. Its the same with universities, once they are at the top they will stay at the top because they can. But then again, Wycombe (3 leagues below) drew with Chelsea 1-1 in the Carling Cup last season! And I know I know its not exactly the same but theres not so much of a difference that that people aren't going to do well in life because of the university they go to.

Personally I can't see myself being that different to someone else on the same course to me at a better university. I got A B C in my A Levels, same as someone else in my school who is at York for Maths. One of my maths modules, I studied matrices in first semester he didn't even start studying until his second semester!

[edit]

Times ranks York as 13th for Maths. Guardian marks as 26th. Compared to my uni which is generally around the 70s and 80s for things.

Yes you may be right - once you get respected in a certain field then you can attract a different calibre of student and researcher and lecturer etc etc - again you're missing the point the lower ranked unis don't have that calibre of student or lecturer.

As for you doing a subject a few months before someone else - WOW, did you go into the same depth as they did? Surely they were studying something else in the first few months - doesn't that mean they're better than you (by your logic) as they did it before you? Did you go into the same depth? etc etc etc

Personally I think you're just a little dissapointed that you didn't get into a proper university - no it's not the be all and end all, an MA from a decent institution will cover up for a world of mistakes such as low degree result, dodgy institution etc but first you're going to have to learn about the subtlties and differences between courses and the qualities of these courses, the related accademics and the institutions.

Lokolo

Yeh I go to an ex poly, but I chose this university because of what is it, the services it offers and the course with the content that I wanted.

I got 300 UCAS points (370 inc AS), I could have gone to a 'proper' university all I like but I didn't want to. Yeh you may think im a t*** for doing so but I'd prefer to do 4 years (i'll explain in a min) somewhere I am going to enjoy what I am doing and finish off with something I wanted which has employability.

I agree with you that employers look at the university that you read at but I don't think they should judge you on that. My university knows that employers are going to see 'Staffordshire University' oh, i've never heard of that, must be s***, when they don't know anything about the university. Because of this the uni does all courses as sandwich so that the students have a year under their belt when they graduate.

And the thing is, I can see that some higher universities may go into more depth, but I can't see there being so much difference, for instance in the OPs case, that he is going to need to go a masters just to catch up with others.

Software Engineering for example, I study a number of programming language, Java, C, OpenGL this year, next year C++, C#, XNA, DirectX. I have also learnt HTML, PHP and MySQL in my spare time.

I can't see someone from a proper university studying things a lot more indepth than what I am. and to be honest, with my degree it really depends on the skill of the person. I know a few people in my class who are really not very good at programming whereas I feel as though I am.

And by the way, earlier when I said I studied something maths based before someone doing a math degree I wasn't say he is better than me I was just saying you can't say someone is better than you because of the university he went to. Its like he got an A in Maths for A Level, I got a C, doesn't mean he's better than me. Yes, at Maths he clearly is, but theres no chance he would have got an A in Computing.

Also, last point, honest! I am going to A Levels here. Now I got an A in Computing with WJEC, there are a number of boards for Computing, one is Edexcel. Now the course theory content is more or less the same, however, the practical side, completely different. Not being big headed, but the WJEC is a lot harder, you have to learn a programming language and create a database program from scratch. However, Edexcel will let you use Access to create your database and your program using queries, which is a lot easier than the programming side.
Now if 2 people get As in Computing, will the employer look at the exam board? Course content? No (well I don't think so, say if you think otherwise I don't really know, I'm not an employer!).

Its the same with university courses, unless the employer asks, oh so what did you study, they won't know what each studied and for all they know they could end up with someone from a proper university but who doesn't actually have the skills the company needs.

Blacksheep1979

Lokolo wrote: »

Software Engineering for example, I study a number of programming language, Java, C, OpenGL this year, next year C++, C#, XNA, DirectX. I have also learnt HTML, PHP and MySQL in my spare time.

I can't see someone from a proper university studying things a lot more indepth than what I am.

And yet again here my point is proven - in depth doesn't mean a wide variety, just because I can say hello in 20 languages doesn't mean I have an in depth knowledge of languages - something proven by the fact that you have quoted knowing programming languages that aren't infact languages but a collection of libraries/apis and a dbms - openGL, directX and MySQL?!? I doubt that you will have an in depth, well what industry would class as in depth, understanding of 1 programming language in 4 years at uni let alone all the ones you've quoted and this goes for all unis. In depth knowledge comes from working with the language day in day out for a considerable period of time not doing a couple of courses that require the odd bit of coursework and an exam.

Point being people from a proper university will probably be given a decent grounding in computing theory along with a better indepth knowledge of things like oo principal and how languages work rather than what seems to be a desperate attempt at CV padding.

Lokolo wrote: »

Its the same with university courses, unless the employer asks, oh so what did you study, they won't know what each studied and for all they know they could end up with someone from a proper university but who doesn't actually have the skills the company needs.

Ok I work for a large multinational and we do ask about specific instances of what people know and in interview will test the depth of that knowledge so erm your point falls down there as we do find out what they know and having been interviewed by several other similar firms I know that they are all alike. It's going to be a pretty poor interviewer at a company that is going to go down the pan that doesn't ask probing questions to their potential employees.

Lokolo

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

And yet again here my point is proven - in depth doesn't mean a wide variety, just because I can say hello in 20 languages doesn't mean I have an in depth knowledge of languages - something proven by the fact that you have quoted knowing programming languages that aren't infact languages but a collection of libraries/apis and a dbms - openGL, directX and MySQL?!? I doubt that you will have an in depth, well what industry would class as in depth, understanding of 1 programming language in 4 years at uni let alone all the ones you've quoted and this goes for all unis. In depth knowledge comes from working with the language day in day out for a considerable period of time not doing a couple of courses that require the odd bit of coursework and an exam.

Point being people from a proper university will probably be given a decent grounding in computing theory along with a better indepth knowledge of things like oo principal and how languages work rather than what seems to be a desperate attempt at CV padding.

Yeh but you don't know how much depth I've studied in these languages, once again, you're doing as I have explained what employers do, just assuming that I haven't gone into much depth as someone from a proper uni.

If you had asked - ok what have you learnt in terms of Java thus far and compared it to someone else, then fine, I could totally agree with you but the fact is you didn't. You're just assuming that as I go to a expoly I would be no good to a company compared to someone who went to a proper univeristy, which may not be true completely.

And yes they may just be libraries/dbms but you still have to learn how to use them. And actually you say oh they're just trying to put loads of languages on CVs but a lot of them relate. For example, OpenGL goes with C and C++, so its just an expansion on those 2, going more in depth at what you can do with C and C++.... Same with PHP, going in more depth by learning addons, such as dbms, MySQL.... going more in depth... more in depth...

Also we have been taught Java for the whole of the year, its the main language taught in first year, and one more semester in second year means you have enough knowledge to take Sun Java Programmer certification, and the uni helps you if you wish to take the exam.

And from the sounds of things you've done a computer related degree?

[edit] fs you edited as I was typing.

-ok so you say you do ask in interviews what they have studied and test them. but this is a few out of many. if my friend, who is not a very good programmer, came to an interview and got tested compared to someone else at a higher university and did better than my friend you will just assume the uni is crap, surely? Whereas if I was interviewed compared to someone at a lower standard but from a better univeristy, would you still hire me? Or the other guy?

If me, would you're opinion change on the unviersity? I doubt it (could be wrong!)