" Pupils unaware of university rank"

melancholly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7411301.stm

over half the students in state schools do 'not expect their choice of university to have an impact on earnings'.

and apparently 'Going to a Russell Group university gives graduates a salary top-up of approx 6% to 10% depending on the course and approximately £3,000 per year more for entry-level graduate jobs'

since the choice of university has a very strong link with career prospects (and please lets not have another debate/arguement about whether or not that's fair, it's just a fact!), it is pretty shocking that so many A level students aren't aware of this.

hope this is useful for anyone in sixth form at the moment!

The_One_Who

It's not fact. It depends on the subject studied and the degree class earned. A 2.1 from Strathclyde is going to be of more use to you (in terms of getting onto graduate schemes) than a 2.2 from Edinburgh. It also depends on your time at university and what you do with yourself. Getting involved in societies and clubs or doing voluntary work is better than sitting in the union all day with your mates.

League tables are so flawed that they should be rendered as almost useless. I would much rather students were going to a university that they were happy with in terms of course content and general atmosphere than going to somewhere because it placed two ranks higher in a league table. I know someone who turned down Cambridge for Glasgow and she says it's the best decision she's ever made.

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

It's not fact. It depends on the subject studied and the degree class earned. A 2.1 from Strathclyde is going to be of more use to you (in terms of getting onto graduate schemes) than a 2.2 from Edinburgh. It also depends on your time at university and what you do with yourself. Getting involved in societies and clubs or doing voluntary work is better than sitting in the union all day with your mates.

League tables are so flawed that they should be rendered as almost useless. I would much rather students were going to a university that they were happy with in terms of course content and general atmosphere than going to somewhere because it placed two ranks higher in a league table. I know someone who turned down Cambridge for Glasgow and she says it's the best decision she's ever made.

the aim of this thread was to draw people's attention to the fact that the university you go to is important. it can make getting a job easier/more difficult and more A level students should know about this in advance so that their choice can be based on every available bit of information. your issue with league tables may have a basis, but it does not detract from the reality of the graduate job market.

and i also took it for granted that people would understand that career prospects are additionally helped by a good degree class and lots of extra activities/experience on their CV!

bestpud

The_One_Who wrote: »

It's not fact. It depends on the subject studied and the degree class earned. A 2.1 from Strathclyde is going to be of more use to you (in terms of getting onto graduate schemes) than a 2.2 from Edinburgh. It also depends on your time at university and what you do with yourself. Getting involved in societies and clubs or doing voluntary work is better than sitting in the union all day with your mates.

League tables are so flawed that they should be rendered as almost useless. I would much rather students were going to a university that they were happy with in terms of course content and general atmosphere than going to somewhere because it placed two ranks higher in a league table. I know someone who turned down Cambridge for Glasgow and she says it's the best decision she's ever made.

I think it is worrying, whether or not you choose to believe elitism exists in HE, that students are blissfully unaware of the potential pros and cons of university choice.

How are they making informed choices if they are ignorant of these issues?

melancholly

i think it is staggering that so many schools aren't giving them the information. that's what shocked me about the article. it really is appalling that the majority of students in state schools aren't being given any guidance on it.... fine the difference between universities 2 places apart is minimal, but when you're talking 20 places, it will make a difference.....

celyn90

melancholly wrote: »

i think it is staggering that so many schools aren't giving them the information. that's what shocked me about the article. it really is appalling that the majority of students in state schools aren't being given any guidance on it.... fine the difference between universities 2 places apart is minimal, but when you're talking 20 places, it will make a difference.....

I would say the onus is on the student to properly research the course and university they wish to go to rather than the school. A student has to be happy with the choice they make and this choice should be a personal one. There are many pros and cons attached to choice of university - league tables are just one. The article reads like the information is hidden away from the students and it certainly isn't - it's freely and easily available - even in state schools (I was state educated, from a non-academic family background and have taught in the state sector). I would also go as far as to suggest that it is common public knowledge that league tables exist for nearly all levels of education and that not being at least aware of their existance when you are actually in the system and considering university shows a distinct lack of awareness of current affairs. There is even information on the UCAS website regarding league tables and links to the good University guide if I remember correctly.

The choice rests with the student at the end of the day and at 18, I would expect students to at least take some responsibility for their own choices, exercise a bit of independent thought and research it properly considering what they think is important rather than just jump in blindly to the next phase of their education.

Lokolo

My school was fully made aware of the league tables. My head of sixth was so far up her own a*rse that she wanted everyone to be Oxbridge candidates. She did not like it when I told her my uni was ex-poly and actually refused me a day off school to go to an open day.

However I do know all the league tables but as said above, they are flawed so I didn't take too much notice of them.

The_One_Who

It is only really law (if you want to be a barrister) and investment banking who care where you got your degree from. For everything else it matters little, if at all, with the degree class counting for an awful lot more. A 2.2 from Cambridge will still rule you out of many graduate schemes, simply because it is a 2.2. This is why there are assessment centres for those with the required grades. Someone from a lower ranked university could have a much better personality and better aptitude for the tests than someone from a 'top' university.

The Russell Group is not a group of "leading universities", leading in research output, yes, but nothing else. It is just a lobby group of universities which exists to help the university, not the students who attend there. Going to a Russell Group university doesn't really mean much. St Andrews isn't a member, neither is Durham, York, Warwick or SOAS (although they are all 1994 Group members) and I doubt anyone would say they aren't good universities. I believe they are all ranked significantly higher than Glasgow which is a Russell member.

Academia don't care where you got your undergraduate degree from. It is perfectly possible to go from a low ranked university to Oxbridge, if you so desire, for postgraduate study. You can even win funding for it, if you are lucky.

Lokolo

What is research exactly?

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

Academia don't care where you got your undergraduate degree from. It is perfectly possible to go from a low ranked university to Oxbridge, if you so desire, for postgraduate study. You can even win funding for it, if you are lucky.

that's just untrue, so so untrue! the undergrad degree you get and the institution you get it from have a major impact on your ability to get a funded phd. it is possible to go from low to high, but not easy and not advisable. having sat in on meetings where candidates get shortlisted, i know that where you went to counts.... a lot!

again, PLEASE can this thread not descend into another 'i hate league tables and i want to change the way the world works' debate. i'll just ask for it to be blocked. i think all students should have as much information as possible to make their choices and apparently they aren't getting it at the moment - that it the point of this thread.

it's also students from families who have not been to university previously who need to be given information as they won't have the same background as others. that's really important and i cannot see how anyone can possibly object to that?

whether or not your state school gave you the information, 51% of pupils don't know it so the message is not getting through. and of course Durham, York, Warwick or SOAS are great unis, for goodness sake that's not what the article is saying

Lokolo

melancholly don't mean to have a go but this thread was clearly cause for trouble. It will just be like the other thread where me and blacksheep argued for weeks on end.

For starters the thread title says "Pupils unaware of unviersity rank", which is mis-leading. To me that gives the impression that pupils don't know what rank the universities are. Which is not what the BBC article is saying, but rather that university ranks may have an impact on earning, which pupils do not see.