University Grads - A quick question

Went to university as a way of escaping quite a nasty situation I was in, also by me going I managed to fix a lot of other issues.
I did my course for a few reasons:
(And in no particular order).
1: I wanted to move away from where the area I was living.
2: I had an interest in everything I applied for.
3: I wasn't able to get into another area (lack of Higher Mathematics).
4: It seemed like a good idea when I was 16 (when I started).

Looking back, it was a big mistake. I should have done something different, however for reasons stated in my first sentence made that difficult. Add to the mix a health issue which totally messed up my University career and the end result is that it was a total waste of time and money. However, going to university was the only option open to me at the time.
 
KaHn said:
So my question to OcUK Grads, when you chose you uni course, did you pick it on a subject you enjoyed? Did you look at your career path afterwards? Or did you do something you thought you'd have a lot of free time on and be with a load of girls?

KaHn
Click to expand...

If people not knowing what they want to do at uni/with their degree is a pet hate then my way must be something of a bete noire for you.

My first university course was something of an accident, I put down the wrong code on the UCAS form - in my defence I'd say it was slightly confusingly presented but I didn't have the required grades for Computer Games Technology so thought I'd put down Computing with modules in games development. When I got the unconditional offer I was somewhat surprised by this turn of events but thought I'd try it and see anyway. I didn't like it as I struggled with the maths and programming so moved onto Law instead as I figured it would suit me better and I knew someone else who was doing law and despite her struggles with it the subject seemed much more interesting.

This time I was right and I graduated with no problems, however by this point I'd decided that I didn't want to pursue law as a career so despite getting a (unsponsored) place on the diploma course I declined it and took a couple of years working as a temp while I applied for jobs that interested me (graduate and otherwise). I've ended up working as a trainee accountant on a graduate scheme - it's probably the path less travelled but without having done what I have I wouldn't know what I don't want to do which in some ways is as valuable and thinking I do know what I want to do.

There's very little I'd seek to change about what I've done even if I had the chance, in big ways or small it has all contributed to who I am and while I may not be certain this is what I want to do for the rest of my life I'm happy enough with it right now and that's good enough. If you (general you rather than specific) know what you want to do from an early age and can achieve that then great, I'm impressed by anyone who can be so certain but do remember that it's not more valid than any other way of coming to a job or a career.
 
Amp34 said:
Isn't uni a lot easier...? Well I found it so yes, because I di maths, physics and chemistry at A-Level, my masters was easier than A-Level as well (although there was a lot more time spent on working). Just depends on what you did at A-Level and how hard you found it. What's a "top university"? Considering before you answer I'd like to point out any accredited course (like most in the engineering world and within a lot of other areas) should be of the same difficulty, that's the point of accredation and external examining.;) A straw poll of some of my masters colleagues recently just showed this... I'll agree with the latter though, but it's all about the type of course more than the university...
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no and no. Universities need to adhere to a minimum standard. The standard of University courses varies immensely from one institution to the next. The cynical side of me thinks that all Universities offer some slightly watered down courses at post graduate level that act as cash cows.

And while I'm ranting: I also firmly believe that there are way too many PhD students. It seems to be the new "I'll do an MSc" or simiilar, and Universities are keen to fill up as many places as possible, else their funding might get cut.
 
Stumble Bum said:
The CTA qualification is the devils work, so I fear I will not like it.
Click to expand...

No one does. CIOT like it that way.

I knew I wanted to do Accounting since high school so went done subjects that assisted me on that route. I'd love to do something crazy like RAF pilot but I didn't enjoy physics and hard core maths. All I have to do now is + and - :p
 
w11tho said:
No, no, no, no and no. Universities need to adhere to a minimum standard. The standard of University courses varies immensely from one institution to the next. The cynical side of me thinks that all Universities offer some slightly watered down courses at post graduate level that act as cash cows.

And while I'm ranting: I also firmly believe that there are way too many PhD students. It seems to be the new "I'll do an MSc" or simiilar, and Universities are keen to fill up as many places as possible, else their funding might get cut.
Click to expand...

Amp34 is right about engineering degrees though, they're often very carefully accredited to make sure the standard is consistent and so are usually fairly similar.

Will agree about other degrees though.
 
Picked physics because it was something I enjoyed, was good at, and also a respectable degree.
Funny thing is all higher school and degree qualifications were physics/maths related, yet now my focus is on music/arts!

I don't regret doing that degree though - the knoledge gained is very useful, and I am still very much interested in related fields.
 
alx said:
Amp34 is right about engineering degrees though, they're often very carefully accredited to make sure the standard is consistent and so are usually fairly similar.

Will agree about other degrees though.
Click to expand...
I find it very difficult to believe that engineering is special, in this respect. I'm not an engineer, but know a few academics that are. I'll see if I can get some input from them.
 
I had no aspirations and wished to simply keep out of work for as long as possible. I ended up at Durham University doing Medical Anthropology. After 1 yr, I was totally sick of it and moved to a different University doing IT.

Didn't really try and was a bit too engrossed in MMORPGs but I got my degree. Then got a job in IT.

The degree was a subject I enjoyed, in so much as I have an affinity with IT and I love/d playing computer games. I didn't really learn anything new, but the fact that I have a degree will not 'cap' my career progression at later stages in my promotions. Usually Supervisor/Junior Manager demands degrees as a minimum.

I am currently studying for a Masters Degree and putting 150% effort into it.. on for a distinction so far.
 
Moses said:
I think those courses can still be significantly different, though.

Aerospace engineering, at Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam, as an example,

For Sheffield AAA is required, for Hallam 300 UCAS points is required (so BBB, or lower, if more than three are added up).

I presume they're both accredited by the relevant bodies, but I'd wager a hefty sum that the uni students are taught better than the Hallam students. Both courses will meet a standard, but that's not the end of a story.

It'll be the same with other courses which require accreditation/regulation - qualifying law degrees need to be accredited by the SRA, which most are, but a Cambridge law student's going to be better than a student from a random ex-poly.
Click to expand...

I'd double check that. Not all uni courses are accredited. Also kahn what engineering degree did you do/how did you find getting a job at the end? Do you use much of what you learned at uni?

Currently I'm studying mechanical engineering at Glasgow (though need to pull my grades up!)
 
I'll have a pop at answering this a bit more seriously.

On a whim I chose to do Biology as an undergraduate degree - it was what I was good at and it was interesting to me (Biology is a very 'real' subject, you see it everywhere around you everyday). As I progressed I became very interested in the prospect of doing a PhD, but fell out of love with the idea during my dissertation. I hated the lab. Repetitive work doing mostly mundane experiments that often didn't work for any good reason whatsoever. I realised that I wanted to do something more social and less isolating, so on a whim I copied my friend's idea to study law, opting for various reasons to do a 2 year law degree instead of a standard 1 year job.

I've since kind of actively meandered towards a career as a solicitor. I hope I enjoy it when I get there.
 
The Craig said:
I'd double check that. Not all uni courses are accredited. Also kahn what engineering degree did you do/how did you find getting a job at the end? Do you use much of what you learned at uni?

Currently I'm studying mechanical engineering at Glasgow (though need to pull my grades up!)
Click to expand...

I did Aerospace Engineering (BEng - Manchester/UMIST) and then I started MSc in mechanical engineer at newcastle uni where I was recruited near the end of it to go work for a company in Aberdeen as a subsea structural engineer.

Tbh most of my structures I use on a daily basis, from the FEA work, to virtual work method and then other bits of my course gives me a good understanding of everything else.

Few big threads on here about job stuff if you have a search.

KaHn
 
Throughout school I always thought I'd end up doing something related to computing but in the end I was probably influenced by always having good teachers/lecturers in Chemistry, a subject I also liked.

Didn't help that A-Level Computing class was a joke. We got 1 hour less a week because of some timetable balls-up and the lecturer was an idiot. Basically the small class of 6-7 of us ended up helping ourselves to pass our project, which I absolutely hated coding without getting the right support.

I did Chemistry w/ Medicinal Chemistry at Newcastle, was really keen on learning about the medicinal aspects of drug design, treatment and the chemistry involved

Ended up enjoying every single minute of it. Didn't really know what I'd end up doing when I was started. Seemed like the only option most lecturers gave was PhD and postgraduate research because "you don't get anywhere in industry without one".

Like Nitefly I got put off doing PhD doing my Masters dissertation because of the same lab stuff that never seemed to work and it just felt a bit tedious. I did get interviewed for a PhD off my supervisors (who were great) but thankfully I didn't get there.

There's a bit of a long winded tale of what happened since I graduated but exactly 6 months tomorrow I've been working as a Chemist in a lab a half hours walk away. People who work there are great, enjoy the work (because its manufacturing small/med scale bulk chemicals rather than research so it works!)
 
w11tho said:
No, no, no, no and no. Universities need to adhere to a minimum standard. The standard of University courses varies immensely from one institution to the next. The cynical side of me thinks that all Universities offer some slightly watered down courses at post graduate level that act as cash cows.

And while I'm ranting: I also firmly believe that there are way too many PhD students. It seems to be the new "I'll do an MSc" or simiilar, and Universities are keen to fill up as many places as possible, else their funding might get cut.
Click to expand...

Maybe in general but accredited courses will have a specific guideline they have to follow in terms of what is taught and how it is taught. For things like engineering (say something more traditional like plain Civil or Mechanical) there will be specific modules that have to be done, with a few more university specific things thrown in. External examiners don't just come in and say "you need to do more of this" or "make this harder", they also regularly come in and tell the university to make a subject easier or take bits out.

For example for an accredation by geolsoc for BSc Geology courses students need to study specific modules, have specific number of weeks of fieldwork experience and have to do a mapping project with fieldwork of of no less than four weeks. This means all the accredited geology courses are at the same level subject wise and technically all students should come out with the same ability (with a slight slant towards their universities research angle). I should expect however that those "better" universities (ie ones that have higher entrance grades) should have more students coming out with 1sts' or 2:1s because technically those students that went in were more intellegent.

How this relates to more non traditional courses I don't know, areas of a less vocational type may have less of this, in which case maybe the reputation of the university/department may have a major effect on the course.

I'd agree though with the MSc comment, a lot of them probably are seen as cash cows. Even without that there doesn't seem to be any kind of ranking system you can use to choose between them, probably partly because different universities will specialise in different things. If Imperial did a micropalaeontology masters would it be better than say one from Portsmouth, if Imperial didn't have MP as it's primary research area and Portsmouth did? That's why if you are looking into doing a postgrad course you need to really look into it and see what the departmental research is like and what companies (if you're looking for a job) actually think of the course.
 
I personally missed out on going to University.
I had the grades, I could have done it but at the time I decided to go and get myself a job and work up that way.
I knew I wanted to do something with computers and started off selling them.

Through various jumps to technical support, engineering, customer support I now find myself as an "IT Infrastructure Manager" with a team of 3 working for me.
Last year I started a BA in Business Studies (through the OU).
I feel that it is helpful as I'm now on the management trail and after middle management there is senior management.
It's also a good CV addition.
More importantly I'm enjoying it. Hard work doing it and working, but I@m finding the time and getting there.
 
Moses said:
I think those courses can still be significantly different, though.

Aerospace engineering, at Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam, as an example,

For Sheffield AAA is required, for Hallam 300 UCAS points is required (so BBB, or lower, if more than three are added up).

I presume they're both accredited by the relevant bodies, but I'd wager a hefty sum that the uni students are taught better than the Hallam students. Both courses will meet a standard, but that's not the end of a story.

It'll be the same with other courses which require accreditation/regulation - qualifying law degrees need to be accredited by the SRA, which most are, but a Cambridge law student's going to be better than a student from a random ex-poly.
Click to expand...

Mechanical/aerospace engineering probably does have a bit more variety, but I know Chemical Engineering (which I did) doesn't have as nearly as much flexibility. A lot of the students requested more module choice and flexibility, but due to the strict guidelines set out by the IChemE for what we needed to learn there wasn't really any space in the timetable to do this.

I agree that teaching can have a big impact, just in engineering the core modules will be very similar.

Also I don't buy into the fact that just because a course has higher entry requirements it's harder. From my experience the more popular the course the higher the entry grades.

At Bath the entry requirements are greater for Sports Science than for an undergraduate Masters in Chemical Engineering.......
 
The Chem Eng courses change quite a bit from university to university. Obviously core modules are the same, but the optional modules are quite far-reaching. I think I'll agree slightly in that there's not much choice; I remember from my MEng (at Sheffield Uni) that we had all compulsory modules in the first two years, 20 credits optional in the third and 40 credits optional in the fourth years. Here at Cambridge it's about the same in terms of choice, but the compulsory modules are a little different - this is mainly due to the way that Cambridge does Chem Eng (first year is Engineering or Natural Sciences, and then you change to Chem Eng as a choice for second year onwards). An example is that my research area is Computational Fluid Dynamics; at Sheffield this is a compulsory module whereas in Cambridge it's optional (and very few people do it :p).

I chose Chem Eng because it was what I was interested in (Physics, Maths, Chemistry) and I knew that any form of Engineering would lead to a good career. I wasn't expecting to stay on for a PhD and (most likely) academia though - just how things have turned out!
 
I'm doing Computer Security and Digital Forensics :)

I picked that course because it was within the field I enjoy and can easily see myself working and it is a kickass course with great prospects :)
 
Energize said:
Wrong. There are so many mature and retired students not learning a degree for the purpose of getting a better job.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't seen any at Birmingham (the proper one), Loughborough, Oxford or Camebridge.
The only 'mature' students that I know of are doing crap at Staffordshire or Derby as the £££ they get is equal to looking gormless on a checkout 37 hours a week and they get more free time by being a sociology student.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom