University Reputation
- Thread starter triggerthat
- Start date
) and lots of ambition about the place. 
I only despise King's in the UCL/King's rivalry tradition.
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 6,901
- Location
- London
The reason for my concern is despite doing well, the course isn't really stretching me. I hate pretty much everyone on the course which mostly consist of rude boys and not so bright individuals. The course is easy and doesn't take much to do well. Because of this, I have secured a few jobs such as a Programming Assistant and a Mentor (all of which is paid) as well as continuing with my CCNA. Hopefully the 2nd year will be better. The modules look interesting.
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 6,901
- Location
- London
The course looked interesting and the facilities are good. I suppose its abit late to transfer. Hopefully things will turn out better this year. I have just transfered to the MComp degree which looks good 
This website (one that I made! w00t!) is quite helpful, albeit rather clunky:
www.tqi.ac.uk
Hope it helps
www.tqi.ac.uk
Hope it helps
IceBus said:
I'm quite surprised, how long has he been there?
King's has a mix of people from pretty much every background, especially being the biggest of the UoL colleges (in terms of students)... that said, SOAS does tend to attract a certain type of person - usually your hippy, very left wing types. You can often meet those sort of people on the English Lit course at King's.
daz said:I'm quite surprised, how long has he been there?
King's has a mix of people from pretty much every background, especially being the biggest of the UoL colleges (in terms of students)... that said, SOAS does tend to attract a certain type of person - usually your hippy, very left wing types. You can often meet those sort of people on the English Lit course at King's.
He's going into his final year
Your description of SOAS is pretty much spot on, and one of ther reasons I didn't choose it. Left wing though I am, SOAS was just a bit much.
With so many more people going to uni these days, how well respected an institution is is absolutely vital - more so than ever before.
This is mainly in reference to an individual course, not the uni as a whole, for example bournemouth uni has an awful reputation, but if you were wanting to study tourismeek then essentially its the best in the country.
Employers, broadly speaking, know which universities are good for the types of degrees relevant to the jobs they offer - so if kingston is known to be an above average institutuion for CS, then you'll have a good chance of getting an interview.
Birkbeck is fairly well respected actually, it sounds like a pokey new university or ex poly, and maybe it is, but it has got a good repution for a number of courses.
This is mainly in reference to an individual course, not the uni as a whole, for example bournemouth uni has an awful reputation, but if you were wanting to study tourism
eek then essentially its the best in the country.Employers, broadly speaking, know which universities are good for the types of degrees relevant to the jobs they offer - so if kingston is known to be an above average institutuion for CS, then you'll have a good chance of getting an interview.
Birkbeck is fairly well respected actually, it sounds like a pokey new university or ex poly, and maybe it is, but it has got a good repution for a number of courses.
Maybe that's true in larger companies, but I doubt the typical small company will have a clue. If you take me as an example (I've looked through applicant CVs and interviewed them on occasion), I have a vague idea what the top 4-5 universities were for maths 20 years ago when I was applying, and an even vaguer idea about the better universities for CompSci. Not only do I not really have a clue about the other universities, but even what I do "know" is woefully out of date.hogfather said:
So when I've looked at graduates' CVs, I've paid a fair amount of attention to the A-levels, because at least I have a vague idea what they mean. And let's be honest, to a large extent I'm going to think "AAAA at A-level, went to Hogwarts University... Well, I've never heard of Hogwarts, but I guess it must have pretty high standards then!"
Next, I also look to see what they say they did in their degree. In general we're looking at CS graduates, and I'll pay particular attention to their projects. I'd say specific evidence of what interests you or you were really good at is particularly important to me. In other words, if you say "my best course was the one we did on AI", that's just sounds like waffle; it sounds much better to say "my best course was on AI. I wrote a program to play Othello and entered it in the Computer Olympiad". Even if your program came last, at least I know I'm dealing with someone who can actually complete projects, as opposed to just being a bluffer full of hot air.
On that note, my advice to someone like triggerthat is: find an area of the course you're interested in, preferably with a lecturer you get on with (and in my experience, lecturers generally get on well with students who are genuinely keen on the subject), and basically make yourself an impressive project out of it, even if that means doing something completely outside the course. The advantage of the smaller places is their research arm is usually small enough that an undergraduate can probably get involved. You might even get your name on a paper or two. Which would impress me a lot more than a degree from Oxbridge.
Employers, universities and schools all like to push the modern myth that which university you attend doesn't matter. It simply isn't true.
If you want proof, ask the top 10% of companies which universities they visited for recruitment events last year...
T
If you want proof, ask the top 10% of companies which universities they visited for recruitment events last year...
T
How is that "proof"? All that is proving is that you have to goto a top Uni. to get into one of the big firms. Not exactly the end of the world is it? People with any sense wouldn't want to work for a big firm anyway as you're just a sheep doing tea duty for the first year or two. Smaller/medium sized companies are where the action is. More interesting work, innovation, better prospects, salaries >= big firms, share options, etc...Trimbo said:
It's interesting seeing the different view points in this thread. But I think most people will find that piece of paper on the wall doesn't really do much more than get you in the door and possibly help sustain high(er) salaries 10 years down the line.
Last edited:
Trimbo said:
I think it is mattering to a lesser and lesser extent, though. It's true that the most selective graduate programs will have an intake of mostly oxbridge students, but not being an oxbridge grad certainly doesn't rule you out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Trimbo said:
It depends on a lot more than that, you'll also find that a lot of Oxbridge grads are public school boys and girls. Being public school educated can do a lot for your demeanor, accent and education etc... which are all things that you'll find populating certain 'elite' employment fields.
I'd say being Oxbridge (or public schooled) helps in socially 'elitist' positions, but in maintstream employment I can think of several very successful graduates I have know that have either foreign or polytechnic degrees yet have also gone on to excellent things.
Also, I know Oxbridge grads who end up with less than stunning jobs.