Does the University really matter?

dory

Sorry if this has been asked to death...

I'm applying for a masters at the moment. And people are telling me I should try to go to London or New York, not because the course is necessarily better, but because it's better when looking for a job later to have a postgrad in a prestigious university (something I've never cared about when choosing).

People have told me so many things regarding this, but I've never asked a collection of postgrads simultaneously! So people, any ideas?

Course would be in International Development, after that I would be hoping to take over the UN.

H2G2

I don’t think it makes much of a difference. A year or two after you received the qualification, all an employed should be interested in is what work profile, etc you have.

That said, I did leave Ireland (to UK) to do my PhD, but not for prestige, to get the best supervisor in my field. No regrets. Now I look back and my CV does look better for having left the country (IMHO) to do one of my postgrads, but does it really have an impact??

I don’t know about your chosen field, but I am sure there are good courses here, which have high international regard. But if your end game is to work outside Ireland, then maybe your motivations for studying elsewhere is not prestige of university, but demonstrated willingness to study/work abroad.

Rosita

I always think that in terms of qualifications what is not on a CV is probably more important than what is on it. If you are expected to have a post-grad to get through for an interview then you need one but I doubt if too many employers would lose sleep over where it is from or even genuinely have enough knowledge of various courses to judge their relative merit. (This of course might not prevent them having half-baked prejudices about courses which is another matter.)

I think it is something that students beat themselves up over as there is always an element of so-called prestige attached by students to different courses and institutions usually in a self-serving way to be honest i.e. if a student does a course they will probably persuade themselves that it is better than it is.

But experience and demonstrable ability will take you a lot further than any post-grad. If I had the choice between two post-grads where one had an edge in prestige over the other (which I did have this year) I'd take the more prestigious one. But they were in the same town. I certainly would not have gone out of my way and certainly not out of the country to do the one I chose ahead of the other one unless it was a ticket to guaranteed career success and I have yet to hear of such a course.

Afuera

Sometimes prestigious universities can have a wide network of alumni which can provide invaluable contacts after you finish. I don't know it this applies in your case, but if a lot of the graduates of certain universities you're looking at end up working in the UN then it might be worth investigating further. Also working internationally will always be easier if the university is well known.

Black Swan

Degrees from Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, and Harvard and Stanford in the USA generally influence large corporate employers or higher education institutions in their hiring practices. Now there are universities with specialties that carry high ratings with employers too, like USC's George Lucas school of film. This does not mean you cannot get a grand education at another university, only that in human affairs there is (unfortunately) an unfair (pecking order) status hierarchy that too often biases hiring decisions (as well as salaries paid and future opportunities for advancement).

For example, I am a student. What's the first question they normally ask? What university are you attending? (Not... Are you learning anything!):rolleyes:

CathalMc

Which So-Cal Uni are you at Blue Lagoon?

I think the university matters a considerable amount myself - primarily quality of coursework and supervisor.

In a masters the emphasis is often on coursework, and therefore the name of the university comes into play. There is, of course, an element of that self-propagating nature of prestige at these places, but it also depends on the quality of alumni entering the workforce over the last few decades. Someone mentioned the track history of alumni of a course entering the UN - tracking down these details seems like it should be the focus of your efforts.

The reputation of your supervisor may also be a factor, and indeed if you do a PhD, it is the most important factor. Not only guiding you through research, he should be an important source of network of industry and academic contacts.

Although people are correct when they say experience and ability trumps all (or should at least) - but the stamp of a prestigious college just makes that person a more attractive hire. The person hiring has his own ass to cover. Whatever about the debate on fairness or the b.s. nature of prestige, that's what the reality is.

ArthurDent

CathalMc wrote: »

The reputation of your supervisor may also be a factor, and indeed if you do a PhD, it is the most important factor. Not only guiding you through research, he should be an important source of network of industry and academic contacts.

agree 100% and look at time it take their other students to get through, also what the publication protocol is - do you get first authorship on any papers, name on patents , opportunity to present at conferences - all of these count big time when looking for job.

dory

Thanks for info guys. It's only a taught masters so all that fancy patent stuff doesn't count.
I've decided to go for the ol regular university instead of the one with the big name.
Don't think parents' wallet can take the blow and I wouldn't be in for any scholarships.

Swindon

whats the difference between a taught masters and the other one?

Red Alert

The actual university probably is less relevant than what you make of it. I was at a conference this weekend and many very interesting ideas came from the less well known institutions. Give me a decent supervisor and good tools in a good university versus a bad work experience in a 'great' university.

I stayed in the University I did my primary degree in and couldn't be happier.

H2G2

Swindon wrote:

whats the difference between a taught masters and the other one?

The general rule is:
Taught = Lectures and maybe a minor dissertation / project; usually 1 year
Other one [Research] = No lectures and full thesis; usually 1.5 to 2 years

Many institutions regard a taught MSc to be of lesser academic standing. For example, in my University, if you apply for a PhD with a research MSc then you are accepted directly; whereas with a taught MSc you are accepted onto a PhD track and must pass a progression/transfer examination.

However at the end of the day it depends on what you want to do. Personally I recommend research… I did a research MSc and a few years later returned to do a PhD. I found that the skills (researching and writing) that I had learnt during my MSc made the PhD work easier and definitely quicker. But as with so many things in life – there is no one correct answer, just whatever decision you make for you at the time.