Hello,

I've applied to do a PhD at a non-red brick university. It is fully funded and in my subject area but I'm feeling a bit down about it being at a less prestigious uni. I did my undergrad at a non-red brick uni and hoped to do my PhD at a red brick but can't afford to do it unless funded.

Will I be looked down upon by other academics because I've never been to a red brick?

I'm wishing now that I had applied to do my undergrad at a red brick so I had at least one association.

Am I being silly or does this matter?

Lydia

I would say that the quality of your research and publications is all that counts. Although there is a degree of snobbery on where you have studied!!

I would say by the time you get yourself sucked up in the PhD it will not matter where you are doing it. (just wait till you are in there). For some reasons supervisors at non red brick universities tend to be very humane and a little more helpful. Yes snobbery does exist but if you do a good work it will speak for you. At least you have the dosh to get going!

Research reputations at some non-red brick universities can be very good - depends on the subject. For example Liverpool John Moores is ranked way down the overall academic league but research in sports physiology is top notch (probably even better then Loughborough) as they were the first department to be set up in that subject. So it's horses for courses. There also seems to be a difference in ranking between universities in terms of teaching and research. And some non-red bricks are now cooperating with red bricks - for example at least two are involved in new medical degree courses.

IMO, at PhD level, it is more about the choice of your supervisor and unique specialism of the relevant department, rather than the reputation of the university as a whole. Your choice of supervisor and the availability of funding have to be the deciding factors.

I got offers from Leeds and Cambridge and I turned down the chance with Cam .

Ditto, I turned down Cambridge in favour of London.