new RG uni's

Oh, fuck.

Yesterday I was entitled to be dyslexic with shite spelling, today seems I am at a 'Russell group university' (big woo) so no longer allowed, is that right? Let's hope I don't teach any of your children there, eh? I might forget how to use a dictionary and give someone who spells less than perfectly a 2.2 by mistake.

This thread does rather confirm my view that people who pick on spelling and grammar are hiding their limitations in more important areas.

Ha! I can tell my MN habit has dropped when people start telling me not to worry about what's done on MN. So that's good. FWIW, I've never agreed with the spelling/grammar nitpickery - I think it's ill-mannered, usually.

I really do blame the media for a lot of this - the constant referral to the RG as the best, or Oxbridge as the best is misleading - Oxford and Cambridge are tremendously well-resourced, but even if you buy into league tables the difference between them and other institutions is really only a matter of a couple of percentage points for many subjects. It's a messy business, and I really do feel for parents and young people trying to pick their way through.

I was talking about the polys which became universities after 1992.

And sadly many schools know diddly-squat about advising pupils on HE.

However, the fact that some institutions started out as CATs or polys doesn't really matter. The fact is that the University of Bath (for instance) regularly gets placed in the top ten universities in the UK, despite not being RG. It is misleading to assume RG = best in all areas.

Yep habbibu. The OP does rather have a point but don't get too worked up about the posts about spelling. It's what we do on mn and the fact this was written by a Russell Group lecturer was just too tempting...

I can see (from this post) some parents will really know their stuff about the current uni scene, but sadly I feel a bit out of touch.

So just wondered how clued up and helpful are schools with all of this?

Or is it really down to the kids/parents to suss out what's in/what's out, what's up/what's down in the world of HE?

1994 also includes Loughborough (used to be a CAT)

Agree with habbibu.

Edith, that's exactly the problem, that people don't understand. They're all essentially lobbying groups, but the RG is big and powerful, and the media lazy.

And I don't think Loughborough started out as a university either.

So it seems that being a lecturer who can't be arsed to proof read is like being a doctor who enjoys the occasional cigarette. Or a dentist who likes sweets. We undermine our whole profession and are a disgrace.

OP, I'd get this thread deleted and start again, possibly in the FE section. I think it's a really interesting topic, esp. the lack of understanding of what these groups really are. I wonder if the new entrants have just got bigger, and so have a greater volume of research income? It gets interesting when you look at per capita RI rather than volume - but the media constantly labelling a self-selecting group of universities as "The top" doesn't help, and I suspect drove this change. Not good for small but excellent places like St Andrews.

@Nit yes. I am known for being a vile evil witch when reviewing work because I am so mean about the way in which people write. Because it's often very crap and it absolutely has to stop being crap and start being adequate (this is employees, not students or even trainees). But this is mumsnet. And if I don't get to pull people up for misquoting Shakespeare then picking up on iPhone apostrophes is a bit harsh I feel.

@yello It's possible some of us can't work this morning because South West Water are making a big old racket in the street. Such hypothetical people might be looking for diversion To be honest my real thing is why this thread and not some of the other frantic bishes that have been paraded recently. And it's just idle curiosity.

Actually the University of Bath (in the 1994 Group) started out as the Bristol College of Technology.

Blimey Nit. Like I said, it was just funny.

I assure you not - it was but the work of a moment to surmise the above

Nit I think you're overthinking it.

No, the 1994 group doesn't include any ex-polys and several of its members are more competitive to get into than some of the RG ones.

Well of course, if you were thinking your argument through and being measured in your expression, you should probably have got them all into the one post anyway! Bit adding 'ps' and then a 'pps' and then a 'ppps', I thought, which, as any fule no, is bad form.

I think you were ungracious and unkind, and needlessly so.

I thought it was quite simply a way of identifying (for those who are too young to remember) universities which had always been universities and which generally had the higher academic reputations across a range of subjects.

Three tiny weeny posts, hardly pulling OP apart! Anyhow, probably not worth pursuing I wouldn't have thought.

And wot SteamingNit said.

No Kez, Durham was one of the first to introduce the LNAT in the same year as a small number of the RG universities and the BMAT has nothing to do with a particular group.

A lot of people think Durham and Exeter are RG. It's been used as a term to denote top or competitive universities and the 1994 group is barely referred to, except by pedants .

DC's - short for dear children's surely. So fine.