to laugh at the reverence with which some people on mn write about universities?

[Pickgo]

I've seen Russell Group universities written about as though their students have a passport to success and that their standards are so much higher than the rest of the HE offering.

The only difference I can see between a RG and ordinary university is that they focus on research and get extra funding to do so. That does not necessarily benefit students, in fact it could be argued it is to the students' disadvantage as teaching is not a RG uni's priority.

Also altho their admission requirements are ostensibly higher, many students who actually get a place obtain it in clearing with much lower points - which makes a nonsense of the 'RG snobbery' being trotted out.

Another thing I've seen suggested is that potential students will have their FB accounts checked before they are offered a place. I've never known anyone who would have the time or inclination to look up an 18 yr old on FB as part of admissions.

Potential students are the paying customer now and will be a sought after commodity.

Can I also just point out that average contact time in HE is 6-8 hours and most of what students achieve in their 3-4 years at uni is down to their own motivation and a good library imho.

I went to one of the universities that has just joined the RG (a very old one!)I know for a fact because I was told by the Director that having my degree from there was a major reason I was recruited,partly because it denotes a certain minimum quality.

I trained with one of the big accountancy firms ,basically they still take 90% of their graduate intake (they now take some school leavers) from 10 Universities.My dh is a lawyer he says if you are not from Oxbridge or one of the RG then there is no hope of a training contract in a commercial firm,partly because the competition is so stiff and in reality its an academic job and there fore you need an academic education ,a degree from Anglia Ruskin ,whilst great for some things will not be the same as one from Durham or Bristol.Also the harder it is to get in to a University the higher the A level grades and for things like accountancy there is still a high correlation between A levels and accountancy exam results .

I agree about contact time being a misnomer ,high levels of contact time are needed where you a "training"the student ,for academic arts ,social sciences the student needs to be able to develop the ability to work on their own initiative there fore I am wary of say an english graduate with 20 hours of contact because they are effectively being taught rather than developling the ability to think independently.

I graduated in 1986 and only ever had about 10 hours contact time

If you have DCs considering university then I think the "reputation" of where they are going to go matters. I went to a university that had an excellent reputation ( I think it is the same one that mrswoodentop went to ) and it was a positive factor when I was looking for jobs.

I don't think the RG is the be all and end all but some consideration of how your degree might be valued by those employing you is sensible. DH works in an area that recruits maths graduates and the vast majority of the intake will come from a small number of universities that require high entry grades and offer a demanding maths degree.

1994 Universities are absolutely fine, students are perfectly employable. It's post-1992 universities that employers are nervous of (ie ex-polys).

Just to clarify - 1994 means '1994 Group' and 'post-1992' means institutions that got their charter after John Major waved his magic policy wand. (To clarify again, not the policy wand he waved at Edwina Currie).

Oh come on Boffin, Durham grads have been more highly sought after for decades than plenty of Russell Group grads (with a couple of obvious exceptions). Getting in is way harder too, certainly for most Humanities. There's no particular magic on that front in the two groupings.

Yes, that was exactly my point. Durham was, until this week, a 1994 Group member, and demonstrates very well the fact that both groups contain high status universities.

I think you might be getting confused with the categories 1994 Group and 'post-1992 universities' which are two completely different things - one is a guild of established higher education institutions, the other is a policy term referring to the step taken by John Major's government to convert existing polytechnics and colleges of higher education into universities by allowing them to adopt the term 'university', whereas before it had been more strictly controlled. (See my post of 20:09 on Saturday).

To repeat, this is how the different groups are perceived generically by many employers:

'Elite' - very good
'RG' - good
'1994 Group' - good
'Million+ Group' - approach with caution, depends on the course
'Guild HE' - possibly approach with caution, again depends on the course and the nature of the job (i.e. how vocational is it?)

There is a good joke that puts all this into perspective:

Graduate trainee goes into workplace on first day.
Manager hand graduate trainee a broom.
Graduate trainee says, "But I am not here to sweep floors, I went to Oxbridge, you know!"
Manager replies, "Oh, I am terribly sorry, would you like me to show you how?"

No I'm not confused Boffin, I know the categories and their members off by heart.

Obviously it depends what you are studying. Dd is applying for Law so is happy she has 5 offers from RG or equivalent universities..

I personally think it still really does matter where you go. The split between universities ( will never do the uni thing) and polytechnics didnot need to be evened out. They both did what they did really well.

I certainly would not be encouraging dd to get debt for her particular degree from somewhere that was not top of the pile, though my view may be very different for nos 2 and 3 if they choose very different options.

Glad to say I've trained all my Oxbridge kids to sweep the floor, so presumably they'll be top of the game?

What mrswoodentop said is correct.

Top City banks and law firms will only recruit from Oxford, Cambridge and a few RG universities. They do not even regard all RG universities as equal.

The reason they do this is because someone who was good enough to get into the top 5 universities in the UK has already been tested and preselected rigorously so it makes sense to only choose from that pool of talent. It makes their recruitment process a lot simpler and quicker.

It is a way of limiting the number of applicants - these firms pay so highly they would be swamped with applications otherwise.

I think it may be a bit more textured than that MoreBeta.

amusing thread

I started my degree at a "russel group " uni (didn't even know what that meant before I kept hearing it on mn and googling it!) but then transferred to another non-Russell group uni after taking a year out to have dd, continuing with the same subject. I have to say that the teaching at my new uni is far superior. I felt line I was in a DIY degree at my old one. I agree that self- directed learning forms the basis f higher education, so frankly as long as you put the work in you'll do well. Same goes fir schools IMO. I went to a grammar school, but lots of people I know who went to comprehensives have done far better than people from my school because they were intelligent and put the work in.

And by the way I am not an idiot who can't spell, but the owner of a ridiculous auto-correcting phone!

Dd felt she wasn't Oxbridge worthy due to her bad 4th As. Bad idea in my opinion. but whatever. She can go later if she wants as I and many of my now academic friends did.

I really don't know why some places offer Law.

Boffin ha! so true. DP gets lots of runners/ interns in who are incredibly put out that they have to hump boxes around and make tea... they have just graduated from Ravensbourne with a BA in applied media jizzmop studies and Mummy and Daddy are paying for their flat and they want to travel the world and do all the trendy stuff, and they want to do it NOW!!They can work all the equipment, but can't converse with clients or just muck in and get their trendy little hands dirty when they need to. They are even more cross when they hear that my lovely DP was just a geek on a building site with a couple of GCSEs until a couple of years ago...

It's not really a matter of whether RG or 1994 Universities are 'better'. WIth more and more young people going to University a degree in itself is not the discriminator it was. However, to get into the 'better' Universities you have to have better A levels, so it shows employers that, at 18 at least, you were one of the best candidates. THey do also have a more 'academic' approach which suits some preofessions better than a more 'vocational' one.
As someone said, better to hold Universities/graduates in reverence than celebs!

I dunno some celebs do a lot less harm to society than do many graduates

The intake list for the top City law firm 25 years ago comprised:
Oxford 9
Cambridge 8
KCL 4
Bristol 2
Durham 2
Exeter 2
LSE 2
UCL 2
Liverpool 2
Aberystwyth 1
Birmingham 1
Lancaster 1
Leicester 1
QML 1
SOAS 1
Sheffield 1

Recruiting has become more inclusive, not less so.

The big difference is in gender, not university. This list includes only 13 women: 27 men.

I think it's possible to get too hung up on these things.

DialsMavis Ha! No, just a silly stereotype. What nonsense.

Dunno why it's so laughable that 50% of UK children are to go to university (actually 43% at the mo apparently) when 12 other countries manage a higher proportion than that without apparently exploding, or dying from a disease caught from a dirty telephone?

HR and recruiting should never be in the same sentence IMO.
I once looked through the CV's they'd rejected and nearly had a heart attack, a guy that had basically invented the product we were installing with 5 years experience in something that had been out for 4.75. There would be nobody better on planet earth, in the circular filing cabinet due to his university.

43% can of course go to university and that's no bad thing but it does mean they start out on lower salaries than we did in 1994 because there's no value placed on their degree.

Oh, OK