to ask if DC shouldn't bother with university if they can't get into a Russell Group one?

[TuTuTilly]

I'd never heard of the ruddy things before I joined MN. Didn't even realise I'd been to one. I do recall when I had a tedious summer job in Human Resources which included "sifting" job applications for an international firm of accountants, being told to dump any that weren't from a handful of universities.

So my question is; if your child can't get into an RG university - should they accept that they will be unemployable oiks upon graduation and resign themselves to a life working in call centres?

Oh my goodness, I read about RG universities on here and actually thought they some kind of 'branded' university called Russell Group University. Well well.

Boomba
How would you have known?
THe RG was not thought up till 1994

And and. Who the hell is Russell anyways? and what's his 'group' for exactly?

This whole 'checking the list to see if you went to an RG uni' is.crap fro anyone of us over 40 - the RG only formed in 1994 so it was irrelevant for anyone who graduated before that!

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but just in case anyone else is coming late - the Russell group was formed in a meeting in 1994 between the Vice ChAncellors of a self selecting group of research intensive pre1992 universities ( a statutory distinction) funded by the then UFC to serve their own interests as a lobby group for maintaining the level of interest in blue sky research. It is called the Russell grouo because the meeting took place at the Russell hotel in London. You had to not only be invited but also to turn up to be in it.

It has since become something of a shorthand proxy fro 'good' outside the university world, but it's not a shorthand that works for everything.

ah well, there you go then!

Copthallresident, most companies that operate the way MoreBeta describes have spent a lot of time honing their approach and have found it gives them exactly what they want.

Employers are highly selective because they can be (it is indeed a cold, hard world out there) and it doesn't matter whether a finer toothed comb would yield slightly better results for them what they are doing now nets a perfectly good outcome. Same goes for the merits or otherwise of a 2:1 the subtleties are lost on employers. If you don't have one you can chuck your hat at the concept of a career track upon graduation, with predictable progression. Companies don't want the thousands and thousands of CVs that would result from applicants being required to show their attributes, previous experience, etc. Part of what they are doing is cutting HR costs by limiting the number of CVs they have to get through.

Getting on a career path with predictable progression right out of university is very important for anyone planning to have any sort of family life while they are still young enough to have children. Maybe this would affect women more than men but depends on the individual and their take on partnership within the family I suppose.

When it comes to getting a job before graduating (recruitment via the milk round) an applicant needs to have the minimum 2:1 from a very selective university, plus relevant degree, plus solid job experience (not necessarily housekeeping part time in a hotel - evidence of unsupervised and responsible position preferred).

I agree with MoreBeta here wrt the milk round deny it if you like but it exists and it follows the US model and the fact that some RGs are more equal than others. (I agree with Spero here too).

Research standing matters because of the assumption that an undergrad is exposed to the cutting edge of knowledge in any given field and is therefore better than an undergrad in a university with a more sleepy research profile. It doesn't just matter to those intending to have an academic career.

Anyone feel up to the task of naming who the "top employers" are?
In one of the links provided earlier the top employers included employers who I know recruit from the nonRG uni where I work (not on the highflyers list either).
Must be a better list of "top employers".
Leaving aside the fact that 70%? of employment in UK is provided by SMEs.

Also the course offered at, say, Southampton Solent, may be superior in every way to the one at Bristol. But - surely one wants to consort with students of a similar academic ability to oneself? There may be one or two students out there interested in the academic experience and not just the milk round!

What's the milk round?

The milk round is when companies go round universities recruiting. It is nothing like it used to be. I think that many people on here have no understanding whatsoever of the graduate unemployment problem. They appear to think that you can go to a RG university, with a traditional subject, get at least a 2:1 and it will get you a job- and not that you will be serving coffee and working on the shop floor in M & S, which is the reality, as they continue the search. ( unless lucky)
The position is very, very different from what it was even 10 years ago.

I work in an organisation where we take on a number of graduate trainees each year; they work towards professional qualifications and places are sought after.

The recruitment process is highly competitive but no-one gives a stuff which university someone graduated from. The initial sift is done by online tests, not by looking at a CV.

IMO the most able trainee in my office was one from a very ordinary university though we had a couple from RG and one from Cambridge. Frankly in the world of work the university attended is pretty indistinguishable.

I can't stress how highly competitive the recruitment process is- there are likely to be at least 60 competing for one job and generally treble figures.

exoric but is RG uni a factor in selection? Not IME

Math But Morebeta is comletely wrong about the Big 4.

I've always worked in science/engineering though

Is it more relevant in careers where more schmoozing goes on?

Boomba There are definitely universities which are better regarded than others, but as I said upthread, this varies by subject and the set of 'better universities' and 'members of the RG' while it does have an intersect is certainly not identical.

Sorry Boomba- I covered that earlier. It depends on your subject and chosen career. DS1 went to a RG and I can't say it was a factor. DS3 couldn't have chosen a RG university- he chose the best for his subject.
They need to do a terrific amount of homework- it is all a available. Simply thinking RG must be best is a huge mistake- it might be best, it might not.

That makes sense

My dh didn't go to university as he was in foster care and had other more pressing issues.

He is currently contracting, but previously was head of his department at a previous role.

He gets head hunted for roles frequently.

Recruitment depends on what you are shooting for. Investment banks and the top consultancies only visit a few Unis, RG or not, but do say they accept applications from elsewhere. The Big 4 cast a wider net. There are far more Firsts awarded now so that is the new 2:1, and a 2:1 is the new 2:2.

Also it seems to depend on what you are studying, I get the impression that subjects that are harder to measure objectively (mainly arts, humanities) rely more on the Uni Name.

Oxbridge does seem to hand people a more golden key than others, but I'm not convinced that is due to the teaching....

Oxbridge maybe a 'more' golden key- it is not the golden key. With treble figures for most jobs you need a lot of 'strings to your bow'

And sadly a lot comes down to 'who you know' - work experience and networking are more important than university name.

mathyanxiety The point I was making is that employers are very highly selective and far more discerning than using RG as a crude measure of quality. If you look at the overall employment statistics, covering all subjects, there is a clear advantage to having a degree from Imperial/UCL/ LSE/ Cambridge in the 80%s but then in the second tier with the number with a career within six months in the 70% a degree from Bristol Durham Oxford Exeter etc is no more likely to get you a job than St Andrews, Loughborough, Heriott Watt and in the high 60%s the picture gets even more mixed, a degree from Nottingham, York or Southampton is no more likely to get you a career after six months than Surrey, Soas, or Kent, .........

In my own area marketing it is very much the trend to seek candidates who have degrees in stem or vocational subjects or already have vocational qualifications, work experience and perhaps be well on the way to Chartered Institute qualifications. The route I went in by, straight from uni with a RG History degree , then embarking on vocational qualifications whilst on the job, is now more or less defunct. Exotic fruits is completely correct in the experience of my friend's DCs and my DD's peers, it is all about building up a CV with any unpaid internships, postgrads, related work experience etc etc etc

None of our kids are bothered about RG because they are doing nontraditional subjects, 2 arty and 1 engineering so going for more specialised universities.
Neither DH or I went to Russell group. It is underrepresented in Scotland.
For medicine, engineering, teaching, nursing, musical performance, art they seem an irrelevence. Probably more important if you're doing law or physics.

Exotic - Oxbridge usually gives the student the opportunity to know the 'right' people and have had the 'right' opportunities before they ever get to the situation of job applications.