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?

Indeed Russians- they still can't just sit back- they need to be proactive!

I did say it was a more golden key- I said it was not the golden key. You can go to Oxbridge and not find immediate employment, or employment at the right level.

The very very best ones still just need to sit back and field offers. But that's a tiny number, really. The rest do need to stir themselves. But if they are minded to do that they are often bette placed than most other people (Imperial grads are pretty well positioned too).

Except Russians in the media. My friend's DD felt the tables are well and truly turned and you are less likely to get into journalism, especially broadcast journalism, from Oxbridge because of inverted snobbery. Xenia loves to talk about the prospects of the blonde thin and pretty accomplished networkers at Oxbridge. Well that is exactly what she is, though more importantly clever and charismatic, and she felt it was a positive disadvantage. She has got there in the end but that has been by proving again and again over five years in all manner of unpaid internships, lowly work experience and a vocational postgrad with a placement, that she can do the job.

Agreed- but it is dangerous to assume that your DC will be one of the tiny number fielding offers. (And dangerous for the DC to assume it). The likelihood also depends on the subject. The key is, as always, 'do your homework before you apply'.

I asked DH about his recruitment policy (law) and he said that where you went to university definitely matters.

It's not a straight RG bias. Indeed he said that there were some RGs he wouldn't bother with, and some non RGs he would.

Basically, it's the first sift of applicants. Someone else does it. It's a way to make the numbers managable. Blunt, yes, but an effective way to create a pool. In the way that universities have a baseline entry requirement.

Then when you're through to the pool, other factors come into play. For examply DH has a complete prejudice towards those with law degrees! Other partners have other stuff they bring to the party.

And before anyone dives in a points out that the Senior Partner of XYZ went to Wolverhampton Polly...that may be true. But that was then, and this is now.

word Yes all my lawyer friends in city firms went to our lowly RG, but acknowledge they wouldn't stand a chance now. All their recruitment focuses on London and Oxbridge.

I'm an academic from outside the UK and the snobbery surrounding the RG is ludicrous - the term is nothing more than a funding/lobby group, not a 'quality' measure. Employers are wrong to use a RG degree as a keyword for CV searches, and I would (wanton pre-judgement alert here from myself) tend to assume an employer who did so was elitist, out of touch, and unlikely to offer a recent graduate a career path which would enable them to stretch themselves quickly. I would also assume they would be equally retrograde on matters such as advancement for women and equality generally. :massivegeneralisation:

Looking at the field first, and then isolating the appropriate university, is the appropriate way to go. Of course there are dinosaurs everywhere.

My husband is in a IB and their recruitment has actually diversified and focused. They have just launched a programme for school leavers (the first intake all have straight A*s at A level) and they are increasingly working with universities like Bath who place people with them in their year in industry years so they road test graduates for jobs after. They are also requiring at least one language.

In a company I used to work for, if you did not go to a Russell Group university or Durham (before they joined) then your CV went straight into the bin.

IB firms have always recruited A level students to work in back office roles and in the past lots of City firms also recruited 'barrow boy' types who were numerate and savvy but without significant formal qualifications to train on the job as back office and then working their way up to front office if they were good enough in market maker roles. Not everyone needs or wants a degree and it makes sense to look outside the standard pool of talent.

The IB firms still recruit at Oxbridge and top RG to fill graduate programmes though. I'm not saying its right but they have to somehow choose people and use a rough filter like Oxbridge and RG is a starting point for culling the thousands of applicants they get for their graduate programmes.

High street banks have always had both A level and graduate entry programmes too. There is too much focus on people going to university to get a degree. In my view only the top 25% of most academically able people need to go on to university. The remainder should start work and do apprenticeships, work related training programmes, profesisonal qualifications and then possibly go back to formal ediucation as part of career development later.

Morebeta This is a deliberate strategy to recruit those high fliers put off by high fees. Of those recruited in this first round three had Oxbridge offers.

One more thing...

In part the focus on RG universities has happened in response to the dumbing down of A levels and the redefining of what a university is.

Firms find it much much more difficult to differentiate candidates on the basis of qualifications now than in the past as so many more get A grades and go to university. In essence, picking a RG candidate is a safe and quick way way of differentiating among university students.

Copthall The Big 4 are also doing this. There are two different types of scheme currently in play, that I'm aware of, one is recruitment directly after A level, for people with typically AA A* , and they start work straight away, they do their professional exams (which will take forever because of having to do the gateway technician qualification) and then maybe, if they stay the course, they will be allowed to do an MBA or similar. The other that I have direct knowledge of is recruitment directly after A level, but then being sent off to uni (Exeter and Manchester are involved, maybe some others, not sure), having uni paid for, completely, plus earning a salary for the chunks of time working (the structure of the whole thing is what we used to call 'thin sandwich' back in the day). These kids will presumably qualify earlier or at the same time as their not on the scheme graduate counterparts, plus have the degree and the qualification. Howev they have to do an accountancy degree which isn't the best thing for progression in the profession and they have to sell themselves into indentured slavery for some years (not sure how many). It's about the firms concerned identifying and capturing the talent early on. But they are still recruiting graduates too. There are other schemes being run by the international firms outside the big 4 and even the non international firms. All of them have their obvious advantages (mainly involving avoidance of uni debt and early earning) but all also have significant drawbacks which should not be underestimated.

I went to two RG's - one for my PGCE. Being at Uni was generally a very good experience, but I wished I'd focused more on aiming for a 2:1 as I think that's also fairly crucial, though I guess at least with my 2:2 I was able to go on and do the PGCE.
I think my daughter's generation are a lot more focused on realistic targets in their learning - knowing what they need to achieve to reach a particular level. I do think these things were all a lot more fussy in my day - 70's/ 80's - as shown by people like the OP not having realised they were at an RG. I also only came across the term recently.
In answer to the question posed, I think I'd encourage my DCs to aim for an RG (as I feel they are both capable of this), but wonder if the main thing is still to go to uni, and if possible aim for a 2:1 ?

russians Agreed but I can see why they have taken the decision to join a scheme that offers development and career progression to senior management in an IB on a good salary over significant levels of debt, particularly if their parents do not have the means or will to provide financial support. DHs colleagues came into banking by all sorts of diverse routes, our MBA course in the 80s was a springboard for two friends to reach Board level from backgrounds in civil engineering and quantity surveying respectively, but once in, it is a meritocracy and noone gives a damn about your background. Whether IB is a good long term bet as an industry is another matter

I'm not so fussed for Boys. They can take a punt at 17 (which is what most of them will be when they start the application process) and if it doesn't work out, they can go back and do a degree at 25. Or 30. Or whatever. It's not such a great idea for girls though. Yes, they can go back at any age and do a degree, or a different non vocational degree if they don't in fact want to follow that vocation. And scores, hundreds, thousands of women do this every year, I know. But the additional factor of kids, when to have them, whether to have them, worrying about not having them, etc etc means that it's just that bit harder to change track. I also worry about vogue-ish schemes because sometimes, the people who get caught up in them find themselves left flapping when the mood changes and what was en vogue suddenly...isn't.

Basically, it's a minefield, and the best laid plans yada yada yada. So to my mind the best advice is still to do a degree in something you are interested in and think you will be ale to do really well in. At a place you fancy living and working in for at least 3 years. And then see what the world looks like.

Copthallresident - sorry but a candidate with an Oxbridge offer would be insane to turn that down and go straight into an IB at A level.

Uni is not for everyone but if you are academically gifted enough to go to Oxford or Cambridge you should go and then you will earn the money multiple times over to pay for the fees.

I think the gov policy of pushing university education on all has been disastrous and led to confusion and dilution of standards to extent that certain industries now have to operate very crude sifting policies just to whittle down applications to manageable levels.

In 10 years, when and if my daughter is considering it I will tell her to think very carefully. Obviously if she wants to do medicine or law she will need university but I don't think it is worth getting into tens of thousands of debt unless she can get a good degree from a top 20 institution.

I would rather she trained in a field she enjoyed and was good at than went somewhere mid ranking to do an arts degree. I think sadly that would now just be a waste of time and money.

Spero well, if she neither enjoys nor is good at arts subjects then yes that would be a waste of time money and the place (which would be better going to someone who valued it).

Some people want training. Some people hunger for education. If you and your DD aren't fussed about education then, sure, go the training route.

I too agree that too many people are going to university now - it's one of the reasons we are losing the concept of education as a positive good in and of itself. And getting it confused with training.

word your DH is being narrow, not broad minded, if he really does have a bee in his bonnet about law degrees. It is possible to have other interests and talents if you read law. I assume he's in a MC firm? Does he know they're sneaking in everywhere, like cockroaches? He needs to go on the attack :)

I think people have forgotten what 'education' actually means - to lead out. Of course I am 'fussed' about education. I want my daughter to continue through life ever curious and interested.

But pushing lots of teenagers to go to 'university' as if this is the key to something is bonkers.

Everyone should make a cool assessment of where their talents lie, what they are good at and what they could realistically achieve given competition in their field.

This is bloody hard to do at 18 and probably near impossible with a panicking parent at your shoulder.

University is not the holy grail for life success. It depends entirely on how you define success. But if you want to do a popular degree in a popular field you are dangerously kidding yourself if you think universities are not ranked by all employers.

"And then see what the world looks like" - exactly Russians

cf Spero "I think that would sadly be a waste of time and money"

I think going to Uni will be worth it for most young people - I think we've all just got to try not to be too scared by the idea of debt. Think of it more as a graduate tax ? Someone said it would mean that during the years our DCs have a roughly graduate level job they'd be paying back about £20 a week ? On wage slips it even looks like an extra tax/ deduction.

I'll be encouraging my DCs to go to Uni, and was glad to hear 4x more youngsters are going now than 30 years ago. So, hopefully, they can both go somewhere (as good as they can manage), study something they enjoy - possibly with a thought for future employment, and benefit from everything uni can offer you in your early twenties.

We'll possibly be refining these thoughts over the next few years - ATM they're only 11 and 14 !

My brother did Eng Lit degree at Essex. Tried and failed to get into publishing. Has been doing data entry for London council for ten years and now being made redundant. He lives in a bed sit in Finsbury Park. He may be happy, I don't know, we are not that close.

But I would consider that a piss poor return on my three year investment. If my daughter wants to do English, media studies, history of art etc I would ask her to think very very carefully, u less we had won lottery and could pay fees outright.