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?

I bloody hate Austen!
However, I agree with you in that she represents a narrow strata, but when looking at the writing and taking it alongside her peers one can get a reasonable view of the whole.
Austen needs to be studied, her style of writing changed the way in which novels were written and has persisted for the best part of two hundred years. Yes there are writers who do it differently, Safran Foer, Self and others, but in the main, we are still influenced by Austen.
As a lecturer, I feel extraordinarily sad that you would be upset if your daughter chose the arts.
I agree with you about elite society. Unfortunately, we are now in the grip of a government who are an elite, businessmen with no sense for either art or science, heading for an oligarchy. Equally depressing.
Arts do have a major place in society, it is those with the arts degrees that write our newspapers, make our governments account for themselves and pose the philosophical and moral questions that need to be discussed. My DS is going to university in September, he will be studying Lit. I am very happy and know that he will make a good and important contribution to society.

would anyone please tell me what Russel Group means, please?

if not too much trouble.....

We did a whole load of cultural criticism too, I think eng. lit maybe be wrong name for that. No Austen tg.

Spero, you hate literary criticism and you hate the idea of literature degrees - I think that's a bit of a shame but I'm not really going to have a lot of success persuading you it's a valid intellectual thing to do, so I think we shall have to agree to disagree (I don't know what you do for a living, so won't be rude about it in return ).

Amazing mum of 6 - the OPs link gives you all you need to know - second post on page 1

Austen rocks. See the late great fabulous Angela Carter on the 'twanging sexuality' of her writing. (In a collection published back in the 1980s when publishers produced that kind of thing called, rather fabulously, 'The Left and the Erotic'. I think I blagged a review copy when I worked on a lefty magazine back in the day.)

beckandcall thanks, I didn't see that. will check it out. thank you

(I'm not thick, but now I wonder - would I have spotted that if I had gone to RG place?)

Austen also gives the best defence of reading novels around, in Northanger Abbey, although I cannot quote it verbatim and it's too high up on our shelves to reach since Mr Inferior alphabetised the books.

Lol at amazing! That's the spirit - you've picked up very quickly what this thread is about!

thanks Becks

I'm glad I can be the sum of all things this thread!

amazingit's a group of universities who met in the Russell Hotel and decided to form a gang so they could lobby the government more effectively. There is another gang called the 1994 group. Some of the universities in the group are very good, especially for some subjects, and some not so good, especially for some subjects, as indeed is the case with the 1994 group, but because some people are too lazy to google university league tables they have acquired the perception that being part of the Russell group equates to quality. As a result a few more universities defected from the 1994 gang to the Russell Group gang. Some universities ever joined a gang but some of those are good too especially for some subjects. You can find out which are good by googling university league tables and university subject league tables where you will find all manner of objective measures of quality, student satisfaction, UCAS points for entry, research rankings, employment statistics but it is apparently beyond those who recruit for the Big 4 accounting firms, city law firms etc

Dawn noooooo. With the possible exception of Vince Cable this cabinet are NOT businessmen, nor have they ever been. They are rich boys who wanted to be cabinet ministers and Daddy got them an internship, they have never had to work for a living. Gove was a journalist . I do not claim that the business world doesn't have it's idiots but on the whole it does it's research, identifies the issues and plans what it will do based on evidence and consultation etc it isn't rocket science but if you have any common sense it is obviously the way to go, and if you don't it is in every How to manage change text book even the ones used for GCSE business studies.....

Hate is rather a strong word for it. I don't 'hate' much in life, I reserve that emotion for what deserves it.

I quite accept that studying literature is not worthy of anyone's 'hate' - all I am saying is that I don't think it is quite so vital and necessary for the happy continuation of Society as its proponents argue. But of course we are all protective of the fields where we have spent so much of our lives.

I love literature but I don't think if all Eng Lit departments shut down tomorrow people would stop writing.

But ok, you have beaten me down. You all seem to be able to afford computers at least so maybe my daughter wouldn't be doomed to a Finsbury Park bedsit. I will send her to talk to you when the time comes.

So I will try not to cry inside, but there may be still some metaphorical twitching.

Copthall - just one small point before I go.

I have 300 applications on my desk. I am volunteering to do the first sift for third six pupillage interviews. I am tired. I have a lot of other work to do.

So, do I head off to Google to research whether Thames Valley University has acquired some cachet in a niche field? Do I pour over the 2:2s to see if they are redeemed by all the extra cirricular activities?

No I bloody well do not.

I am not saying this is ideal. I am not saying that everyone in my reject pile is crap. But when I have at least a 100 applications which are all perfectly good I will identify and employ an initial crude sifting policy.

I bet I am not alone in this. And it is something to think about if you want to get into a very competitive and popular field.

amazing, it's just one grouping. The important point has always been to know which universities the clever better teenagers go to as employers snowed under by applications need to limit their search a bit. So if get to Oxbridge that has always been helpful in career terms as they are hard to get into. Next down used to be Durham which would still be pretty high up anyone's list. Bristol is good etc etc...... Some in the RG are not sa good as others however so it is by no means some kind of entry into good jobs but better than institutions which are easier to get in to. It is just a common sense thing - if just about any thicko in the land with CCB in A levels can get in it won't be such a good place. If you only get in with As and A* at A levels then it will be a good place.

Spero is definitely right for her field ( as of course she would be - I'm just backing it up here)- getting that first opportunity and making the cut is massively dependent on where you went and what degree you got.

As an illustration, DD wants to be a barrister. She is at a very good RG uni but not Oxbridge or Bristol. She has a mini pupillage booked for the summer but just getting past the first sweep was almost impossible - the one she got was through picking up the phone and badgering away.

She also applied for solicitor summer internships - didn't get a single call back and some actually said they were only looking at very specific unis for their candidates.

So Sperro , are you only going to include only those who went to the RG universities, and include all those who did? thought not......

We sifted on a points score of academic results, including Gcse and A level, then a closer look at the 25% who got through that to check out relevant factors like work experience, extra curricular, why they wanted to work for us looking for evidence they had skills , experience and the qualities that we had closely defined as needed to do the job, it was a general management training scheme, the specialist area they were assigned to was decided at interview. Then we interviewed 5%. Now our scheme does pre testing, and telephone interviewing between the sift and deciding who to interview.

I suspect for law you know pretty much what you are looking for.

Even UCL wouldn't guarantee you the best candidates, there is a low rent way of getting in via SEES. But Law from SOAS if you are an International firm building it's practise in the Middle East?

RG means little to me, it was established after I graduated.

To my pupil master in 1994, the only universities he would consider were Oxford, Cambridge and LSE.

When I am sifting, first sift, out goes anything below 2:1.
Then I group firsts, will usually recommend all firsts for interview unless something strikingly off about application.

Then I group 2:is according to institution.

Oxford, Cambridge, Kings, Bristol UCL, LSE, Exeter, Durham are ones who automatically make that first cut.

Then I give preference to those who have done mooting, debating, worked for law centres, worked abroad etc.

I will easily have 100 or so applications who make it through that first sift.
So after that, I might as well toss a coin, they are all equally as good.

I am a family lawyer. I am not looking for someone with particular niche specialisms. If I did have such particular specifications, no doubt it would be worth paying someone to recruit/head hunt so they could do a proper job. But when you are in a field with many, many perfectly good recruits then I am afraid the subtleties of the sifting process get lost.

Beckandcall - good luck to your daughter. I always told my students that if you had the basic academics and you kept trying at some point you would succeed. I am living proof of that - got knocked back after first pupillage, tried again and after three years succeeded. The problem is whether or not you can bear to spend maybe years chasing a dream. This is particularly a problem if you have a family and need to get an income coming in.

But it sounds like she has good gung ho attitude. If she keeps trying and builds up some good work experience and contacts, she should make it eventually. Just can't predict how long it will be... a lot of people lose heart.

And of course Exeter has only just joined the RG. As has Durham.

For many whizzy (mathsy) city jobs Imperial and Warwick would be much better regarded than Kings (I know someone who did War Studies (I think that was what it was called - although that might have been his father's shorthand for a more complex course title) at Kings though and walked (recently) into an excellent corporate role.

SEES would certainly be attractive to anyone with business in the emerging European countries, especially if the candidate had language skills. My sister did history at SEES and works for a MC firm (although not as a lawyer, as an analyst).

In my area one of the key things we look at is ability to communicate and analyse (the shorthand we sometimes use for this is 'has read a book, ever'. Increasingly, good language skills are at a real premium (not just foreign language skills either).

IMO this thread is not about artistic v scientific, Which is better or more profitable/employable?
What I understood from OP are following questions raised, Why there is so much weight placed upon RG universities?
Should our DC's providing they make the required grades apply only to RG universities?
Probably yes.
DS is sitting his last exam (Maths A level) as I write, all five applications for RG uni's were sent back in January, all five offered him a cond. place,
he knew exactly which uni's to go for based on his chosen course.
Sixth formers receive lot of advice from their college during application process, DS was strongly advised/swayed in favour of RG university, as were the others in his year.
To DS this debate is not overly important, to him this is a simple task (revise, make the grades and get into a very good uni, where ration of women to men is 6:2)

Of course, if i was recruiting mathematicians or scientists that list would look very different. Equally if I was looking for creative writers.

I think students should try to find out which is the best regarded institution for their field - for some that is easy as your field is quite niche, such as journalism or agriculture.

But for law, and I imagine same is true for Eng Lit, there are very many institutions that offer a course, so you do have to be careful.

Russians Absolutely, SSEES graduates will bring with them expertise (and possibly language skills) relevant to doing business in Eastern Europe. I am not in any way denigrating it as a centre for area studies, I wouldn't would I? However I do know students, who studied History at SSEES, so that they could put down on their CV that they have a BA in History from UCL in the hope it implies to an employer they were of a standard to have got on the UCL general History course which had an AAA offer when up until recently you may have got in to SSEES with BBB. In fact the gap has now narrowed and I gather it is an AAA offer v A*AA for History at UCL, hopefully as a result of students actually wanting to study Eastern Europe as opposed to use it as a strategy for making their CV look better.

My whole point is that both for prospective students and employers it is the course and uni that indicates quality, not the RG "brand" which is a pretty empty one. And as far as employers go they are also looking for a whole load of other evidence that a candidate has the qualities, skills and experience to do whatever job they are recruiting for, so graduates can't rely on an empty brand to get them a job.

strict If the school was advising RG to the exclusion of all others they were irresponsible. What if you want to study History of Art (best course is at The Courtauld) Chinese or Arabic Studies (SOAS if not Oxbridge) Civil Engineering (Heriott Watt if you can't get into UCL or Imperial) Electronic Engineering (Surrey if not Southampton) I am pretty sure they referred your son to the subject tables where he would have found all the relevant info on employability etc, Perhaps in DS's case all the best courses were at RG unis but that isn't the result of them being RG, it's the result of their individual records of teaching, research, demand etc in his subject.

copthall My sister went to SSEES a very long time ago! And she most assuredly did not get BBB. She did get an A in history though, in the days before norm referencing was abolished. Why did she apply to SSEES? Because someone in my year who had fucked up her A levels slightly and thus missed her St Andrews offer and her back up went there through clearing and adored it, and was quite evangelical back at the school when they invited us back to talk about our courses etc for the 6th formers considering uni. Was she genuinely interested in slavonic and eastern european history before she got there? Eastern european definitely yes. Slavonic, no, not even slightly. She is now though. She really came into her own while at Uni (and now has an MA too). She is proud of SSEES and puts it on her CV.

I completely agree with you about the vanity badge but clearly there are people who just refuse to accept that it is, as you say, pretty empty.

As I have said in this thread - when I start saying I went to an RG university instead of saying Cambridge, or when an Imperial Graduate uses RG rather than Imperial, then it can be taken seriously. Until then, when people say RG I assume they mean Newcastle (which is actually a uni my DD1 may very well look at when the time comes, but not because of its RG badge but because it currently offers a unique course which she is intrigued by).