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?

[olidusUrsus]

If employers sift by RG vs non-RG

They don't. At least, no employer worth working for does.

[Talkinpeace]

OP
It depends entirely on the course.
It is far better to get a good degree from ANY university on the right course than to faff about arbitrary things like RG.

A friend of mine is a lecturer on a course at a non RG Uni that would have many of the private school parents in tears if I named it.
BUT
It has 100% graduate employment in the field with many self start millionaires among the alumni.

[williaminajetfighter]

Olidus but there are employers who do that. Big ones. Why don't you check where P&G recruits from? Loads of major employers now only recruit from some universities. And they do 'sift'...

[olidusUrsus]

Have just looked up P&G graduate programmes and can't find anything to do with university specification. Can you give me a link as to where you read it?

I just find a lot of "well you have to go to RG because so-and-so only hires from them" is bullshit and (IME) a lot of people who have actually never been to university seem to hold that particular belief my mum.

[williaminajetfighter]

look olidus this is based on my experience of running the marketing department of a University and working closely with the careers and recruitment teams. Certain companies ONLY recruit at some Universities now whereas their reach was a lot broader. Look at the list of recruiters at say the London School of Business versus say, University of Bedfordshire. (I've not attended either but London Biz school ranked no. 1). Check where P&G recruits from as they are one of the big companies that still have an active program. I doubt they'll publish their 'criteria around which universities they expect people to attend' or 'how they sift their staff'. Um, most HR departments won't do that either.

Also I attended business school and even then recruiters only went to a few schools, not all, and were very specific about where students studied.

[williaminajetfighter]

sorry meant to write London Business School not London school ofbiz...

[TheUnsinkableTitanic]

call centre comment is out of date OP

my experience with call centres are that they can provide excellent career paths for graduates ie experience of managing a team, training, sales, etc - with very good salary for a graduate (who has no employment experience!)

btw i am brought in as a consultant on good money with a non RG degree and masters :)

[BOF]

There is a disproportionate amount of wheelsqueaking on MN from certain quarters about RG universities, often in posts where its relevance is dubious. Rather like shoehorning in the fact you won a spelling bee when you were 11 or similar, it doesn't necessarily relate to success or happiness in the real world, or people wouldn't feel the need to bang on about it.

[trackies]

I never knew about RG uni's when i went to uni.
Did maths degree and stuggled to get a job in early 90's, so did some postgrad studies at a different non-RG uni and got a good graduate postion job, and ended up doing very well career wise.
Both uni's were not RG but still in top 20 to 35.
So no i don't think everyone looks at RG, but some highly paid prefessions in the City may do.
I would still encourage uni, but remembering that lots of people have degrees now and maybe try to get in one that's int he top half rather than the bottom half if poss.
It was easier decision in my day as we didn't have tuition fees !

[Northernlurker]

I think that a degree in any subject from a 'good' university - russell group, oxbridge or other established institution (and I include places such as Sussex and UEA in that) is worth having. A specialised or vocational degree from an institution highly regarded for that is also worth having. A degree such as English from University-the-only-one-I-could-get-in-to is a waste of money.

I am just about to recuit my third apprentice in the NHS. The two previous candidates did not have a degree - or a job. After their apprenticeship they have a NVQ, excellent references, the opportunity to learn from me (ten years NHS experience), extensive interview and application prep and bags of confidence. They have both got jobs within the NHS and one has already been promoted. The cost to them? Zero. Granted the apprentice wage is awful but they're started on their careers now and have gone straight to jobs paying double that wage. That's a better deal for a LOT of young people I think.

[olidusUrsus]

Look, will please don't be patronising - I'm sure discrimination of that sort does happen, but I doubt that is widespread or done by credible employers.

This is based on my experience of conducting research for Oxford under the supervision of Professors and working alongside people who were trained in all sorts of places.

Ultimately there are more important factors to consider than the name of the institution you attend.

Re: P&G, you made it sound like there was easily accessible information available but that I was just too stupid to find it.

[olidusUrsus]

Look at the list of recruiters at say the London School of Business versus say, University of Bedfordshire
...
I doubt they'll publish their criteria around which universities they expect people to attend

Conflicting info. Not sure what you want me to look up?.

[Copthallresident]

I apologise if someone has already made this point, I did go through the comments but couldn't find anyone highlighting it.


The Russell Group is a bunch of universities who got together (at the Russell Hotel, hence the name) to create a powerful lobbying gang group. Other universities equally if not higher in the rankings such as St Andrews, Durham , SOAS started a separate gang group, the 1994 group. The criteria for membership of either does not encompass meeting any measures of quality. It just happens that amongst certain ignorant employers and mumsnetters it has acquired a certain brand image which is why Durham and a couple of others have now defected from one gang to the other. If you want measures of the quality of universities look at, depending on what you are looking for, subject rankings, employment ratings, student satisfaction, research rankings, average UCAS points per candidate etc all available and used in various permutations in the various tables.

I have been to three RG / 1994 unis so I have no chip on my shoulder to indulge but membership of RG is not a measure of quality, nor having been involved in graduate recruitment and done the milk round do I believe that many employers regard it as such. Some may sift on certain universities they regard as a mark of quality in their students, I know of a law firm for instance that only consider those from Oxford/ Cambridge / LSE/ UCL/ Bristol and Durham but frankly some RG universities would be more unlikely to make that sort of list than some non RG universities. And of course at the end of the day it is whether students have the skills and experience employers require. All of my friends DCs and my older DDs peers are struggling to assemble CVs that make them employable regardless of which university they went to, including Oxbridge, very few emerge straight from uni into a career at the moment with the possible exception of would be accountants, and they always did recruit en masse.

As far as my DDs are concerned we looked at the subject tables and then went and visited and they tried / will try for the best regarded course that they liked and had a realistic chance of getting into.

[TigerseyeMum]

If you play that kind of game you can never really win. For example, I know of one business where the CEO came from a specific Oxford college and so would only recruit applicants from that college.

No matter how much you try to tip it in your favour you can come unstuck.

I was also going to mention routes like NHS apprenticeships but have been beaten to it. At 17 I knew nothing about work opportunities, had I been able to work for a large employer and try different roles I may well have been able to identify what I really wanted to do and do a respected relevant qualification. In the end I did bland Degree X from average uni Y which got me nowhere.

I've been to uni 5 times since then, each time to hone my training further. If I'd known way back then I could have taken a shorter route.

Right now, unless kids really know what career they want and how to get there I'd recommend a few years out, working, then going in as a mature student if they even need a degree.

[Toadinthehole]

In the 90s, the hierarchy was 1. ancient 2. redbrick / civic 3. new (ie, the ex-polys). No mention of RG back then.

As it happens, I went to an RG university and got a not-particularly-useful arts degree. I then went down the road to the local new university, did a one-year postgraduate course and got a job. Again, this was the 1990s.

The difference between the two institutions was that the former took it for granted that its graduates - mostly from well-off backgrounds- would enter good careers in the traditional sense: law, accountancy, Civil Service, blue-chip companies and so on; relying on the Platonic view that its degree was evidence that its graduates could think well enough to succeed in their chosen career. The latter's approach was quite different: it was to train undergraduates for specific roles, e.g. nursing.

Some of my fellow RG graduates are now pretty wealthy and with very successful careers. Others scratched for jobs and had to retrain. My embittered view is that probably at some point just before I matriculated, an arts degree from an old university with a strong academic reputation ceased to be one's golden ticket for life.

[Talkinpeace]

Toadinthehole
That is probably because the Russell Group was only established in May 1994

[Toadinthehole]

..ahh, thanks. I remember my alma mater becoming RG while I was there.

I'm allowed to use poncy terms like "alma mater" because I went to an RG university.

[PumpkinPositive]

I went to Glasgow U and am only finding out now it's a RG (not that that means anything to me.). Fat lot of good it did me!

Don't see Strathclyde uni on that list and yet its Business School is internationally renowned so I don't think this mysterious RG accreditation can mean much.

[Toadinthehole]

In the past, simply getting into university meant you'd made it in life - because hardly anyone got in. You were the creme de la creme, and could walk into the graduate profession of your choice, having spent three years in stimulating idleness. There is an echo of this in the idea that RG universities are the best.

The truth is that now one is must chose one's career, and then decide which institution to attend (whether or not that involves a degree). The wealth of information available on the Internet makes that much easier to do: whether or not that leads to an RG university is besides the point.

[williaminajetfighter]

olidus I wasn't saying that my knowledge or experience was better than anyone else, I was saying that because I'd worked in the sector I had heard and seen a lot about this topic. I do honestly think that recruiters for blue chip companies still do filter based on University. There are only so many criteria by which to filter 1000s of applications of people who haven't had very much job experience.

To your comment above: Look at the list of recruiters at say the London School of Business versus say, University of Bedfordshire
I doubt they'll publish their criteria around which universities they expect people to attend
Conflicting info. Not sure what you want me to look up?.

It's not conflicting information. I said look at which companies recruit or hire from these two institutions. Which is different than finding out the criteria by which they assess candidates.

This is a list of recruiters and companies employing LBS candidates is here: www.london.edu/assets/documents/theschool/London_Business_School_MBA_Employment_Report_2012.pdf
Can't find the same for Bedfordshire but I'm sure this list could be compared against others.

I am starting to wonder why so many on MN are so uppity gets so darn chippy so fast.

[Catypillar]

Doesn't matter in medicine (most places anyway- don't know about the big London hospitals etc)

I went to a non-RG university, have colleagues who went to a whole selection of RG (including Cambridge) and non-RG unis and we're all doing the same thing. I'd never heard of the Russell Group until after I graduated (graduated in 2005)... What doctors need to be able to do is standardised across the UK (although all unis have their own exams) so there's no advantage.

I teach at a non-RG medical school (not the one I went to) and was doing the exams recently, I'd written a clinical exam station which the external examiner from an RG medical school told me was too difficult for undergraduates- then she sat in on the exam and watched them do it fine. Hah.

[olidusUrsus]

Sorry, don't understand the main body of your post. Maybe I am just stupid.

I still don't think it happens that often. You might get the occasional twat like the one mentioned up thread who only hired people from a certain college: you might get that upscaled where certain companies prefer certain university graduates, but on the whole, overall, I just don't believe it is common enough for the average prospective student to bother worrying about when they apply - there's just so much more they can do to further themselves.

My brain is feeling frazzled and I don't think I'm going to try to explain my views anymore. Have had a shit day so sorry iif I came across as hostile or uppity or whatever - not sure if your last sentence was directed to me or just general observation.

Backing out of thread now.

[LittleprincessinGOLDrocks]

I didn't go to an RG Uni. I did however do a bit of research it to the field I wanted to go in to. I found that most of the local employers in that industry thought highly the Uni I went to.
So I think you need to know your area well, and look in to what your potential employers will be looking for in terms of university training.

[lljkk]

Some stats here, showing that the rise has been slow & steady other than big post-92 jump. About half of the 40% or so who start are at ex-polys. Separating out expoly students to compare with the past, means only about 20% go to Uni, which means probably about 17% actually complete their degree from a pre '92 Uni. It's maybe 2.5x as much as 20 yrs ago, an increase but impressive how many still don't go, too.

[mummytime]

For some careers you need a degree, where from can influence your career in lots of ways. If I had gone to any RG Uni other than the one I did, I would not have got a lot of the jobs I got after graduating, however going to a Poly would have been just as good. My DH wouldn't have had the career he has if he hadn't happened to do a specific 2nd year project, and it is still relevant to him today.
Some courses can only be done at certain no RG Unis. Some top employers sponsor students through degrees, and often not at RG Unis.

But I also once was interviewed by a company that only recruited from Oxford, Cambridge wasn't good enough.