To think university snobbery must stop

[Staceystace]

I was telling a friend about my nephew who is off to University. I said to her he is off to x uni to study English, she said oh I didn’t even realise that was even a uni. She then went on to emphasise how her daughter is off to a top 20 uni, she went on to say how she wouldn’t have gone if it was not a Russell or 1994 group as she does not think it is worth the debt. I just got the vibe she was looking down on my nephews uni. Aibu to think this sort of snobbery about unis is terrible and needs to stop. My nephew is not the most academic, but surely not everyone is capable of going to a russell group.

Lets not forget though that the UK's most notorious drug dealer was an Oxford Grad and post grad, as were its most famous traitors.

Oh please ... everyone knows the traitors went to Cambridge!

Oh my bad. That's true

IrmaFayLear
As to "the top 20", they can shove it up their backside. A certificate doesn't mean you are more intelligent, just probably more employable and have "connections

Sigh. And then we get a half-witted post like the above

Half-witted? Did no one tell you that being that rude or dismissive towards someone you don't know, and who did you personally no harm is bad manners? You could just say you disagree.

Ok, point taken. But I wasn't shooting down a decently-made point; it was a silly comment. As if X thousand students at 20 universities are there and then acquire jobs through connections!

The whole thread has been worthwhile IMO just for the word 'fungible'.

but politicians keep playing to the Daily Mail classes by setting up the "why should the bin man pay for the Doctors eductions" strawman.

The bin man helping to pay for their doctors education may not be unreasonable, but it's decidedly regressive to expect him to subside middle class kids going to uni 'for the experience'.

Topcat
"Around 60 percent of Harvard families pay an average of $12,000 per year."
So still a significant amount and not any way showing that the majority get a free ride.
I never said the majority get a free ride. You made that up.
$12k is about the equivalent of £9k. I personally would rather spend that money on Harvard than almost anywhere else in the world.

"For families earning between $65,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and 10 percent of your annual income."
So families earning above the US median household income can contribuite very little. Hmmm.
"Families earning more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid."
So families with around 3 times the average American household income can still claim financial aid.
So, as said, most of the aid actually goes to families that are on avove average incomes, with another 40% or so paying full whack.

Now there's a massive failure of deductive reasoning, critical thinking, and basic reading of what was written, if ever I saw one...
What of families earning below $65k?

Wrt your ONS link, you should probably delve deeper - you will find if you examine the links within that page that graduates of RG universities earn more than graduates from other universities.
www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017#graduates-from-the-top-uk-universities-were-earning-more-than-graduates-from-other-uk-universities

Those devaluing degrees from institutions that aren't as highly regarded do so because it suits their snob appeal values. Not because educating yourself to the best of your ability is not worth while
Educating yourself to the highest level your ability can handle is of course worthwhile. You have to ask yourself, if the highest level you can attain is English Lit at a poorly regarded institution, if your time could be better spent elsewhere. You should really be asking whether other people's money could be better spent elsewhere, for instance on a beefed up technical sector. That gets looked down on because there is a prejudice against technical education.

The only reason higher education has to take place in an institution called a 'university' is snobbery. Snobbery on the part of policy makers, to be sure, since many of those signing the dotted line for loans know no better and clearly have not thought out the ramifications of their debt either individually, as a chunk of the national debt, or as a potential package to be sold off to pay other bills. 'University education', at virtually any university, has been sold to a generation of students as a desirable end, with little or no regard for the eventual employment outcomes for those students.

They have been sucked in as contributors to the massive student loan portfolio plum the government is busily creating with sale in mind, just as sub prime mortgage holders were sucked in before the crash a few years ago.

A huge cohort of people under 35/40 are about to find out that short term 'happiness' comes with a very steep price.

The idea that the only thing to take into account when sending a student off to university is whether they are happy beggars belief.

The 1st two years of any college undergrad degree [in the US] are more like A levels.
This hoary old chestnut - trotted out by people who know very little of highly selective US universities, let alone the Ivy League - doesn't get truer with repetition.

Is Harvard so cool?

Harvard is doubtless cool, but discussion of its funding pretty much irrelevant to the majority of MN posters as they're in the UK.

Re the term 'university' - somehow this came up when I was talking with DH today. Apparently his father (whose infinitely harder tertiary education was WWII artillery) was appalled when DH mentioned he might be going to do a postdoc at^^ a certain American 'Institute of Technology'...

I went to two different universities and unfortunately there is a distinct difference between institutions. The first one was a very social, partying university where no one cared too much about their degree (just there for the sake of going to uni!), drugs were rife and the standard of education was quite poor. The second was a Russell group and completely different in regards to the people and the standard of education. Completely different. Much more serious, academic and inspiring really, although a much more tame social scene.

So in certain regards, university snobbery is justified

I've never heard of a russell group university. Google informed me that I went to one and so did my pants. So you live and learn
I think it depends on both what and where you study and who you are. But for my own children, personally, if they go, I would want then to go to one of those Russel ones.

If my pants had gone to a RG uni I'd be feeling pretty damn cool.

I going to say that I should hope your pants went wherever you did

Google informed me that I went to one and so did my pants.

All right, all right, get over yourself - my butler was at the LSE!

LInolem RG Universitys haven't always been RG, from memory it was 1994 they grouped together? Someone with a greater knowledge would say more on it.
My daughter is about to start a RG but she applied to non RG ones too.

And I seem to have said RG rather a lot in that comment 🙄

The Russell Group is simply a mission group. There are 4 mission groups which sees universities group together because they have the same purpose and outlook. RG are the most research intensive and have strong academic reputations. The 1994 groups tend to have the best student satisfaction figures as well as strong academic reputations. The university alliance group are business and employer focused and the million + group promote the benefits of new universities.

The mission groups tell you nothing about individual universities or subjects.

Also never go by student satisfaction. If teenagers are happy that does not mean the degree is a good one. Look at what career you want, look at where those most recently hired on the whole went to by way of university and then follow that path. So to the hardest one you can get into.

Some RG unis mainly assess on exams - or have at least 50% exam assessment

The courses my dd1 was looking at (at 'ex polys') had less exam (20%) and more coursework which suits her much better.

Math:

The data that you show that nearly as many people studied at non Russell Group Universities who are employed in high skill jobs than studied at RG ones.

The upper medium skill jobs show again a small gap between the non Russell Group being higher than the RG. However this group also included roles that it is necessary in the 21st century to have degrees in like nursing, and others that offer fast track graduate schemes.

The data you linked to doesn't show what you claimed.

It also shows that RG graduates on average earn £2 P/h more than non RG grads. Worked out over a year that means on average that RG grads earn £37,440 and non RG £33,280.

Both of which are significantly higher than the national average, and displaying a good ROCE for most graduates

In terms of take home pay that means that RG grads get £28,840 and Non £26,011. A minor difference.

.Now the data does not back up your narrative that students from non RG unis ear significantly less and that it is not in their interest to go to university.

As usual your comments are heavily prejudiced and lack factual backing.

@Xenia teenagers aren't completing the NSS. It does need to be taken in context but the survey is completed by final year students meaning they are at least 21.

Further your comments regarding A levels and the first two years of undergraduate degrees at Ivy League schools.

They are like A levels, the depth that is covered in degree level in the UK at this undergraduate level is not achieved by those in these years in the US. Its easy to prove, go look at the first two years curriculum, for the first 3 semesters the content in many courses is exactly the same as A level and only starts to move on after this. Its also continuously assessed with less emphasis on the terminal exams.

Its why undergraduate degrees in the US take 4 years rather than 3 here, to come out with the same level of qualification.

The point about the funding? Well that was down to the fact that if people above the average income( up to 154% ) higher are expected on average to contribute 0 and 10 percent.

Using the average grant given ( 56,000) and these numbers you can quickly arrive at the conculusion that most of the grants are given to students whose parents earn more than the national average.

More detail emerges the closer you look, only 55% percent of students are given financial aid. 45% pay full. There are other issues too 16% of Harvard students are legacies - which the admissions office will give an "extra look" over their applications.

Also the median family income for a Harvard Student's family is $204,200, and that's the third lowest in the Ivy League, but still 289% higher than the US average.

So yes, they are the denizens of privilege and not many are getting a full free ride.

Ah Math, your opinions don't stand up to scrutiny, its fucking hilarious.

BTW I'd also add that if your only judgment of the benefits of university is earnings, we'd send very few women to university.

@Topcat that’s a VERY good point!

Whether they are 19 or 21 a survey based on satisfaction is the last one they should be looking at in choosing their degree in my view.

If it were the case that the easier to get into universities were just as good as those that are not to easy to get into then there would not really be much point in teenagers working very hard to get the higher grades needed.

@xenia it absolutely should be ONE of the many things to look at when choosing a degree and university. It's not just one question asking if you enjoyed your course. It's far more details and nuanced.

I don't think a single person on this thread has claimed all universities are equal and nobody has said that entry requirements should be the same across the board.