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.

I’ve been to two universities one ex-poly and one that isn’t Russell group but isn’t a poly either (a non aligned university that has been around since the 19th century). Honestly the academic rigour at both (doing STEM subjects) was about equal. The facilities in the poly were better. Marking was more lax in the non-poly, like I cannot see how it would be possible to fail, although some people managed it I assume they didn’t turn in many vital assignments or got 0 for plagiarism or something. Industrial links were good with both. Reasarch output better at the non-poly but teaching significantly better and less distracted by research (for obvious reasons) at the poly.

I think the main advantage of Russell group+ is academic networking (or just plain networking with fellow students) and the fact the cohort is on average more intelligent and ambitious and thus more likely to drive you to keep up with the pack. I don’t think what you can learn is limited by what university you go to except in so far as the actual syllabus for your course contains (I assume students check that over to make sure it’s what they want before they apply right?)

So if your primary goal in university is networking and the doors that opens, or the reputation of an institution on your CV then you probably want to save yourself the fees if a poly is your only option.

If you’re going there to learn and create or even just to have the freedom of less pressure for a few years to develop ideas then it doesn’t matter.

And if you’re going for industry links and a clear job pathway - some polys actually have some really good ones that can get you going in your career before you even leave (some of them will even pay your fees for you).

Of course there’s a difference between unis, which I’m not sure is down to just RG/non-RG divide but more a proliferation of seemingly ridiculous unhelpful degrees.

Anyone who says that this differentiation amongst universities isn’t real or reflective of the candidates ability is naive. There will always be outstanding candidates who will do well regardless of where they go, but that isn’t necessarily a true picture of the course as a whole.

She was unkind but there is some truth in it I’m afraid. I do a lot of graduate recruitment and by and large graduates from a small sub-set of universities seem to do the best. That isn’t to say others can’t succeed but they have to do proportionally better to stand out. If you look at the stats for the civil service fast stream (one of the few that publishes detailed information on university success rate) it is not surprising to see the success rate of applicants from different universities.

Also none of my core lectures or seminars were ever covered by PhD students. The biggest advantage of Oxbridge and some courses at other universities seems to be the tutorial system. I’ve spoken to friends at other universities that were never pushed by experts in the same way.

Anyone who says that this differentiation amongst universities isn’t real or reflective of the candidates ability is naive

I thought dieantwords post spelt it out and wasn't in the least bit naive.

Pearl

If you’re a pathway 1 lecturer then that is exactly what would be expected of you to fulfill your contractual obligations. If you are only employed as a pathway 3 then you may be -being exploited- exceeding the expectations of the role.

There's more to life than the civil service or law! Honestly the way some of you go on you'd think the streets would be lined with 'ex-poly' students drinking meths and sleeping rough

I do a lot of graduate recruitment and by and large graduates from a small sub-set of universities seem to do the best

Yes, its called networking.

We don't have the pathways MsJudgemental, though in practice we are all pathway 1 - i.e. we all do both research and teaching.
I think a fair few on pathway 1 in RG would rather be on pathway 2.

Unfortunately I do thinksomelower ranking universities have some not great courses, and I am not convinced that these are worth the tuition fees. I think it's unfortunate that less than academic children are pushed towards university-any university, when they might be better doing apprenticeships or technical college courses and coming out with well paid jobs and lower debt.
I agree. The university I gave an example of is really poor in my opinion for English. I've seen trainee teachers shown up as being clueless by GCSE students who know more. I'd sooner out one of my A level students in front of a class than some of them, but for some health courses the university is excellent and a couple of other practical subjects it's great (employers in that area would recognise it). Do I think students who go to that university to study English, history, art, geography, sociology etc are being robbed? Totally. And it's worse because i see students encouraged to study there by getting unconditionals. For some middle students who could get Bs or even an A with hard work, an unconditional is the 'give up' line. They haven't got the same drive and aspiration as the top students and if an easier route guarantees them a place at university then they take it.

They haven't got the same drive and aspiration as the top students

Oh just stop it. Plenty of teens have drive and aspiration without being A* students. Honestly listen to yourselves. My close friend did an English degree at Anglia Ruskin, I was at Cambridge University. She did very well, she was not from a rich background (unlike most of my Cambridge peers), she was very driven and now has a very well paid and successful career in TV. All the dropouts I know went to Oxbridge!

While I agree that some degrees at some universities are potentially money pits, I only opened the thread to see MNers humble brag about their precious RG degrees. I was not disappointed.

This happens with schools, jobs and yes snobs can even use Universities to make themselves look like the better ones. Unfortunately you can't stop people giving these vibes but you can turn it around and make your nephew sound like he is fantastic and praise him for being motivated and having career goals. Everyone is different and unique. Your friend needs to get that point 😉

I only opened the thread to see MNers humble brag about their precious RG degrees. I was not disappointed

touché

You forgot that absolutely everyone who comments on these types of post actually works at a RG uni

But universities aren’t equal and they never have been. A degree from Oxbridge won’t be viewed the same by other people-particularly employers, as a degree from an ex-poly.

Rubbish. Depends on the course/subject. I went to an ex-poly, got a 1st and went on to do very well...as did many of the other on the 100% graduate employment rate course. In my industry, it was regarded the creme de la creme of degree courses and as such employers in that industry considered graduates top-notch. This was largely due to their behavioural skills and employability, on top of their academic qualifications.

JillCrewesmum
Don't selectively quote me.
I had already said with emphasis (because I knew someone would snipe away without reading properly) that I was talking about SOME middle ability students.

Forsomemiddle students who could get Bs or even an A with hard work, an unconditional is the 'give up' line. They haven't got the same drive and aspiration as the top students and if an easier route guarantees them a place at university then they take it.

If your nephew isn't academic then why is he going to University at all? There are too many students pursuing worthless courses, getting into masses of debt then wondering why they can't get a well paid job, they would do better on some kind of apprenticeship.

Keneft. I think I love you.

I have degrees from two Russel group universities (only apparent having looked up the list just now) and one non Russel but arguably more prestigious than most on the Russel list. The latter is the one I always feel I should recommend of the three.

I've not come across that sort of thing but can imagine it is as if someone is not joining you in your delight and wants to bring you down.
Not nice at all.

Actually when you are in the workplace, a boring nerd with a First from a RG university can often sink without trace.

I also dislike the snobbery about universities - I have some very successful friends that leveraged a degree from ex poly's into successful carers - but you're being just as bad with your divisive inverse snobbery.

Statistically you'll have more career choice and higher earning potential with a degree from a traditional university but it does not follow that any other degree is useless. I respect anyone who wants to get an education for whatever reason. Any degree will open doors to you and someone with lots of other skills will often use the stepping stone to launch a very successful career. I'd also say that lots of students don't really flourish academically until university. I think some are just more suited to the independence of university. So if they find they like academia the first degree is just a stepping stone to a masters/PhD etc.

If your nephew isn't academic then why is he going to University at all? There are too many students pursuing worthless courses, getting into masses of debt then wondering why they can't get a well paid job, they would do better on some kind of apprenticeship.

Like it or not many university courses (and not just at non-Russell group universities) are vocational and without a seperate higher education system to cover that area of focus it’s perfectly reasonable for them to be.

But that’s another kind of snobbery you see a lot in Britain especially. The more “academic” something is, the less detached from economic realities, the higher status it is. Because economic realities are things only the economically insecure lower classes worry about and higher status people can afford to be unconcerned (upper) or know to pretend to be unconcerned (middle).

And so we read “unacademic” as “thick” not because it is but because of the class and status associations that come with it. Whereas the rigour of many vocational courses (“surely they’d be better off converting them all to apprenticeships?!”) far exceeds what you’d get doing Classics or PPE (which is not to say classics or PPE are either unimportant or could be done by “any old thicko!!”).

The civil service blind recruits so your university isn't seen.

I think it can go both ways. Really, a degree indicates that you've achieved some sort of standard. That standard should be similar across different institutions, otherwise, what would be the point of a degree?

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a nurse. Our programs MUST be accredited by our professional licensing bodies, which essentially means that a student should be able to expect the same education at University X or College X and University Y or College Y. The institution must meet the minimum standard for the program to be accredited.

Frankly, I have a serious problem with "name-dropping" a university. Are you paying for an actual better education or are you just paying for a name? I do not know if there's actual research on this, but I would suspect there are likely Harvard Business School graduates who can't manage their way out of a paper bag.

The only caveat I have is that if you're planning to pursue graduate studies, it may be worth your while to get your undergraduate at a cheaper and smaller institution. This is simply because the "standard" academic path is to get graduate degrees at a larger institution, and because it's severely frowned on to get more than two degrees from the same university. (Before everyone calls me a hypocrite, let me explain. Not every university has researchers who specialize in everything. Not every university is known for good research programs. The concern is that if you get all of your degrees from the same university, you've only ever encountered the researchers at that university. You have very few connections in the research and academic world, and you've only ever really been exposed to one way of thinking. When they're looking to hire professors, universities look for people who have connections and who can bring money into the organization. If all of your connections are internal and/or from a very small group of people, it's going to be harder for you to do that.)

JillCrewesmum

I don’t think it is just about networking- although no doubt it helps. There is a cohort advantage in that certain universities have their pick and expect and encourage skills that lend themselves to the sorts of assessments that are used for grad recruitment.

Where I think you’re right is that if everyone is seeking internships in the summer etc it becomes the norm and students strive to get those opportunities. I spoke to the careers office at one of the big London unis a few years ago and they said they frequently had first years in tears because they hadn’t got an Easter internship. I’d be amazed if there was the same pressure at some of the lower ranking institutions (and that pressure isn’t necessarily a good thing!)

The other aspect is that going along to open days becomes easy if big corporates are sponsoring your sports team etc. Some companies only bother going to Oxbridge plus a few others. If they are at your institution then great. If they don’t bother then it feels like an extra barrier. It was a different era when I was at uni but I remember not needing to pay for dinnner for a few weeks as there were so many employer sponsored drinks/nibbles events at my university. I didn’t have to go looking or put in much effort. I assumed that was normal at the time. I assumed that the sessions sponsored by consultancies on assessment centre technique were normal. I was quite surprised when friends at other unis told me they hadn’t had the same input.

A First from a poly is not the same as a First from RG uni. Employers in my experience are not able to distinguish applicants by quality of degree as entrance requirements in my field and those I considered post uni were 2:1 or above. So if you got a 2:2 from RG, Mr 2:1 from Abertay, say, would beat you. You wouldn't even get through the door (not bitter at all ahem).
Whether non -academic skills are developed better outwith the top 20 unis making for better quality employees is a different matter.