Is the whole ‘russel group’ thing just snobbery?

[MrsPBlotto]

DD is 17 and has applied to university this summer. Granted her course is very vocational so perhaps this bias only applies for academic subjects. All but one of the universities she’s applied to are post 1992 and the one uni she has applied to that’s not one is not an RG. I’m not bothered in the slightest as for the field DD wants to go into a degree is a degree and I’m far more concerned that she’s happy at the university she goes to.

However, I’ve seen a lot of posts here and comments from other parents saying that an RG is the best of the best and almost implying russel groups are the only universities worth going to. I’m not sure this is actually true as I know a lot of people who’ve gone to ex poly unis and been far more successful in life than those who’s gone to RG’s (granted that’s anecdotal). And I really don’t understand where this bias comes from that somehow a self proclaimed group of 20 or so universities are somehow the best of the best and any others (especially if post 1992) are not worth the money. Is this just snobbery and people trying to set themselves apart or is there any truth to the idea russel groups are inherently better universities?

Anecdotally, I’d say that there’s no difference in terms of career success between the people I know who went to an RG university and those who went anywhere else. It seems to be far more about subject chosen, whether it’s vocational or not, and career path. I know several people with an RG Arts BA in low paid jobs with little degree relevance who I can’t imagine are doing any better than they would have done had they gone anywhere else to get the same degree. Some of the most successful people I know did something technical or functional at a former poly.

And honestly? If I’m looking at the CVs of candidates for a post I’m on the interview panel for, I’ve often no idea whether the university listed is RG or not. My non-UK born colleagues have even less idea. Increasingly, blind recruitment means the name of the university is removed prior to CVs being reviewed anyway. I don’t think that RG has the same impact it may used to have had.

For quality of teaching for the majority of UG courses it makes no difference.
Some employers will favour applicants from harder to get into universities, though some do blind recruitment now.
For a vocational course it is unlikely to make a difference.
I would pay more attention to course ranking rather than university ranking - even then when it comes to employment for a vocational course it may well not make a difference.

Locally for a vocational course the local employers favour the post 92 ex students over the RG ex students because the post 92 has a reputation for producing better graduates in that field.

I went to a RG uni at 18 and dropped out after 18 months. I did history and found the whole atmosphere unbearably pretentious. I went back to studying a few years later to do a very technical science degree at an ex poly university and found the expectations and the rigorousness of the teaching to be much more demanding and rewarding. I’m now doing an MSc. I feel like the time I spent at RG was wasted, other than learning that it didn’t suit me even though I was very academic and expected to thrive. Each to their own.

It is snobbery, but unfortunately a lot of snobs are in positions of power so for some fields its helpful to do what they value. I dont think this is universal though, some fields have a different vibe.

It’s not just snobbery but there is a strong element of that to it for certain. It’s an indicator of how good the university is - but it’s not the only indicator, and that’s the important part. I attended a non-RG uni, it was the only non-RG that I applied to but it was also the highest ranked for my subject and had the highest entry requirements. Many non-RG universities are very well-respected and better ranked than some RG universities and there’s a lot of variety between disciplines too. A lot of people wouldn’t even know which universities are RG and which aren’t. It’s also worth keeping in mind that the RG is decided on research intensity which can actually be detrimental in some cases to undergraduate degrees.

Consider that Loughborough, Bath, Lancaster, Surrey, etc are all more highly ranked than some RG unis.

It is snobbery, absolutely. I think you need to look at outcomes for a university as much as the name and reputation, many of the ex polys are really leading the field is specialist areas.

Also don't forget the open university, highly regarded by employers due to the nature of how you study

I've studied for a degree at a top tier uni and a lower tier university. The standard expected was significantly higher at the top tier uni.
For vocational subjects it won't matter. However, for lots of careers it will. History from Sunderland isn't going to be viewed as the same from Durham. I think RG is less important but rankings still matter for some careers.

'Russell Group' is just a marketing device isn't it?

As a pp said, St Andrews, Loughborough, Lancaster, Bath, Surrey are all top 20 universities. None are Russell Group.

It's a marketing consortium. But a successful one. Its certainly not the case though that a degree from say Newcastle is better than a degree from St Andrews. Having said that, there are not many post 92 universities in the top 30 in most of the various listings. In most cases there aren't any.

It's very much course specific though.

My son went to a university that had a good reputation for subsequent employment. The reputation was justified.

The nearest one to me has a good reputation for student care. I think, these days, that’s very important too.

My DiL went to a ‘top’ uni and hated it, transferred elsewhere and loved both the place and the course.

Yes!!
It's a mission group of research intensive universities. Inclusion in this group is not based on the quality of UG teaching or Graduate Outcomes.

It is complicated, and a large element of the perception is sheer snobbery. I write as a former Russell Group admissions tutor.

My RG STEM School has very high admissions requirements and a rather sophisticated orientation to the subject. A good student who works hard and consistently and makes good choices will get a better education here, by my standards ,(and I am only talking of one subject) than at many post 92 and other universities. But those students are a minority. Because our programme is loosely structured, the majority of students have many opportunities to hide from the material that makes our programme challenging. Exam results must be normalised to ensure a large number of Firsts and 2.1s and students know this. Exam material is adjusted accordingly. It is possible to graduate with a good degree and less core knowledge than you would acquire on a post 92 or other more tightly structured programme with less lofty aims. Many do.

I went to a Russell Group university but actually managed not to realise that until people on MN kept going on about RG…

IME unless you’re going for Oxbridge or a university with a really dire reputation, no one cares once you are out of academia. And even then, a lot of employers are going “university blind” in terms of applications.

100%snobbery in my opinion, I went to Surrey which is a very well respected uni, I'd never heard of Russell group much until I was a parent myself and saw schools bragging about it then follows the extra 'parental smugness brag' among those Uber competitive parents types who we all know well... ugh

I think a lot of us are in that position since Russell Group only became a thing in 1994 and universities joined gradually.

Oh come on, yawn, not this again for the umpteenth time. Boring. Yes many courses are good, some better. Many vocational courses from not well known unis are the best. But RG does have a reputation and many of the courses are better, fact.

I don't even know what a Russell Group uni is 🤷🏻‍♀️

Mostly! It's fairly course specific too. Unfortunately some employers still would rather recruit from elite universities as they perceive them to be better, thus schools advise the best candidates to apply to them and so the myth continues.

Specific courses can can excellent at post 92 universities.

Two of mine went to RG and one weto Lancaster. I didn't actually know about RG until I joined MN .

You should go to the university with the best rep that will let you in, because the cost will be pretty similar whether you go to the best or the worst.

Russell group unis are generally better than others - not always the case but generally. They tend to be bigger and staffed by academics with better research reputations and bigger budgets (note not necessarily better teaching).

There is a lot of prejudice against RG universities, presumably because there are a lot of people out there who didn't go to one and therefore feel the need to say there is no benefit to going to one, but it's pretty much a fact that the largest and best graduate employers focus most of their recruitment from RG universities.

I went to a RG university 20 years before the Russell Group was formed. Where does that leave me? (Apart from retired and long past it.)

it’s marketing.

uni’s have joined RG to make themselves appear more elite.

there are some very good, if not better, non RG uni’s

but it's pretty much a fact that the largest and best graduate employers focus most of their recruitment from RG universities.

Not any more.
I work in the arena of Graduate Careers and Employability and this is a really outdated view. Most Graduate recruiters work with a wide range of universities because they realise that the RG is not the be all and end all.

It is down to a specific uni and a specific course, the RG label is a catch all that correlates to good courses at good unis far more than the average. I don’t think it’s entirely snobbery, though there is a lot of that in there.

If you are academically inclined and really want the best undergraduate education, you are more likely to be taught by or have access to some of the best researchers in your field if you go to a Russel Group uni.

In terms of the graduates turned out, I think there’s a lot more variation. But in general, graduates from Russel Group unis who I’ve managed or worked with have shown themselves to be better in a work setting. I work in tech which is a bit of a self starter field, and there are plenty of people who are good without any degree at all. Nevertheless, overall, the RG grads are generally the ones who can get to grips with the more difficult technical issues. Maths skills in particular seem to be weaker in the non-RG group and they tend to have less knowledge of underlying principles.

But since that isn’t your DD’s direction, it doesn’t really apply.

I went to university before the RG existed but even then the same university were the hardest to get into and the best as now - places like oxbridge, Durham , Bristol , London etc Nothing really changes.
If you can get in with low grades it will not be a good place for the higher paid jobs. If instead you want to learn advanced knitting in a practical setting the ex polys may well be just right for you for your C grades and the like