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?

I was involved in recruitment at one of the top accountancy firms and I can assure you that A level grades were taken into account. We had A level grade minimums and always joked that most of the current top management didn't meet the grades required! Most of us had joined after qualifying at smaller firms.

Are people suggesting that universities shouldn’t look at predicted A Level grades

Predicted grades are notoriously inaccurate and there is a significant body of research that shows predicted grades favour more advantaged students and those at fee paying schools.

DS’s best friend got a scholarship to their school. His father was a security driver for one of the Consulates and neither parent had schooling after the age of 16. However his son was an amazing mathematician who did his degree at Imperial College and his post grad at MIT. He was the first in the family to get any academic qualifications. Education and employment should be looking at the big picture and not just certain backgrounds.

Something to keep in mind, thank you for your perspective x

Violeta, yes - that is absolutely true. But until there is a different system for university admissions or exams are reformed, what else can universities do?

All these systems can be better. But this thread is about the system as it stands now and what’s happening on the ground at the moment. Contextual offers are given to try to level the playing field a bit. They don’t work fully, but they try to work within the system students find themselves now. But at the end of the day, A Level results are still very important.

I would have thought that measures like TEF are more relevant to students.

I absolutely agree.

League tables are interesting and should never be taken as gospel as it is possible the game the system to an extent.... not completely but some metics need to be taken in context but it's difficult for people outside of HE to fully understand this context.

*metrics

I never said A levels weren't important. Of course they are.
I was just highlighting the issues with predicted grades.

I worked in widening participation for years and I'm fully supportive of contextual offers.

What a horrible sneering post.

@Parker231 - I'm so pleased that lack of social mobility is being tackled. I used to work with a U.S. colleague whose dad had started in the company post room and then worked his way up to being CEO in the post war period. It wouldn't have ever happened in the U.K. and doesn't happen in the US any more sadly but I love the fact that it's now being addressed again.

We are denying some of the very brightest and best opportunities because their parents don't earn enough. And that has got to be wrong.

I wonder if we will ever get to post- A Level applications and offers.

I think close to 85% of Predicted grades are wrong and usually too generous.

what do you mean it would never happen in the uk?

my friends dad started out on the shop floor at 14. worked his way up. Ended up on the board of one of the big power corps.

chris evans is the classic example, started out as tea boy at radio 1 🤷‍♀️

My HOD has one GCSE. She is an excellent manager.

I think it depends on the subject and also how competitive the chosen career field is. I went to an RG University and a friend that I made there transferred to a non RG University at the end of the first year as she had been unable to pass the exams and we stayed in touch. I thought that all degrees were the same until she told me that the exams in the non RG uni were open book (mine were closed book/no textbooks in the exam room). I'm pretty sure she also said that they saw the exam papers/questions before sitting the exam but I'm doubting my memory because that seems odd (it was 20 + years ago). I guess it doesn't matter in that the difference is that I needed a better memory than she did but they aren't the same, and if its a competitive industry its an easy way to filter through applications (if they still do it that way - I see PP's have said that uni is anonymous now in which case that won't apply).

Are people suggesting that A Level results, university attended and degree are all irrelevant to employers

@WombatChocolate you are conflating two different things here. Absolutely employers will be interested in what university course applicants took and what degree class they got. Some will look at which university was attended. But for a wide range of employers when they are looking to employ people with degrees they will not be interested in A level results. Similarly the vast majority of Masters degrees do not ask for A level grades on their application form, what they do ask for is much more detailed information on what was studied even digging deep into what grades they got on a particular module or on their dissertation.

Are people suggesting that universities shouldn’t look at predicted A Level grades or actual A Level grades or A Level grades for those applying post-A Level?

Of course universities will look at predicted (or achieved) A level results because they are the most recent relevant academic measures available. The point is that degrees supersede A levels and once students have a degree, the A level results massively decrease in relevance. Except for law firms, apparently.

Degree supersedes A Levels……but at the same time, people are saying that Firms don’t look at where the degree was gained and try to be Uni blind. So how do they distinguish between candidates if all they know is that 2 of them have Firsts, in the same subject, but not from which Uni and don’t look at their A Levels? They can’t distinguish.

My whole point is that by not looking at A Levels, or Uni attended, the degree result alone doesn’t tell you much. The number of people with Firsts has rocketed in recent years. Are we honestly suggesting a First in a particular subject from Cromer HE College is equal to or better than a First or even 2.1 from a top tier university? Because if you don’t look at a new graduates A Level results because they now have a degree, and don’t look at which Unithe degree was from, their degree class alone really doesn’t tell you who is better.

And I’ve said multiple times, that I fully understand that once a graduate has some work experience, that experience is what counts and things like A Level results, which Uni was attended and Degree class either cease to be looked at at all, or are not nearly so important in determining who gets to the new stage of the application process.

The thing I’m interested in is graduate recruitment - that first job…..the graduate training schemes that take on graduates and which are highly competitive and over subscribed.

@WombatChocolate presumably you know in which tier those 1sts have rocketed most?

It's a good question. My understanding from talking to the DCs' friends is that a lot of firms now run an exhaustive (and exhausting, no doubt) recruitment process consisting of several interviews, quite possibly a presentation, and very often also their own tests – both industry-specific ones and 'personality' ones.

Tedious as this may be you can see why they do it because after all A level results tell you a little about an 18 year old but not very much about a 21 or 22 year old who has most likely spent the past 3 years focusing on one (or two) particular subject(s).

Dh and I just did a little excercise and looked up the education of the most senior partners at the Big4. About 1/3 didn't go to uni at all, went straight to work after school and trained as accountants. Many from former polies (Kingston popped up quite a bit) and of course abroad. Very few from highly selective/posh unis (Oxbridge/Bristol/St Andrews etc). Some lower ranked RG. For ultimate career success, it really doesn't matter, as long as you get the necessary vocational qualifications and are, ultimately, good with people.

That's Xenia for you.

Love these threads.

Dss went to lower level uni. Phd at redbrick. Just got job at Oxford after working with Cambridge on his phd.

Its not where you start, it’s where you end up.

Its not where you start, it’s where you end up
Indeed.
I excelled at school and went to an RG University. I passed all my professional exams first time and had a good career as a Consultant (and Clinical Director for 10 years)in a District General Hospital. Nothing to complain about, I'd say I was successful. But nothing special really. There are thousands of "me".
DH on the other hand did badly in his A levels, didn't get into his chosen University and went to a Poly that had last minute places available. He's now respected internationally as an expert in his field.
He wouldn't necessarily recommend his route though. He would almost certainly have had an easier career if he had worked harder at school and gone to his initial choice of University. There are differences between Universities, it would be foolish to believe otherwise. But you are not doomed to be an abject failure in life if you aren't accepted into one of a handful of places at 18, as some posters would have us believe. We don't all have the same ideas about what constitutes success anyway.
Nor are RG establishments always the best for every subject or for every student. The ex poly my DS is currently looking at is quite a long way above the RG University in the same city in the subject specific league tables for his intended course. And it's not knitting, it's a fairly mainstream subject. People need to do their homework and look at exactly what is on offer, not make broad assumptions. There's more than one road to Rome, and lots of other wonderful destinations besides Rome anyway!

There's more than one road to Rome, and lots of other wonderful destinations besides Rome anyway!

Perfectly put!

😊

My DC is at Bath, a non RG university. A beautiful, safe city that DC adores, a fantastic university (except during covid) and a lovely part of the world to explore.
DC got a paid internship with one of the Big 4 last summer, and then got offered a position on their graduate programme when they finishes uni this year.
So, no, I don't think going to a RG is the be all and end all...