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?

My DH goes on and on about RG being the only way. However times have changed since he went to university in the 80s. There are many universities that are not RG that expect the same entry requirements. They are just as sought after. I don’t think employers truly care where you get your degree apart from
oxbridge. You still have the old school networks in the system and I know many of my sons friends who didn’t get stellar degrees working in their dads friends business etc etc.

I have interviewed 100s of people and where they went to uni did not form part of my decision.

Interesing thread - as if there are two parallel universes - one one side where people say there are universities better than others [which of course is so and it utterly amazes me people do not believe that - it seems against the facts not to believe it] and on the other people who don't agree.

I suppose it doesn't matter if we are in two camps on the thread. Those who think the institution makes no difference can merrily go off and study in a wide variety of places and those of us who think there are much better universities with better teaching and a peer group of students with very high exam results etc can try to get our children into those and then both groups can go out there and fight for the jobs they want when they graduate.

I actually think there are 3 camps tbh.

One is people who think that all universities are pretty much the same, and that a degree from one is pretty much as good as a degree from another. Some in that camp might make a concession that Oxbridge has a special status, but others just think a degree is a degree, regardless of where it's from.

Then there are the people who think that some universities are definitely better, and that having a degree from a Russell Group institution is the important thing.

And then there are the people who absolutely agree that some universities are better than others, but dispute the notion that the Russell Group is necessarily the best indicator of this.

I am certanily not in the RG camp. It did not even exist when I went in the early 80s and those at the bottom of it are not ones with which to aim by any means as they are not good enough RG ones.

Pick the top 10 hardest to get into of any university ( RG or not) and that will be a pretty good list and you cannot go far wrong (if you work hard enough and are bright enough to get the necessary grades).

Dd1 and dd2 went to Cambridge and we are/were on benefits. They did both have scholarships to a private school for their secondary education as our local state school was so dire.

I just don't know what to say to this without being rude or making reference to people who live in ivory towers.

I had better tell DD that her "worthless" 1st class STEM degree from a low ranking RG university isn't worth the paper it is written on, while she is dealing with prescriptions of sick people in Newcastle

And then there are the people who absolutely agree that some universities are better than others, but dispute the notion that the Russell Group is necessarily the best indicator of this.

I was fed the "RG universities are the best" line from DD's school, and believed it and so did DD. I now know better, and would consider myself in the above camp.

I have had a quick look at the CUG for DD's course and there are a good number of high ranking non RG universities in the top 20.

It is certainly not wort the paper it is written on, but in two camps on this thread it is not worth as much as a degree from a harder to get into place. I am sure you would not tell Manthide that her children who went to Cambridge whilst on benefits did no better than someone getting into somewhere where you just need CCC at A level. If they were all the same places why would state grammars and employers and teenagers try hard to get into the places with most competition and higher grade requirements to enter them.

Also those who think they are all equal do they apply the same to schools - that XYZ school that is very good is better than a sink school where teaching is bad and people flounder. It just does not make sense to me that people would not recognise some university are better than others just as some schools are better than others and indeed some parents are better than others.

Xenia · Today 12:35
It is certainly not worth the paper it is written on

D required AAA/AAB to get on to her degree course. She achieved AAA.

No, I don’t think the RG universities are just like the rest. The list of such universities has been created in order to provide a quick indication of the “best” universities in the UK - in an academic sense.

Some universities - such as St Andrews which is extremely highly regarded - choose not to be included. However, St Andrews is very much an exception for reasons they have stated.

Anyone who tries to say it’s about snobbishness is perhaps just trying to defend the university they attended themselves - because it’s not listed.

DD needed AAB from both RG and non RG - got AAA

My uni wasn't Russel group. But it has been too 10-12 consistently for over a decade and is respected widely. So it's not the be all and end all.

YANBU

I went to one in one of the subjects with the highest entry requirements.

nothing special and when you get out there into the workplace no one cares

Anyone who tries to say it’s about snobbishness is perhaps just trying to defend the university they attended themselves - because it’s not listed.

There absolutely is an element of snobbishness though. It's a subject I've researched intensively as part of my job and I can tell you very confidently that snobbery plays a part.

However, that not to say RG institutions aren't good universities, of course they are BUT they aren't the ONLY good universities and as RG essentially means research intensive, it isn't necessarily an indicator of the quality of UG teaching or the support a student can expect.

Prospective employers might care. That might be why you are asked to name the university you attended! They judge and make decisions based on that sort of thing and it’s naïve to think they don’t.

No one that I’ve come across and I don’t either. I did go to one but I’ve always worked with people from a wide range of Unis. I certainly don’t think my degree is anything special compared to the same degree from a non RG Uni. In fact if I’d had my time again I would have gone elsewhere.

“…RG essentially means research intensive, it isn't necessarily an indicator of the quality of UG teaching or the support a student can expect.”

I know that. Research is the biggie though and it allows the RGs to climb high. As for the other factors you mention I would expect those to be standard requirements - though there is huge variation across the field.

Many firms now recruit CV blind so Uni less relevant

I know that. Research is the biggie though and it allows the RGs to climb high. As for the other factors you mention I would expect those to be standard requirements - though there is huge variation across the field.

I know. I'm an academic and this is my field of research along with graduate employability.
Research is one metric and yes, it is a biggie. Not only in regards to league tables but also in income generation. We also have a HE system which is geared up to favour elite/RG universities particularly when it comes to measuring things that influence league tables....that's not me saying that RG don't deserve their ranking but more me saying that there are some universities and departments that maybe don't get the recognition they deserve.

As for support offered, there are no standard requirements around that and as a result you get huge variations across the sector.

What people shouldn't do is assume the RG are bywords for excellence across the board because that's not the case.

Prospective employers might care. That might be why you are asked to name the university you attended! They judge and make decisions based on that sort of thing and it’s naïve to think they don’t.

This is subject and sector dependant.

Feeling a little deflated now, having been told that DD's degree is not worth the paper it is written on. She worked so hard for it.

It diminishes everything she did.

Of course her degree is worth the effort that she put in.

I'll be completely honest...I do think that degrees from some universities carry more weight than degrees from other universities, but it's complex - it varies significantly by subject and different people will have different ways of evaluating what is important.

Regardless, that absolutely doesn't mean that anyone's degree is worthless, and if they have worked hard to get it, then they should be bloody proud of themselves.

Ignore that post. They talk nonsense and know naff all about HE and how it really works.

Of course it's worth something, she should be proud of her achievements.
I'm guessing it got her a job, enhanced her knowledge, helped her develop a range of skills that will help further her career and allowed her to develop as a person?

@RampantIvy the people who say things like that seem to not know that much outside their own profession. I believe your DD is in a medical field and it is total nonsense. My DS is a second year med student at Newcastle. It actually makes me laugh out loud at the insinuation that he is somehow slumming it. He had perfect stats and a UCAT in the top two percent in UK. He could easily have applied to Oxbridge or the London Schools but didn't like the course structure at Oxbridge and London is home. He got offers from all the med schools he applied to and chose Newcastle over...wait for it...Bristol, among others. Newcastle is fab. It all depends on the subject.

In the complete university guide, Lancaster, Bath and Loughborough are above Edinburgh, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds and Manchester.

Clearly they guide creators are not paying attention to the RG trumpet-blowing ;-)

RG is just one factor of course. I wanted my kids to enter places that required high grades. That didn’t mean just RG. My kids are all at RG places but I can see that it’s not the only guarantee of excellence.