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?

Course content ranks higher than which Uni.

My dd decided not to go for Oxbridge medicine either - she also didn't like the structure of the course.

I think rankings for medicine are pretty irrelevant in any case... going to a "big name" university doesn't really help when it comes to getting a job at the end of it all. If anything, it might actually work against you because of the bizarre way in which they rank you against the rest of your cohort!

Yes but some non-vocational employers might just look at the university name and ranking and make a decision based on that.

On the wards, nobody could care less which doctor went to which university. It’s a whole other set of skills and attributes that’s valued!

I did my UG at a RG uni and my PG at an ex-poly, due to subject availability. There was a vast difference in terms of resource availability, standard of modules and networking availability, all in favour of the RG.
I'm sure non-RG are great for some things and most likely better for some vocational fields, but I think if I had the choice again I'd do a less specialised PG degree and go to a RG uni again, the standards were higher.

Absolutely @MrsBennetsPoorNerves they should choose the course structure they like and where they want to live. They are a very long time at med school. The only people I have ever heard say that choice of med school matters are on mumsnet and are not doctors. Every doctor I have met says it doesn't make a difference and that they don't even know where their colleagues studied.

Yes but some non-vocational employers might just look at the university name and ranking and make a decision based on that.

This is becoming less common. Graduate recruiters are more savvy than that and have entire teams who work across a range of universities.

In the sector in which I work, when I joined almost 30 years ago everyone was Oxbridge, now the same companies recruit blind. There are still a good number of Oxbridge DC selected (and rejected) but there are also lots from a whole range of other universities, including RG and non RG. There is a lot more focus on straight aptitude tests.

What really struck me when I went round to all of the open days with dd was how very different the various courses were. I had naively assumed that a medicine degree was, well...a medicine degree. But while the knowledge that they need to acquire by the end of the degree is inevitably very similar, there are so many very different approaches to helping them to acquire that knowledge. It was quite a revelation tbh.

I studied at Cambridge and dd had always assumed that she would apply there, but when we went to the open day, it was abundantly clear to both of us that she wouldn't find the course nearly as motivating or interesting as what was on offer elsewhere. Different people have such different learning styles...it isn't one size fits all.

Generally I would say for technical or research based degrees (medicine, chemistry, physics etc.), RG. For vocational or higher quality teaching, post-1992.

I got a first from LSE but doubt I would get through the current CV blind recruitment process my firm uses!!

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 I think people do recognise that - they just disagree about how to measure better. I went to a top 10 RG and the student support was dire. I struggled massively with mental health (came from a traumatic background) and not having had the same level of education as the majority of my peers.

I’m in law but my employer recruits blind so no particular advantage there either. I’m very academic so good at my job, but I think I’d have made a success of it regardless of where I went. If I had my time again I wouldn’t necessarily have gone for the ‘best’ RG that offered me a place.

You have to bear in mind that Xenia sees everything through the prism of law and assumes all other professions work in the same way. They don't.

I can quite readily believe that magic circle law firms are swayed by the name of a university (though I'm not sure that's anything to boast about to be perfectly honest), but the truth is that lots of professions – from architect to scientist, from journalist to engineer and from teacher to surveyor – simply do not interview or appoint on this basis. Some recruit university-blind, some do not give a monkey's where you went and some (probably most) conduct their own series of interviews, presentations and tests.

A levels are really only to get you onto the next stage, once you have a degree very few employers care what A levels you got. And as I have pointed out elsewhere on MN, if you are applying for a Masters, the vast majority of universities do not request your A level grades, so clearly they do not deem them important either.

@thing47 It’s weird because I’m in law and all the firms I applied to train at were CV blind. The only law firm I’ve ever worked at that wasn’t was a really small high street practice, where my uni was remarked on but I don’t think that was what got me the job of an admin assistant!

You have to bear in mind that Xenia sees everything through the prism of law and assumes all other professions work in the same way. They don't.

Thank you @thing47 . Yes, I agree, but saying that my daughter's degree is worthless was completely unnecessary. I am beyond angry, but decided against writing down my thoughts because I would probably get banned from mumsnet

However, I admit that I get very get irritated by posters of her ilk who assume that everyone wants to work in the city, in law or finance or other professions that are perceived by the great unwashed as intrinsically dishonest and have a 6 figure salary so that they can boast about it.

Doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what employers reading cvs think

I read that 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square had become the first chambers to adopt a CV-blind application system for all barristers and staff. Don’t know whether have followed?

I still think RG universities are more highly regarded for the quality on offer, generally. Employers are going to be swayed by the fact that such institutions have higher entrance requirements and so on and they are also more prestigious.

I don't just mean law of course. I have a doctor sibling, consultant, Oxbridge and for the the academic, research etc side and being a leading expert in field I really don't think the Oxbridge degree was anything other than extremely useful.

I don't think that non RG is not worth the paper it was written on which was not my original words. I think they can be worthwhile but tend not to be as good as the top 10 universities (I don't use RG because some of those near the bottom of the RG as it were are not that great either). As said above some law firms recruit institution blind but in a way that will just con teenagers into thinking they can put their feet up, not work veyr hard, get bad results, go to a not so good place and then rock over and say I am just as good as a top university person who has bust a got to get good grades. That would be deceiving a young person to make them think that was okay.

Employers are going to be swayed by the fact that such institutions have higher entrance requirements

No, they're mostly not, in fact. Lots of employers have zero interest in what a university's entrance requirements are, for the reasons I posted above.

As @VioletaDelValle has already explained, graduate recruitment is now carried out on a much more granular level than you seem to think, employers talk to universities constantly and review and research their courses so they have an in-depth knowledge of what is going on. Very few now automatically assume an RG university is 'better' because there are pockets of excellence in all sort of places, and employers recruiting specifically in that area will be aware of that fact.

Love how Russell Groups are the be all and end all.

What about design degrees? British design graduates are recognised as the best in the world and we export a lot of this talent.
They aren’t taught in RG’s.

Oh wait, RG’s are the best universities🙄

www.cityam.com/uks-consulting-firms-are-no-longer-filled-with-russell-group-uni-grads-new-research-shows/?amp=1

consulting firms saying that their research shows no correlation between previous success in higher education and future success in professional qualifications.

graduate recruitment is now carried out on a much more granular level than you seem to think, employers talk to universities constantly and review and research their courses so they have an in-depth knowledge of what is going on. Very few now automatically assume an RG university is 'better' because there are pockets of excellence in all sort of places, and employers recruiting specifically in that area will be aware of that fact.

Exactly. There is so much work going on in this area both from an employer and university perspective.
Universities have Employer Engagement teams who work at building relationships with employers in relation to placements, internships and employment. I know for a fact that large graduate recruiters are not just working with RG institutions. They work with universities who produce employable graduates and the vast majority of employers know that these come from a range of universities.

You know there are universities that aren't Oxbridge, RG or ex-polys?

Myself, some of my siblings, other relations of various ages and some friends have been to them.

Fair point, I conflated ex-poly and non-RG. To be honest I'm sure the quality of the course is the main thing, and I noticed the difference between the two in my own education, perhaps it wasn't down to institution type 🤷🏼‍♀️