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 at uni in the early 1990s. There were plenty of students who struggled. Lots of eating disorders. Self harm. Drug and alcohol abuse etc. There just wasn't as much support available to them. I knew one person who committed suicide while we were there. Another ended up having to drop out after being hospitalised for anorexia. Another one left after being raped on campus. And many more probably failed to perform to the best of their ability because they were struggling and couldn't access adequate support. And that was a reasonably forward looking university did offer free counselling etc, even back then.

My own very gifted and talented mum failed her degree back in the 1960s due to mental health problems and I strongly suspect undiagnosed adhd. There was no help back then at all... her tutor suggested that she might want to go and talk to a priest.

There have always been vulnerable students. In the past, many of them have been failed, with far-reaching consequences.

I have never said anything other than horses for courses. I simply said if you can manage it a top 10 one is a good idea. I don't think that's particularly controversial. It would be no different from if you were choosing a local school.

A top 10 means different things to different students - location, course options, accommodation - choice and cost, transport links to home, pastoral care, social life(big one for DD!).

From what I hear widely on MN, Twitter and elsewhere - of the more established universities, it'd be York.

Do we know the hardest universities in which to get a place based on average A level grades required? That might give us a top 10 list. We can probably assume Oxbridge are the 2 at the top. We need 8 more.

Thank you @Piggywaspushed

@Xenia I think others have said that this cannot be viewed in a blanket way. It is different for different subjects i.e. Oxford Medicine requires A star, A, A for Medicine, as does Keele, which is actually very good but I guess you wouldn't rate. Bristol and Manchester are lower at A,A,A. Also Manchester is asking for 3 A stars for computer science since last year, reflecting the popularity of their course.

My top ten university had an AAB for my degree but AAA for my friend’s.

It’s not as simple as this.

Xenia only looks at top 10 and only for law.

Basing any sort of list on A level grades is one of the worst ideas possible. It tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of the course, or of the teaching, or of the destinations of its graduates. And once you have your degree a vast majority of employers across a wide range of professions won't give a toss what you got in your A levels. FYI most Masters courses don't ask (and aren't interested) in applicants' A level grades.

Excellent post, thank you for sharing your wisdom x

Depends on the course. Highest grade doesn’t equal best Uni

I'm a bit snobby and to me there is only Oxbridge and non Oxbridge. I'm not that impressed with Russel Group unis. They're ok unis nothing special.

DD went to York - thankfully didn’t need any care but I was glad to know it was available

Why? We recruit cv blind so would never know whether someone had been to Oxbridge.

I'm not that impressed with Russel Group unis. They're ok unis nothing special.

Including Oxford and Cambridge?

Just snobbery? I used to work for a really big professional services company. In an effort to get more people from different universities they did more CV blind interviews and ended up bringing even more Oxbridge people in as a result so that didn't work.

Are Oxford and Cambridge in the Russel group ?

To clarify I suppose my view of unis are

Good - Oxbridge

Above average - UCL, Durham, maybe Imperial eventhough the men they produce there are really awkward.

Average - other Russel group unis

Poor - everything else

I also think the LSE is just a glorified business venture that offers minimal teaching and almost no uni community culture.

The above is from my experience recruiting new joiners. I work in the legal profession.

Are Oxford and Cambridge in the Russel group ?

Yes.

I learn something new every day, thanks.

The above is from my experience recruiting new joiners. I work in the legal profession.

So, a relatively narrow field of experience.

Maybe we should have "legal profession approved universities" and universities for everyone else ? And maybe lawyers might consider that not everyone wants a career in law?