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?

Isn’t it just a way for MNers to boast about themselves or their children when they didn’t get into Oxbridge? You hear it on here but I‘ve never heard it from a real life person.

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

Tell me you you have really outdated views on HE with out telling me you have really outdated views on HE.......What a bloody patronising thing to say.

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

Talk about snobbery! 😂

What about if you went to a university that isn't an ex poly OR in the Russell Group?

You blow up MN cos it can't cope!!

Best of the best as regards university does not in any way mean that other universities are not worth going to. What a bizarre statement. Are you perhaps a reverse snob?

Yeah, it's bollocks. They just decided to all club together and call themselves a posh sounding name to fool employers.

If I was in charge I would immediately make all job applications institution blind.

Choice of university is mostly about money and social class, not ability.

I think a lot of the university chat on MN is just based on random assumptions, often loosely related to where someone lives but not a lot more. So people in the south seem to rate Exeter and Bristol higher than somewhere like Sheffield or Newcastle, although St Andrews seems to be very highly thought of on MN as well. I'm Scottish and St Andrews is not considered superior to Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen universities by people here. I think the RG thing is often a shorthand way of saying non-old polytechnic.

To be in the Russell Group universities need to be producing world-class research. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, because funding bodies are far more likely to award research grants to people in Russell Group universities. How much does this impact students? In theory, students benefit from being taught by leading experts in their field. In practice, I think people can be great teachers without having actually done the research themselves. Also, if entry grades are high, this means fellow students will be a higher standard, which will affect group work, bouncing off ideas etc.

However, it sounds like maybe your DD is doing a more vocational subject where commitment to chosen career path is more important than academic grades or research success?

That’s an interesting thought, actually.

I wonder if there’s an element of valuing where the English private school kids go?

I think RG is a manufactured concept to imitate Ivy League.

You can't just join the Russell Group. It's not the local bowling club! Universities have to work hard to up their research output in order to be accepted into the group.

I mean look at the fucking state of the country, run by politicians and central government civil servants all from the same social classes, ten to twenty different schools and about ten different universities, who practically all did the same fucking degree, all had the same route to get there.

They think business = accountancy, law, banking, and FTSE100 companies, not small businesses which actually employ the majority of people, or manufacturing and construction which sectors employ thousands of people. We do actually make and build stuff in the country, not just provide services. They think construction is someone building an extension to their house. They think everyone is like them, and if they are not they are poor because they are thick and not worthy of support.

Choice of university is mostly about money and social class, not ability.

Absolutely!!

If you've read a few of @Xenia 's posts you'll know that she means every word of that. Lots of her posts also focus on being a high earner. She doesn't appear to value anything creative. Perhaps she doesn't connect the creative process with the car she drives, the clothes she wears, the birthday card she sends etc. ?

I think on MN, RG is taken to mean 'RG and the select number of institutions which are generally considered equivalent'.

I went to a RG uni, didn’t realise it was a “thing”. I wouldn’t put much stock in it either tbh. I don’t think any of us were particularly exceptional.

Just to demonstrate, there was a mum on here yesterday saying her husband had restricted their son's choice of university to places where the accommodation was cheap.

Even back in the 1990s when the grant still existed and there was no tuition fees I picked places that would be cheaper to live in (idea came from me not my parents) and nothing that was further south than Leicester.

I lecture at two different universities. One is RG and the other isn’t. The students are different. At the RG Uni there are more U.K. students on the course, a higher proportion of them are privately educated and they do tend to be well trained in study skills and essay writing etc so they produce quite good writing. They are students who might be described as ‘bright’ (though imo this often just means articulate because of confidence and being middle class)However, the level of engagement with ideas in seminars is the same. I wouldn’t say that discussions are more sophisticated in one or the other. Also, the course at the non RG uni has a slightly more vocational angle which makes it more attractive to potential employers. I have also taught at a non RG uni in the past where the degree was more highly regarded than at any other uni because it was a unique course and run by academics with a good reputation.

So, to answer the question whether RG is better than non RG the answer is, not necessarily, it depends. You should choose a course on the basis of far more than just whether it is RG or not.

If you've read a few of @Xenia 's posts you'll know that she means every word of that. Lots of her posts also focus on being a high earner. She doesn't appear to value anything creative. Perhaps she doesn't connect the creative process with the car she drives, the clothes she wears, the birthday card she sends etc. ?

That's true. I often think she just says things for a reaction .......

Me too. I find it outrageous that most forms of discrimination are unlawful but employers are still able to favour Oxbridge and RG applicants. The kind of kids that reach the required academic standard for these ‘elite’ institutions are mainly from wealthy families who’ve opted out of society and hothoused their kids in leafy private schools. So not representative of the natural intelligence in society - just more wealth and privilege protecting itself.

I couldn't tell you which the RG universities are, so it has no bearing on my opinion when I'm looking at graduate CVs.

I went to uni in the early 2000s and I don't remember it being a thing then - I thought it only came in as a marketing device later on? When I was choosing it was all about a 'red brick' uni, if you weren't going to Oxbridge/Warwick/Bath.

On average, it is harder to get into an RG university.

They generally require better A level results and also interview harder. There is more competition for places there, because they have better reputations.

Of the top 20 easiest universities to get into in the UK, non of them are in the Russell group.

So the very fact you made it to an RG university means there is a much higher probability that you are better than an average UK university candidate.

Russell group universities are just generally better. In the same way Oxford and Cambridge are generally better than the average Russell Group university. That doesn't mean it's the be all and end all to get into one, but you should try your best IMO, because these days a university education is expensive and you want to come out with a degree that is as valuable as possible.

Just to demonstrate, there was a mum on here yesterday saying her husband had restricted their son's choice of university to places where the accommodation was cheap.

I saw that, it was a perfect demonstration of how socio-economic background impact university choices.
I did my PhD on this exact topic and found that location and proximity to home was a key driver in university decision making for some groups.

I am another one that doesn't actually know what it means?
Is it like "Ivy League"?
Although I thought Oxford and Cambridge was 'our' Ivy League 🤷🏻‍♂️