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?

It doesn't. I don't think anybody believes that people are paid according to how worthy they are, do they?

Teachers and nurses are mostly employed in the public sector, meaning that they are paid as little as the government - that is voted in by the electorate - can get away with.

Lawyers are also paid as little as their employers can get away with. The difference is that their employers are partners in law firms, who need enough lawyers to do as much work as possible. The work is work which clients are prepared to pay a lot of money for, and the lawyers are highly educated and specialised, often willing to work crazy hours to the detriment of their own health, happiness and family relationships, and can easily go and work in one of the many other law firms around if they feel they aren't being paid enough to make those sacrifices worth their while.

So obviously lawyers get paid more.

It's called market forces.

And yes, as @ComtesseDeSpair points out, lawyers working in the public sector aren't very well paid.

There are lot of interesting issues appearing on the thread. On the question of people who earn a lot wanting their children to do so - which I think is one theme - that is not surprising as children get used to a way of life. However my 5 children have all had the choiec of any job they like and one of te 5 is not a lawyer and drives a food delivery want for a living but is perfectly happy. I had no plan even 4 of the children would be lawyers they just realised how much I like it and the pay is quite good and I am glad they did as I continue to enjoy every day.

As for who deserves what - things are as they are and plenty of lawyers earn less than nurses - lawyers doing legal aid, some partners in small struggling firms taking home less than they pay a member of staff, etc etc. It is not high pay for all by any means. You will get some teachers who are Heads on more than plenty of lawyers.

However the wanting children to do as well as you thing is may be part of why parents want to choose a good school and then help children choose a good university and then pick a job with higher pay rather than one which will lead you to a life on mum's net how to keep the heating bills down and buy cheap food threads - it is about love and wanting those you love not to struggle.

I suppose the more parents delude their children into thinking all universities are equal the more chances for those parents in the know to direct children with therefore less competition into the best ones. I have a doctor sibling who earns a fair bit and went to oxbridge.

I had no plan even 4 of the children would be lawyers they just realised how much I like it and the pay is quite good and I am glad they did as I continue to enjoy every day.

And they enjoyed the privileges that being well paid brought them. Be honest.

I love my job, but DD absolutely did not want to take after me. She wants to work in healthcare, which I know isn't well paid, but it's what she wants to do.

My friend - lawyer - partner Magic circle definitely doesn’t work harder than nurse and teacher friends. All degree educated with post grad qualifications.

I agree with all of that (would like to point out to the other PP that PLENTY of teachers - and I assume nurses- attended RG unis!) except wnat to point out that the idea that private school teachers are paid more is a bit of a myth.

We supported DT’s through private education and Uni but their career choice was up to them. They would have received the same love and encouragement whether it was minimum wage job or someone paying the higher tax rate. They would have been a success in our eyes regardless of their choices. DD has already said she wouldn’t want to work when any children she might have are born.

Interesting.

has the other DT, presumably a ds? Even considered not working if he should have any kids?

Loving and supporting your children does not automatically equate to wanting them to have a high-paid career though – having a career that they love and find fulfilling can be just as important. The desire to travel, or to have time to pursue their own hobbies and interests, or to take time out from work to have a family, or to want to spend more time with their pets, or to only want to work regular hours. All equally valid life choices.

Most lawyers I know admit that the financial rewards have played at least a part in their choice of career, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. But equally lots of people are not motivated by money in this way.

Where we live the nicest houses belong not to the lawyers (or doctors, architects or academics), but to the builders.

I'm all for a good education, but wouldn't be convinced by the notion that it's the best way to financial security.

👏👏👏
Spot on. I wholeheartedly agree.

Nope I think it highlights how overpaid your profession is I am afraid!

As I said one of my children is lower paid who is not a lawyer and I am as supportive of him as the others, although I think it gives you fewer choices in life and less power.
As for if the children male or female work when they ahve children that is up to them. The married lawyer two have continused to work and I was pleased with that but obviously would not against any who took a different choice. I was equally pleased they breastfed too as did I and which was one of the best most important things in my life

Shame you didn't learn to spell Russell.

"I also had two tiger parents so this may be where my views came from"

@Emotionalstorm I was raised by golden retrievers. Maybe that's why I am more laid back and just want my children to be happy.😂

I have four degrees (two Oxbridge, one Russell Group, one Open Uni). I'm currently taking a fifth for fun/CPD (distance learning but not OU). Each had its strengths and weaknesses. My DD is currently in a Post-92 in a design course which might or might not lead to a job (but she definitely won't get into the field without such a degree). My DS wants to do Chem Eng somewhere, maybe via an apprenticeship. So... horses for courses.

I never wanted to be a lawyer, having been thoroughly put off by work experience and multiple holiday jobs with a law firm. I've been generally happy as a teacher, and live a relatively comfortable life. (As PP have said, the independent sector doesn't pay much better than the state sector, but working conditions are nicer.)

Incidentally, I now teach philosophy (I started out in physics). Many of my A-level students spell Bertrand Russell's name with only one 'l', too. I wonder why?

It really depends on the field and subject, some vocational course are much more helpful than more vague humanities courses even if they are at Russell Group Universities. I have been both a recruiter for top positions in the USA and a college counselor and I know for sure that employers are impressed for about 3 minutes with which Uni you went to, but are much more interested in “what have you done for me lately?” i.e. what have your done since then?

There is a running joke in the US version of “The Office” about the guy who always boasts about graduating from Cornell (Ivy League) who is still doing the same job as everyone else. Your own abilities, drive and skills such as leadership, initiative etc. and qualities specific to the role are what employers want.

My own uncle was from a working-class family in NE England, went to a Poly (now a new(er) university) and become the only non Japanese on the Board at Canon. In retirement he consults with and mentors executives at Microsoft and Boeing.

I don’t get hung up on the snobbery but just take each person individually and what their personal goals are. I have known plenty of people who graduated from prestigious universities and had no more clue about what they wanted to do with their lives than before they went. I think your child is one step ahead if she knows what she wants to do and is making sure she gets the qualifications to enter it straight out of uni. Too many young people are getting into serious debt acquiring degrees which they have no idea what they want to do with.

The thought of snobbery has just occurred to me in a different context about vocational courses; DD is at least proud, if not actually snobby, that the art-school she attends is older than most other universities, and prestigious in its own way. It just happens to have expanded into first a Poly and then a Uni by absorbing other institutions!

I'm all for a good education, but wouldn't be convinced by the notion that it's the best way to financial security.

I don’t think anybody labours under the illusion that academia is a reliable path to untold riches, or any kind of riches.

Art schools are mostly in old polys. This is why l hate the sneering of them. Britain produced the best design graduates in the world and exports then everywhere.

Abd yet all we ever hear is Russel Group, Russell Group. 🥱

Some art and design schools pre-date the polytechnics they were incorporated into. Sometimes by a hundred years or more.

RG are generally those with a larger focus on research. It's just a commercial collaboration between those organisations.
Your DD should be looking at the best uni for her and her subject.

Absolutely.

Yet they are still sneered at as not Russell Group.

Yet they are still sneered at as not Russell Group.

I think you'll find that it is only a very specific group of posters in a specific career who do that.

Based on his current success with girlfriends I might have a long wait for him to give me a grandchild and have to decide whether to be a SAHP - I would be delighted either way.