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?

Hey, don’t tar us all with the same brush, I think you’ll find it’s just Xenia keyboard warrior princess and her Emotionalstorm of a protege that spout such rubbish.

I don't really understand why it's so hard to believe that that's what they do in lots of white collar industries (including law). I thought it was common knowledge. It's like no one in this forum works or something.

Employment and making money are not the same thing btw. Education really helps you get onto a grad scheme or more desirable jobs but it's not that important for making lots of money. It's just insanity that most mums on this thread think that education is not that important and the uni you go to doesn't matter.

I get it, I'm a terrible mum for wanting my daughter to have choices. If she chooses to be a lorry driver then I'm fine with that but I want her to have a choice to get into a more competitive profession if she so chooses. I want her to be able to choose where she lives (whether it's a townhouse in Islington or a shack), travel wherever she wants to go and do whatever she wants to do. I want her to be a person who wants to achieve and do well.

Also a lot of the posters on here are assuming that my daughter must be miserable. She loves her ballet and piano lessons and she is the one asking me to bring her to the library more often (I usually only bring her once a week but she finishes her books within three days). She has a lot of confidence and doesn't lack love or emotion support.

We all want our dc to have choices.

The trouble with your attitudes is that they are very likely to limit your dc's choices because you have such fixed ideas about what "success" looks like and you will leave her with that hangover for life. You say that you will be fine with it if she decides to be a lorry driver, but I wonder if you really mean that and if you will convey that to her? I suspect not. I think you have very clear ideas about how much she might need to earn, where she might need to study etc., and you will make those ideas abundantly clear to her in one way or another. What if those choices aren't actually right for her?

There are many different ways to succeed. Oxbridge degrees and ridiculously high earnings are one way, but there are many other ways which are at least as good. You have a very narrow view, and I would say that you're very much in danger of passing this on to your child. With the best possible intentions, maybe, but it will limit her options nonetheless.

It's good that she is happy, but she will also be absorbing lots of subtle and not-so-subtle messages about what is expected of her. And if she doesn't want that or doesn't conform to that, it will be difficult for her.

I will try very hard not to do this. So far she has told me she wants to be a bus driver, then a nurse (when I got a cold in December) and today a hot cross bun builder and I've encouraged her on all of those ideas.

She genuinely did tell me she wanted to build tall houses out of hot cross buns....

I understand your concern and I will make an effort to let her know I will support her no matter what happens. Thank you.

We already have a piano and her dad has been teaching her to play but I was planning to bring her to a music shop to see if anything interests her more because I don't want to force her into playing into an instrument just because we have it. I was forced to play the cello and I hated it. She has also asked to join a jiu jitsu class (with her cousin). I've told her maybe when she's a bit older (5 years or so) because I'm worried about her getting injured at the moment.

I want to get to know my daughter, what she likes and what kind of person she is and I definitely don't want to be like my family who usually talked over me but never to me.

It's good that you try and I hope that you succeed.

However, some of your views are so extreme and some of the manner of your expression is so dismissive (e.g. your reference to "mere doctors" earlier on this thread) that it will be impossible to avoid passing on your prejudices as she gets older, unless you find a different way of looking at things - assuming, that is, that you're not just trolling on this thread, and I'm still not entirely sure if I'm honest. Kids are usually very perceptive and tend to know exactly what their parents value, even if it isn't explicit.

That's brilliant and she sounds fabulous. You obviously want to do the best for her. That means setting aside the expectations that were put on you in childhood and having a more open mind about different ways in which people can consider themselves to be "successful". Maybe read some of the research on what makes people happy. It isn't all about money or status in the slightest!

Yeah I think it's because of my family and the people around me. Sometimes I say it like that because I know lots of doctors and they spend all day telling me they're paid peanuts. I don't think they are but my brother insists he's working for free and my friends who are doctors talk about how they're paid worse than all finance jobs which just isn't true.

Yeah will do. I hope she isn't as unhappy as me. :)

Why are you unhappy?

I'm sorry that you feel unhappy, OP. You have a chance to break the cycle here, but it will take a lot of unlearning and hard work.

Sorry, my last comment was addressed to @Emotionalstorm, and not the OP as stated. It's late, and I need to get to bed!

I don't feel like I've achieved much in my life and I don't like my job. It's a bit of a slog. I'm counting down the minutes to spend time with my daughter each day.

Why are so many MN lawyers so narrow-minded?! It’s like a City career in law is the only option. It’s a bit weird really.

I know many lawyers. Only a few stuck it to partnership level in the City. After the age of fifty many of the wives have started to regret and resent giving up their careers to support their partner’s career. The few women who ‘made it’ regret not spending time with their kids. All the wealthiest lawyers talk about long hours and being at the beck and call of international clients; it seems kind of undignified as they jump to the beat of their clients.

They do have amazing holidays and houses that I envy! And will probably retire
earlier than me in my ‘peanuts’ (by Law
standards) job. But no way would I give up my socially useful (NHS) career for the job they have chosen. They chose a different career which is fine of course. But it’s not for everyone.

I was actually chatting to a friend yesterday. And saying that despite having kids at ‘top’ universities, I would be quite disappointed if they ended up taking an identikit path to a City life as I would love something more creative and interesting for them. But it’s their choice of course.

Why do lawyers think their life is the only way? There is so much more to life than a huge house. I think they have spent so much time stuck in law firms that perhaps they genuinely do not know much about the big world our there and the professions available.

@RecommendedForYou When I went off to Oxbridge, two others from my A-level English group at school did too. One was going to become a playwright, the other a poet. Thirty-ish years on, and one is now a fund manager, the other a corporate lawyer. I felt immensely sorry for them.

Emotionalstorm is on the wind up. Nobody could be that self obsessed that they derail a thread so completely.

I've studied at two RG universities and worked at a third. I can't say they made any difference to my working opportunities in later life. The reason I have a job is because I obtained a vocational qualification from a "new" university that actually gave me practical, marketable skills.

Also, what isn't widely publicised is that RG unis pay a membership fee to be in that group... they've historically attracted the bulk of UK research funding but as the landscape changes in terms of subject importance it'll be interesting to see what effect that has.

Especially now we've effectively been cut off from things like the EU Horizon funding thanks to our Brexit self sabotage... meanwhile some of the "new" universities/old polytechnics are absolutely rocketing up the research charts due to subject areas like cyber security, say. Those people making snotty comments about high paid careers might like to look at some of the salaries on offer for that emerging specialism...

Although there's no doubt that a Fine Art degree from Scumbag College or the University of Upper Strabane won't have the same kudos in the salons and galleries of Kensington as the degree with the same title from loves-to-love-itself Durham, say.... you'd probably get asked to use the gallery tradesman's entrance....

There are also a couple more private universities than there were...

Why equate high aspirations with snobbery?! My DC worked really hard to get very good grades in difficult subjects in order to be considered at a top notch, highly reputable and world renown research university which are the RG universities.

RGUs attract international funding and are designed to compete with the world's best and are therefore worlds apart and in a completely different league from say, media studies at a former college of higher education.

But that doesn't mean a course from a former CHE is bad, not at all.

Any course that promotes reflective and critical thinking and independent study is worth doing because it separate those who are intelligent enough to question the source of their knowledge from those who don't eg tabloid readers who blindly take as gospel what the tabloids say.

People who swear they don't need a good university education to do well in life are completely missing this point.

Itt not just about materialism.

Newsflash : you can do media studies at RG universities.

This is where the snobbery comes in - using specifically media studies as shorthand for 'beneath me'.