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 went to a RG university to study an (at the time) 'elite' subject.

I'm on strike next week because they don't pay me enough ;)

I think some extremes are being used here - No one is saying you cannot make it through with bad A level trades and a poor university and school. It is just easier if you don't have those disadvantages. Blind recruitment doesn't really change much - you still have to have the grades and pass all the tests before you get to the top of the huge mountain which is your assessment and interview with the people who look at you "blind".

So I cannot see much point in lowering your chances of success by not working hard at school and picking a poor institution/school. However if people think that would work for them - go for it. I have no skin in this game other than that the more people who make poor choices the less competition for my children.

What is an ‘elite’ subject? Never heard that term before for a course.

Is it STEM etc?

I understand that you are speaking in general statistical terms but you are missing the point that not all very, very clever students are motivated by money and status. I am sure those who are would logically choose economics, physics, banking etc.. but there are just as clever ones who don't. They are motivated by being doctors and are not interested in earning huge amounts of money or people thinking they are super successful. I know this because I am a mother to two of them. Their options were wide open and they had no interest in anything other than medicine.

You continue to ignore so many of the very valid points that have already been made and appear to look at it through the very narrow lens of your own experience and definitions of success.

• not everyone aspires to work in a high paying, high pressured 'elite' profession. Many vocational (and socially useful) careers require degrees that are offered across a range of universities and often non-RG/elite institutions do these better and have an excellent reputation with employers.
• We know that there isn't equality in education and that many disadvantaged students don't perform as well as their more advantaged peers for a whole range of reasons which have nothing to do with intelligence.
• We know that disadvantaged students are less likely to choose an elite university even when they do have the grades and this can be due to finance, confidence, sense of belonging ....
• Most Graduate Employers now work with a range of universities because they understand the above and know the HE landscape has changed. It's about time some people on MN realised the same.
• Success stories from non RG/elite uni's are not an anomaly or unusual anymore.

So it would be a pity if a parent reading the thread conclude - okay he can go to the place where everyone with C grades goes and need not bother to work hard for A levels as it won't matter.

Not one poster has said that it is OK not to have high aspirations.

Our very, very cleverest students now apply for maths and economics - where it was once medicine, law , history, English , physics.

Not helped when lawyers and bankers on 6 figure salaries advise their DC to follow in their footsteps.

What most people have actually said is that RG Universities are not the only good institutions and that others may be a better fit for some individuals and some excel in particular subject areas. Also that you are not necessarily doomed to a life of misery if you don't graduate in one of a few select subjects from a handful of institutions

Exactly

Despite their hallowed educations and a profession in which I assume the interpretation of words is rather important, some posters seem to have problems with quite basic comprehension

I couldn’t agree more.

So, I cannot see much point in lowering your chances of success by not working hard at school and picking a poor institution/school

But absolutely no-one is suggesting that on this thread 🙄

Society doesn’t. The big firms with their super rich demanding clients do. I don’t agree with that, but those firms can do what they like.

Public sector and legal aid lawyers are paid much, much, MUCH less than those lawyers. Legal aid lawyers are often on barely over minimum wage - where I started out, the lawyers with 5 years of qualified experience were on £21k.

I’m public sector and happyish with what I’m paid but it’s lower than many on MN according to the numerous “what do you earn?” threads. And it’s maybe 1/3 of what I could get if I went into private practice.

I agree that there’s been a lot of awful comments from lawyers on this thread but I also think that many people think all lawyers are rich scummy bastards, which is a real shame.

@Feuillemille23 shush.

Don't want some posters with narrow ideas looking for other well paying areas that those who don't go to public/private schools and RG work in.

I agree but what I am finding is more and more clever(very clever) students are steered by parents and wider forces MN into STEM and then onwards to economics. Those students with the same A levels / ability 10 years ago would more generally have headed for more (for want of a better word) 'altruistic' careers - still high status but less perhaps flashy and monied. The topnotch law students have virtually vanished,, partly because of the decline in history and English Lit A levels which used to be the common route through. Medicine remains ferociously hard to get into and I think many students don't have the knowledge, support, desire , or wherewithal.

Source: many years of teaching.

Those subjects which used to be viewed as the 'right' subjects. That is now a smaller group than it once was.

So, in MN terms, history for example, or English but never media.

So now (according to Mn) our DC’s must be persuaded against choosing the “wrong “ Unis but also the “wrong “ subjects! Thank goodness the world outside Mn is more free thinking.

You get I'm bring ironic right , parker?

But, yes , MN has had wrong subjects for ages now!!

@Piggywaspushed - glad someone has similar thoughts to me ! 😎

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....
Durham don't offer Fine Art degrees (misses point- or does she?)

CV blind recruitment does make a big difference - no preferred Uni, course or more recently grade. Someone from one of the Unis you think are a lower standing will have an equal opportunity to get through the assessment centre process, particularly those covering group exercises. Found an article with the comment below.

Ernst and Young drops degree classification threshold for graduate recruitment
‘No evidence’ that success at university is linked to achievement in professional assessments, accountancy firm says

We shall see how it all plays out, however it probably remains best to work hard, get very good A level grades and if you don't want to be short of money, try to pick a high paid career, if you can and that includes medicine - I have a pretty well off doctor sibling - the idea on the thread that doctors are working for peanuts whilst all lawyers earn loads is simply not correct., There are very rich doctors and lawyers and doctors and lawyers on not very much at all.

@Xenia - sounds like you don’t approve of cv blind recruitment or non RG Uni’s?

Has Ernst and Young dropped looking at any qualifications for accountancy when recruiting or just the degree class?

It’s very difficult to believe that those applying for accountancy training positions which require a high level of maths, would be equally wanted and equally successful, if they were D grade A Level Maths, compared to A star grade.

How would they do their initial sift if applicants?

All of the Big Four, I believe, (along with law firms including Slaughters, ClearyG, Linklaters, Freshfields and A&O, almost half of the Chambers, several major banks, the BBC, and the Bank of England to name just a few) now operate contextual recruitment practices which take into consideration current and future potential, rather than simply academic grades attained: contextual recruitment recognises that candidates from less privileged backgrounds will have had a lot more challenge to overcome and more closed doors in front of them than, so that even if they have slightly lower academic grades than a candidate from a more privileged background they’re considered to have a level of talent and drive which exceeds that of the latter and will be preferenced.

And fun fact. You don’t need maths at A level let alone a maths degree to be an accountant. I’m a (non RG) History grad with a B at GCSE Maths. Qualified with Deloitte.

Crikey!
Some of the posts on here from overpaid lawyers living in their ivory towers
My nephew is a medical student at Sunderland and a friend's DD is studying medicine at UCLAN. They still required excellent A level grades and a high UCAT score.

No doubt, according to one or two fat cat greedy lawyers their medical degrees aren't worthy enough!

It's refreshing to see that many of the larger organisations are recognising that potential employees don't all have to come from privileged middle class backgrounds.

Thanks Comtesse.
How will they do their initial sift of thousands of applicants? They must have some kind of benchmark to decide who goes through to the next round.

I don’t work for one of the Big Four (or in accountancy) any more, but I believe they all just require a benchmark 2:1 to be eligible to apply and recruit to their graduate schemes with a system of online assessments and scenario-based tests which establish behaviours, attitudes, motivations etc, and base suitability on that rather than on specific academic grades.

I’d wonder if everyone applying does those on-line tests and scenario based questions, or if that is the 2nd stage.

Parker suggested Ernst and Young no longer require a 2.1 and don’t look at degree classification. I think Parker suggested before that they also don’t look at which university was attended.

It would be interesting to know with CV blind applications, how different the outcomes in recruiting are, to those which look at information such as A Level results, university attended, degree class, as well as doing the other testing as part of the application process. I’d expect it to make some difference, but in the main, are the most competitive grad schemes in the traditional grad recruitment areas, still ending up with large proportions of RG students? It wouldn’t be surprising would it if there was a strong correlation between students who were seen as academic and also did well at those online assessments and then the later stages of the process too. Yes, I get that there will be some who perform well who might not have been to the higher ranked universities, but I wonder how many do well enough in the online assessments and scenarios etc.

I expect you're right @WombatChocolate, but at least it removes the initial bias, and allows a few outliers through who may not have succeeded before CV blind recruitment.