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?

The thing people are spending many thousands of pounds every year on private education to get the best grades on the presumption they get into the “best” Uni’s. What’s really the point if your kids end up being the most confident presenter or capped sportsperson if they are at any old Uni. There will always be some element of elitism. Durham, Exeter and Bath being good examples. Very white, very private school intake.

Very different if you look at different subjects.

Absolutely. However, unless a dc is going into a subject specific career then most employers will only know the general rankings (and even then they’re more likely to have a view influenced by their own experience 20+ years ago).

It took quite a lot to persuade DH that Bath (“they don’t even have a real university!”) ranked more highly than Newcastle in every ranking list.

So , it does come back to snobbery, then as per the OP...

I think subject reps to matter for some things. Loughborough, for example, has shot up the league tables and has become a great choice but I am not sure a lot of dyed in the wool employers would regard it as top ten. It's definitely a specialist institution - it doesn't even offer some of the fairly traditional subjects.

And, as you pretty much imply, it doesn't mater that (in your example) Bath is top ten , if employers think like your DH.

Many students do care if they go somewhere that is good for their subject. Edinburgh may have cachet but it's not good for English. Many places are better choices.

How does that equate to snobbery? It isn’t snobbery it’s just that his knowledge is out of date and influenced by the fact that he left university 30+ university and hasn’t had cause to look at university rankings since.

Nothing to do with bloody snobbery.

It's academic snobbery... it's not an insult. But 'out of date' knowledge ' form employers is what everyone has been talking about on this thread. It's why blind recruitment exists. It's why people, not just your DH , look askance at Bath (although to be honest that's an unusual example) and it's what the RG rely on for reputation in large part.

I agree with @Piggywaspushed. University snobbery is alive and well on this thread.

@Margrethe Your list is fine. I think you’ve nailed it by reminding us that perspective matters. Some of us, including me, had got diverted to thinking more research strength.

QS is suspect in my eyes because the main component, weighted 40%, is based on a response from whichever academics have bothered that year to respond to some pretty loose questions about research quality. The only rule IIRC is that you can’t discuss the institution whose email you are using. The rankings are robust at the very top and bottom but the cluster where most of the RG lies is pretty volatile.

I don't really agree with the snobbery point. As someone from NE England who just wanted to get to a hard to get into university etc it was always about going to a place where those who work very hard and get top grades go. It was nothing to do with class or accent.

However is academic snobbery is something different and means if you think someone getting 99% is better than getting 50% is a snob then it would be a very sad day for the UK if we decided facts don't matter and that 99 is not higher than 50.

However is academic snobbery is something different and means if you think someone getting 99% is better than getting 50% is a snob then it would be a very sad day for the UK if we decided facts don't matter and that 99 is not higher than 50.

I don't think anyone is saying that on here though.

When DD applied to university the entry requuirements were AAA - AAB for her course at all the universities she looked at, including Newcastle where she achieved her not worth the paper it is written on degree.

I don’t think there’s much difference between the actual universities they have to be mediated.

It’s definitely snobbery and a logo that’s falls over the the work place unfortunately. I know for some graduate schemes it’s an automatic rejection of its not a certain university.

I don’t think anyone at any point has said that an employer valuing high grades in their recruits is snobbery (although it’s interesting that none of the large high profile employers which have adopted blind recruitment and scrapped minimum grade requirements for their graduate programmes in recent years have found any reason to backtrack on that.)

However, there was a poster some pages back who said that her employer (STEM field, poster was not more specific) doesn’t even consider job applications from candidates who hadn’t attended an RG university: apparently they go straight in the bin. And that is is an excellent example of completely misplaced academic snobbery - snobbery which is entirely counterproductive because it means that company will lose out on some of the best talent from some of the highest ranked and most respected universities for STEM subjects and allow its competitors who will recruit from those universities to flourish.

I suspect we all have more in agreement on this thread than different views.

However I was interested in what "academic snobbery" means when I have read that universities insisting on good English and grammar might be regarded as wrong, elitist, privileged (a bad move if it indeed it is happening in my view).

I can certainly understand a different debate however as to which uniersity is better for a particular thing depending on what people want out of it which for some is lots of drinking time for others might be a teetotal religious environment for others might be near your parents house for others might be a very obscure course done nowhere else etc.

I have a question if I may :-

If you do an academic degree at a non or bottom tier RG university and then get a distinction in the PGDL would the distinction, as the last qualification, override the lower tier university ?

One would hope so, @Cobwebs5 . But Law is a traditional, even somewhat hidebound field that it would be best to wait for a lawyer to weigh in.

@WednesdaysPlaits It took quite a lot to persuade DH that Bath (“they don’t even have a real university!”) ranked more highly than Newcastle in every ranking list.

What do you/DH mean by Bath not being a ‘real’ university?

I am guessing the DH was referring tobyhe fact that Bath is not RG. However it is The Times University of the Year this year. Whenever I visit their students appear happier than ours (‘upper’ RG).

The idea of a university top 10 is pretty out of date to be honest. These days it’s mostly about the course and its content. Potential students need to be looking at a much more granular level and digging into course details to find out which courses are respected within the professions/industries etc that interest them.

Beyond Oxbridge, the notion of a ‘top tier’ of universities is largely nonsense because lots of universities specialise in particular areas, and recruiters will be aware of that. @WednesdaysPlaitsby your own admission your DH is 30 years out of date, and he clearly isn’t involved in the recruitment of recent graduates. No reason he should be, of course, but I can assure you that people who are at the sharp end of graduate recruitment most definitely DO know way, way more about particular courses than you give them credit for.

One or two professions may still consider that, eg Bristol is better than, eg Reading in every aspect because, you know, it just is. But if you are looking to employ a surveyor you will know that it is not. And Surrey currently ranks above Exeter for English (personally I don’t set that much store by rankings tables, but you can’t claim that RG are the top tier because the rankings say so, and then ignore those same rankings tables when they don’t support your argument…). That is academic snobbery, and that is why professions which only look at the name of the university and go no deeper than that may be missing a trick.

This thread is a prime example of the benefits of cv blind recruitment - takes the advantage and snobbery out of the RG.

Parker231 agree and it has been reassuring for my DD who struggled when her dad got ill and didn't get stellar results. She is doing well in her non RG uni and running at a first and has already got herself work in a lawyers firm in London. She had it drummed in by her father that it was RG or nothing so as I have told her blind recruitment cuts all that nonsense out

@bigbird50 - congratulations to your DD - I hope she is very proud of herself

"If you do an academic degree at a non or bottom tier RG university and then get a distinction in the PGDL would the distinction, as the last qualification, override the lower tier university ?"

It depends on the law firm. Lots of law firms has some kind of minimum A level grade requirement eg AAB and a 2/1 (rather than a particular university). Many of them recruit BEFORE you take the PGDL (and indeed nder the new SQE system technically you don't need to do a PGDL at all now although big firms prefer it) as they recruit years ahead so your PGDL result would not be available when you apply to the firm nor your SQE results, High marks on the PGDL or SQE certainly do no harm. However almost everyone applying who gets through the first stages probably has extremely high exam grades so it wll be how you do on assessment centre days etc that help decide whom they hire.

They should rename it brussel group. It causes a lot of wind.