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?

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.

It really depends on your subject. There are some subject where going to a non-RG ( and dare i say it, a post 92) will actually be better than going to a RG because they are a subject specialist.

I have more than one degree. The degree I don't use anything from is the one I picked up at RG university. On the other hand I know someone who went to the same universities I did.

In his case the postgraduate degree he picked up at RG university was the one that kick started his career. The degree he found useless is from the institution where I got a postgraduate degree that kick started my career.

Point is it depends on the course plus what stage you are.

My firm doesn't want to know what uni the grad cohort are applying from, they want to know the grade but most of it comes down to how they do on the assessment days.

@Mrsbunnychops I also went to Surrey too and thrived there, as did my husband. Fantastic university- can’t sing it’s praises highly enough and the focus on career development post graduation is amazing. Work with lots of RG graduates now who did not have the same quality experience as I did.

I went to a RG university, mainly because I loved it when we toured it and it ranked well for my chosen subject. But I don’t think going there has particularly benefited me in terms of employment opportunities etc. When interviewing for my first post-grad job, I seem to recall the only requirements being the actual subject and degree classification, and ever since, reaching the interview stage has been dependent on work experience. Friends who went to non-RG universities (or who dropped out or didn’t go to university at all) have been incredibly successful in their chosen careers and it’s never really been a subject of discussion. If I were to go back through the application process, I would just base my choices on how well the uni performs in general and where the subject ranks compared to other institutions ☺️ And what the social life looks like in the city. The uni experience is about more than just education after all!

I studied engineering at a RG uni. In hindsight a different university, possibly with a more practical emphasis, would have suited me much better.

What amazes me most is that we still seem to be talking about 'ex-polys'. Does anyone even know which are which anymore? Maybe it's just a MN thing.

Some professions are very snobby about this at graduate level, so it will depend on what your child is planning to do after graduation.

This is just ignorant.

The Russell Group wasn’t created for the benefit of undergraduate recruitment. Or to impress employers. RG unis, for the most part, have much less emphasis on undergraduates than other universities. (And that has sometimes been reflected in undergrad surveys about teaching standards).

The Russell Group is about research. In particular about lobbying government to support universities as engines of ingenuity and to fund their research and allow them to develop their own funding streams to maintain their position as world leading academic, research institutions.

That translates to having great academics at them and they already generally attracted the best qualified and most academically prepared undergrads.

The focus on them as a signifier of good undergrad education is down to the high stakes involved in choosing a degree, the huge variation in outcomes from different degrees, the lack of good guidance that people trust and the propensity for people to want an easy way to choose.

It's marketing and MN is obsessed with it like it's some kind of external verification. It's not. It's a lobbying organisation which has more to do with research funding than the quality of UG teaching.

Most good employers now do blind recruitment. And once you've got a job as a graduate trainee, no one gives a stuff about where your degree is from.

Definitely best to look at the course rather than whether the Uni is RG or not. The quality of teaching is often better at non-RG universities

I went to a now RG University so no anti RG axe to grind here, and they are without doubt all very good institutions. However, I think that some people do place too much emphasis on it.
That said, I have noticed it far more on Mumsnet than in real life. To read some of the posts on here you'd think that unless a young person achieves straight 9s at GCSE, 4 A* at A level, and a First from Oxbridge or at the very least an RG University whilst simultaneously gaining grade 8 distinctions in several instruments,representing the County at at least 3 sports and running a sanctuary for baby pandas their life is a complete disaster. I haven't come across that attitude anywhere near as much in real life despite most of my friends and colleagues being fairly high achievers themselves and having bright children. Most of the people I know in real life are more pragmatic and concerned that their children find a course that is a good fit for them and somewhere they will be happy.
My youngest is in 6th form, got a very good set of GCSEs and is predicted high A level grades. The University he is currently favouring is in the top 10 for his intended subject, and if the current trajectory continues, quite likely to be top 5 by the time he (hopefully) gets there, plus it has great industry links and excellent graduate employment figures. But I bet if I named it here there would be sneers as it is...brace yourselves...a former poly. In the real world, everyone we have spoken to who knows anything about the subject has said what a great place it would be for him. I'm not sure the attitudes demonstrated here re University choices fully reflect how the wider world sees things.

It depends. The Russell Group is a membership group comprised of most, but not all, of the highest ranking universities. It's a marketing tool that has been given more meaning than it should by the general public.

At the individual student level it is perfectly possible to be successful having studied at a non-RG, or more accurately, a non-high ranked university. There are also courses at non-high ranked (non-RG) universities that are outstanding, particularly some vocational courses.

However, at the aggregate level, there is now all kinds of tracking data (from the Higher Education Statistical Agency, HMRC tax data, Labour Force Survey, the collective Longitudinal Educational Outcomes dataset, etc.) that allows researchers to follow all students / graduates or very large cohorts of them across their time in university and throughout their careers. So actual data, rather than individual anecdotes.

It also allows researchers to control for various background characteristics, such as social class. Even when controlling for these things (although obviously the relationship is much stronger if you don't control for them because there is a strong relationship between things like social class and prior schooling experience and the university you attend), this data does show:

• High ranked universities have higher entry requirements. They also tend to attract staff with more ongoing research interests. This means they may, but not necessarily, teach at a higher level, preparing their students better for some jobs. This is quite subject dependent, but from my own experience it is true of mathematical courses, for example.
• Higher ranked universities have more money to spend on student support and facilities.
• They also have more money to spend on staffing, so student : staff ratios and class sizes for things like labs and tutorials tend to be smaller at higher ranked universities.
• When comparing on a subject basis (so, e.g., all history graduates at all universities), the students who graduate from the highest ranked universities are more likely to get graduate jobs immediately after they graduate and to have a graduate job early in their careers. They are also more likely to have a higher level managerial or professional job during their career and they are less likely to experience involuntary unemployment.
• Likewise on a subject comparison basis, graduates from higher ranking universities earn more on average across their careers and at every decile stage of their career.
• Graduates of higher ranked universities are more likely to say that they are working in a job that is appropriate for a person with their qualifications and that uses their skills. They also have higher levels of job satisfaction and general satisfaction with their lives.

So, if you want to play the odds, your odds of having a positive outcome from your university experience will be improved by attendance at a higher ranked university, most, but not all, of which are Russell Group universities.

As an academic dinosaur, my take on it would be that the RG universities are more academic and in theory offer more research opportunities. Many of the newer universities are now catching up, but my very general view is that they are geared more towards vocational degrees, rather than traditional subjects. This line is however becoming more and more blurred as years go by. There is nothing wrong with vocational subjects and often they will lead to much better paid careers than can be found in academia.

@Dobby123456

Even that view is outdated. Most research is in groups, many universities have arranged themselves into local groups to apply for funding for things like phd programmes and that will include Russell group, pre 92 and post 92 universities often. Exh's department's research is very highly ranked, above Oxford and it's not RG!

Do you know anything about what the representatives discuss when they meet? Have you every looked at what universities actually say about their membership of the Russell Group? Do you even know what the Ivy League is, how it was formed and what it does now? RG is much more similar to the Association of American Universities than the Ivy League.

I suspect that’s an age thing rather than an MN thing. The parents on MN who are considering Unis have, for the last few decades been of an age when Poly v. Uni and then ex-Poly v. Uni was the big divide.

Great post , @AgeingDoc

I teach at a post 92 university. It's much easier to get a good degree (first or 2:1) at my university than at the top unis (whether that's Russell Group or other universities of similar reputation), simply because if we made it equally difficult then hardly any students would get a good degree. Employers know this.

In the real world, everyone we have spoken to who knows anything about the subject has said what a great place it would be for him. I'm not sure the attitudes demonstrated here re University choices fully reflect how the wider world sees things

I agree. I know when I was at uni ex-polys were definitely a thing. However it was as much about life plans as which was better.

I did biological sciences at a uni. (Non RG, for those interested, but higher than cambridge in the league tables for that subject). Graduates were actively head hunted- if you got a 1st or a 2:1 you had other uni’s lined up for postgrad study. But generally only for postgrad study. But the degree had a strong research and critical thinking aspect.

a friend from school did the same degree, but at an ex-poly. He wanted to do forensic science- remember the CSI heyday when it was huge? The taught aspect of the course with less of a research angle set him up for that career.

I have a BA and an MPhil from two different RG Uni's. I didn't apply to them because they were RG, and I don't think it's made the slightest difference to my career.

It does mean something. But there are good Unis not in the Russell group. I would be more concerned about unis that used to be polys.

I have worked in both RG unis and non RG. There are some fantastic students in both so I feel employers would restrict themselves pointlessly if they only concentrated on RG.
I found RG students to be a much more homogeneous cohort, which makes seminar discussions rather predictable. It's not the students' fault but obviously if you come from similar backgrounds, were educated in the same kind of schools, have the same experiences, are exposed to the same worldviews etc, chances are you will make similar contributions to the classroom.

On the other hand, non RG students came from a variety of backgrounds and brought to the table a variety of worldviews, which really gave class activities another dimension. In this respect, I would say the learning experience would be more stimulating.

It would be disingenuous to look down on RG unis - the students are very academic and standards are high - but it would equally be a mistake to discard non RGs in my opinion.

I think it depends what you want to do.

If you want to go into something like law, then yes, you'll have much better employment opportunities if you've been to a Russell Group university or better. Those universities have a reputation for being better than the rest of the pack and, rightly or wrongly, a lot of employers still believe in this. And if you want to study something like English or history, the reality is that you need top grades to get into a Russell Group university, whereas you can get into a university at the bottom of the league tables with crap grades. (That said, I know someone who studied English at a post 1992 university and has a fantastic career in magazine publishing, got her first editor's job before she turned 30, so it's not always the case that studying a humanities subject at a non RG university will condemn you to a rubbish career.)

If you want to do something more vocational or very specific, it may well be that a post 1992 university is the best place to do it and employers in that field will know that.

Speaking as someone who went to a RG university, it definitely wasn't all it was cracked up to be and I don't think the reputation is really justified, but I can't deny that being able to put that name on my CV as opposed to the University of Skegness has opened doors that would otherwise have been closed to me. In my first job I was one of 25 graduates. About a third had been to Oxford or Cambridge, another third had been to my university (the employer was in the same city) and the other third had been to equivalent RG or London universities. None had been to a post 1992 university.

I was offered places at all the RGs in my country. Chose a technical uni instead.

Still have a high paying job.

If a person is bright and driven, the uni doesn't matter.

I've trained some postgrad students on summer placement from RGs. Despite getting firsts they were barely literate. Also unable to speak on the phone.

No idea what they managed to get out of their degrees. Lazy attitude too.