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?

That may be the case in sciences. Not so much in humanities.

sshhh! you're not meant to say that out loud!

Just imagine if the initial meeting to set up this marketing phenomenon had taken place in a more convenient location for some of the participants. Sandbach Services (southbound) Group doesn’t have quite the same cachet.

Russell Group universities are different from post 1992 universities but are not necessarily "the best" - it depends on the subject of study and career aspirations of each student, and what their strengths and interests are.

The Russell Group is a self-defined "club" which has its own rules of membership which are based around how heavily the university is reckoned as being on the forefront of research and innovation across the broad range of traditional academic disciplines. Universities that don't cover all the full range (eg some that don't have a department of medicine or law) can't qualify even if they are heavyweights in all the subjects they do offer.

The rationale is that the "traditional" method for university education was not really to have much in the way of "teaching" as such. The greatest minds working at the forefront of research in their fields would give lectures, but students were expected to manage their own learning and do a lot of independent study, and learn what they needed for the final exams by whatever means they could. obviously that's not how university courses are run these days, but the post-1992 universities were originally established as primarily teaching institutions and had fairly modest research outputs, and this has also changed, so there's not so much of a gap, but the fundamental difference in original approach does have some affect on the overall ethos of each kind of establishment.

A Russell Group university might well be the right choice for someone who feels that their eventual career might be to pursue a doctorate and become a university researcher themselves, as the contacts and resources of an RG uni are likely to facilitate that more, but for a vocational degree to lead straight into a non-academic career, a non-RG institution might well be a better choice.

It matters for certain subjects it definitely doesn't for a vocational course with professional registration.

How do you know?

More seriously though I can still recollect pre-2012 the anguish of friends as their pfbs headed off to uni.

Silly me thought Damian heading off to Durham, Evie to Exeter, and Yolanda to York were excellent outcomes. Granted Quentin to QMUL I was less sure about.

For their DPs though it was as if their respective worlds had ended. After my innocent assertions that at least three of the four were really excellent Unis, their DCs futures were not ruined, and they, as parents, would not become social pariahs , one between the sobs managed to grasp my hands and in a choking voice whisper “but they are not Russell Group though”. Their anguished faces are etched forever in my memory.

Thankfully though along came 2012 and all four succumbed to the dark side

The UK is fortunate to have a range of good to excellent to global elite universities. The 24 RGs just happen to be part of that. The global elite RGs could be counted on one hand. With at least one, possibly two, digits to spare. The rest of the RGs are still excellent unis just not the be all and end all of everything.

My daughter has got offers for three RG unis and I don't care who thinks it's 'snobbery' (incorrect ) but I'm proud as punch.
We are as poor as church mice live in a crappy semi detached that needs doing up badly but she's got offered a place based on her own get up and go and hard work.

It depends on the course and the career field you want to get into. Wrong as it may be, alumni associations and networks still make a difference when breaking into professions like law, banking etc and obviously academia.

If the entry requirements for the particular course at a university are high, it’s probably a good place to go for that course. RG is just marketing.

I went through university having no fucking idea what a Russel group was, never heard of it! If her course is a good one and modern and for what she needs then go for it.
Declaration, I guess mine might have been a RG, but didn’t go there for that it was just the only place my course was. Google it, oh yes it was, but didn’t go there for that reason. Just the only place with a course I wanted that accepted me!

I think the standards required are higher at traditional RG/redbrick universities than at ex polys, definitely. In the same way that standards at an oxbridge are higher than at a traditional RG/redbrick. Entry requirements are much higher as well. But mainly, it’s because first and foremost, universities are supposed to be cutting edge centres of research as opposed to basically a school for ages 18 - 21. RG universities focus much more on the research side so in that sense are the more prestigious institutions.

I went to a RG uni in the 1980s when they were prestigious. Now, employers actually care more about the class of degree and not which uni.
I am a guest lecturer at a new uni, all courses are taught. It's great! it's clear the lecturers care about their courses and students.
IMO people should study what they enjoy where they want to study. Going to uni is still a rite of passage for some, so lets stop insisting degrees are only worth something if you went to a RG uni.

Me too!!

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.

This is true if comparing all universities, like you say. However, a student isn't applying to "The Average Russell Group" versus "The Average Ex-Poly". They're applying to specific universities, and it's definitely worth looking at the data for individual universities you're interested in, as well as the overall picture.

Namechanged for this. I work at an RG uni in a city that also has a post-92 uni. For my subject, the post-92 university has significantly better graduate employment rates than us. They offer placements and more applied modules than us. There are other features of our course which I think many students benefit from, but I do feel that my RG has rested on its laurels a bit when it comes to employability.

Bath has been good but not RG. There are others that don't come to mind right now.

St Andrew's also not RG. Kate went there, so you know it's proper good

RG doesn’t mean “the best”, it’s a group of research-intensive universities. So the focus is different. The idea is that they are where the research quality is, so they tend to offer undergraduate programmes in subjects of interest for research rather than in vocational subjects.
If someone is aiming for a PhD and research / academic career, it can be an advantage to do their undergraduate study at a RG university.
As PPs said it doesn’t say anything about teaching quality or student experience rating.
(I work for one)

Yes, if someone is interested in how good teaching is, then that's a different thing than uni famed for research.

However, it's important to be able to connect with decent people whether it's Loughborough or Sheffield or Durham.

We recruit blind so have no idea which Uni the applicant went to. Same approach used now by many large companies.

It depends on the course and what you want to do with it.

My niece read Maths and Mechanical Physics at Cambridge, and had a choice of paid research places for her phd. But that's the very top end of academic.

I have a business degree (definitely not the top end of academic) from a red brick and have never had an issue in terms of employment or the degree being dismissed or under-valued by employers. No one would offer me a research post in a university though.

DD is at the uni ranked number 2 in the world for her course/study area. No.1 globally is also in the UK. Neither of them are RG. I hope hiring managers consider more than just RG or not. Educational establishments change, just like schools do. To band the whole group as superior for any course, at any time is ridiculous.

I do because when I worked in offices the students on internships for their sandwich year or the summer period always came from ex-polys. The poly wasn't the nearest ones and I've worked for a mixture of companies.

The students were always impressive in their work ethic and politeness.

(Though I know a couple of plate glass unis who do the same thing.)

Would you be similarly proud if she got into a non-RG uni such as St Andrews or Bath?

why is it you’re particularly impressed with RG?

Ds has had an interesting journey through university selection, starting with Cambridge, deciding that wasn’t for him and not applying through to Exeter, St Andrews and lancaster.

Lancaster is top ten in almost every ranking list. It rates very highly for his subject. He loves it and it feels right to him.

School would FAR rather he firms RG Newcastle. Newcastle is way down in the rankings, dozens of places below Lancaster but school feels it’s more prestigious because it’s Russell Group and it looks better in their stats.

He isn’t, he’s likely to firm Lancaster (still waiting to hear on St Andrews).

Out of interest what type of subjects please? I know Surrey is the only university in the world to offer a tonmeister degree. But which post 92’s are better for what subjects please? I’m not challenging as I’m sure you’re correct; I’m genuinely interested.