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?

When I was an undergraduate at a RG in physics we had a student switch uni from a 92 mid course. They were shocked at the jump in difficulty of material.

It's complicated. On one hand yes of course, it's complete snobbery. But on the other hand, pretending that all universities and all degree courses are equal in the eyes of employers doesn't help anyone, particularly as you get into pretty much the same amount debt wherever you go and whatever you study...

But on the other hand, pretending that all universities and all degree courses are equal in the eyes of employers doesn't help anyone,

I don't think anybody is saying that though......

It's not incorrect to point out that many employers DO look beyond RG and that it's better to look at subject level rather than institution level

I think the issue is that employers prefer good universities. That doesn't necessarily mean Russell Group members.

Exactly.
I work at a post 92 and run a very niche Postgrad course. I'm inundated with employers desperate to recruit my students. Yet it's a university that would be looked down on by most of MN.

I put upthread that I don't know what a Russell Group university is. Now people are saying about 'Post 92' universities.
Don't know what that means either.
(Yes I could Google it.....)
Is it snobbery? Don't know? All I know is if something said to me "our child is going to an RG university" my thoughts would be "okaaaaay" because it means nothing to me.
Where as my cousin telling me their child has gone to university to do environmental studies - I was "oh wow, that sounds interesting". I have no clue what university she is at.

@Needmorelego Keele

Agreed.

Which is daft, because it's basically a vocational as well as academic course, and pretty prescribed as to the content for it to be a qualifying degree. Polys were traditionally rather good at that kind of thing. It just tells us that many people in law firms are god awful snobs who only want people from a certain socio-economic background.

I managed to get a training contract with a brand new and more forward-thinking City firm, fortunately, coming from an ex-poly, and bog standard comprehensive but I had to get experience as a paralegal first to be attractive to law firms. They really liked the fact I was a bit of a grafter though and didn't just fall into the profession from privilege.

Though law firms ( big commercial ones anyway) are a means to an end and/or a stepping stone for a lot of lawyers as they are pretty appalling to work for. Golden handcuffs at best.

@Newnamenewme23 because firstly they have higher grade requirements which means my daughter is expected to do very well- and like I say for someone from her background that's amazing in itself.
I have however explained that to do the job she wants it makes no odds to anyone let alone her what university she studies at

@cassiatwenty no I don't think she is at Keele - I had to google where that is. She is in Wales somewhere because her Dad had to go and drive to get her at Christmas because no trains and apparently moaned about "going to Wales".
I might be wrong about what she is studying. It's something along those lines.

Do you work at a big employer? I've spent years working in professional services - big 4 accountancy, magic circle law, global property firms - and nowadays nearly all of them use blind recruitment or at least rare which plots academic achievement against background. They all want to improve social mobility and diversity.

The prevailing outlook on MN about prioritising public school and RG universities is hopelessly out of step with modern recruitment practices.

Although when the civil service tried going CV blind they recruited more, not fewer, Oxbridge people because they tended to have the better grades and be better. It is all pretty simple - if a university is hard to get into those with highest grades and who are hard workers are likely to get in. If you can get in with CCC and don't have to work much then the product from tha tplace is less likely to be as good for many employers, whether recruiting institution blind or otherwise. if that were not so we would be telling our children not to work much for A levels, go out drinking more, pick up your CCC grades and coast into the nearest university and that your Sunderland U course which is a bit of a doss will mean you have just as much chance after 3 years of the coveted high paid PWC accountancy graduate jobs.....

All I want for teenagers is that they know. I don't wnat there to be a secret club of richer private school people who know XYZ university will help your high paid career in loads of ways whereas ABC institution will not and other people don't know.

There will be non RG uni’s with equal if not higher grade expectations though.

like I said if she got into Lancaster, Bath or St Andrews she would also have needed high grade requirements (possibly higher than RG) and would have done extremely well.

would you think it’s lower grades and less of an achievement if she chose Lancaster over a RG like southampton?

interested to see though that the marketing has worked and you perceive RG as being better and needing higher grades than non RG, which is definitely not always the case.

Not having a go btw, just interested in how RG seems to have skewed people’s perception.

Being proud your DC got offers from RG unis doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be just as proud with offers from a similar quality non-RG uni and nothing about newjob’s post suggested she wouldn’t.

It's snobbery IMO but it is still taken seriously by recruiters in non-vocational graduate schemes. I went to Bristol (non-law degree) and then moved into a 'prestigious'' training contract with a top tier law firm - I would say half the people there were Oxbridge (my intake was over 40) and the rest were Russell Group/similarly ranked universities like Bath etc.

If I was doing a vocational degree straight off like nursing, social work etc I would have gone to UWE. Very standardised degrees and from what I know the teaching at UWE is far superior. At Bristol I had 4 contact hours a week. It felt like I was paying for the name and not much else.

It doesn't matter where you get a vocational degree with professional registration from. Employers want the professional registration they don't care about where it's from.

It doesn't matter where you get a vocational degree with professional registration from. Employers want the professional registration they don't care about where it's from.

It's just a research thing.

How long ago was that?

I think it's more important to look at the standing of a university in regard to the particular subject you're intending to study rather than whether it's RG or not, unless you are intending to work for certain employers, in certain fields, who won't entertain applicants who haven't been to Oxbridge or an RG University.
DS went to a non RG but one ranked highly for his subject and subsequently got on to a postgraduate course at Oxford. His contact hours were also significantly higher than friends studying at Bristol and Exeter.

The people I know who've done best in life financially (as in are actually millionaires) didn't go to university at all. One of them started up a business when very young, franchised it, then sold it for a ton in his 30s.

@Catspyjamas17

’Choice of university is about money and social class, not ability.’

So A level grades have nothing to do with it?

Russell Group or not, some universities have always demanded higher grades than others.

Yes it is snobbery. Some of the RG have very weak feedback in their NSS and outcomes far below benchmark. Look at the office for students TEF dashboard for data on this.

So A level grades have nothing to do with it? Russell Group or not, some universities have always demanded higher grades than others.

It's a well known fact that there is inequality in education and that a level grades are not necessarily a true representation of a young persons level of intelligence or potential. Hence the use of contextual offers.