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 wonder if there is a table boys for anything as 'granular' as drop out rates form RG by school attended? Anecdotally , I know of 6 (state educated) students who have dropped out of Durham in the last five years against a smattering form other universities. I don't know if Durham has a higher drop out rate than the others, but I doubt it.

Depends what type of job she wants to do

There's still a lot of old school
Snobbery in certain sectors.

My friendship group isn’t determined by where they went to Uni. It’s irrelevant- some friends went to Oxford/Cambridge, others didn’t go at all, some have amazing careers and some have never worked. What the link by Uni’s and friends parents ?

Neither is mine @Parker231. Some of my friends went to university and some didn't. DH has three degrees, one of them being PhD. He is one of the top experts in his field, yet is so unassuming and modest. He doesn't judge people because of their educational background.

I wish I'd known about uni rankings when I'd applied.

I got offers for a top 10 uni, another Russell group and a 60s uni.

I picked the middle one but it was just chance.

One of the reasons we have inter generational disadvantage is that some WC uni applicants don't realise that if they can get into a top 20/50 uni they should probably go there rather than one at 100 on the list.

What resources are there, exactly, to see rankings for different universities for the same course?
It’s fascinating to read the comments of @Newnamenewme23 and @DuckityFuck and others who work in STEM and their recruiting choices.

I’ve been following this with real interest as ds 18 is deciding on universities.
He’s going to do Natural Sciences, and wants to go into research - or if that fails, into industry.

His list (in deliberately alphabetical order) is
Bath
Cambridge
Durham
Nottingham
UCL

Where can he find a list ranking universities for Natural Sciences? I don’t think he’s come across such a thing - just rankings for ‘top universities’ in general.

And he is also setting great store by accreditation by the Society for Natural Sciences - upon which Bath, Nottingham and UCL should be more desirable than Cambridge as they are accredited, while Durham and Cambridge are not. Which I think is daft, because Cambridge, amiright? But this thread is making me wonder….

@ThrowingMuse
www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings
Click on the subject rankings button and then select subject from the drop down menu. You get an overall ranking plus a score for different elements like student satisfaction and graduate employment prospects.

That’s a great resource, @AgeingDoc - thank you! No good for ds though, as it seems to go straight from Music to Nursing, if I’m doing it right. No Natural Sciences at all.

The Times also ranks by subject (paywall) as does The Guardian (much derided on MN but nonetheless triangulating all 3 helps) . Combined subject like Natural Sciences or eg PPE tend not to be covered so you have to look at individual components.

Also, once you have a shortlist, you can look at course-level information on "DiscoverUni" (which was formerly "UniStats"). You can't compare everything, though, only a handful.

This is more important for some subjects than others. (For example, my DD is taking a particular art/design course which is highly regarded, but gets lumped together with all the other art/design courses at that uni for the 'main' league tables.)

To be fair to Durham, and indeed most higher-tariff unis; irrespective of marketing badge, completion rates are high. I've not seen it publicly broken down by school type - although I haven't actually looked. By school would potentially allow individuals to be identified, so would not go into the public domain.

Of course given the RG is educational utopia they all should be 100% 😁

I disagree. I think RG is targeted exactly at “people like you”.

as pp have said, if you aren’t a family that has been through the university process, aware of rankings and courses, fact that some “lesser known” unis like Lancaster are prestigious- i think I found out from a Dick Francis novel!

so after Oxford and Cambridge how do you separate the next level- Russel Group. Targeted at those who aren’t aware of the intricacies of status.

so these are the families that send their kids to Southampton and sheffield over Lancaster and at Andrew’s, because “they’re Russel group”.

the marketing draws in students over better uni’s and courses.

Because schools push the idea of RG universities @Newnamenewme23

Thanks boys.

Look at recent graduates who have gone into jobs you would like and see where they went on the whole. You can usually look them up fairly well by searching Linked In (name of the employer) - but look at the younger people not the ones who are age 50. That tends to show you where recent graduates tended to go to university.

The person listing her son's choices for Natural Sciences has a good list. I would not go to any lower grade institutions for that subject. Any of those ar good and the likely choices of academically able pupils at selective state grammars and private schools. We have a family member who has applied for that subject quite recently although I am certainly not an expert on that topic.

Bath
Cambridge
Durham
Nottingham
UCL

Isn’t it the case that the RG unis have the highest grade requirements for most subjects. That means they are more competitive and difficult to get into. Therefore students are working with an able cohort.

When employers look at where applicants went to uni, attendance at a RG Uni is a useful indication that they were academically bright. You could tell that too from A Level results.

Is it snobby to want to recruit academically bright people or the brightest? Not really. Being academically bright might not be the most vital thing for some jobs but for lots it will be. So many firms that hire graduates for their training schemes with big salaries and well paid salaries after qualifying in their field want the brightest students. It’s not un reasonable to look for students with the best GCSE and A Level results, attendance at top universities in terms of difficulty of admission and degree type and class.

Employers have to distinguish between candidates. They have to sift when hundreds apply for a role. They cannot interview everyone. It’s not the case that all candidates are academically equal and university attended is one indication of their level.

So whether the actual experience of studying at a RG is different or superior might be tricky to tell, but you can say you’re likely to amongst a similar cohort. Perhaps it’s the equivalent to going to a grammar school or selective private school. Being with a particular able cohort might make a different learning experience. It might allow higher standards to be attained. It might attract a better quality of staff (or not).

And as always, people like to point out that in certain vocational areas,RG unis are not the best. That’s fine. For people who know they want to go down a particular path, attending whatever’s best for that seems sensible. For the many who don’t know exactly what they want to do or who are looking at non-vocational degrees, attending a highly regarded uni seems a good idea if you can get a place. Clearly not everyone can, in the same way, not everyone gets 9s at GCSE or A stars at A Level.

We recruit blind worldwide for our graduate scheme so we don’t know where they went to school or Uni. The best employees don’t mean they must have gone to a particular Uni. We want a diverse workplace with employees from different backgrounds, cultures and interests.

How would you distinguish between a candidate who got a 1st from a very pooor performing and low rated university/college and the one who had their 1st from Oxbridge, on paper? If you’re sifting, at it’s at graduate level and before anyone has significant experience, how would you decide who was stronger?

There are jobs where they absolutely want the top academic ability. They will still want diversity amongst that and rightly so, but top academic ability is what will be needed to do the particular job. I appreciate this might not be all jobs, but I think it’s relevant for many jobs. Without knowing the university attended, would you simply be looking at degree class and A Level results to make that judgement? I guess A Level results are strongly linked to which universities people attend anyway.

isn’t it the case that the RG unis have the highest grade requirements for most subjects. That means they are more competitive and difficult to get into. Therefore students are working with an able cohort

no. Not always.

Non RG uni’s like Bath, Lancaster, Dundee, St Andrews etc will have high grade requirements. Very high for certain courses (med sci at Dundee for example, such as biochem or forensic related, are world renowned)

so no, you can’t make the statement that RG uni’s have the highest grade requirements.

First stage is an online application form. The first interview is a telephone screening with the Graduate team.
This is followed by an Assessment Day with the speciality you are applying for. Candidates are monitored and accessed throughout the day for their individual contribution and participation in team activities. There is then an in-depth interview and discussion regarding your technical and motivational fit for the role, team and firm. The Final Stage is a meeting with a Partner/Director. The numbers are whittled down at each round and at the final stage there are usually four candidates for each place on the graduate scheme.
Seems to work as we get some great new employees from state and private schools, different degrees and variety of Uni’s who then start a three year graduate programme. My most promising new joiner last year went to Banger Uni which wasn’t highly regarded in his degree but it was local for him and financially he needed to live at home whilst doing his degree.

Okay. Of course there will be exceptions, which is why I said for most courses.

Would you be happier if I said that employers and parents and school students use RG as an easy and simple way to identify the most competitive universities? It won’t always work as a method because it is a blunt tool and as you identify, there are places outside the RG that are v good for lots of subjects or certain subjects. I know that some appear higher in yearly rankings than some RG unis. So it is a blunt instrument, but one which persists and people have heard of.

I feel that the term Russell Group has simply become synonymous with requiring higher entry grades. So, while there is some snobbery I also think there is also some inverted snobbery, especially from parents of young people who are unlikely to achieve those grades.

Yes I definitely think there is often an RG (+Bath, Lancaster, Loughborough, St A - BaLLS?) or bust attitude on MN. On WIWIKAU on facebook there is often the reverse where parents seem keen to point out that the University of Cromer is better than Durham for History, "because they are just snobby".
Schools and parents really need to be better at encouraging students to find the best course for them (and this includes being aware of the prejudices of the wider world, whether or not the student choose to act on those).

Parker,thanks for sharing that info.

But if you’ve got hundreds of applicants and can’t even see all of them for telephone screening and need to whittle them down based purely on what’s on paper, how do you do that without knowing more of their academic background?

What do you think about magic circle law firms etc that recruit predominantly from Oxbridge……after sifting and then using similar processes to you mention?

I'd leave Oxford out of that. There are a high number of state school students at Oxford, as well as a good number of people from very ordinary homes who got into private school at secondary or sixth-from level through a scholarship. Actually, the state school pupils often do extremely well because they are very self-motivated and independent. Durham and St. Andrews do have quite a 'posh' profile, but that's not a reason to avoid them.