AIBU to think going to an RG university means absolutely nothing

[Butchyrestingface]

Never one to shy away from a challenge (even if it's a challenge to someone else).

So I went to a RG uni. I didn't even KNOW I'd been to a RG uni until about 15 years after the fact when I joined MN.

Thereafter I referred to it as having gone to a 'Russell Grant' university (bit confused).

AIBU in thinking RG unis are not the be all and end all?

Agree. But apparently in London for big companies its a thing and when it comes to post graduate courses it can hugely count in some sectors.
My friends son has changed his choice of university for his Masters because of it.

'De facto' in terms of the brand. Hence I did not use the term 'de jure' which is what you are talking about.

Yes - I think unis like St Andrew's, Bath etc that aren't on the RG list are basically held to the same esteem by employers.

It's essentially red brick, high performing unis that are filtered for the most competitive graduate schemes, in my experience. And employers don't keep up with "which course" that uni performs best for - they just know the best unis overall.

Also people keep calling this snobbery, I don't necessarily agree with how this all works, but I don't think people can deny there's a career advantage to studying at these type of top unis.

It is a good tactic that if you are unable to get into RG at the Undergraduate level to apply to do it at the Masters level, which is easier to get into.

DH's undergrad degree was from an RG university (before the RG group was invented).

His PhD is from North Staffs Poly (now University of Staffordshire and languishing at no 97 in th CUG leage table).

He became the foremost specialist consultant in his field and was employed by several blue chip companies worldwide.

Not one of these companies were interested in where he gained his PhD from. What they cared about and paid for was his knowledge.

Dont be fooled by this lot!
I've worked for Universities UK and RG institutions are self appointed, they founded the group based on their own criteria and initiatives - its not an official body but a self-organised association

Schools still push the narrative that RG is better.

It is not snobbery. It is maximising options of getting into the job of your choice with the maximum number of potential employers.

Everyone has access to the same information. If a candidate's grades can get them into a RG and non-RG uni, they are of course entitled to choose the non-RG, but do so with their eyes open.

Self-annointed does not mean the clever marketing does not create a virtuous circle in which the uni gets the better students and better funding which in turn leads to better facilities and teaching and in turn better students and higher entry requirements.

That is how companies succeed and grow. Universities are not dissimilar in seeking to exploit a brand.

I don’t know.. a young person in my family has a first in law but from a non RG uni, and has struggled to find a graduate job or traineeship. I hate to think that the institution they chose to attend plays a role, but who knows 🤷‍♀️ I wonder what the stats are on employment destinations and degree classification when making the comparison?

@RedCrochetedWigFace Exactly that.

It means absolutely zero.

The 'Russell Group' is branding. It was invented when HE was expanded in the early 90s to include polytechnics and specialist HEIs. Existing universities were horrified at the idea of polys autonomously awarding degrees but particularly that they might get money from the funding councils. They needed to keep their 'high end' status and so the RG lobby was formed to distinguish them from 'new universities'.

Courses vary hugely within an institution, going to a particular HEI doesn't say much about your actual course: some are taught by specialists, highly resourced with limited places and some are there to provide bulk fees to finance the highly-resources etc. courses. 'Research' is practically independent of courses and teaching, going to a 'research-led' institution doesn't reflect your course.

Because RG is all about distinction, though, you can get extra value from certain courses because of who else will be studying on them. A good example is the famous PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), signature degree of the old, high-end unis. The unremarkable content of the degree is easily studied at an ex-poly but the whole point is to study at an institution where you will meet influential people in a place where they have an arcane name for the canteen: cultural and social capital is what you get.

I remember the RG being invented but it's designed to make you think it's always been there.

If the fees for Oxford / Cambridge / Imperial etc are the same as a random ex poly, why would you NOT want to aim higher if you have the grades?

There are certain courses that are particularly prized by some employers, which is why some courses at the same university are hard to get on whilst others are easier. Some of these are at Russell Group universities and some are not.

Some employers rate a degree from an RG Uni higher

It does depend on the job though. As Architects we look at the Uni by design reputation which definitely has nothing to do with whether it’s part of the Russell Group.

A little further down the career path for other careers and employers will be concerned more with your experience.

I have just found out that I went to a RG university from this thread! I thought RG was just Oxford / Cambridge and a few London universities. It has never been mentioned in any of my interviews/ job so no I don’t think it matters in the long term. The most important thing is proving you can do your job well, that is what really counts and not what university you went to.

Yet one of my sons had his lowest A level offer from Warwick for his degree.
All the others wanted higher including non RGs.
The reason was simply it was a well known terrible course that struggles to fill the places.
In my sons study area anyone with a Warwick degree of the same subject wouldn’t actually be able to do the job, just talk and report on it.

So there’s not necessarily a career advantage for all subjects at all

Depends what career you’re going to. Going to a top uni helped my son get his graduate job. My DD is only looking at russell group. Obviously not everyone who goes to one will succeed in live, but it can give a leg up in some industries.

Agree
In the long term
It does help in some careers just to get your foot in the door in the first instance.

Interviewers are unlikely to comment that you went to a RG Uni at an Interview or at any time. They will however see it on your CV.

Well for someone who thinks it is it would be like anything but for normal people no

I think of it lie designer label handbags if you are obsessed with labels ir means something to those people only

I couldn't agree more. Vive la revolution.

But there are loads of them- why are they going to comment? It’s not exceptional getting into one and they want the same Alevels or less than many non Russel groups. It actually means nothing.

So she’s ignoring extremely well regarded unis that are rated higher than many Russel group unis- that isn’t really sensible.

Many large organisations recruit blind so don’t know which university the candidate went to.