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?

Also, I love the concept of a Russell Grant uni. I know him and 100% would go, he's a lovely guy 😅

You know I know sod all about Liverpool. I threw it out there as an example because it’s a city with one RG and two other Unis that aren’t
I could have picked anywhere.

The point is
If you are an employer there are too many kids these days with degrees chasing the same jobs. Employers in the main and in the top institutions and professions will have too many applicants to start trawling through league tables to decide who to bin first.

They will, and do, go for the top Uni applicants first
They are
Oxbridge, St. Andrews and RG unis.
Thats life.

It really isn’t life everywhere as you’ve illustrated. There are plenty of unis rated a lot higher than many Russel Groups and employers aren’t going to pick lesser candidates simply because of a self appointed label.

It really depends not only on what subject you want to study, but predominantly on whether you're intending to continue with doing research after you finish your undergraduate studies. It's definitely not meaningless. At the same time, depending on context, it's definitely not the be all and end all either.

RG didn’t exist when I first started. My uni became RG, I’ve been to three. My kids happen to be/will be at RG.

I’ve recruited for two decades, I think a lot of its hype.

It started as a group to lobby the government for funding and has turned into a huge marketing strategy.

The problem for students these days though is that so many more are doing degrees so there’s far more competition for jobs. Getting that first job without prior relevant experience is the hardest.
So these days it’s key to pick the best of the best and do the best you can.

The best of the best isn’t whatever Uni was high up in the league tables in the year you happened to apply in. They could be number 40 in a couple of years so employers look at their traditional trusted favourites.

Only yesterday, my DD who will shortly graduate from a Uni that is not in the RG, saw a job that really appealed to her. She met all the criteria until the last point - 'Applications will only be considered from those attending a Russell Group University'. So, yes, in some industries it is very much a thing!

This debate over RG always makes me laugh.
It's a self appointed title based on where the group held their first meeting.
All it means is that they share the same broad values in relation to research.

Employers are increasingly looking at and engaging with a wider range of universities.

Students are better looking at subject rankings and subject specific employability data.

YANBU it’s mostly irrelevant snobbery these days. We have non RG unis regularly appearing in top 10 of various league tables and “which uni” reports which proves that the lazy assumption of a RG uni automatically being better than non RG is bollocks. It’s a self selecting group that make their own admission rules!

Our son got offers from bothRG and non RG unis and chose a non RG. It hadn’t held him back at all. He got a graduate scheme job in one of the UKs biggest financial firms, as well as an offer for another big firm. Where he works, lots of the other graduates and sandwich year work placements are from non RG unis - they have a thorough application process which is skill based even for sandwich year placements and don’t place much emphasis on which Uni -it’s all about what you can do and how you think. Lots of their grads come from the same unis - mostly non RG! They have lots from Bath and Lancaster for example which are both highly ranked for Maths, above lots of RG unis!

It's still a top 20 university and RG.

They said exactly the same when I was applying - record numbers of applications in 2013, degrees will be useless as more competition for jobs etc - and I still hold that it's only relevant for certain fields of work, as I know 2023 graduates from ex polys etc who've had no issues getting jobs.

@HighLadyofTheNightCourt

Students are better looking at subject rankings and subject specific employability data.

Nail on the head. The statistics area all well published in the league tables and unis own websites. Prospective students should do the research themselves and not rely on the likes of teachers influencing them by over stating the importance of outdated metrics like RG or not. My sons sixth form head was aghast that he was applying for any non RG unis - totally out of date with the modern World and how so manly non RG unis have been speeding up the rankings.

It's not all about graduate recruiters. I got an interview for my last (small company) job because of my uni even at age 35. My boss put 7 kids through private school and knew it was a good one that was hard to get into. It happens to be RG.

I'm sure certain posters will be along to say they wouldn't want to work for such a snob etc. etc. but I had a great 5 years working for him.

It’s not meaningless.

There are lots of good non Russell Group unis but if you are looking for a research facility it’s a Russell Group uni you’ll probably go for.

In the last 2 years I’ve looked around 18 unis with 2 DC and they both picked a Russell Group uni but they also looked at non RG unis. They picked based on what each course offered.

But he is a snob and is potentially missing out on great employees.
His loss though.

Big employers look a lot more deeply than which Uni. Modern recruitment is often more skills based with tiers of online aptitude tests, virtual assessment centres, etc., and lots of recruitment is blind to the uni. Things have changed drastically in the last few years.

Yes, I’m sure there are still firms and industries that have kept old fashioned ideas, maybe such as magic circle law firms, and some public sector dinosaurs, but lots of employers are “weeding out” applicants in better ways by using the modern tech to test for skills and aptitude.

I’d literally never heard of an RG uni until I joined MN. I know that Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews are kind of meant to be on par nowadays, and then I think RG is like a level down from that? And then all the others are ‘normal’. But I would have NO idea which unis to put in the RG category.

All of my kids’ aunts and uncles went to oxbridge and a couple of grandparents too so I feel I would have heard it if RG means oxbridge!?

Isn’t there something about Red Brick unis too? Who is Russell anyway??

Is he? Did I say he only interviewed people from RG universities?

As someone who graduated from one of those mentioned I’d never heard of the Russell Group until several years after leaving university. If you go to Imperial/Oxford/ Cambridge, that’s how it’s referred to. Also “Oxbridge” isn’t really a thing either.

I suspect that most students aren't really interested in the research credentials of a university.

It's interesting that it is generally employers of "stuffy" careers place that more emphasis on RG universities, and worrying that vocational degrees are regarded as lesser because many of them are at non RG universities.

I think things are changing, many CS applications require an anonymised CV to try to remove bias.

Is he? Did I say he only interviewed people from RG universities?
You said you only got the interview because you attended a RG university...and that having put a number of children though private school make him particularly knowledgeable about the quality of universities.
That not only makes him a snob but also outdated and uninformed.

Who is Russell anyway??

They had their first meeting at Russell sq...🤷🏼‍♀️

Not unreasonable hell I never went to any uni and I'm yet to spontaneously combust

I agree, our son had no interest in research, nor even uni really. He went to get a degree so he could get a good job - if he could have got his job without a degree, he’d have not gone to uni. He chose his subject and uni based wholly on employability factors. I think that’s a more common attitude these days now that so many have to go to uni for jobs rather than decades ago when far fewer went but more for academic interest and research than employability. It’s why RG unis are losing their cutting edge.