to object to all this "Russell Group" malarkey?

[tispity]

Where has this term appeared from in the last few years and why does it confer prestige upon it's alumni? From where i'm standing, London University has always been a mixed bag really: Imperial (excellent), LSE and Kings (generally good, excellent for a few subjects) and all the others (I know not how many even). If I were to generalise based on what I saw when I used to sneak into their libraries during the college holidays, hardworking, working/ lower middle-class, suburban kids of average intelligence for the most part.

I am not being arrogant but (as a sibling of one and friend of many of it's alumni) it was always just a good old, reliable, solid red brick institution. Why the need to suddenly rebrand itself, in order to stand out from the group?

It's not just London unis and has been around for a while.

id never heard it till mn and went to one it seems

i dont give a shit where people go to univ

I suspect its because 20 years ago, all universities were "good" and the degrees from them all carried a certain cachet, however since many educational institutions became universities its far harder to discern what is "good" and what is "average"....

So basically the universities that aren't Oxford and Cambridge have clubbed together as the Russell Group in order to brand themselves, specifically for research purposes, as "the best of the rest" in order to secure funding and to differentiate themselves from The University of Central High Street in Smalltown which used to be Smalltown College of Further Education

oooooh, i went to one. did not know that.

lol i am now mrs folorn hope bsoc sci RG

It is a way of bringing us back to the system before the days when you had different types of HE institutions. It helps put things into perspective and helps to evaluate the quality of degrees. Russell Group are large, research intensive universities, but you also have the prestigious group of the 1994 group of smaller universities.

I went to a RG university, but I graduated in 1986, so the use of RG is a redundancy.

Prospective students should always choose their course of study before the actual institution, and should choose the institution in light of predicted grades.

1986?

thanks, i am starting to understand. which other ones are incl under the RG umbrella?

think is not all of the Universities in the group are ancient (Warwick was founded in the 1960's), and some of the Universities which aren't in the group St. Andrews for example (founded in the 1400's) isn't in the group.

And it's a bit daft really as they're ranked as "overall" good places, rather than by subject, I mean who gives a flying fig if overall one University is top of the rankings if for the actual course you want to do it's not so well regarded/good??

I hadn't heard the term until I saw it mentioned on MN

Oxford & Cambridge are members though

It just looks a group of some of what were "red brick" universities, from before the polys converted to universities. There are notable exceptions though, eg Durham University is not a member. (I went there so curious as to why it's not a member unless it has gone downhill in recent years, it was 60% oxbridge rejects in my day, but that was {cough} a while ago! )

Aitch I didn't realise until the other day that I was given unconditional offers at 2 of them

hahahahaha i've just realised that i've got that 1986 thing wrong. mental maths never my strong point, hence the MA. i now feel most sprightly ('cept in my decrepit brian).

I was reading one of those ghastly 'my degree is considerable better than yours' threads the other day and was sniggering at how posters varied between using 'Oxbridge' and 'Russell Group' as a sign of educational distinction, according presumably to their own alma mater.

Along the lines of...

"So an Oxbridge degree is so much more rigorous"

"I do agree. A RG degree is much more rigorous"

what always makes me snigger is that I know LOTS of people do did their music degrees at RG universities..........they're not that clever, they're not that smart...........they were all either organ scholars or choral scholars so got in "through the back door" so to speak

pmsl at Aitch's decrepit brian [sic]..

sniff - are we on to something here?

Isn't the Russell Group more about promoting our universities to overseas students (who will pay more to attend)? It's just a marketing effort from a private company set up by a selection of the UK's good universities isn't it, rather than a 'my degree is better than yours' label?

Russell Group unis are , on the whole, ones which have a large research agenda, some of which is funded by Government.

There are one or two relevant ommissions- eg Durham- but most others fall within the top 20 of unis in most Good University GUides.
My 2 DCs both went ot Russell group and they were both educated at state comps.

Durham and St Andrews are not part of the Russell Group because they are too small. They are, however, part of the 1994 group.

what about Aberdeen, University of Wales, Aberystwyth University, Bangor University, Reading, Hull, Exeter and Leicester, not to mention all the other "plate glass" Universities founded around the same time as Warwick?

and I think your "too small" thing falls slightly flat when

Durham University is almost twice the size of the London School of Economic and Political Science

Well I think the desire for a rebrand comes from a desire to attract research funding. Also, you forget there are so many universities nowadays. All or most of the former polytechnics are now universities, ditto some colleges ... so the RG want to distinguish themselves, I suppose.

Imo there are far too many mumsnetters who like to pontificate about universities and how fucking clever they are.

Awassailing I'm not sure about the others, but Aberdeen is over 500 years old and Aberystwyth probably knocking on the same - so not 1960s unis!

yes but Quattro - what are they distinguishing themselves from