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?

I did a languages degree at one of the RG unis (95-99 ? omg, graduated 10 years ago), and it was fantastic, great professors (in general, a fair sprinking of batty ones of course), and I have a lot of affection for the uni I went to. The degree gave me a very thorough grounding in the languages I studied. However, the degree itself was pretty useless for getting a well-paid job involving languages. I think the ex-poly nearby that offered business studies and languages would produce a much more employable graduate. Even if they don?t study Sartre or Molière. At least they would have a fucking clue about working in a company. I?m academic so my traditional arts degree suited me better, but although it helped me attain a really good level of French and Spanish, so so much more could have been provided to help me with my future career.

I went to an ex-poly to do a postgrad and get some practical training as a translator/interpreter to actually be able to have a career in languages. It was rigorous in a totally different way, but was very hard work. There is a RG uni that does the same course though, and apparently it?s really, really good, so it?s not always true that you have to go to an ex-poly to learn something practical.

Looking at the list, I see that four out of the six universities DS put on his UCAS form were Russell group, but they were chosen because they offered courses he was interested in (though I was slightly suspicious of the fact that they were nearly all within reasonable travelling distance of West Brom's home ground! )

Likewise, when DD was looking at Psychology courses she looked at the rankings for that subject, not the overall ranking and talked to current students on Facebook & various student forums. I don't think the groups the universities were in ever crossed her mind.

She has ended up at Exeter, which btw, is no more of a refuge for rich Oxbridge rejects than it was when I was there 30-odd years ago; which is to say that yes there is a group of them (known in my day as the 'green wellies' and today as the 'rahs'.) They seem to have a 'presence' way out of proportion to their actual numbers, being fairly vocal, but as they to flock together they are are easily avoided once you know their haunts and the vast majority of the students are perfectly normal...

Edam Bristol is a redbrick though. In my day Oxbridge rejects went to st Andrews. But I am vereeee old lady.

yy I know Bristol is redbrick but in my day it had snob value if you didn't get into Oxbridge.

I've been giving some paid work experience to history graduates over the last couple of years, and have been really surprised at how little teaching the ones at the 'older' unis get compared to the ex-polys. It looks an awful lot like living on reputation. My ds1 is in the throes of choosing from offers at the moment, and I think is likely to settle on an ex-poly because their open day was so impressive. Maybe they give that bit more because they have more to prove against these traditions of academic snobbery? The teaching is often fantastic.

edam - thought that was still the case??

copper but surely the intellectual calibre of the students is lower in the ex polys for many non vocational subjects?

Bristol is very upmarket these days, Swedes - Bristol, Durham & York seem to be the Oxbridge-reject UK unis of choice.

at ds cambridge interview all the students guffawed at Durham

one said ' i'd rather go to Anglia Ruskin University' than Durham ...they told him to go to UCL

Well it is a bit far north for the average effete southerner

Durham is famous for being the most wannabe of the Oxbridge reject unis, probably something to do with the cathedral town college system aspect of it. Probably the closest you'll get to an Oxbridge lifestyle without actually going there. It's still a good place though.

inmylittlehead - i think ds and his friends think it's a bit Hogwarts Castle and moat.... sweet!

Notanotter, that really depends on the ex-poly/university and the subject. The students going to an ex-poly for a degree are typically those looking for a degree more focussed on application of the subject (even if not a vocational degree).

The older universities have only been clicking onto the idea of sandwich degrees and their appeal to employers for the last few years. The subjects still tend to be much more theoretical.

In terms of teaching I'd generally say an ex-poly will be better as the staff are forced to be less research-focussed by virtue of the fact they do much more teaching than staff at the old universities. Academics are attracted to positions in the old universities based on the conditions they will be allowed to work in for their research. For research degrees the old universities are without a doubt the best places to be - but in those cases the emphasis is usually on the exact supervisor (and their status in the field) of your research rather than the university per se.

NaO - well he should definitely apply to Hatfield or similar. Don't see the point of going to Durham if you end up in Van Mildert, you might as well be at Warwick!

My ds1 does want a sandwich course - he is focussed on the long term, which I think is quite sensible in the current climate.

He also has dyslexia and is underperforming at the moment - with no support at college. So the RG unis are out as he will not get the grades. I know that unis are much better at dyslexia support once a student is actually in, and I hope that the combination of good teaching, good dyslexia support and supported practical experience will do the trick for him. So I'm very encouraged to hear what you are saying, UnseenAcademicalMum.

Will other students have the same kind of background? Or be the kind who wake up late to the idea of working? Or just want the uni experience without any commitment to the subject? Who knows. But I went to what is now an RG uni myself and can't say I was overwhelmed by the commitment of large numbers of the students there.

There were sandwich course available when I was at uni in the early 80s. They are not something the older universities are just discovering.

Copper there were a couple of people with dyslexia on my course, 2 mature students who missed out on education the first time around, despite both being academically very bright. The support they got seemed excellent, both practical (use of a computer suite formessay exams for example), and more widely (study skills centre on call for help proofreading and that sort of thing).

Sandwich courses were available in the older universities, but much less widely. At the ex-polys they have been pretty much par for the course for a very long time. It puts students in a very strong position when job seeking and financially during their degrees as they have:

1. A year's experience in industry (often a multinational)
2. A year of their degree where they earn a salary and often at quite reasonable rates (often close to the level of a new graduate)
3. The year's experience gives them contacts in industry if they decide to go into industry, but also makes them attractive as research students as they generally have a broader experience and are more committed to a research career if they decide that is the route they want to follow.

According to the Russell Group itself, they claim that their graduates earn significantly more over their careers than graduates from non-RG universities (this will include prestigious 1994 unis, as well as ex polytechnics and community colleges).

If you are in a second or third rate institution, then a sandwich course may help you to get a leg up, but it will not significantly enhance your opportunities for management positions in blue chips, unless it's the company that is actually sponsoring you.

When I worked for a major multinational, I was involved in both graduate and technician recruitment (alongside my regular R&D job). We only took graduates from selected RG universities, although the RG did not exist then. We took non-management recruits from almost anywhere, but all with 1st or 2.1 in Chemistry, Biology and related disciplines. We introduced a compulsory basic skills test because of the lowering of standards overall, and not-surprisingly, the candidates from the RG universities virtually all passed (including ESL candidates), and the others had about a 50% pass rate - quite worrying, I'd say. We went through a stage of employing only (unintentionally) Irish candidates for non-management positions because they were genuinely well-qualified and competent, although that stopped when the Irish economy picked up.

Of course, if you are in a second or third rate institution, you will need all the help you can get to get a leg up, but not all ex-polys are second or third rate and in some subjects can be some of the best places.

I did my first degree at an ex-poly, but thank go my PhD supervisors at Imperial, London were not so snobby, and offered me a project there (out of over 100 applicants!). I am now an academic at a RG university (having also at two multinationals first), so I don't think my first degree did me any harm whatsoever! I know several other members of our permanent academic staff also have ex-poly degrees. It really depends on the subject and the institution and how well you performed.

I trust that you are not so anecdotal in your research.

Meaning?

ROFL at that, after your authoritative "at the multinational I used to work at we found that 50% of nonRG-graduates were thick" offering...

Blimey. I went to one.

Will sell degree for money, is there an ebay category?

But it didn't use a sample of one, and other blue chips had the same findings, so it was quite a broad based observation in reality. I'm sure it made the sample size of 300 to offer meaningful statistical significance.