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?

LOL some more.

Enjoy your LOL, but you can't escape reality.

i used to object to the term 'russell group' because i felt it was just an attempt to have something approximating the US 'Ivy League' and therefore a pond-crossing abomination.

however now, thanks to MN, I am enlightened to its purpose.

although you will find very bright people who never made it to academia, and some thickies that slip through the cracks into good universities, the academic standard you get out of kids with AAAA results is in general going to exceed that of kids that get CCC. I found the difference between my university and the red-brick i subsequently went to noticeable - still more the difference to students at the ex poly whose academic standard did not seem above A level. (hehe especially the kid doing philosophy that had read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and blieve every word of it...)

You would be MAD to study art, design etc in anything other than an ex-poly by the way. Except in London. Where the independent colleges are as good as the ex-polys.

I went to one, please please don't take this small bit of kudos away from me!! (Leeds btw)

Practical courses, I mean. There are plenty of Art Historians in the RG.

Look, this is all about parents and alumni comparing dicks. Universities with more money and status can recruit the students with the best grades. That neither makes them the 'best' universities, nor does it make those students 'better'.

The RG itself is a campaigning organisation, directing its main energies towards the Government and funding councils. Those universities believe they have shared interests because of their research 'intensity' and they wish to protect them. Outsiders hang on to the RG label because it seems to be a measure of quality. On the whole, it is merely a measure of resources and the 'clout' Universities have.

You might well regard that as a mark of 'better' - who wouldn't want to go to a well-resourced institution staffed by world experts in particular fields? But this does not mean that the quality of education, or research, or even the students anywhere else is necessarily inferior.

Parents and potential students would be far better looking at individual departments, league tables and working out what matters on the inside. Someone mentioned Chemistry at Sussex being a good bet further down the thread: sure - I'm sure it is in research terms, but a couple of years back, the University tried to close it down for financial reasons. AFAIK they didn't, in the end, but would you want your kid to study in such a place?

It really isn't as simple as seeing the RG label or any other global categorisation.

Actually the problem is with kids getting AAAA's is that the A'levels have been so dumbeded down in recent years and an AAAA student now, is not the same as e.g. 10 years ago. For this reason, many universities (ours included) are talking about introducing entrance exams because the kids coming in are not at the level we require. We are also having to introduce things like summer schools to fill in the gaps that A'levels miss these days.

Thing is, your degree is only the start of your career and whether you will be successful or not depends on so many different factors. Some people get a degree from a "good" university and that is the height of their careers as they don't make the effort afterwards to prove their worth, for others the opposite is true.

Well I studied for my first degree at a russell group university and am currently studying for a masters at another.

Get me!!!!!!

As I've said before it's not where you got your degree from but what you do with it that counts.

DH has a degree from bournemouth (I'm sure its omission must be a mistake lol) and earns twice as much as me.

the sussex chemistry department is still a place i would recommend for post graduate research - my sister was able to access funding there as well as findin herself well placed to excell in post-doc study at other universities. though of course, its not the only university that is good...

with the squeeze on funding (and tragic mis-use of funds at e.g. Exeter before the squeeze) few Chemistry departments are really safe. pick a good one with relevant specialist knowledge....

With postgrad you of course have the issue of deciding whether to try for an RG or Oxbridge uni, where getting funding will be very competitive, or applying to a more obscure uni with good people where the competition may be less ridiculous.

I know a couple of academics with first degrees from ex polys who then did postgrad at Oxbridge/RG and did pretty well overall.

It is unfortunately true that many Chemistry departments are struggling these days as it isn't a popular subject anymore. However, a plus side for people with chemistry degrees looking to do postgrad study is that chemistry is translatable into many different academic departments in research terms depending on the focus of the research.

For postgrad work, look at the details of the project on offer and the credentials of the supervisor(s), much less at the university or the department. A supervisor with a good publication list means you are much more likely to be able to get your research published than a supervisor with a poor publication record. Ditto a supervisor with good grant income.

InMyLittleHead - yes, that's true. when i was an undergraduate (Oxbridge), my main tutor was a Hull graduate who had later done a DPhil; it can happen though it must be said that I was distinctly underwhelmed by him on all counts

tispity - this can be the case regardless of where your tutor got their degree from. This can be especially true if you combine high expectations of an undergrad with some quite arrogant tutors who aren't that much into bothering with undergrads because they only come with questions and take time away from research/grant writting/paper writing etc.

The worst is when undergrads, usually first years, start idolising the wanker variety of academics because they think 'Ooh he is a prof and has written x book' and think that all his tossy selfish behaviour is just symptoms of his greater genius.

InMyLittleHead - yes, i remember those days well!