Russell Group versus highest ranked by subject and employability.

[Hassled]

Taking out of the equation variables like course content, desirability of location and so on, and looking at it purely in terms of future employability, is it better to have say a 2:1 in a Humanities subject from a Russell Group university, or from a university that is higher ranked in league tables for that subject?
As an example, Sussex (non RG) is higher ranked (in the Guardian league tables) than Birmingham (RG) for English Lit. Does that RG thing matter? Thanks.

RG vs Sussex - doesn't matter.
RG vs consistently-bottom-of-league-tables - matters. Except for vocational or a few very specialised courses.

It's an interesting question. I've noticed that my local uni (ex poly I think) is regularly well within the top 10 for one particular STEM subject. And ranked higher than many of the London unis renowned for STEM. If any of mine want to do that subject I'll def be taking a closer look.

Russell Group v non-Russell Group is an artificial distinction, particularly since certain highly respected universities such as Bath are not part of the Russell Group.

Imo the Guardian league tables should not be taken very seriously. I don't work in English literature so can't comment on Sussex v Birmingham but the Guardian lists in my subjects (maths/physics/engineering) are not useful and are influenced by all kinds of strange fudge factors.

Eg. their top 10 in maths includes the usual suspects (Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge etc) but also includes a course with low entry tariff (Greenwich) and a course with mid entry tariff (Dundee). The latter may well be great courses but the actual content of these courses and job prospects will be very different from those at Imperial and Oxbridge. A student who has the grades to get into Bath (ranked 11th) would be ill-advised to go to Greenwich (ranked 9th) instead.

Also for maths Surrey is listed as sixth while Bristol is down at 27th with LSE at 38th, but the latter are again offering very different level courses to the former and the employment prospects are correspondingly very different.

If you average over a number of different types of tables, taken over several years, you probably get a more reasonable result.

Oh lord. Guardian league tables are deeply, deeply flawed, because they don't take into account research or reputation and place too much emphasis on the National Student Survey, which everyone who knows anything about statistics and questionnaires thinks is a pile of poo.

Big, big, big pinch of salt.

As an example, Sussex (non RG) is higher ranked (in the Guardian league tables) than Birmingham (RG) for English Lit.

Is this 'an example' or is it the choice that your DC is making? I see that Sussex's website says "A rise of 24 places in the Guardian University Guide 2016 puts Sussex among the UK’s top 20 universities. The table, published today (Tuesday 26 May), ranks Sussex at 19th."
You need to consider whether it is a trend or a blip.

Also, you can't take out variables like course content, location etc - they are important.

Piratepanda - NSS scores are 25% of the Guardian's total score - MORE not less than the others!

Lack of a research metric means this particular league table fluctuates more than the others (since research scores are fixed for six years).

Agree league tables should be treated with care though!

Many thanks all - really useful and absolutely agree that the other variables, such as course content and desirability, count for a huge amount. It doesn't matter how good the rankings if you wouldn't want to spend 3 years of your life in X city. But then again you do have to think about subsequent employability...

Sussex vs Birmingham isn't the actual choice - although both might be considered. We have the Open Day roadshow ahead of us. Oxbridge is the ambition (this is very high achieving and ambitious DC3) but I want him to fall in love with some viable alternatives if it all goes tits up.

Interesting about the flaws in the Guardian table - I hadn't realised. Thanks again.

Their argument is that the quality of research has very little impact on undergraduates who the league tables are aimed at. The other compilers disagree. Both opinions have some validity tbh.

Russel Group has done very well selling itself as a brand, so the question is will it continue to sell itself well as a brand that might be important to some employers?

I dunno. I do know that traditionally the dept. not the whole university is what mattered most, and as an academic I think the balance is still that way most of the time. But you might be dealing with someone who has been suckered into believing in the RG brand.

I studied at St Andrews which is number 3 in the Guardian table for the second year running, and not Russell Group. I now work at another non Russell Group university (also in the top 5) which does exceedingly well in employability metrics. I think most employers do recognise the top, non Russell Group universities

I was a bit shocked with guardian table for individual subject rankings, for Economics for example, LSE is ranked 13th! Heriot watts, Kent, Coventry all ranked above LSE??.. I'm I missing something or is the guardian league table more a student satisfaction league table.

Just looked at that bizeemum - LSE's NSS scores are dreadful..... Coventry's on the other hand are great!

DS was in shock when his firm this year has suddenly dropped over 20 places for his subject in the GLT for 2016. The uni itself is very high. It seems student and course satisfaction have dropped over 30% . Ive told him not to worry about it.

I do find the Guardian table interesting, not necessarily in a "good" interesting way though.

The 2016 CUG is also now out, and presumably the Sunday Times one will be out shortly too. Guardian seems to have a massive downer on Bristol - 35th ranked overall, compared to 15th in CUG, and Liverpool another RG which the G ranks as 59th, although it only manages 39th in CUG. Conversely it is clearly in love with Coventry ranking it 15th, compared with 48th in CUG and to a lesser extent Falmouth 31st (eg above Bristol apparently ) which CUG ranks 70th.

But for most of the more prestigious Unis the overall placements are remarkably similar, identical rankings for the likes of Cambridge, Oxford, Loughborough, Southampton, Edinburgh, and only a couple of places different for St. Andrews, Durham, Warwick, UCL, Exeter, Lancaster, Birmingham. Both tables also both agree on London Met as lowest rank. How far this similarity extends into the subject tables I don't know, as being somewhat biased I only looked at what DS1 is studying - both G and CUG agreed on placement and I imagine ST will follow suit on that one.

G also appears to have a few Unis missing as compared with the CUG, and even has lost one from its own 2015 rankings (Canterbury Christchurch).

The individual subject tables may be slightly more meaningful but even then I think liberal doses of salt are probably needed.

Still I imagine they keep the Uni marketing departments in overdrive :)

So, LSE or Coventry for Economics? Hard decision that one for a top flight budding economist!

Is is that the universities achieving some of the surprisingly low student satisfaction scores actually expect the students to do lots of research themselves and have less teaching? Maybe less hand holding too? It depends who answers the surveys. Loads don't bother to do the student satisfaction one, I believe!

The RG 'prestige' is basically a massive marketing trick that benefits a number of actually not that impressive institutions who get to hide in the pack and look better than they actually are. (Yes, I work at a non-RG university.) Look at a range of factors, don't take one as paramount, especially not being in the RG.

Ah see it now titchy the Coventry lot are alot more satisfied these NSS scores have made a big difference in the overall scores.
Can totally understand bruffin it's shocking this GLT. It's so subjective though basing alot of the scores/ points on student satisfaction. Just wonder what these NSS lot asked the students. Some might have hated the accomodation or they felt the night life was rubbish so the students weren't happy/satisfied this might bias them to give the university a bad review as if it did not furfill their expectations. Or the course was very hard and rigorous. But that's not to say the course or uni was rubbish. Umm somehow feel its a bit misleading if students take GLT table too seriously. After all its dependent on students being very honest some student might want to give their uni a glowing review, push the uni they attend up in a more favourable light. Overall it makes quite amusing reading though. It seems like its a more of a 'Happyometer' table then anything.

There is the question of why the results are coming out like this and it could be that "big names" are resting on their laurels. Or it might not be.

My Dds subject has flown up the subject tables. It's vocational so only in competition with post 92 universities and arts schools. However from open days and now her first year experience they are really going guns to help them forge a truly professional and freelance career and it's working with excellent after course employability. The students are very much independent learners - how else would they manage to achieve this difficult aim. I can understand why they are trouncing the others so, with that limited experience, the guardian tables ring true.

Currently the RG unis produce excellent graduates but they were excellent students on entrY. Value added is important.

The Guardian agrees with you kez with regard to value added. The other guides don't include it.

Can I just add that the actual data that feeds these tables is the same for all universities, the NSS questions asked and used are exactly the same for all students. Guardian excludes research but other than that and a few minor methodological tweaks all three major tables have the same inputs.

(Times guide is out in September and will have more up to date employment stats - it will use 2014 leavers. Guardian and Complete use 2013 leavers as they publish too early for the 2014 data to be available.)

RG doesn't matter in itself, but personally I'd go for Birmingham over Sussex for that course, and I'd look at how consistently a university performs well, not just this year's score.

Value added is important but notoriously hard to measure. The Guardian measure of value added tends to reward universities who inflate grades.

The Guardian's low ranking of Bristol has some truth in my own area (relatively poor teaching, poor treatment of students, weaker departments than their reputation would suggest, grade inflation) although putting them so far down is rather ridiculous.

I can understand flaws in asking students for view but at least that is "informed" whereas a conclusion based on "it must be better for all courses because of it's historic name or group" is worse.

I'm not surprised that some of the Universities that don't bring in 10x applications per place have upped their game. It's been made a commercial market and in a survival of the fittest I can understand that those with lower applications have had to look on this differently going forward. It's easy to say its all PR but PR only gets you so far. If the higher regarded institutions do their job well they will have nothing to worry about. Those that don't will need to watch their back over time.

I think when students look at prospective universities, the UCAS points scored by the students who go there is an interesting statistic too. Value added is possibly more difficult to achieve for already high achieving students. Clearly some vocational subjects are somewhat exempt from this measure if they rely on portfolio for selection, but generally looking at UCAS scores does give you an idea of what courses attract the best qualified young people. These statistics are probably not lost on some employers who are probably not interested in the detail of the course studied but are looking at all the young person's skills and attributes.

The Guardian table is a bit of a nosense, imo. So much of satisfaction is based on expectation. If you look at car buyer surveys, Skoda does very well and Jaguar does badly. A Skoda buyer will have very different expectations to a Jag buyer.
When it comes to universities, I'm a Jag buyer. I care about the entry grades (not 'points'), the rigour of the course and the percentage of students employed in professional jobs or postgrad education in 6 months. 'Value Added' covers a multitude of sins.
In case your assumption is that I'm an Oxbridge snob, my DS will-if all goes well- be off to a plate glass uni in September to study something so obscure it doesn't show up in the tables. He/we asked professionals in the field where they would recommend doing his subject and it was the one they all respected most.

Kez, these sort of points were addressed at the parents talk at the LSE induction day.

Their response, efffectively was:

1. Students in previous years did have a bit of a raw deal but in the last decade the University has worked hard to improve their non academic offering. This includes a new library (with bean bags) and more importantly a big new student centre which opened this autumn, enough to have LSE rank top for nightlife by Which? University. (Though events are now invaded by London's sixth formers, whilst office workers head for the bar.) The information in the Guardian survey will be historic, and presumably it takes a few years for significant changes to filter through.

1. LSE students are taught to question and to evaluate critically. This might be a bit disingeniuous, but I wonder how much expectation and the make up of the student body plays a part. It is impossible to know how much happier you would have been elsewhere, if the assumption that if you are at Oxbridge you will be having a ball (literally) whereas London is more work and less play, feeds through. Also that quite a lot of what you do socially is in the City and not on campus (as in if you love theatre, its all on your doorstep), so perhaps the university does not get credit. Interestingly Cambridge economics consistently gets equally low student satisfaction scores. A dismal science.

And to MMMs point, I would add that the LSE course has proved tough. DS has started to enjoy it more but the first year is an awful lot of maths, to ensure you have the tools you need for later years, and part of this is learning how to figure things out for yourself. Employers like this, and indeed LSE claimed to parents that leading employers gave strong feedback on their students' technical skills. However it may mean that Coventry is more fun.

I assume it depends on a student's priority. Some see student years as primarily a place to develop as an individual, whilst at the other end of the spectrum others will be very focussed on course and course content/rigour. The Guardian table is flawed but usefully suggests some places to look at depending on the grades you expect. Coventry economics entry requirements are BBC. Cambridge offer at A A A.