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.

Upthe indeed, as an undergraduate at a RG university (though I am sure the opportunities would have been there if she had accepted her offer at Bath too) my DD was co author on a research paper.

At my non RG but formerly 1994 group institution student satisfaction gets pulled down by one thing "the administration". It is frustrating and lost in a 1950s world of cardigans and 30 paper copies of everything, the management sciences of the twentieth century passed it by entirely, but the quality of teaching and ethos are absolutely amazing and inspiring. I would never have chosen to go anywhere else and it is undoubtedly in the top three in its area for the quality of the academic experience.

Part of the reason I supported my DD2 when the research rankings emerged as one of her main criteria, as one of her friends said, if this is where the postgrads want to go out of all the universities in the country then why wouldn't we?

That's a really good question to ask, poisonwoodlife I think individual answers to the question will differ, but what's important is that a range of questions is asked.

Mind you, as an undergrad, I had the opportunity to go to a really internationally renowned university, but it taught mostly postgrads, with very small undergrad programmes. I chose not to go there, as I didn't think the facilities & general social & cultural life was what I wanted as an undergrad. I wanted the research excellence (which I got where I went), but I also wanted that whole immersion in college life.

I would also say that the RG mythology is a master of marketing and not much more - some in the RG are weak in all kinds of areas but as they are in they stay in. Others, like the good quality universities already mentioned are were no part of that original self-selected group but are very strong in research terms.

Since you guys in the know are discussing the importance of research led uni. Can someone enlighten us about a comment that was made during a offer day holders talk, where the lecturer made a huge point that the advantage of studying at their uni was that the lecturers that are teaching the students are all mid age, ie: in their early 40's. This meant that they have a wealth of current experience and so are more relevant they are also actively doing research. Whereas those uni who employ younger lecturers ie under 30 will be slightly inexperienced and have yet to build up a reputation in research and teaching repore with students Also in contrast he commented that the older lecturers I'm guessing they were implying over 55's!! I'm not sure but he mentioned that they can be stuck in their own ways ve stubborn in teaching styles and ways of thinking, when really the world of teaching has moved on and so ultimately they may not engage too well with the young students. Does this all make sense?? Or raise good points, or this was just another kind of selling the course kind of technique? My dd thought it made sense do you guys feel the same or are they being ageist?

I think it was a selling the course kind of technique.

Ideally, you would want a range of people, from wet-behind-the-ears types like me, to more senior people, to profs, I think. You certainly would for my subject.

It's good, because in lectures, someone who has written the books in the library, maybe written them 30 years ago, can give a sense of how their own subject has changed and can do so with a lot more insight and detail than someone much younger. And it isn't really true (in subjects I know of, anyway) that senior people don't do groundbreaking research any more, because lots do.

Was that in London bizee by any chance?

One London institution sacked all its young, relatively unpublished academics and early retired the old deadwood, so all those that went into REF were experience well published academics.

Rather naughty, and pretty crap for early career academics - they need to start somewhere and I'd not be happy with a university that sacked them instead of nurturing them.

No It was uni in the South West. Very reputable one too.

Like anything in life, there are pros and cons to both older and younger lecturers. Saying that any particular group is the ideal is definitely a sales thing.

I also think it's not necessarily the case that all undergrads are encouraged to become researchers themselves simply because the university is 'research intensive'. It depends so much on the culture of the department. People who are illustrious researchers can themselves spend very little time with undergrads, being off doing their research most of the time - or just want them to take the easiest path and not take up more of the researcher's precious time. Of course this is not the case with many high profile researchers, but it is with some, and some departments let it continue to keep them on side.

Me and DH gut instincts were pretty much agreement with all of the above comments that it was more a, selling the course technique, but they were using it in a very convincing and persuasive way on impressionable young lot like my dd. Who could see the logic but in reality doesn't see that maybe the view held was a rather narrow minded. We thought we had pretty much looked at everything that needed to be looked at when dd was making firm and insurance but never really thought about the age of lecturers until the issue was raised. I maybe would be wary if the whole dept only really had young lecturers purely because of experience and expertise but generally a mix of ages has to be good thing with sharing each others experiences etc. But it was just at the back of our minds that we was kind of thinking, was it us and we being a dinosaur in our own thoughts and that because the whole world of universitity teaching has changed so much since me and DH went in the 80's that maybe the guy had made a valid point.

Bizee, I think that the admissions tutor (or whoever it was) at that university was waaaaay off the mark. There's very little room for slacking even at the oldest end of the spectrum these days. Speaking of my own experience, our oldest professors, nearing retirement, are brilliant teachers and still publishing loads - but so are our early career junior lecturers and postdocs. In fact, younger members of staff may be better teachers because they are preparing everything fresh, and not relying on old material.

FYI further up the thread titchy misread what I said (my fault, no doubt) - I said the Guardian relied too much on the NSS (not the other way round), and paid no attention to research or reputation, which are the reasons it is pretty unreliable. But let's not go there again.

(Speaking as a career researcher): My most difficult colleagues were age 58+ and too interested in the long game in their publication strategy; I wasn't the only one really frustrated by them; they just weren't hungry enough or very canny about getting pubs out.

So some of that rings true to me and my ideal researcher-lecturer colleagues would be age 30-40 (I am much older btw, and my favourite colleagues are a nudge older than me, too, so I am certainly grossly generalising). But for teaching staff, I'd think any age could be absolutely brilliant. My own personal best ever lecturer was a 30yo in his first year of lecturing; that was 30 yrs ago & he's got his own Wikipedia page now; 2nd best was a crotchety guy in his 60s: he expected a lot of us. Since under-grads care about teaching not researching, I would advise my undergrad applicant to ignore age of the faculty, only a point for my post-grad applicant offspring to consider.

League tables are, as others have mentioned, generally a load of nonsense. It's worth understanding what they do and don't show - one thing they definitely don't show is prestige. The Guardian rankings have some particularly odd results. This is quite a useful overview of things www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1096372

In terms of going to a uni that's good overall, or a uni that's particularly good in their subject, then unless your DC goes into academia then future employers won't know or care about subject rankings.

You might want to have a look at www.unistats.ac.uk which will allow you to compare unis based on quantitative data like employment rates.

piarate that's what I thought. It was silly of the lecturer to suggest that there was a optimum age for lecturing. The guy used power points and graphs to illustrate to justify his views. But he cleverly did put in a disclaimer at the end, and that we might want to bear what he said in mind?? The whole talk was recorded on camera by the dept or uni as we had to tell them if we wanted our faces pixeled out, so its probably on you tube or somewhere.

My own 2 cents on the guardian table (sorry have to dig it up again.) Is that it can be misleading and mis-inform the bright kids who will be first generations to go to uni if they are from bog standard or failing comps, who's parents have limited views on how diverse uk universities are. Believe me from where I come from alot of parents don't know the difference between LSE, imperial, UCL with Coventry, Greenwich, Dundee etc.. they really do think universities other than Oxbridge are all equals, a simplistic notion that they all do the same thing ie: give you a degree and get you a job. Its never entered their minds that some will open more door and others some uni may serve there children needs better. Or they can aspire and apply to go to a more prestigous one . The guardian league table can actually hinder those kids that don't know any better and look at their table at face value. Since they aren't supported well at school either to make good informed choices on universities they can apply to.

RG University. Every time. Virtually no employers (except within the HE sector) are going to know, or care, about the rankings of Humanities subjects in league tables, but they will know about the prestige and entry requirements of a RG university.

That's not true. Plenty of industries will know which universities turn out good people in their sector.

For Humanities subjects? Seriously?

stonelog hope employers aren't that shallow minded, go and discriminate applicants because they are non RG students, otherwise my dd is doomed

I'm sorry, you're quite right, I wasn't thinking.

bizee, I agree. Every so often someone will post boasting that their DC got five offers, and I am left wondering why they did not aim higher, perhaps with a gap year as a fallback, and be pleased with two offers.

However, and here is where I disagree with stonelog, there is really no such thing as a "best" university, but simply the best University for a particular student. Its not just about prestige and entry requirements, but what you learn there. Some good Universities would be absolutely wrong for some students, as they do not spoon feed and rely on a student to use the library and bounce ideas off fellow students and academics. And if you dont self-motivate you fail. Others teach practical, technical skills well with plenty of contact time, good work placements etc (and Coventry looks as if it might fall into this category) but perhaps without the push towards independent academic inquiry. Just like some old polys used to have sandwich degrees which were very well regarded by employers. Either degree might appeal to employers, but probably different employers.

I went to the Warwick talk about their study abroad offer when DS and I attended the open day. Interestingly they suggested that for students coming from the UK, the academic experience in Asia could be quite different, with a full progamme of lectures and seminars. So more teaching, less independent study. I assume again employers will have differing views on what system provides better graduates.

I'm trying to think of a 'good' University which spoonfeeds, where students don't have to go to the library and doesn't hold seminars/tutorials I'm confused by your argument, Needmoresleep.

bizeemum I'm not saying that your DD is doomed when it comes to the employment rat race, but it's a fact that the RG and red-brick universities tend to be better regarded by employers, especially for those who have Humanities degrees. Your DD, if she wants to be on an equal footing with her peers at Oxbridge, LSE, Durham, Warwick etc. when applying for the most competitive jobs would do well to make sure she really demonstrates at application and interview how her experiences (and summer internships by the bucketload) make her a particularly unique and impressive candidate. Significant work experience by 21 years old would be a good example. It's no longer a golden ticket to say you went even to Oxbridge, but going to a prestigious university still gives these students certain advantages that those from ex-polys simply don't have the same access to.

There are universities which are neither RG nor ex-polytechnics you know Stonelog..... Quite a few!

stonelog, I'm at a bit of a loss too. I can't see why gong to a brand name University is the be all and end all.

Spoonfeeding was perhaps the wrong word. Structure might be better. When doing opendays we felt there was a huge difference, say, between the offer at Bath and LSE.

Bath has a very good offer, and attracts good students. Their key selling point was the later employability, in part from their very strong programme work experience programmes. Lots of scope to study accountancy and finance, but to be honest not a lot or postgraduate or research. You would come out with good skills and employability, but perhaps not be in the front of the queue if seeking quite a research orientated job.

LSE is quite different and, frankly, it could be quite easy to get lost. However if you are self motivated and genuinely absorbed by your subject the opportunities to extend yourself are huge. Counter to some of the views above about the optimum age of an academic, DS has found that even very senior staff are supportive if approached. Who knows, perhaps they go into academia because they like students, or at least those students who share an enthusiasm for the subject.

I have a fair bit of contact professionally with some Bournemouth University graduates. They are great, practical and with suitable skill sets. I am not surprised to see BU scores relatively well on the Guardian table. For the sort of marketing jobs they have, I can't see why going to a RG University would be an advantage. There are plenty of, even, Oxbridge graduates who struggle to find employment. And once in, career prgression depends on performance not what University you went to.

Yes, some Universities are more prestigious. DH raised an eyebrow when looking up a senior City acquaintance on Linked-In and saw he had studied at BU followed by a Masters at Southampton Solent. University like school helps you get to the next stage. A humanities degree at a well regarded University will indicate to employers that you can research and evaluate. But you may well find yourself competing for jobs against others, with good voactional and more relevent degrees. Thinking back to my graduate training scheme days, this is nothing new.

Pages 6 and 33 of this make for interesting reading. Of course, the research only applies to the largest graduate employers, but it shows which universities are targeted. It would be interesting to do a comparison between this and how smaller, more niche organisations focus their graduate recruitment strategy, and whether the niche organisations tend to attract/recruit students from a wider variety of universities as a result. Someone more qualified than me may have done it already

Stonelog Actually in the humanities we did feel that some of the RG universities were tending towards spoonfeeding. Of course there were seminars and work that required going to the library but with a tight course structure in the first year with the aim of building up skills that my DD felt she had already, she wanted to get straight into critical analysis using her own ideas and the chance to pursue her own interests, not to be reading "The God of Small Things" in Week 5 with a tightly defined task, and a list of articles to read along with all other 100 plus members of the course (and often undergrads, and even postgrads will get their required reading all pre-bound at the start of the course). I am not sure how you would define that but to me that is spoon feeding. There was a very different approach at the universities that were higher in the research tables.

Have you read the rest of the thread? You really think the RG brand is backed up by any sort of quality related criteria? That all courses being equal going to Bath, Surrey, Sussex, SOAS, Royal Holloway is going to make a student less employable than going to Cardiff, Birmingham, Queen's, Liverpool, Sheffield? As I said downthread you will encounter employers with all sorts of silly prejudices but not ones that have well developed and run graduate recruitment schemes which will have been developed with the aim of recruiting students with the qualities needed to enable them to succeed in the job. Discounting students just because they didn''t go to a university that was invited along to the Russell Hotel to discuss political lobbying, or joined the group at a later stage wouldn't be consistent with that aim would it?

The universities on P33 are not all RG!! Most employers will focus their resources on London and the big main cities as far as the milk round is concerned but the list they visit is as likely to be driven by logistics and practical considerations. I always visited my alma mater on the milk round because it was a nostalgic day out Most also accept applications outside of the milk round anyway.

My DDs checked the actual employment statistics of the courses they were considering to satisfy themselves they weren't vastly more likely to be on the dole then focused on the quality of the course, knowing full well it will be having a 2.1 and a CV that demonstrates you have the qualities that make you employable that will make them employable.

And I am now off to nag them about working on the the CV bit of it this summer