Bath, not a Russell group uni, is this a problem for employers?

[tropicalfish]

Hi,
DD has an offer for biochemistry at Bath but is probably going to find a job outside the science sector once she graduates, probably in a well paid City/tech job. She feels that alot of employers, or rather people in charge of recruiting for their department are biased towards recruiting from Russell groups and hence going to Bath would place her at a disadvantage. This is probably due to the significant competition for jobs. What has been the experience of people on the forum with respect to Russell and non Russell Group universities? I'm certainly not saying that Bath is not a great university, just that people show bias towards Russell group graduates.
Many thanks,
TF

[boys3]

have the RG added two more and not told anyone?

24 last time I looked

russellgroup.ac.uk/about/our-universities/

and definitely includes Warwick

[boys3]

Interesting research for IFS released last week on graduate earnings

Exec summary and full report can be accessed here

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8235

Full report is quite lengthy but well worth a read

[boys3]

in fact such a good read that I posted it twice. Time for more I think

[AuntieStella]

Russell Group is simply a near-synonym for 'universities which always were universities' and is in use because it's shorter to type.

As 1992 (when polytechnics became universities) slips into the past, the old divide remains there.

It's as well to know it exists, and that not all degrees are equally well regarded; and to find this out before committing yourself to one that may not take you where you want to be.

[whatwouldrondo]

Stella with all due respect you are absolutely manifesting the lazy ignorance which surrounds the RG label. Bath is no less a university that has always been a university than York, or even Leeds (granted a little earlier ). SOAS , Birkbeck, Goldsmiths and Royal Holloway are scarecely arriviste. By all means distinguish former polys, though some offer courses with the best employment prospects of all but the RG label doesn't do that in any sort of rigorous way , and of course when it comes to universities rigour is everything ........

[whatwouldrondo]

Or indeed significantly neither is Warwick any more a university that has always been a university......

[AuntieStella]

I said near synonym.

I'm not in recruitment any more, so am happy to be told I'm a dinosaur. But AFAIK Bath is one of the ones that mean it has to be 'near' not 'exact' synonym, because it's the same reputation-wise. And indeed, like several other non-RG has always been a university.

(I knew I should have included something like that the first time I posted, but I deleted it because I thought I was being too wordy. My apologies).

[Merd]

Agh, quick typing there, thanks for correction boys!

whatwould, I have read your posts three times now. I am none the wiser .... What do you mean? tired brain

[HocusWireless]

Do people in real life ( by which I am largely referring to applicants ) honestly refer to "RG" universities ? genuine question. Of course a lot of good ones are in that list and many good reasons to apply but by and large do applicants think of "RG" as a thing . As a pp said "SOAS".

I am not disputing that those universities are good BTW .To be fair, to my shame, I didn't actually know for certain what were facilitating subjects until after Ds had secured an offer at university . He had an "ology" . Exit stout party .

[whatwouldrondo]

Merd which part of the RG label is not a measure of quality do you not understand ?

[Lilymaid]

Warwick has been a university ab initio as it was one of the new universities founded in the 1960s from nothing. Many RG universities were founded many years before getting their royal charter - e.g. Exeter which can be traced back to the Royal Albert Memorial College and most of the big city universities which developed from Victorian (or earlier) educational institutions.

[Merd]

Every single bit of your post What. And the last one too. Never mind, maybe it's exhaustion on my part.

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

I'm guessing you work in/come from an HR background...

Wtf was that supposed to mean?! I work in HR and graduate recruitment as do many of my colleagues and associates some of whom have gone through and qualified for the graduate stream they now work in. They are nothing but excellent and know the score only too well.

Leave off the snidey insinuations about HR please like it's some poor relation to the real work

[mashpot]

Merd knows what she's talking about. Russell Group is all about research output, not undergrad degrees so not necessarily worth taking into account. Having said that, employers will recruit from their favoured unis, no matter what, and that will often correlate with where HR / Snr Partners studied. Yes, I work at a Russell Group uni. No, I didn't study at one.

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

Having said that, employers will recruit from their favoured unis, no matter what, and that will often correlate with where HR / Snr Partners studied

Says who? Link please

Ime HR is usually quite diverse and doesn't always reflect the senior partners at all and I've worked for a number of the top graduate employers. I didn't go to a Russell Group uni for either of my degrees. I can think of at least two top grad employers who have Bath on their preferred list. They have other non-RG as well as some RG on there too because as mentioned previously as as ANYONE who works in the business knows RG is just too blunt a tool and doesn't always produce the results you want.

[MrsEricBana]

I think employers care if you are from a highly regarded uni (for their subject/relevant subject) but not RG or not. They could hardly sniff at a biochemistry graduate from Bath. (Bath University is 50 on 25/10/16 dontcha know).

[mayfly66]

It was me who said it MOUMOO because in IME too often practitioners in HR don't understand the "real work".

Some of my HR colleagues are truly excellent but some see themselves as the font of all knowledge in terms of how to get the best from people. This results in policies which are misguided and simply damage shareholder value.

I didn't mean to suggest of course that all HR professionals behave that way but I've suffered from the actions of too many fools from that particular community recently...

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

Interesting to hear your experiences. Where I work the direction has always come from the business and specifically the partners.

So we don't actually have shareholders as such beause these are not companies. My firms tend to be LLP.

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

I did say up thread but almost all my professional associates and colleagues (and me but different industry) came from "the business" and then went into HR/Recruitment. This may be why we're very much in demand

[mayfly66]

MOUMOO you sound like the kind of person we need more of in my business (prof services but large plc not LLP).

I don't necessarily think HR practitioners should have a fee-earning/operational background but they should realise - as you clearly do - that their role is to support the business. It would be great if occasionally they would deign to ask "how can we improve our support/what can we do to make your role more productive"...

[MovingOnUpMovingOnOut]

Well if you ever need someone to do your recruitment I can recommend an excellent consultancy where I get a lot of my work

[mayfly66]

If only I could...

[Headofthehive55]

One would think then that the open university should be considered at the bottom as you do not need any UCAS points to attend.

Having attended two RGs and the Open I feel that the standard is similar.

If you look at individual subjects you do find those attending more selective unis are more likely to gain good degrees. Which is not surprising given that on the whole students with greater success at A level attend them. So I find that it's a lazy way of thinking to say a uni is good because students need good grades to get there.

I think employability is as much to do with the personal characteristics of the student and the subject studied than the institution attended.

[titchy]

One would think then that the open university should be considered at the bottom as you do not need any UCAS points to attend.

1. The league tables are based on full time undergraduate data - and mostly limited to those under 21 years of age when they start. The OU does not offer full time degrees, and the vast majority of its students are significantly over 21.
   

1. The league tables don't measure how many UCAS points are needed. They measure how many their students have. Should the data include the OU they have plenty of plenty of students who have tariffable qualifications.

[bluespiral]

I've only ever heard RG talked about on MN.

I didn't even realise I went to a RG uni myself until I read about them on here a couple of years ago! Had literally never heard the term.