Would you - Lower RG uni or Non RG but high on league tables?

[Demeldark]

All other things being equal. Is it better to apply for a lower down RG university of a higher up the league table non RG?

Like I said all other things being equal.

Higher ranking non RG for sure. The RG is just a bunch of unis who together decided that they're the shit and they're better than everyone else. Often the high ranking non RG universities are the ones which are really striving and stretching themselves and their students, rather than resting on their reputations, if that makes sense. I wouldn't place too much stead in the Teaching Excellence Framework either. Many students and SUs absolutely hate it and discourage participation, which sways the results.

See now, without looking it up, I have no idea whether Surrey, Cardiff, or QMU are Russell Group!

I went to York (pre RG days and pre RG existed I believe) but I felt all the research going on sometimes meant we were overloaded with young whippersnapper ' supervisors' who were doing a Phd in something very niche, had no idea of how to actually teach or how to communicate or mark, or give feedback. I appreciate people at the cutting edge of research may have alot to offer in some subjects but, in mine, it was just a nerdy predilection for Herman Melville , for example. More senior professors and lecturers were too busy writing their books to guide us in our learning and this was another issue!

The TEF can be a very useful tool.... research intensive HEPs knew they wouldn't score well so threw their toys out of the pram.
It's one of many, many , things to take into consideration. However, just like with league tables , it all should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Nothing replaces visiting , meeting tutors etc.

@Piggy - hmm.. That's very interesting.

@piggy makes an excellent point. RG uni's main focus is research and that often at the detriment of UG teaching. They're excellent for PG and PhD but not often brilliant for undergraduate.....sometimes the wonderful facilities they show off on open days aren't even available for ug use.

I am also aghast that an employer doesn’t recognise the years of commitment and talent that it takes to play a musical instrument to a high grade. Often tuition is provided quite cheaply or even for free in some schools. It’s not good enough that an employer doesn’t recognise that this is a great achievement by a young person

It is completely irrelevant to how good a scientist a person will be whether or not they have been encouraged by their parents to play an instrument to a high level. And if every graduate has the same qualification (as was the case with all the middle class Bath students) it is not a distinguishing feature. I don't look at the 'interest' section of a CV unless the person has nothing of interest to say about their work experience or uni project. If I start asking about your gap year abroad when I'm interviewing you it means I'm filling the time because you were too thick to talk intelligently about your final year project. Unless of course you actually did something scientific during that gap year in which case I will be interested. All I care about when interviewing a new graduate is can this person think logically, do they understand the experiments they had to do as a student, do they seem to be humble enough to actually listen to more experienced scientists.

I think employers do take things like advanced extra-curricular achievement into account. If you have competed in a team sport at county or national level, or played with the National Youth Orchestra for instance, it shows that you have a good work ethic, co-operate well with others, you have determination, and are consistently capable of a high level of commitment. All things that an employer is looking for.

Well you might be missing out on excellent applicants then, Count, because sadly you are too lazy to read an application form. Clearly you should not be in recruitment and need further training. I made the point that learning an instrument to up to a high grade demonstrates something about an applicant. Commitment, hard work, often teamwork in an orchestra and a certain about of intelligence. It’s very sad you cannot see that and have labelled people as middle class at Bath when you have absolutely no idea about that. Shame on you!

OP - I think others are slightly misleading you about student satisfaction. It is a measure that students who bother to respond (vanishingly few) decide for themselves. It’s not remotely a true comparison. It can be very swayed by a good lecturer who might be on maternity leave when you get there or they are off writing a book! The students have no comparison. They don’t know if somewhere else is better or not. They have not been there. Also teaching quality was very skewed to the universities with lower A level tariffs. These people probably need more teaching. The best universities expect a high degree of self teaching, research, motivation and ability to do it.

With arts subjects, some employers are much more swayed by a top 10 university. That’s because they can afford to be! If you are not a merchant bank or a city solicitor, you are more likely to widen your net. Some employers only go to a few university recruitment fairs and they are not ex polys. However for some degrees and jobs they would be high on the list for certain employers.

Are we talking about music or computer science? I’m very confused. Neither would make me choose RG over non RG. All the other aspects for personal development might though. It’s rarely just the course an employer looks at because, just like you, they cannot split them. It’s the extra things you offer that make you stand out. At interview my DD was asked about her year abroad, her music and her enjoyment of history of art. Some employers value a well rounded applicant who can talk on a wide variety of topics and is at ease with clients. Don’t think for a minute that other personality traits and interests are of no value. They are!

I am not sure employers sit with the RG list on their desks but they tend to know what they are looking for and this varies from
Employer to employer. You just need to be the best fit. If you find someone like Count who thinks everyone from a university is MC, clearly you stand no chance even if you are Bath’s latest Einstein equivalent! Anyway you will find most rated universities are fine! Just go where you fancy living!

I’d go Sussex or Cardiff. Academic and great location / connections. Brilliant for arts and hums, especially literature and history. Very strong on science and business too.

@Demeldark - if it is Surrey you're thinking of, it's a brilliant uni with superb business connections, excellent research and a growing reputation. Depends on the course, but it's really getting attention in sciences, vetinarian school etc.

@CountFosco - I'm interested - what did th emature students at the poly put that was so much more impressive? Surely mature students will have worked any way, whereas 18-20 yr olds have done less.

I think count makes a good point actually.... a cv that demonstrates a good understanding of cell biology, an interest in the research lines of the company and a working knowledge of a lab is far more relevant for a BioSci placement than a cv full of grade 8s and DofEs, however much tenacity those things show in themselves.

The NSS satisfaction scores are only published if more than half the cohort responds by the way so I'm not sure why bubbles says vanishingly few students respond. I do agree it's not a good measure though.

I did not go to a Russell Group University
because the Vice Chancellors had their nice lunch and came up with the name some years after I graduated

Look up the history of the RG and then see if it should be part of your decision making.

History of RG has nothing to do with quality! Most RG are top quality. Some more than others. Why would you do History at your local post 92 if you could do it at Durham or UCL? That would not be a good choice.

Titchy - Count said they didn’t read the cvs. I think there is a big difference between DofE and learning a musical instrument to a high level. The instrument takes years of work! It’s an examined skill. DofE is mostly doing a bit more of what you like and already have an aptitude for. You can get bronze and silver fairly easily if DDs are anything to go by! Sports teams over years take a lot more commitment. So do individual sports to a good level. It’s all measurable too.

Surely no scientist is ever totally nose to the grindstone and has to be humble!? This is Dickensian. Many people now work in teams, learn from each other and are not especially deferential but are, of course, polite. My DH has years more experience than his grads but would always listen to them if they came up with a good idea. He actively doesn’t want humble. He want people who problem solve, work accurately, think about innovative solutions and, of course, listen to others. Even people who might run the business one day. He wants a package, not a malleable piece of dough who doffs their cap at their elders and betters.

I cannot think of any reason why a mature grad is better. Other than they are more like Count! There are fewer of them anyway so if you cut out all the MC and people from top universities, you have far fewer to choose from. Why would any good employer do this? Cutting nose off to spite face comes to mind!

Surely no scientist is ever totally nose to the grindstone and has to be humble!?

No one claimed otherwise....

He want people who problem solve, work accurately, think about innovative solutions and, of course, listen to others.

And I'm sure he'd prefer to hire the kid whose CV said 'In my group work analysing nematoads I demonstrated blah blah blah which will contribute x, y, and z to your interesting project on nematoad-antibiotics' than one whose CV said 'I got grade 8 cello and played in the county orchestra where I played in a group'! Particularly for a 10 month job.

And count obviously did read CVs - that's how he/she knew they were identikit!

I know we'd all like to think that DofE, hockey, cello etc are vital, particularly when you've spent years ferrying offspring to a bucket load of extra curriculars but in reality they're a nice to have, great for dinner conversation but for an academic type role, it really is all about the academics.

The history of the RG is that it was set up as a lobbying group, not as a kite mark of quality. It happens to have now got a great PR team who have very cleverly given the impression that's it's all about quality. But it isn't.

Count said:” I don’t look at the interest section of a cv. “ Therefore has no idea of how rounded or indeed grounded the person is. Actually DH quite likes both! Not that he’s in this field as he’s an engineer but if people only recruit on what they can do academically and in relevant work experience it can be very difficult for disadvantaged students, for example. Paid internships can be hard to find. How can they prove they have potential? Count doesn’t even read the cvs fully. Some students have to work in the holidays and thus are disadvantaged against a mature applicant for example who might have experience behind them.

Employers really do like rounded employees. Also academics is rarely purely the deciding factor. Many employers receive applications from many with top academics so what else do they look at to see if someone is a good fit for the company or organisation? My DD has a 2:1 but is making a career in a hugely competitive field where 40% plus are Oxbridge and many have firsts. She can compete because she has other qualities. These have been recognised.

What parents spend on extra curricular should never be held against their children. Other children might have struggled against the odds to play an instrument or go to sport every week when money is short. Just assuming young people are MC and worth little if they have done these things is just pure stereotyping and not seeing applicants for what they can bring as a worthwhile person. It’s a prejudiced way of viewing a cv. In fact a cv should be scored against the skills and attributes required by the organisation not what someone’s outdated views are. Most employers look for evidence of team working, commitment and personality that cannot be measured by academics. The scoring system should reflect that.

Who cares if RG lobbies??? They are a group that has many first class universities. It’s the quality of the universities that counts. I would still expect a DC to choose Durham over Northumbria for most degrees if they could. If they cannot, that’s different.

The other thing about RG membership, is that they admit universities that are 'top notch', already there. They don't admit mediocre unis and build them up. So its a bit of a false premise. I expect Bath, Loughborough et al to become RG any minute soon. Although i'm sure i read something alluding to Bath not intending to go that route? could've imagined it.

If applying half a dozen years back would, all other things being equal, you have discounted Durham, Exeter, or York? Given pre 2012 none of these were RG universities?

The OP has pointed out that actually, they're not discounting non-RG, but I have to say that that line is usually part of my stock response to the 'must be RG or you might as well not bother' brigade.

Along with telling them that I went to LSE, actually - and waiting for them to up their opinion of me before adding, back when it was just another name on my UCCA form and not completely up itself like it appears to be these days. I accompanied DD to an open day there at Easter; can safely say that nostalgia was totally lacking on my part and that on DD's, even with the required predicted grades she won't be wasting a slot on her UCAS submission.

I did love my course there, though, but they even downgraded my old department and merged it with another one years ago.

but if people only recruit on what they can do academically and in relevant work experience it can be very difficult for disadvantaged students

You daft sod - liking grade 8 viola over academic experience makes it far more difficult for disadvantaged applicants!

Count was recruiting FOR paid internships and sensibly didn't offer extra advantage to already advantaged applicants. Placement years are brilliant for levelling the field, particularly when recruiters recognise where advantage has been purchased by parents.

Very course dependent - for engineering Loughborough would be up with Imperial/Oxbridge, Oxford Brookes would be right up there in most subjects and all the post 92s have some niche specialities where they are known in their field - e.g. Southbank for Chem Eng...

The thing is though....it's all a load of bollocks. Speaking as a former head of student recruitment at a post 92, prior to that I was deputy head at a RG and I'm now an academic - choosing a university solely based on the fact it's RG or high in the league tables can (and does) lead to unhappy students.

There are a number of different league tables which use different metrics - so which do you choose? Some RG uni's perform abysmally in certain subjects where post 92 excel. Some will shout from the rooftops about their excellent employability rate but when you drill down their graduate employability rate is poor......

Applicants should choose a subject first. Then see who offers that subject, then think about the university experience they want ( city, campus, nightlife, quieter, placement etc) then start to look at the facts and figures - on an institutional level and a subject level. Go and visit - speak to staff, speak to students , see if you can visualise yourself living there for at least 3 years. Does it offer the type of support and learning environment that suits you and your style of learning?

I'm not saying it's easy but this a decision which will probably be the second biggest financial outlay ( after a house) for an individual. Take some time to delve behind the headlines and often meaningless labels.

engineering Loughborough would be up with Imperial/Oxbridge

Loughborough is certainly a good solid engineering dept. which produces employable competent engineers but the course and the students won't be the same. Imperial and oxbridge will be doing more in the same time, harder maths. Horses for courses, one will be better for some students and types of eventual job than the other.

Someone mentioned internships... that's another variable, where some unis will help their students more than others. Loughborough has strong industry links (for engineering) ... my DDs doing one now with a large company and most of the interns are Cambridge, imperial with a few of the Southampton ilk. It's an unfortunate fact that advantage tends to ratchet up.

Getting a placement is another big hurdle. Studying on a sandwich course is one thing, but i'd like to see some data on the % number of successful placements obtained per subject per university. I haven't see this anywhere and its quite key.

Unfortunately that's very difficult infyto gather . Universities structure their placement units differently and it's not a compulsory element of the course - even if it's a sandwich course a student can opt out of that element with a good enough reason.

They only way to get that information would be to speak to individual unis. You might want to look into how it's is managed. Is there support or are students expected to do it all themselves