new RG uni's

[betternextlife]

Announced today are 4 additions to the RG Group of Unis, Durham, Exeter, Queen Mary, and York. They were all previously part of the 1994 Group.

They all had a good reputation to start with and are not likely to be doing anything differenty at all, but presumably they think this will make them seem better.

So the question remains as to if any 'uni associations' which confer status really based on any actual superiority or just self-imposed hype.

Having taught within a range of institutions (including RG) I think that that it is definately the latter.

Yep habbibu. The OP does rather have a point but don't get too worked up about the posts about spelling. It's what we do on mn and the fact this was written by a Russell Group lecturer was just too tempting...

However, the fact that some institutions started out as CATs or polys doesn't really matter. The fact is that the University of Bath (for instance) regularly gets placed in the top ten universities in the UK, despite not being RG. It is misleading to assume RG = best in all areas.

And sadly many schools know diddly-squat about advising pupils on HE.

I was talking about the polys which became universities after 1992.

Ha! I can tell my MN habit has dropped when people start telling me not to worry about what's done on MN. So that's good. FWIW, I've never agreed with the spelling/grammar nitpickery - I think it's ill-mannered, usually.

I really do blame the media for a lot of this - the constant referral to the RG as the best, or Oxbridge as the best is misleading - Oxford and Cambridge are tremendously well-resourced, but even if you buy into league tables the difference between them and other institutions is really only a matter of a couple of percentage points for many subjects. It's a messy business, and I really do feel for parents and young people trying to pick their way through.

Oh, fuck.

Yesterday I was entitled to be dyslexic with shite spelling, today seems I am at a 'Russell group university' (big woo) so no longer allowed, is that right? Let's hope I don't teach any of your children there, eh? I might forget how to use a dictionary and give someone who spells less than perfectly a 2.2 by mistake.

This thread does rather confirm my view that people who pick on spelling and grammar are hiding their limitations in more important areas.

Shouldn't that be polies, Yellow?

Back when I was at university, the course I was doing was far better than some in the same subject being run at more presitigous universities.

Does that still happen a lot?

I knew I'd posted on this before.

Back to the OP - I suspect it's a combination of increase in relative res income volumes, due to increasing size and collaborations - are York and Durham both in White Rose? - plus pressure to be in the RG because of misconceptions that the RG represents the "best" universities. Which is a pretty rife misconception.

I don't think that necessarily follows or that there's any particular internal evidence for that Doom, though I'm very happy to be corrected.

I am happy to admit I have lots of limitations. I also have a sense of humour and most importantly I believe, a sense of perspective

Jenai. good ex-polys will still do the courses they did better than unis better, I suspect (if you can get through the vile syntax. Why don't we have syntax police on MN?). And some niche courses are really very good in institutions that aren't always rated as highly. It's a bugger, as you have to hope that employers in the field are also aware of what's actually good, as opposed to always buying into perceived prestige, but I doubt it.

@Jenai It never happens. 'Good' 'better' and 'best' are determined in the eye of the beholder but the prestige attached to a university and a course is essentially determined by an awful lot of well qualified beholders. Therefore you may disagree with their assessment but that doesn't make it wrong.

IM limited E good employers know.

habbibu - York is, I thought Durham was not? Sheffield and Leeds are.

Ah habbibu, your post on the older thread reminded me of the term "plateglass universities". Never hear that one now..

theta, the prestige attached to a university may rub off on a particular course, but it isn't necessarily justified, and conversely a not terribly well thought of institution may have a couple of really cracking courses. I really don't see how you can say definitively that it never happens.

Doom - I can't remember! I was working at York when white rose was starting up, but it's all a bit hazy now.

Aye, Strop. It's quite a good description too, isn't it?

White Rose = Yorkshire, surely? (which would make sense if York, Sheffield & Leeds are in it. whatever it is. assume not the shopping centre at Leeds...)

Nice to know that I am now (overnight) an alumna of a Russell Group University - a grouping that didn't exist when I was a student and when you chose your universities by academic reputation within your subject rather than whether they were members of a self selecting group that set itself up at the Russell Hotel.

Yes, they were Yorkshire universities, having some sort of pooling resources agreement. Similar to what happened in Scotland - creating critical mass to compete with very big and well-resourced institutions, but falling well short of actual merger. I couldn't remember if it had stretched the definition of Yorkshure as far as Durham.

Do you not think students still choose in the same way, lily?

It's not that long ago I helped my cousin apply and she had never heard the terms 'Russell Group' or 'post-1992 Group', let alone 'redbrick' or 'plate glass'. She just looked at the course reputations and the syllabus and so on.

Incidentally, I find it really funny that for ages some of these universities have been insisting the RG is really unimportant, they're proud to be just who they are, etc. etc. ... singing a different song now I notice!

They're stuck, though, aren't they, Doom? If denied entry (for volume reasons alone) they can't very well say how they're not as good as RG and it really matters etc (because actually, their initial stance is more accurate - RG does not directly indicate quality) but RG is so powerful and so much as part of media reporting that the 1994 gp type universities probably are missing out. It's really bloody stupid in so many ways.

Part of the problem is that no-one really knows what Universities are for. (I have consulted Fowler. He says that it is fine to end a sentence with a preposition.)

If you want to study seriously and have a career in , then employers will know that you have been on the best course and choose recruits from that course, irrespective of the general reputation of the University.
However, if an employer wants to recruit a 'good brain' then they are more likely to look at the Institution (read: RG) and class of degree, and not really care which subject was studied. It is these sort of employers who have perpetuated the hype about RG.

Yes, true. You're right habbibu, and more charitable than me.

I think it's nasty for students though, who end up feeling they were fools for falling for the initial stance when (as you say), I think it was accurate.