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.

Theta, I have spent more time than I can remember talking to ancient/medieval historians. Talking to a midwife is way more fun. They have much better stories for a start. And as midwifery is often a mature entry profession, you will get people with both degrees...

Nothing wrong with a split infinitive.

I just want to talk to a medieval midwife ...

Wanna make somthing of it habbibu.

thebest I did my professional degree / qualifications at a "new" university. I chose it because it was the only place that offered what I needed (part time, commutable) and at the time remember not being happy that I was not able to go back to a "traditional uni". That was just my snobbery, as in the career that I chose in the end no-one cares where you qualified, just that you can do your job well.

But had I decided to go into accounting, actuarial studies, gone on to do the LPC or something similar, my degree from York would without doubt have held far more weight than my quals from the ex-poly. So it really depends on what you want to do as to what others will see as important, the 2:2 from Oxbridge or the 1st from Edge Hill.

Doom the university itself is what counts, not a super-imposed group label. The RG universities aren't cloned and applications to Durham and Exeter are enormously healthy.

Yy, doom. The much vaunted small ratios and high entry standards shouldn't leave that much room for 3rds. (special circs excepted)

redspottedfrog.
I get that. I was making a wider point really about what we value as a society and perhaps how things like the RG inadvertantly perpetuate our pre-ordained ideas.

red exams are marked differently at different institutions. A 2.1 from Oxford or Cambridge may be worth significantly more than a 2.1 from elsewhere.

I wish I had your faith, yellow.

I do believe that these universities are good, and were good before they joined the RG. But that's not the point to a lot of people. People do make daft judgments. Read any MN thread about HE, and you will find people saying 'well, I/my DH/my boss/my company count CVs from Oxbridge/Russell Group/Oxford and LSE as better than everywhere else.

It may be they're misinformed, or lying, but I think in the current circumstances, it's not surprising students will worry and will feel they need an honest answer about whether this stuff matters. And if a university is one day insisting no, RG is not important then the next day jumping for joy because they've been invited in, yes, that is tough for students to interpret.

@Doom I am heavily involved in recruitment. So yes. I have noticed thanks. :)

So, sorry, what is the point about Carol Vorderman? I should tell all my students to aspire to be like her because there are thousands of jobs as a TV presenter out there?

No, I don't think so.

If a student can't tell whether Durham is a generally better regarded university than Cardiff or Birmingham then honestly, that student has bigger worries than the fact that some institutions may be a little bit inconsistent.

(Incidentally my DD1 is planning to apply to both Cardiff and Birmingham when the time comes, because for what she wants to do, both are excellent places to go. Durham would be rubbish, for her. This doesn't change the fact that Durham is a generally better regarded university than either).

@Doom tell your students that if they are up for a job against a photogenic woman with a 3rd from Sidney Sainsburys they don't stand a chance.

To be honest i don't see what the hype is about being RG or not. Many students when they apply, don't even bother about whether a uni is or isn't in a particular group and go on the university's merits alone. For example, Durham has always had high performing departments (even coming out higher than Oxbridge with certain subjects in some years) and entry grades for most subjects have always been 3A's... now including A*s in many cases.

Exams vary with different unis, the main reason being that for a uni with students all coming with A's from A-level, normally the syllabus starts from a higher standard to begin with as they assume the students come with more knowledge from having understood more from the A level. And further more, assume that they can push this students to understand and learn more in the 3 years. Having graduated from maths, i know that some of the material in our 2nd year, constituted to material in 3rd year for some other unis that had acceptance grades of Bs. Therefore, a 2:1 from a degree that has more difficult modules can be seen as a better result than a 2:1 from a uni that didn't cover higher topics. Though you can't really compare degrees in different subjects... thats like comparing apples and pears!

I have complete faith Doom.

I agree about the MN obsession with RG but I don't think it can affect the regard in which certain 1994 universities have been held. The main thing is that many, many people haven't been aware of the two different groupings; 'RG' has simply been used in ignorance or as a shorthand.

It would be have been very shallow for a student to pick a less good RG English or History department rather than Durham (say) simply because of the label. Far easier to get in though, no need for a huge tranche of A*s. The most competitive employers are well aware of the strengths of individual universities, they've not been repelled by lack of a label.

Birmingham is pretty highly regarded, not the same as Cardiff if we are going to be snobby.
I have heard from two friends about the pressure they are under to grade inflate at a pretty well regarded but not Russell group uni. One actually resigned because of it. And it is very different from the " you need to justify every mark they lose" advice I was given at when teaching at a US university.

@Yellowtip exactly.

See, yellow, I think it's unfair to say 'shallow'. Yes, if you're talking about students from the sorts of schools where most students go to university, maybe so.

What about students from less advantageous backgrounds? Lots of people pick a university based on bad information. We can either blame them, or we can sympathize and try to change things so they get better information.

@mummytime Pressures to grade inflate have been around for some time. :(

Besides which, thinking in terms the 'most competitive employers' is only helpful for a small minority of graduates. What about the rest, who do all need jobs?

These are my worries.

Completely agree about the need to disseminate correct information but that's a separate issue entirely.

Well, no, it's not really a separate issue. Or rather, it's only a separate issue if you are already confident you have correct information, which is pretty self-defeating IMO.

My experience is, students - and prospective students - worry about how universities are perceived by employers and they worry they won't see through the hype. It is quite natural for them to worry when things like this happen, even if that worry is unjustified. I sympathize with that a lot.

Also the information is essentially out there and easy enough to find. If anything, there is too much information as Sting might say.