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.

I think you may be underestimating quite a lot of employers Doom.

I don't think the information is easy to find - or to interpret.

You talk to students, you hear a lot of stories they've been told by people in positions of authority, like teachers or parents, which is total rubbish.

One of the common things people say is, 'This university is brilliant, we are just as good as [insert famous university/group here], look at our results'. If you don't know much about the whole process of doing a degree, it can be really hard to unpick truth from propaganda. Stuff like this - York or Durham saying 'we don't need to be RG, we're very good ... no, wait, now we are thrilled to be part of the prestigious RG' adds to the confusion. I'm aware of why they've done it and I am not slating them, but I do also understand why students get concerned.

I hope so yellow!

@Doom The absence of durham in particular from the RG was more of an issue for RG members than it was for Durham. Neither York nor Durham need the RG. Exeter - not so sure. RG labelling is good for attracting overseas students and that has long been one of the key growth strategies for Exeter. And Exeter needs to continue growing because the infrastructure has already been improved to cater for the anticipated greater numbers of students. And it's starting to become a thing.

I can certainly believe that theta.

I think York and Durham are excellent universities. I'm not in the least trying to dispute that. What I am talking about is the difficulties students face trying to negotiate increasingly complicated information about which universities are 'good enough', in the context of a scarcity of jobs.

Sorry, probably I am banging on about it too much, I just feel bad for this generation of students.

My friends Dc spent many hours doing an online application for a City job, last year and was granted a telephone interview. He then had a long telephone interview and then was asked what University he went to. He said Exeter and was told that the interview was now being terminated because Exeter was not good enough!

In the context of jobs there are many figures out there where you can see the employment figures for each university. Durham for example has a very high rate of graduates getting jobs and jobs with highly competive firms. Figures can be seen on the university's website and league tables.
I think you underestimate the knowledge students have and the resources available to them. I have siblings applying for uni in the next couple of years and I can safely say, they have many resources available to them.
It's difficult enough to get into a uni like Durham so I think the ones that do apply will be more than capable to know what they want and have the confidence to know that yes, it's partly a good uni that will help them, but most of all will be up to themselves as to whether they will get a job or not.

I was preening myself that I now have a Russell Group degree - when I read bruffin's post .

@Bruffin Doesn't surprise me however there are city jobs where Exeter is one of a tiny number of preferred universities (Accountancy is one such). So, swings, roundabouts......As I said, I think that generally speaking York and Durham have a more secure position reputation wise than Exeter.

I am aware that some students do negotiate the information. Not all of those who do are from supportive backgrounds, but many are.

But then you also have students who don't know where to begin with the information, and don't find it so simple. Maybe they don't even know to look for league tables of employment because they've already been told by a confident teacher or parent 'oh, you want to apply to [wherever], if you do that it will all be fine'. It's all very well to preach that these students should be more independent and more pro-active in researching for themselves, but we need to acknowledge not everyone starts out from the same background.

The people who get nervous about things like whether or not their university is part of some prestigious group are, IME, the people who have had the most difficult time negotiating the system and who have had to plough through the most misinformation about universities and graduate employment.

I'm not 'underestimating' these students, I am doing them the courtesy of recognizing that what seems obvious to some of us about university isn't obvious to others.

@Doom I'm sorry but if there are young people who can't negotiate the information they really don't belong at university. These aren't people starting out. these are people finishing. They are 17, or even 18, they want to do a degree. At some point the spoon feeding has to stop. I'd say it has to stop a lot earlier than 17 but it should certainly be done with by then.

I recall when the RG was established in 1994 (it's my sector ). It was established as a club of like focused universities, named after the Russell Hotel in Russell square where they met that day. Durham were invited but didn't send a rep and so have been 'out' of the club until now.

It started as a club but has become much more - as lobby group, a focus of funding and a shaper of national policy.

But the sector landscpae has changed so much since 1994 that old views no longer hold - in those days, the old polys were only just finding their feet, now several compete on a level playing field with pre92 unis.

The Russell group is really only a shorthand way of referring to a group of research intensive institutions which attract the highest attaining academic students and staff. And not being in the Russell group as a uni doesnt mean you don't also have those attributes. And neither does it mean that if you're not in the RG you're not a really great institution either.

I think there is a very real issue with employers perceptions of universities not being particularly sophisticated so it easy to grab on to a tag like RG and assume that all courses at all RG unis must be better.

I went to a non RG uni which, for the course I did, scored significantly better in the 2008 RAE than a fair number RG unis (30% 4 and 35% 3 - the same as Durham, better than Bristol, Kings, Leeds, Manchester etc).

However, I really don't think most employers look at things like that RAE to assess the strength of the course but just the name of the Uni.

I totally disagree with that. It is such a waste. Effectively you are saying, if a person aged 17 is told the wrong stuff by people in authority over him or her, teachers or parents or whoever, he or she deserves to be a write off.

I just do not believe that.

It isn't 'spoon feeding'. The media could afford to take some responsibility for perpetuating some of the ridiculous myths, too (though a recent article about Oxbridge admissions in the Guardian was surprisingly good).

Do you have any idea of the level of misinformation about universities that is passed about as fact? It's huge. Really it is.

Really good point chaz - just look at Lancaster's engineering dept - top score in 2008 RAE but not RG.

On the other hand, specialised employers, such as those in engineering, would know where to select from. It's in the more general graduate recruitment market where employers are likely to be more tempted to just go for generic RG without any background knowledge.

Well without any information if one was to go in without any research, an indicator of how good a degree/university would be the acceptance grades, which anyone going to university would have to look at.

I think in that case you underestimate the knowledge of teachers. many teachers have gone to university and will know not to just go by RG, but by the reputation of the uni. The reputation of durham and york do speak for themselves, even in the media so i don't know why you are speaking as though they have been hidden for all this time.

More students know more about the prestige of the university than any knowledge of any group. if anything it would be the supported students that even know about the groups, not the ones who 'don't know where to begin with'. And i think a student with straight A's (which would be needed to get into durham) would more than likely have the brains to negotiate the information.

soup, I may be biased here - or overstating my worry.

My mate works in a university admissions office and she constantly has stories that shock me about things students are told by people who are meant to be advising them. That's where all this comes from. My students, and hers.

Btw, for what it's worth - when I applied to university I was told absolute rubbish, total made-up crap. And these were teachers who'd been to good universities themselves. It doesn't mean they can't make mistakes.

@Doom University studies are supposed to be about independent learning. If you lack the oomph to look at a couple of websites yourself to find out about the universities to which you might be about to commit 3 years of your life and a huge chunk of debt, then you are clearly not ready for independent learning. Or indeed ready to take on huge amounts of debt.

I'm with helium, what about the actual question???

Oh, look, it really is a bloody minefield of misinformation and perceived prestige. I've worked in unis, as an academic and in admin, almost all my adult life, and I still think it's confusing. The prestige of a university is about perception, and that may or may not be justified. They are such utterly different institutions that its hard to compare them, despite the endless tweaking that goes on in league table/REF seasons. Like I said, the pre-REF jobs transfer is starting - whole teams and grants that a university has been building up for ages may be gone, to boost the reputation of another. What makes a university good is really complex, and it's all overlaid with marketing and PR. It bothers me a lot that people think it's quite straightforward.

theta, I think you're not thinking this through. It has bugger all to do with 'looking at a couple of websites' if you've already believed and/or got turned of by hype or got confused by stuff like what 'Russell Group' means or does.

You'd need to do a damn sight more than look at a couple of websites to really distinguish between hype and prestige.

I agree, habbibu.

And you would also need to look at the right websites.

Outside Oxbridge, LSE and, perhaps, UCL...all other graduates are in the same boat (initially, for job purposes) unless rescued by a First or an extremely transparent talent that threatens the considerations of other achievements on the CV. That's my experience as an employer in a liberal profession. Obviously, regional employers have their own view of things but on the national market Oxbridge and LSE dominate the first pick.

I suppose the same applies, mostly, in the academic market.

A lot of academics are secondhand dealers of ideas and thoughts. They usually relay what others have shown/thought and only very few of them can truly call themselves scholars or experts in a particular field. Most of them do not even have expertise in what they teach. They don't do what thinkers or experts do. They have meagre practical experience. They are what may be called 're-explainers' with a Ph.D (or if you like a Pizzahut Delievery).

Those who do a little bit more usually regurgitate old theories. They simply don't understand that adding nice adjectives and verbs to established positions in middle of the road journals and writing books full of ideas by others do not equate to being regarded as someone who's contributed to improving their specialism or possessing substantial knowledge of the field.

Consequently, the graduates, including those with phds are simply not up to scratch when coming outside Oxbridge/LSE. This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptional talents elsewhere (in terms of students and academics), only that on average, this is where the cream can be easily found.

As always in life, exceptional talents will always rise irrespective of the institutions they attend (or in which they teach as academics). I suppose they have that unquenchable fire within them. Perhaps, they are those that may have been raised with the notion that it is the man that matters and not the institution. Hence, you can find them anywhere. The only trouble is that without the 'support' that the name of an elite institution provides at the beginning, it can take them a while to get there. They usually turn out to be the exceptional one at that stage of the career where what counts is what you've done and can do and not where you went to school or university.

That's why all these ''RG and no-RG university'' division is a paradox and can be big fat joke. Focus less on badge collection of institutions (that doesn't mean you should not go to the institutions you like) and more on developing a child/student with a clear mind and understanding of what it takes to succeed. The rest should take care of itself.