Russell Group does it matter?

Oldernotwiser

GeneHunt wrote: »

Following this logic then everyone might as well do an OU course and Unis actually have little to offer.

Actually, the OU is ranked in the top 5 for teaching excellence and many people would be better studying with them .

It isn't my "logic" that makes me say this but having an understanding of what HE should actually be about. When I was at university, one year I only had one hour of "tuition" and it's not uncommon to have very few in non practical subjects.

Obviously, practical courses are different.

GeneHunt_2

atypical wrote: »

Most (if not all) of the universities that fall in the 'it's not Russell group, but it's still good' category are part of the 1994 group instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Group#Members

Sussex, Durham, St Andrews etc are all there.

Thanks. I had never heard of that! That all makes more sense now. Why do schools not go on about the "1994 Group"?

Rubbish name? Doesn't have Oxford and Cambridge in it?

melancholly

GeneHunt wrote: »

Rubbish name? Doesn't have Oxford and Cambridge in it?

they're in the russell group

atypical

GeneHunt wrote: »

Thanks. I had never heard of that! That all makes more sense now. Why do schools not go on about the "1994 Group"?

I think the 1994 group isn't as well known publically but is just as active as the Russell Group behind-the-scenes e.g. lobbying.

GothicStirling

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Actually, the OU is ranked in the top 5 for teaching excellence and many people would be better studying with them .

I've just finished my first degree [University of Stirling], and over the last six months the universities seem to have imploded with teaching standards coming second to departmental budgets.

I've actually opted to continue my studies with the OU. Better the devil you know!

GeneHunt_2

melancholly wrote: »

they're in the russell group

Is that why people go on and on about the RG and not the 1994 group?

melancholly

GeneHunt wrote: »

Is that why people go on and on about the RG and not the 1994 group?

could be.... but i never experienced people saying it was all about them. i don't think most of my school teachers were particularly aware of all the groups of unis; but they did know roughly where they came year on year in league tables. so they knew what was 'good' and what was 'less good'.

i bet they're only going on about the russell group because of all the press recently about them being a united group of 'good' unis who all plan to charge full fees!

i'm not really sure what happened to make unis go into one or other group (before i was really aware of HE at that level!). wikipedia seems to suggest that the russell group almost all have medical schools (although some 1994 group unis now have them) and it's also generally true that 1994 institutions are smaller. that doesn't really make it any clearer though! now that i've googled and come up dry, i'm quite keen to find out how that all happened..... anyone any clear ideas?!

cettefemme

GeneHunt wrote: »

(Well Oxbridge too but she won't get in to either of them! She's not in a private school.)

Hi! I'm a student at Cambridge and I went to a state school...as did almost half of my fellow students

You actually tend to have a better chance of getting in if you went to a fairly rubbish state school and ended up with good to great exam results (as it shows that it was mostly on your own merit and despite bad circumstances) than if you went to a great private school but got the same grades as most everyone else there. Both Oxford and Cambridge do a lot of target and access work and are really keen to improve their non-private school student intake rates.

Just wanted to clear up that misconception. If she's a very good student, she should look into Oxbridge and give it a try if she likes what she sees...that's what I did

I agree that Sussex is respectable and it's best to go where she's happy, but she should look at as many unis as possible and not just have her heart set on Sussex immediately. Russell Group unis and especially Oxbridge DO have benefits such as name recognition and the big companies holding recruitment fairs there, but going to a lower-tier university or even an ex-poly is far from being a death knell in terms of future employment! And of course, that's not the only thing that matters

GothicStirling

cettefemme wrote: »

And of course, that's not the only thing that matters

Exactly!

I meet so many people who's whole identity revolves around what university they went to 20 years ago. They're in a job they hate, but that doesn't matter because they are Edinburgh alumni.

00ec25

melancholly wrote: »

i'm not really sure what happened to make unis go into one or other group ( i'm quite keen to find out how that all happened..... anyone any clear ideas?!

in a word: snobbery
The Russell group was founded to allow the unis in receipt of very significant research income to act as a co-ordinated lobby group. It had a clear objective but was elitist from the outset.

when certain other unis were not admitted to the Russell group they formed the 1994 group in reaction to being left out and to protect their own research led interests. The name comes from the date of founding

the million + group was founded because of similar inclusivity issues. As implied by the name, they felt left out of both groups and so gave an academic finger salute to the lot of them

the important criteria for a student is:
- is the course vocational? Is it considered the "best" and thus the choice of institution matters, by association, to future employers - some new unis have highly respected courses reflecting their previous vocationally orientated pedigree as polys, eg social work or midwifery at Bournemouth

- non vocational course? Choose a place that feels at home, giving realistic weighing to the perception of the instituion in the eyes of future employers, and a realistic view of your own expected academic success. It is a fact of life that a 2.1 in History from a Russell Group will open more doors to big employers than a 2.1 from say Plymouth simply because milkround visits go to the big boys and so have contacts that make applying that much easier. However, a 2.2 may close doors irrespective of institution.

Getting the first job interview depends on the CV and the big cos get 1,000s of them so do still have prejudices. (Smaller employers may not be so easily influenced, especially if you have relevant work experience.)