What are the advantages of A RUSSELL GROUP UNI?

Nothing at all......

As an undergraduate, being in a Russell Group University means absolutely nothing, its simply a lobby group of the top research universities seeking more funding. Research stuff only comes into play if you are doing Masters or PHd, sometimes your dissertation/project in final year.

Actually.. Yes

There are a few large corporates who hire entirely from ex polys, because RG's can be more research based, and not industry driven

I mean for our course, the vast majority of the graduates who go to work, go to work at the large corporates. Amazon, for instance only recruit from our university (for the role) than any other university, in Europe...

Well to be fair, RG doesn't define these universities which are always targeted, there are quite a few that are not in RG.

Another thing people forget is the degree alone doesn't get you the job, a lot of people fail to recognise this. I personally think RG isn't that special and doesn't truely have any recognition, as industries, etc already have their bias since decades before through employment history, etc

I'm a third year at an RG (my name is the clue). I will list some advantages/disadvantages and try to deliver a balanced approach:

- You'll work with some of the top academics in the world. Many of my lecturers have PHDs from Oxford/Cambridge and have held research positions at world class universities, including Ivy League institutions.

- You'll receive a fantastic education and you'll find it academically stimulating.

- A big plus nobody has mentioned is Study Abroad links. Many universities today offer students the chance to Study Abroad, but a general rule is the better the UK university, the better the Study Abroad links. I spent a year of my degree at the oldest university in Australia, incidentally, the one the current PM studied at. I could also have opted for Columbia or UPenn.

- Prestige is certainly a factor. On TSR being at a Russell or even Oxford seems to be the norm, but outside of the TSR world, in a world with over 120 universities and many many people who haven't been to university it will hold some clout.

- You'll find that many people go on to fantastic things after: postgraduate study or top careers. For example I did some work experience at the Civil Service and every graduate I spoke to bar one was from a Russell university (none from Oxbridge surprisingly).

Whilst all these things do apply to RG unis, they are not exclusively RG characteristics.

I go to Sussex (not RG but currently 14th in UK according to THE, above a lot of RG unis) and I can say all of the above apply to my experience.

A number of the professors in my department have come from Oxbridge.

I, personally, find it very academically stimulating.

Sussex has amazing study abroad links with connections to over 100 universities worldwide (including some Ivy League schools).

I know a number of recent Sussex grads who have gone on to do post grads at other great places, including Oxbridge.

I am not trying to disparage the RG, just point out that there are good universities outside it.

Expertise can't really be harnessed by undergrad students, as the course is only introductory. Seems like a fairly good advantage at doctorate level though.

Prestige doesn't really hold much weight for me. As a student at undergraduate level, other factors such as work experience holds substantially more weight. Also if you're an academic, then it is your publications that matter most in determining success (I hear - albeit affected by funding of the university).

Also, as the grades for non-RG universities has increased and are more selective, surely this mitigates the prestige factor somewhat in the eyes of employers (except that non-RG's do have courses that are somewhat easier to gain entry to).

At Sheffield Hallam (being from Sheffield), the only problem I have with my university is that the union seems to be to be terribly lacking. Support has been first class though. I wouldn't expect any more from a good RG university.

As someone who comes from an uneducated family background - I honestly wouldn't at all feel at home with snobbish people that you say you sometimes met during your RG experiences.

I'd say that I largely disagree with this. I think expertise absolutely can be gained from lecturers at undergraduate level, even in first year by way of one on one feedback. I've had many a private chat with lecturers in their offices and have learned a lot.

I'm not sure about your further two points either. I think prestige definitely still stands because of university level and how hard it is to gain that degree. For example it's far harder to gain a 2:1 or a 1st at a Russell Group university than a post-1992 university. A piece of work worth a 61 at an RG may be worth a 71 at a post-1992. And it absolutely is harder to get in as well, many courses would be AAA entry at RGs, that wouldn't be the case at other universities.

But we find some common ground on your final point, some of the people on my course seem to be from another planet. More annoying are the ones that aren't that good, they are just here because they went to a good school.

I'm a third year at an RG (my name is the clue). I will list some advantages/disadvantages and try to deliver a balanced approach:

- You'll work with some of the top academics in the world. Many of my lecturers have PHDs from Oxford/Cambridge and have held research positions at world class universities, including Ivy League institutions.

- You'll receive a fantastic education and you'll find it academically stimulating.

- A big plus nobody has mentioned is Study Abroad links. Many universities today offer students the chance to Study Abroad, but a general rule is the better the UK university, the better the Study Abroad links. I spent a year of my degree at the oldest university in Australia, incidentally, the one the current PM studied at. I could also have opted for Columbia or UPenn.

- Prestige is certainly a factor. On TSR being at a Russell or even Oxford seems to be the norm, but outside of the TSR world, in a world with over 120 universities and many many people who haven't been to university it will hold some clout.

- You'll find that many people go on to fantastic things after: postgraduate study or top careers. For example I did some work experience at the Civil Service and every graduate I spoke to bar one was from a Russell university (none from Oxbridge surprisingly).

But equally, there are a few disadvantages you have to be aware of

- You'll meet a lot of snobs, elitist posh people etc. On my course you've got somebody who's Dad was in the cabinet, somebody else whose Dad was on the board at Deloitte, people from aristocratic families, people that went to Eton etc. So if you're from a humble working or lower-middle class background, it can be overwhelming. Also there is an 'entitlement culture' at these universities. I've heard people saying they 'won't accept anything less than a 30k starting salary' etc.

- The big one for me was you go from being a big fish in a small pond, to being a little fish in a big pond. You'll arrive probably with several A grades at A Level/GCSE thinking it will be a breeze and you'll realise that's the bare minimum expected. You'll also get frustrated. My first essay I got a Third, and second I got a high 2:2. I just wasn't use to it after I'd regularly get 95+ in A Level exams. I didn't really like that, but you'll progress and start to get better grades. Bare this in mind. For me I'd rather dominate League 2 than be bottom of the Premiership. Or as Caesar said "I'd rather be first in command in the village than second in the empire".

On balance I think if you can, it is worth it, because there is a big difference between the uni I'm at and the post-1992 university across town, but ultimately you need to decide what is best for you and try not to be drawn into the university snobbery, which is a specific problem in first year.

Best of luck.



Not convinced St. Andrews is the #3 university in the country. You could argue LSE, UCL, Imperial, Durham, Warwick and several others are all better. It's all subjective anyway, no one legal table is definitive.

Is Surrey a RG? It always seems quite high on the league tables? Has it got a good reputation?

Prestige doesn't really hold much weight for me. As a student at undergraduate level, other factors such as work experience holds substantially more weight. Also if you're an academic, then it is your publications that matter most in determining success (I hear - albeit affected by funding of the university).

Prestige doesn't hold weight for you but it is very big for employers. I'm sure people would be more interested at an oxbridge graduates application than a non oxbridge one. Prestige has always been a big reason why some unis are better than others and it will continue to do so unless something drastic happens.

Prestige doesn't hold weight for you but it is very big for employers.

Surrey is not in the Russell Group (too small, too little research income, originally no medical school).

Surrey always flies high because of its employability stats. As sandwich courses become less common and less fashionable, Surrey has stuck resolutely to the idea of a placement year. The employability stats nationally for students who do a sandwich course have always been considerably better than for those who don't.

Thank you!
So, would I be at a disadvantage if I went to Surrey (to study law) as oppose to bristol or warwick (or any other RG university)?

It's good that you were able to gain from the lecturers early on from private feedback! I imagine that is useful.
Though I'm not sure how a lecturer from a RG who has been extremely successful will differ that much from one that has been very successful at a non-RG uni with the amount of advice they could offer an undergrad. I thought there would be much of a difference when advising doctorate level students, and maybe possibly at MSc level. You do also get RG uni lecturers moving to non-RG and vice versa.

About your point regarding it more difficult at RG universities: It is one I find quite interesting.
I have only really heard anecdotal evidence for this really. I remember looking at one report a long time ago and questioning that assertion. Is there any proof of it in journal articles? There are also governing bodies and external checks to 'homogenise' grading between universities?

I agree with your point about prestige through entry in that you (or the employer) knows that a RG is hard to get into just by the name ('I got into here, so I'm academic') - but I do wonder if's importance is decreasing as many courses are now (in non-RG) are at least BBB or similar. Also guessing that it varies massively by course - with more variation at non-RG in both courses and entry.

The key point is that cream floats to the top. The better the lecturer, the better the university he'll be at. And likewise for the student. That's not absolute, because some will slip through the net, but it's a basic principle in all areas of competition.

It simply goes without saying, that it is harder to get a 2:1/1st for an essay at a better university (one higher ranked, one with higher entry requirements etc.) than at a lower university. Because if the average A Level grades at say one university are A*AA, some of those are going to get 2:2s at the university. But in an university say where the average A Levels are BCC, most of those with A*AA could probably role in and get a high 2:1 quite easily. The idea that it's just as difficult to get a 2:1 at a post-1992 university is just absolute fantasy.

I think the prestige does still count. I've interned at both Parliament and the Civil Service and at both places everybody I met bar 1 person at each had Russell Group degrees. My friends have said the same about Law. Now that's not to say that not going to one holds anyone back, you could go on to do great things with a degree from anywhere. For example I know somebody who got a 2:1 from Keele and went to LSE for postgrad, but as a general rule, I'd argue that an average RG graduate will go on to do higher paid/most prestigious careers than a non-RG graduate, although as I said, that's not absolute. I know somebody else who got a 2:1 from Sheff Hallam and got on an energy industry grad scheme starting on about 35k, so ultimately it is about your character, just that the degree forms the basis of the CV and it becomes a case of what else have you got.

What proof is there that some universities are more difficult than others to a significant degree?
Isn't that the point of external verification and governing bodies? I don't feel that it's the case of entry being lower/higher is very conclusive.

What proof is there that some universities are more difficult than others to a significant degree?
Isn't that the point of external verification and governing bodies? I don't feel that it's the case of entry being lower/higher is very conclusive.