[shanej13]

Like what are red brick university's and Russle group university's ?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Alexandra's Box]

The Russell group is a selection of research-intensive universities.
Red brick I think are traditional, older ones although I'm not really sure

[SpicyStrawberry]

There are several groups universities belong to. The Russell group is a set of particularly prestigious universities strong in research fields and teaching standards (this list shows the unis involved).

Red Brick universities are unis formed in industrial districts in England. There are only six according to Wikipedia.

There are other groups universities belong to as well, such as the 1994 group and the University Alliance.

[PSxxx]

RG has nothing to do with prestige per se, there several low rankers in there .

[SpicyStrawberry]

(Original post by PSxxx)
RG has nothing to do with prestige per se, there several low rankers in there .

Prestigious in terms of research quality and teaching, league tables aren't to be trusted IMO

[roh]

(Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
Prestigious in terms of research quality and teaching, league tables aren't to be trusted IMO

But a group based on lobbying for research funding (not massively relevant to undergrads) is?

Personally I think the Sutton 13's quite a good grouping as they go. Based on analysis of various league tables over the years (so certain years of above or below average performance and the biases of different tables eg. Guardian and NSS are evened out) and done by an independent organisation.

Listed at the bottom of here.

[River85]

(Original post by PSxxx)
RG has nothing to do with prestige per se, there several low rankers in there .

The lowest ranked Russell Group universities are around 40 or so? Considering there are between 110 and 130 universities included in domestic league tables this is still the top third, so not "low rankers" (though perhaps relatively lowly ranked compared to, say, UCL, Durham or Warwick). However, and here is one of the problems with league tables, it is not possible to say university w is x is better than y which is better than z and pretend this ladder of higher education exists. Despite ranking in the 30s and 40s these universities are not necessarily inferior to those in, say, the teens. A look at the criteria will demonstrate that there is often little difference.

Queen's Belfast competes with a number of universities who rank in the teens, for example. However, one or two criteria let it down. One of these, entry standards, is largely because it is in Northern Ireland and therefore finds it hard to attract students from the rest of the UK who don't want to travel that far and/or have an outdated perception of the city. Unusually for a Russell Group University it has a large working class and local student intake. Although this perhaps demonstrates that Queen's Belfast lacks an element of superficial prestige or particular favour among applicants, it does not demonstate that it is an inferior university or perceived less favourably by employers.

Furthermore, fiddling slightly with the weighting can easily send these "low rankers" up by 10 or 15 places, and higher universities place lower.

[River85]

(Original post by roh)
But a group based on lobbying for research funding (not massively relevant to undergrads) is?

Personally I think the Sutton 13's quite a good grouping as they go. Based on analysis of various league tables over the years (so certain years of above or below average performance and the biases of different tables eg. Guardian and NSS are evened out) and done by an independent organisation.

Listed at the bottom of here.

Not several years. I'm fairly sure it was only one or two (1999 and perhaps 2000). Besides, they have now updated this to a Sutton 30: -

University of Bath, University of Birmingham, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, Cardiff University, Durham University, University of Edinburgh, University of Exeter, University of Glasgow, Imperial College, King's College London, University of Lancaster, University of Leeds, University of Liverpool, London School of Economics, University of Manchester, University of Newcastle, University of Nottingham, University of Oxford, University of Reading, Royal Holloway, University of London, University of Sheffield, University of Southampton, University of St Andrews, University of Strathclyde, University of Surrey, University College London, University of Warwick and University of York.

In other words all of the Russell Group (except Queen's Belfast) and some from other Groups (e.g. 1994) or unaffiated.

Note I'm not saying this is a defenitive list of the country's 30 best or most prestigious universities, just making the point that the Sutton 13 was based on only relatively few league tables over a decade ago and the Sutton Trust have since expanded this to the 30 mentioned.

[roh]

(Original post by River85)
Not several years. I'm fairly sure it was only one or two (1999 and perhaps 2000). Besides, they have now updated this to a Sutton 30: -

University of Bath, University of Birmingham, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, Cardiff University, Durham University, University of Edinburgh, University of Exeter, University of Glasgow, Imperial College, King's College London, University of Lancaster, University of Leeds, University of Liverpool, London School of Economics, University of Manchester, University of Newcastle, University of Nottingham, University of Oxford, University of Reading, Royal Holloway, University of London, University of Sheffield, University of Southampton, University of St Andrews, University of Strathclyde, University of Surrey, University College London, University of Warwick and University of York.

In other words all of the Russell Group (except Queen's Belfast) and some from other Groups (e.g. 1994) or unaffiated.

Note I'm not saying this is a defenitive list of the country's 30 best or most prestigious universities, just making the point that the Sutton 13 was based on only relatively few league tables over a decade ago and the Sutton Trust have since expanded this to the 30 mentioned.

That's great thanks I did wonder what had happened to the Sutton 13 in recent publications by them, but hadn't seen any references to the new group.

Guessing it's done on the same basis of averaging out the league tables?

Only confusing bit is the inclusion of both University of London and UCL, KCL, LSE and Royal Holloway, I'd have thought logic dictates if the whole university is in there's no need to specify colleges?

And just to shamelessly big up my own uni Leicester is in it on here at pg. 17

[PSxxx]

(Original post by River85)
The lowest ranked Russell Group universities are around 40 or so? Considering there are between 110 and 130 universities included in domestic league tables this is still the top third, so not "low rankers" (though perhaps relatively lowly ranked compared to, say, UCL, Durham or Warwick). However, and here is one of the problems with league tables, it is not possible to say university w is x is better than y which is better than z and pretend this ladder of higher education exists. Despite ranking in the 30s and 40s these universities are not necessarily inferior to those in, say, the teens. A look at the criteria will demonstrate that there is often little difference.

Queen's Belfast competes with a number of universities who rank in the teens, for example. However, one or two criteria let it down. One of these, entry standards, is largely because it is in Northern Ireland and therefore finds it hard to attract students from the rest of the UK who don't want to travel that far and/or have an outdated perception of the city. Unusually for a Russell Group University it has a large working class and local student intake. Although this perhaps demonstrates that Queen's Belfast lacks an element of superficial prestige or particular favour among applicants, it does not demonstate that it is an inferior university or perceived less favourably by employers.

Furthermore, fiddling slightly with the weighting can easily send these "low rankers" up by 10 or 15 places, and higher universities place lower.

Why am I not surprised to see you popping up here ? I'd like to start by asking you : " Are you biased in favour of the RG and if so why ? "

Anyway we have been through this before: top half 94 > bottom end RG.
I made no mention of saying uni X is better than Y, though we can get into that if you want.

Note also I said PER SE.

Location, demographics all count towards a Uni's appeal, I am very sure QB would not shed a tear should its bad location happen to befall on some other Uni.

Your opinion counts no more than anybody else, you seem to imply the non validity of numerous league tables yet worse might be said about a lobby group who are no more than a bunch of self promoters.

NO, I think the illusion is not only melting; for the back end of the RG, it's a deluge.

[M4LLY]

Theres good ones (Oxford) then theres average ones (Hertfordshire) then theres **** ones (London Met)

[PSxxx]

It's time to to re-arrange the groupings, there are too many losers in 1 group and too many winners in the other.

[River85]

(Original post by PSxxx)
Why am I not surprised to see you popping up here ?

Because I'm a frequent poster and moderator. I can be seen on threads.

I'd like to start by asking you : " Are you biased in favour of the RG and if so why ? "

I am not. I have no interest in promoting the Russell Group. In fact, you will find many previous posts where I have become frustrated at people's suggestion that the Russell Group is some elite.

I did not attend a Russell Group university (as mentioned, I attended Durham, one of those 1994 Group universities who are now about to enter the Russell Group). But that my alma mater has is about to join the Russell Group doesn't alter my opinions (which can be found in older posts and is an opinion that has remained consistant).

Anyway we have been through this before: top half 94 > bottom end RG.

Just because you state this is the case, it doesn't mean it is. As far as I'm aware you have failed to provide any actual evidence or coherent argument.

What makes you say that, beside league table positions (and league tables only help to demonstrate there is little discernable difference between them)?

I made no mention of saying uni X is better than Y, though we can get into that if you want.

It is implied by your reliance on league tables who order universities in this way. Because one university ranks 40, and another 28th, it doesn't mean there is actually any great difference between the two.

Location, demographics all count towards a Uni's appeal, I am very sure QB would not shed a tear should its bad location happen to befall on some other Uni.

Appeal, yes. Qualty? No.

Your opinion counts no more than anybody else, you seem to imply the non validity of numerous league tables yet worse might be said about a lobby group who are no more than a bunch of self promoters.

I am not saying that the members of this lobby group are better than the universities you have mentioned. That is the difference.

NO, I think the illusion is not only melting; for the back end of the RG, it's a deluge.

Course it is.

(Original post by PSxxx)
It's time to to re-arrange the groupings, there are too many losers in 1 group and too many winners in the other.

No, because these groups are not based on what you personally define as being a winner or loser. The Russell Group is a lobbying group for large research intensive universities. 19 of the current 20 members are in the top 20 in the country in terms of research income (the exception being LSE - not a multi-faculty university and one which obviously doesn't offer sciences). It therefore makes no sense to replace, say, Manchester with Royal Holloway.

[SpicyStrawberry]

(Original post by PSxxx)
It's time to to re-arrange the groupings, there are too many losers in 1 group and too many winners in the other.

I disagree. It should be the individual student who decides which university is a winner/loser, just because a uni is in the Russell Grou/1994 group for example doesn't make it automatically suitable for their needs.

Personally I had the grades to attend the University of Manchester (Russell group uni) but decided to attend MMU because it's close by just like UoM but UoM did not offer the course I wanted. So to me, prestige wasn't important. It's just an example and I don't expect people to agree with my decision, but it was just what was right for me and I stand by it.

I don't feel that regrouping universities would change anything, many people think about factors personal to them before they have a look at which group it comes under, if any. Unis in the Russell group are there for reasons other than ranking in league tables, they are unis renowned for their research, so it wouldn't make sense to drop certain ones and replace them with others.

[PSxxx]

(Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
I disagree. It should be the individual student who decides which university is a winner/loser, just because a uni is in the Russell Grou/1994 group for example doesn't make it automatically suitable for their needs.

Personally I had the grades to attend the University of Manchester (Russell group uni) but decided to attend MMU because it's close by just like UoM but UoM did not offer the course I wanted. So to me, prestige wasn't important. It's just an example and I don't expect people to agree with my decision, but it was just what was right for me and I stand by it.

I don't feel that regrouping universities would change anything, many people think about factors personal to them before they have a look at which group it comes under, if any. Unis in the Russell group are there for reasons other than ranking in league tables, they are unis renowned for their research, so it wouldn't make sense to drop certain ones and replace them with others.

Yep, making up your own mind is always a good thing .. congrats.

[PSxxx]

(Original post by River85)
Because I'm a frequent poster and moderator. I can be seen on threads.



I am not. I have no interest in promoting the Russell Group. In fact, you will find many previous posts where I have become frustrated at people's suggestion that the Russell Group is some elite.

I did not attend a Russell Group university (as mentioned, I attended Durham, one of those 1994 Group universities who are now about to enter the Russell Group). But that my alma mater has is about to join the Russell Group doesn't alter my opinions (which can be found in older posts and is an opinion that has remained consistant).



Just because you state this is the case, it doesn't mean it is. As far as I'm aware you have failed to provide any actual evidence or coherent argument.

What makes you say that, beside league table positions (and league tables only help to demonstrate there is little discernable difference between them)?



It is implied by your reliance on league tables who order universities in this way. Because one university ranks 40, and another 28th, it doesn't mean there is actually any great difference between the two.



Appeal, yes. Qualty? No.



I am not saying that the members of this lobby group are better than the universities you have mentioned. That is the difference.



Course it is.



No, because these groups are not based on what you personally define as being a winner or loser. The Russell Group is a lobbying group for large research intensive universities. 19 of the current 20 members are in the top 20 in the country in terms of research income (the exception being LSE - not a multi-faculty university and one which obviously doesn't offer sciences). It therefore makes no sense to replace, say, Manchester with Royal Holloway.

Agree as long as you also say:

Because one university ranks 20, and another 8th, it doesn't mean there is actually any great difference between the two.

Appeal , quality , same difference.

Why can't there be multiple group membership. For the other points have been covered here :

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...2#post38024172

[River85]

(Original post by PSxxx)
Agree as long as you also say:

Because one university ranks 20, and another 8th, it doesn't mean there is actually any great difference between the two.

Yes.

So if you agree on that why do you make a big deal about certain universities "beating" other universities in international league tables?

Or call Manchester a "low ranker" due to its position in UK tables? In one recent post you've stated Manchester's position of 16th in the physics table is not very impressive.

Appeal , quality , same difference.

Erm, not necessarily. Are we referring to a university's appeal among university applicants? A University or department that is highly desired or favoured by applicants isn't necessarily better . It depends on how we define quality and we also need to remember that applicants are often not hugely well informed and will consider other factors and not just department strength. An example I frequently use, from my own university, is Durham's School of Government department, specifically its IR programme, and Aberwystwyth). In terms of both research and, in my experience teaching, Aber have the stronger programme. However, being a relatively isolated small town in North Wales, without the historic prestige (for want of a better term) of Durham, a pretty cathedral city and home from home for many private educated students from the South of England, it isn't has highly favoured by undergraduate applicants. This same attitude isn't necessarily displayed by postgraduates.

Why can't there be multiple group membership. For the other points have been covered here :

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...2#post38024172

It is possible to be a member of both the Russell and 1994 Group (and Warwick and LSE have been members in the both before leaving the 1994 Group in 2006/2007).

But this still doesn't mean that the Groups are based on league table positions or what you consider winners and losers.

[PSxxx]

(Original post by River85)
Yes.

So if you agree on that why do you make a big deal about certain universities "beating" other universities in international league tables?

Or call Manchester a "low ranker" due to its position in UK tables? In one recent post you've stated Manchester's position of 16th in the physics table is not very impressive.



Erm, not necessarily. Are we referring to a university's appeal among university applicants? A University or department that is highly desired or favoured by applicants isn't necessarily better . It depends on how we define quality and we also need to remember that applicants are often not hugely well informed and will consider other factors and not just department strength. An example I frequently use, from my own university, is Durham's School of Government department, specifically its IR programme, and Aberwystwyth). In terms of both research and, in my experience teaching, Aber have the stronger programme. However, being a relatively isolated small town in North Wales, without the historic prestige (for want of a better term) of Durham, a pretty cathedral city and home from home for many private educated students from the South of England, it isn't has highly favoured by undergraduate applicants. This same attitude isn't necessarily displayed by postgraduates.



It is possible to be a member of both the Russell and 1994 Group (and Warwick and LSE have been members in the both before leaving the 1994 Group in 2006/2007).

But this still doesn't mean that the Groups are based on league table positions or what you consider winners and losers.

I merely replicated the THES rankings cause I did not agree with your point about most RG universities being ranked higher than non RG. It is customary to provide substantiation for what one says. If not then as yo would know the conversation becomes a hollow exercise.

Low as compared to the top 50, ie) as relative to where it thinks it should be, I've explained all this in this thread:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&page=5&page=5

If one is saying that being outside the top 30 UK is not low for UoM, then I accept that but I dare say many of its proponents will not accept that.

The term low ranker would have to be seen in this context, I have explained this in great length in #100 , and specifically you have not answered the points I have reposited to you on this.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&page=5&page=5

But to add to it, and I think a smart guy like you knows this, If a footballer plays for a poor club, then one can say he is part of a poor ( low ranker club ). It says nothing about the player himself who could be very good.

Also it's 16 out of 48, not just 16 and that is a mere reprint from CUG.
That's not very good , not bad but mediocore, when you are relative to 116 universities.

This is no big deal, is it ? It's all publically available at a click.

Can we keep this on the other thread to save you and I time.

The second point - Yes , I agree, don't know why we are arguing this one. I never even heard of Aber till I came here.

[0404343m]

(Original post by PSxxx)
But to add to it, and I think a smart guy like you knows this, If a footballer plays for a poor club, then one can say he is part of a poor ( low ranker club ). It says nothing about the player himself who could be very good.

Also it's 16 out of 48, not just 16 and that is a mere reprint from CUG.
That's no a very good , not bad but mediocore, when you relative to 118 universities.

This is no big deal, is it ? It's all publically available at a click.

Can we keep this on the other thread to save you and I time.

The second point - Yes , I agree, don't know why we are arguing this one. I never even heard of Aber till I came here.

You've been talking nonsense for a good while now, but your part in bold is particularly impressive.

If a footballer plays for a low ranking club, it's because that club has won fewer and lost more games than clubs above them, who (usually) get more money through higher leagues and league positions and get more famous players and better stadia.

This is not at all like university league tables, save for both having the word 'league' in them. These tables, as I'm sure you know but are wilfully ignoring, are creations of journalists who decide whether 10% or 20% goes into entry standards, they include a column for drop-out or not, whether they add or multiply two factors together to get a score and so on. As one Warwick professor has noted, journalists would not consent to newspapers being ranked in the way they choose to rank universities.

As a result, it's a bit like saying the club with the best pies as voted by other fans + the fans with the biggest smile on their face when they leave the ground - the number of fans that leave before the final whistle + the number of corporate boxes they have - the number of unsold season tickets + how many players they have that have foreign names. Then they'd promptly award Fulham third place and relegate Manchester United.

Football teams all have defined goals and objectives, everyone is on the same playing field and they compete against one another. Universities have different objectives, often collaborate with one another, and sometimes even play completely different sports. They were never meant to be ranked, whereas competition in a league has been a founding principle of many sports. Putting LSE and Imperial, St Andrews and Manchester, and Oxford and London Met on the same scale gives kids bragging rights and 'informs' the clueless, but does nothing else.

The number of other universities in the table doesn't matter. The 'if it's 5th out of 12 that's not as good as 10th out of 120' argument is logically flawed, as it takes no account of the opposition. Britain has world-leading fields where a big chunk of departments are world-class. It has areas where being the best still means you're a country mile off of the USA. Even at that, it's still assuming the journalists' mash-up of figures even means the overall position is worth the paper it's written on.

Big and broad will always struggle compared to small and specialised. Being a regional node for education and having a mission to provide a broad range of subjects WILL hit average quality, be that in satisfaction from the students, research quality, average standard of applicant and so on. I don't really know why that matters too much- everyone is seemingly obsessed with a few UCAS points, as if judging by the worst entrant, rather than the thousands of very good ones, matters. Crikey, Manchester might have someone with BBB somewhere, and the worst person that got into St Andrews has ABB. Shoot me now.

[nekha123]

(Original post by shanej13)
Like what are red brick university and Russle group university's ?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Russell group is a research-intensive university and it's one among the few thought they doesn't seem to have many likes where as Red brick is a traditional one which seems to be offering a standard education. Just my 2 cents.