The Student Room Group

What are the advantages of A RUSSELL GROUP UNI?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by nulli tertius
This very much depends.

If your aim is to be a solicitor and to achieve that come what may; Surrey is a very good choice. As I understand it, the stats for getting a training contract with the firm where you have done a placement year are very good.

However, if you are saying that you want a training contract with one of the leading City firms or you will go off and do something else, then try and get into Bristol. Bristol will make you more competitive for a training contract with top city firms, though it would be a close run thing, I suspect, who actually gets more people into training contracts overall.


Thank you - this was very helpful:smile:
Original post by nulli tertius
You are not going to get an answer to this one. This is the VCs of Oxford and Brookes refusing to give a straight answer to this question.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/9033004.htm

(The hidden sub-text of why Stringer chose history is that Brookes' history department had out-scored Oxford's in the Research Assessment Exercise)


Aye seen it before, given it another look. Somewhat of a headache to read through.
I can understand a difference between Oxbridge and other universities (such as Brookes as mentioned), but not so much normal RG universities and ex-poly's in terms of course difficulty.
Original post by hellodave5
Aye seen it before, given it another look. Somewhat of a headache to read through.
I can understand a difference between Oxbridge and other universities (such as Brookes as mentioned), but not so much normal RG universities and ex-poly's in terms of course difficulty.


I think one of the issues here is the extent to which a university encourages independent thought and the extent to which it spoonfeeds. Generally the less intelligent the students, the greater will be the extent of the spoonfeeding. However, if you look at this from the perspective of the employer what knowledge and what skills is he valuing? Does he want someone who has been trained to speculate about a subject or does he want someone who has been trained to apply a body of knowledge accurately (not necessarily a body of knowledge taught at university).
Original post by Eboracum
I'm not really sure. I'd just take it as a given. I think the A Level point is a good one, but just basic evolutionary common sense would indicate that surely it's harder to get the higher marks at a better university?

So are you suggesting that if you submitted a piece of work and it was awarded 67 at say Leeds Met, you think it would also get 67 at Leeds? I'd have thought it would have been closer 57.


The assumption is logical, but that's the only basis of that argument. It is a big judgement without any tangible basis at all.

I'm not sure that there would be an entire classification of difference between a uni of and a ex-poly - otherwise the classification system is entirely null. If I was to assume, I wouldn't expect more than small difference in variation between them.

It is also that within uni city's there are massive links to each other. Here in Sheffield many of the staff at Hallam used to teach at Uni of Sheffield, do research there, studied there, or work alongside the staff (Uni of's tend to receive more research funding).

The work no matter where you are is defined by certain criteria, which is the same through all universities as the courses are regulated externally. You can't say that a rubbish essay is good or vice versa. It is what it is, more or less. A mid 2.1 at Leeds Met would be a 2.1 at Uni of Leeds.
I can understand the classification system being less reliable near the boundaries of classifications though.

It is also that lots of ex-poly students go to Uni of's - they don't really seem to report any difference in difficulty. My girlfriend, for instance, has gone from Hallam to Leeds Uni - and their assessments don't seem at all more difficult.
Original post by nulli tertius
I think one of the issues here is the extent to which a university encourages independent thought and the extent to which it spoonfeeds. Generally the less intelligent the students, the greater will be the extent of the spoonfeeding. However, if you look at this from the perspective of the employer what knowledge and what skills is he valuing? Does he want someone who has been trained to speculate about a subject or does he want someone who has been trained to apply a body of knowledge accurately (not necessarily a body of knowledge taught at university).


That's a good point. Though what would you consider spoon feeding in university? It's all rather independent stuff, and one of the main purposes of an undergraduate degree generally is to make ye speculate about the information you're given.
Aye, in a way I suppose all types of education fit into organisations in their own way - with their own slight differences in modes of teaching etc.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by hellodave5
That's a good point. Though what would you consider spoon feeding in university? It's all rather independent stuff, and one of the main purposes of an undergraduate degree generally is to make ye speculate about the information you're given.
Aye, in a way I suppose all types of education fit into organisations in their own way - with their own slight differences in modes of teaching etc.


Independent study is being given the works of Smith and Jones and working out for yourself what their key views are and where they differ. Spoonfeeding is being given a textbook or attending a lecture in which someone says:-

"Smith believes X and Y and although Jones believes X he doesn't believe Y but does believe Z. The difference between Y and Z is the shape of the bananas"
Original post by nulli tertius
Independent study is being given the works of Smith and Jones and working out for yourself what their key views are and where they differ. Spoonfeeding is being given a textbook or attending a lecture in which someone says:-


Oo a comedy sketch!(?) lol.

I think that may have been the case tbf, particularly in first year and first half of second year. After then things became more specialised and independent, and rather applied, in order to increase employability.

If I'm honest though, I never learn anything from attending lectures - only really through going through things in my own time, including many a late night :frown:.
Reply 47
Original post by hellodave5
I'm not all that sure about that.

For specific [upper class] organisations then I can imagine so. It helps to get you into interviews too. But as long as you have your 2.1, then work experience tends to be the defining factor.

If you get into interview I imagine that prestige has little contribution to the employment decision. The main thing then is how you present yourself as a person.

Though it would be unfair to use Oxbridge specifically as a comparison. They hold substantially more weight than normal RG universities. An Oxbridge graduate would be much more likely to get an interview if everything else was controlled for, yeah.


Outside of oxbride, the top RG unis will give you a better chance to reach interviews like imperial, ww, durham etc but how well you do on the interview depends on you.
Original post by hellodave5
Oo a comedy sketch!(?) lol.

I think that may have been the case tbf, particularly in first year and first half of second year. After then things became more specialised and independent, and rather applied, in order to increase employability.

If I'm honest though, I never learn anything from attending lectures - only really through going through things in my own time, including many a late night :frown:.


The amount of spoonfeeding vis-a-vis independent thought varies from subject to subject (you wouldn't want a nursing degree with a high level of speculation about the best way to wash a patient) and within a subject there is a continuum between different universities and that continuum will not follow any league table. No course is completely spoon fed; no course is wholly independent reading. That makes it very hard to compare student experiences. With the exception of Oxbridge tutorials, which are a visibly distinct teaching method from what are called tutorials elsewhere, every student will say in respect of every teaching process "But I do that as well". Only if you drill down into how a module is taught from beginning to end (or by comparing the way material is presented in different textbooks) can one see the difference.
Original post by ETRC
Outside of oxbride, the top RG unis will give you a better chance to reach interviews like imperial, ww, durham etc but how well you do on the interview depends on you.


Outside of Oxbridge, there's very little consensus of what consists of the best universities. It's going to vary massively from employer to employer, and will likely be heavily influenced by geography and past success.
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)?


I think it is in this context that the term RG starts to loose its meaning. A degree from universities such as Oxbridge, UCL, LSE are of course seen as a cut above.

But there are some other RG universities that are certainly not considered better than good non RG universities, simply because they are in the RG.

Additionally, it is really important to remember that, outside of Oxbridge, different universities excel in different subjects. At any given university X subject might be really well respected and Y subject might not be. That is why, in my opinion, it is quite silly to talk of universities being 'good' or 'bad' as overall institutions (although I'll admit to being guilty of this). Look at which universities are considered best for Law. I'll admit for Law - as a subject that directly leads to a set vocation - the best universities will probably all be in the RG. But for lots of humanity/ social science subjects this won't necessarily be the case.
(edited 9 years ago)
-Quite a few employers only target RG which is a bit of a bummer.
- Generally a good standard subset to be in, in terms of quality of teaching, research etc
As someone who has gone from a non russel to a standard russel to now a top russel.

Trust me everything is generally better - the work is intellectually much more stimulating and no one can deny that!

All 2:1s are not the same.

Thought people would know this by now lol.
Original post by Bill_Gates
As someone who has gone from a non russel to a standard russel to now a top russel.

Trust me everything is generally better - the work is intellectually much more stimulating and no one can deny that!

All 2:1s are not the same.

Thought people would know this by now lol.


I agree Bill, but out of interest Bill, how do you define standard Russell from top Russell?
Reply 54
Original post by Smack
Outside of Oxbridge, there's very little consensus of what consists of the best universities. It's going to vary massively from employer to employer, and will likely be heavily influenced by geography and past success.


Some jobs are heavily dominated by the "best" unis.
IB is 80+% filled with target uni grads and 95%+ with RG grads.
And even big companies chem engineering grads are from the top unis. Ask someone who recruits at BP if you don't believe me.
Statically, top unis have a higher job rate than the lower ones.
Original post by Eboracum
I agree Bill, but out of interest Bill, how do you define standard Russell from top Russell?


Top Russell include Oxbridge, Durham, Warwick, UCL , Imperial, LSE

Lower Russell include, Queen Mary, Liverpool, Leeds , Cardiff etc.

( This is my own opinion )
Original post by Magnus Taylor
Top Russell include Oxbridge, Durham, Warwick, UCL , Imperial, LSE

Lower Russell include, Queen Mary, Liverpool, Leeds , Cardiff etc.

( This is my own opinion )


What do you think of Southampton? Ah.. and yeah qmul accepts people with all btecs for the same course where people work their asses of with 3 A*s! ! Is this even fair?!!:/ perhaps nicky Morgan should look into altering that than A level reforms !

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
I spent four years at Exeter (a Russell Group uni) and have just started at Sussex. From my experience so far, the University of Exeter has a far more exotic campus, a lot of study abroad programmes and just generally more money to chuck about - I remember one of the university newspapers saying that a lot of iPads were bought for a department or something like that. The demographic at Exeter also seems a bit more upper-class whereas the people I have seen out and about at Sussex seem much more typical.

However, on its own, being a Russell Group university doesn't really mean anything. I was well aware that I'd be going out of the Russell Group after doing my undergraduate degree, but the option I had at Sussex seemed a lot more appealing. So go wherever tickles your fancy and treat any extra prestige as a bonus.
Original post by ETRC
IB is 80+% filled with target uni grads and 95%+ with RG grads.


Which only makes up a small fraction of graduate jobs.


And even big companies chem engineering grads are from the top unis. Ask someone who recruits at BP if you don't believe me.


That's interesting you mention BP because I'm in oil myself. I have noticed that graduates from some universities are much more heavily represented than others, but this has little to do with what people on here would call prestige, but rather that some universities have slightly more relevant courses, have far greater numbers of students applying for positions, etc.


Statically, top unis have a higher job rate than the lower ones.


It actually varies quite a bit. Universities that offer sandwich placements tend to do very well (for obvious reasons), as do those that simply have a much higher proportion of their students studying more employable courses.

You have also made absolutely no attempt to engage with my original post.
Original post by omegaSQU4RED
I spent four years at Exeter (a Russell Group uni) and have just started at Sussex. From my experience so far, the University of Exeter has a far more exotic campus, a lot of study abroad programmes and just generally more money to chuck about - I remember one of the university newspapers saying that a lot of iPads were bought for a department or something like that. The demographic at Exeter also seems a bit more upper-class whereas the people I have seen out and about at Sussex seem much more typical.

However, on its own, being a Russell Group university doesn't really mean anything. I was well aware that I'd be going out of the Russell Group after doing my undergraduate degree, but the option I had at Sussex seemed a lot more appealing. So go wherever tickles your fancy and treat any extra prestige as a bonus.


Exeter joined the Russell Group in 2012. You were there when that happened. Did new buildings spring up overnight? Were the old academics mysteriously spirited away in the middle of the night to be replaced by better ones? Did the students wake up the next morning feeling smarter?

Quick Reply

Latest