Will the Russell Group invite more unis?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Jacktri

Original post by Aj12

So you have a problem with the intellectual elite?

lol intellectual elite don't you mean those that no lifed their exams

Reply 21

Kerny

Original post by Jacktri

lol intellectual elite don't you mean those that no lifed their exams

Person who got bad grades detected

Reply 22

Mann18

I would have said: "No, why would they? They'd just water down the prestige that being a RG uni carries."

But as they invited QMB, I don't see why they wouldn't. York/Durham would be good candidates, whether they'd leave the 1994 group I don't know, I hope not, I would rather see such an act as one of treachery, very cloak and dagger.

Reply 23

Warrior King

Original post by Margaret Thatcher

No bias there, eh?

It's cute that you're showing some university patriotism, but there are other unis that certainly stand out as better contenders, i.e. Durham and York.

You seem to miss the point here. Durham whilst strong at undergraduate level is poor at research level. Most of the universities in the RG (except for LSE) owe the majority of their quality research output to their medical/health-related departments.

Durham doesn't have it's own medical school. It's only used as a base for pre-clinical training for years 1 and 2 and the rest of the course is at Newcastle. York has some strong research output. The way I saw was that RG was based on research output as opposed to the standard of academic entry and undergraduate education. If it was soley a case of high entry standards being the criteria then half the unis in the RG wouldn't qualify. Liverpool isn't exactly asking for AAB/AAA in almost all courses (not that is the best indicator). I would support an argument for York but not so much Durham. However as my area of expertise is mainly Medicine and Science, there may be other areas of international research where Durham excel.

But Exeter (Peninsula) excells in its research output especially in Genetics and Endocrinology and is leading an international study into the development of Menigitis B vaccine. Hardly being "cute" is it when I'm supporting its case? I base my opinions on evidence unlike some people :wink:

It's funny how you accuse me of bias, pot calling the kettle black no (re: Winston Churchill and the like :wink:

) ?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 24

Warrior King

Original post by Jacktri

lol intellectual elite don't you mean those that no lifed their exams

Yes because working hard at exams etc means you lead a boring life and will have one eventually?

What planet do you live on? Not everybody wants to do Media Studies at Byker Grove University.

Reply 25

Margaret Thatcher

Original post by Warrior King

You seem to miss the point here. Durham whilst strong at undergraduate level is poor at research level.

According to RAE results, Durham's research level is above a number of RG universities and above Exeter.

Durham doesn't have it's own medical school. It's only used as a base for pre-clinical training for years 1 and 2 and the rest of the course is at Newcastle.

I highly doubt the scale of a university's medical school is one of the critical factors as to whether it is in the RG or not. Perhaps it's a factor, but there are strong medical schools outside of the RG and medical schools within the RG that are nothing to write home about.

York has some strong research output. The way I saw was that RG was based on research output as opposed to the standard of academic entry and undergraduate education. If it was soley a case of high entry standards being the criteria then half the unis in the RG wouldn't qualify. Liverpool isn't exactly asking for AAB/AAA in almost all courses (not that is the best indicator). I would support an argument for York but not so much Durham. However as my area of expertise is mainly Medicine and Science, there may be other areas of international research where Durham excel.

Exeter has some lower entry areas, especially for the Cornwall Campus. ABB for Law, for example. And, again - see the RAE rankings.

But Exeter (Peninsula) excells in its research output especially in Genetics and Endocrinology and is leading an international study into the development of Menigitis B vaccine. Hardly being "cute" is it when I'm supporting its case? I base my opinions on evidence unlike some people :wink:

Exeter is good, but you are propelling it above its station in this context, out of some form of university quasi-nationalism. Would you honestly place Exeter as the prime contender for the RG if you studied at another university, such as Durham or York?

It's funny how you accuse me of bias, pot calling the kettle black no (re: Winston Churchill and the like :wink:

) ?

Probably the most shaky attempt to demonstrate bias ever!

Reply 26

Teveth

University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Cardiff University
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
Imperial College London
King's College London, (University of London)
University College London, (University of London)
University of Leeds
University of Liverpool
London School of Economics, (University of London)
University of Manchester
University of Newcastle
University of Nottingham
Queen's University Belfast
University of Oxford
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University of Warwick

Rank 'em. Go!

Reply 27

Tommyjw

Original post by Warrior King

Yes because working hard at exams etc means you lead a boring life and will have one eventually?

What planet do you live on? Not everybody wants to do Media Studies at Byker Grove University.

Dont lie.. you know you'd love to be at byker grove school.

Reply 28

username133326

Bangor - definitely.

We're ranked 4th FFS...

(...in Wales)

Reply 29

domino0806

Original post by Warrior King

It's funny how you accuse me of bias, pot calling the kettle black no (re: Winston Churchill and the like :wink:

) ?

Durham is quite clearly superior to Exeter in the sciences, Exeter doesn't event have a Chemistry department.

Reply 30

River85

Original post by Warrior King

Durham wouldn't be eligible because technically it's medical school is Newcastle's. Dundee and Aberdeen would be good candidates.

Universities with medical schools, especially large medical schools, do have a significant research income. Newcastle has a greater research income than Warwick does largely because of Newcastle's strength in medicine and the sciences and having a larger medical school. But having a medical school is not a necessary condition of being in the Russell Group.

Dundee and Aberdeen, whilst still very good universities, are no better candidates. Certainly not just because they have a medical school. Check out the size of the universities and their research income.

Original post by Warrior King

Absolute nonsense. Check out the RAE results and you'll find the bulk of its research has been classified as world leading or internationally excellent. It receives more research income than a number of Russell Group universities do, I think.

Even if we're just talking about the sciences then it has one of the world's major centres for astrophysics. With its work in Gamma Ray astronomy, phenomenology
and its Institute for Computational Cosmology.

Then there's chemistry and earth sciences, two of the best departments of their kind in the country. Maths and Biology are a little more modest relatively speaking (maths in terms of size as it still offers significant quality) but the bulk of their research is still international quality or above.

Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Engineering, Geography, Archaeology, Law, English and History are probably its leading research intensive departments (taking into account both quantity and quality) with the four sciences sitting at the top. Away from the sciences it is one of the strongest in the country for human geography.

OK, so Durham doesn't have a "proper" medical school, but it still offers amongst the strongest engineering, chemistry, physics and earth science departments in the country. Someone whose area is science ought to know this.

But I take it by sciences you're just referring to medicine and perhaps the life sciences?

Original post by domino0806

Durham is quite clearly superior to Exeter in the sciences, Exeter doesn't event have a Chemistry department.

He's probably referring to medicine and the life sciences. Exeter does have a medical school (albeit shared with Plymouth) so has a point there. But seems to be ignoring/not aware of Durham's research in physics, chemistry, geology, maths or engineering. For there is more to science than just medicine.

Also, because Durham doesn't have a "proper" medical school it doesn't mean to say that its research in medicine is non-existent. I'm not saying Durham is at the forefront of world leading research in this area, like Newcastle is in Stem Cell technology or Exeter in Endocrinology, but it still has independent staff who are in research of their own. The Wolfson Institute (Queens Campus) brings together staff from the medical school/school of health (including those engaged in the History of Medicine), Psychology and other departments. Home to some developing research in Autism, Cognitive Neuroscience and the application of Medical and Health Sciences.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 31

sete

I suspect if they were to invite other institutions, they would probably be from a list that goes something like this..

Likely..
St andrews
Bath
Durham
Exeter
Lancaster
York

Unlikely...
Loughborough
Leicester
Sussex
Surrey
UEA
Royal holloway
Aston

But remember all but one of those (Aston) are part of the 1994 group... maybe we should just merge the two and be done with all the bickering :P

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 32

River85

Original post by sete

I suspect if they were to invite other institutions, they would probably be from a list that goes something like this..

Likely..
St andrews
Bath
Durham
Exeter
Lancaster

Unlikely...
Loughborough
Leicester
Sussex
Surrey
UEA
Royal holloway
Aston

Why are those universities, especially Leicester, unlikely?

Reply 33

sete

Original post by River85

Why are those universities, especially Leicester, unlikely?

I suspect if they were to invite any universities it would be from those two groups, with the first just being slightly more likely. (Just personal opinion).

I would probably had been better advised to had used the phrase "less likely" as opposed to "unlikely".

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 34

River85

Original post by sete

Yes, but why less likely. If it's an opinion, fair enough, but are you basing this on something? Just wondering.

Reply 35

sete

Original post by River85

Yes, but why less likely. If it's an opinion, fair enough, but are you basing this on something? Just wondering.

Merely on general perception of various university rankings, an opinion based on the idea Russell group would attempt to attract the more 'prestigous institutions'.

Reply 36

nulli tertius

The Russell Group advocates "big is best" whilst the 1994 Group backs "small is beautiful". An organisation is only likely to switch from one to the other if it feels that its group is no longer lobbying government (and these are primarily lobby groups) for universities like it.

Warwick was a member of both groups for a number of years.

LSE switched from the 1994 Group to the Russell Group but has very little in common with the other Russell Group universities. It probably switched because the other leading London schools were members but will increasingly find that the Russell Group has nothing to say for it.

Perhaps a more interesting question whether any of the refusniks will join any group. Stirling, for example, looks like a 1994 Group university but isn't a member of any group.

Reply 37

nulli tertius

Original post by sete

Merely on general perception of various university rankings, an opinion based on the idea Russell group would attempt to attract the more 'prestigous institutions'.

Then with respect you misunderstand the Russell Group's purpose.

Reply 38

sete

Original post by nulli tertius

Then with respect you misunderstand the Russell Group's purpose.

Having read your previous post, I assume I have.

Reply 39

Warrior King

Original post by Margaret Thatcher

According to RAE results, Durham's research level is above a number of RG universities and above Exeter.

I highly doubt the scale of a university's medical school is one of the critical factors as to whether it is in the RG or not. Perhaps it's a factor, but there are strong medical schools outside of the RG and medical schools within the RG that are nothing to write home about.

Exeter has some lower entry areas, especially for the Cornwall Campus. ABB for Law, for example. And, again - see the RAE rankings.

Exeter is good, but you are propelling it above its station in this context, out of some form of university quasi-nationalism. Would you honestly place Exeter as the prime contender for the RG if you studied at another university, such as Durham or York?

Probably the most shaky attempt to demonstrate bias ever!

With regards to medical schools there's very little to differentiate between them in terms of entry standards and quality of undergraduate education seeing as they're all regulated by the GMC. Research output may vary but generally all UK medical schools are of a high standard and it would make sense to encompass all universities with medical departments into the RG because if we are basing this on how academically elite or selective an institution is, then Medicine generally is one of the (if not the) most selective course in the country (*trumpets*)

As for Cornwall Campus, well we tend to dust that one under the carpet. People are aware of the difference between the Cornwall Campus standards and main campus.

Shaky attempt? Well what can I say? I have Parkinson's Disease.