On par with The Russell Group?

Which of these Universities, from the 1994 Group, would you say could be considered equal in prestige to a Russell Group University.

I know prestige/regard, call it what you will, varies a lot within The Russell Group itself, but just generally speaking, which ones could quite easily slip into The Russell Group?

Thes ones I think are on par are in bold, and maybes in italics.

University of Bath
Birkbeck, University of London
Durham University
University of East Anglia
University of Essex
University of Exeter
Goldsmiths, University of London
Institute of Education, University of London
Royal Holloway, University of London
Lancaster University
University of Leicester
Loughborough University
Queen Mary, University of London
University of Reading
University of St Andrews
School of Oriental and African Studies
University of Surrey
University of Sussex
University of York


This just comes from recent talks about how non-Russell Group Unis are increasing tuition fees. Let me know what you think.

EDIT: I am not saying that The Russell Group is the be all and end all, I am just wondering, going by the mention of it so often in the news recently, what people think. Thanks.

Lancaster's currently 8th in the country - what makes you think it's unworthy? I suppose opinion is subjective anyway.

I just think some League Tables aren't entirley fool proof, and Lancaster being the proof. Not that it isn't a fantastic University, just that I personally don't think it is above the likes of Bristol, York, St Andrews, Durham, Bath, Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc...

I just think some League Tables aren't entirley fool proof, and Lancaster being the proof. Not that it isn't a fantastic University, just that I personally don't think it is above the likes of Bristol, York, St Andrews, Durham, Bath, Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc...

Really why? I completely agree with the first four universities you listed but not the ones following, I think Lancaster is better than those by a fair distance.

I think Bath and Nottingham is much better than Lancaster to be honest.

Especially Nottingham. But that's jsut my opinion.

Hmm well I don't know everything about these universities so that's perfectly viable. League tables aren't everything, I agree - a difference of more than ten in ranking must indicate something though lool

Depends how research intensive they are... Considering Russell Group gets a lot more funding, I don't see how other unis can compete.

Really why? I completely agree with the first four universities you listed but not the ones following, I think Lancaster is better than those by a fair distance.

The Russell Group is a group of research intensive university as they were in 1994.

Places like York and Bath have shot up just about ever league table there is.

The 1994 group universities have grown and some of the Russell Group haven't been able to keep up with some of the 1994 group.

Durham has opened it's own medical school. Times change.

I agree to be honest. However, I am not certainly sure that ALL of the unis you listed at the end of your posts are actually better than Lancaster. Lancaster is probably very good, but I doubt it's actually 8th in the country. League tables aren't really reliable. Greenwich was ranked 8th for Maths once when god knows it is not! Different league table use different measures. On that league table that has Greenwich high for Maths was based on student satisfaction.

Which is why he's referring to the 1994 Group universities...



Why? Because league tables tell you that? Even if these league tables can competely change next year (for it was only a year ago when Lancaster was ranked alongside those universities, and can easily be ranked allongside them again next year - not that the difference of a few places is significant anyway)?

If that's your opinion, fair enough, but I don't see what you can base that opinion on?

You're talking about some of our strongest and largest universities in the country. I'm just getting fed up of explaining it now, but anyone with any knowledge of higher education (quality of students at those institutions, quality of teaching, research) will know that they are broadly comparable (albeit with sometimes different strengths as all mutlifaculty universities have strengths across the board but with some modest departments).

I'm not "dissing" Lancaster, it's a good university, but it is not better (or worse) than Newcastle, Birmingham, Nottingham. I mean...who cares about the Nobel laureates and significant research income (and world leading research) at those universities...

It is difficult to compare multi-faculty universities, especially ones very different in size such as Lancaster and Birmingham/Manchester, but there certainly is not this "ladder" in place. Most of the Russell and 1994 Group universities provide a broadly comparable education, certainly for an undergraduate.



No it's not. The membership of the Russell Group is liable to change and hasn't remained the same since it was created. Warwick and LSE weren't original members of the Russell Group, for example.



Pedantic point, but York was still fairly high in the early years of the league tables (and is, or certainly was, one of the universities to have never dropped out of the Sunday Times top 10). So there was no need for it to "shoot up".



What makes you say that?



Not really...

Hmm well I don't know everything about these universities so that's perfectly viable. League tables aren't everything, I agree - a difference of more than ten in ranking must indicate something though lool

Ok, maybe I went a bit over the top with the list there. But I just don't understand why Universities like Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Liverpool and Leeds are always ranked so low in the League Tables, (around 25-35) they are all old, well established Univesities. I don't understand how places like Bath, York, Lancaster, Exeter and Loughborough are more highly ranked than them? These are all much newer and not as large.

No, because it's really not the case that 12 > 13 > 14.....

What's more you can significantly narrow this difference yourself by fiddling with the weighting (sending Lancaster down to 13 and Nottingham up to 15 - using the same statistics).

For most of the years league tables have been in existence these universities have outranked Lancaster (some by well over 10 places). This didn't mean that Lancaster was "miles behind" them, and, now that Lancaster has ranked in the top ten this year, doesn't mean Lancaster has overcome this gulf overnight.

I probably sound like a broken record but I really cann't emphasise the point- this ladder does not exist in real life.

Chill your beans, I was only trying to say that I wouldn't call Lancaster worse.

I even said league tables weren't everything and that you may be right, so don't get your knickers in a twist over it lol.

Well, you said that certain universities were "worse"....



Yes, but you still seem to think a difference of 10 places possibly says something.

I'm not criticising you, but I'm just incredibly frustrated that we have the same threads time and time again and that people with little experience of higher education (some don't have any) speak with such authority. I'm not saying you are one of them, though.

Birkbeck and SOAS.

Birkbeck definitely.