(Original post by Parasite)
I disagree with this, research at under-graduate level is just as important. Not all science (natural and health) students want to study master/PHD programs so studying in a research led environment is helpful in providing skill sets that can improve employability. This is especially important if the person wants to go into the sciences immediately after they graduate. In medicine and psychology a like, new therapies and techniques are being developed every single day. Going to a Russel group puts you at a slight advantage. The importance of research for other subjects such as Law and English are of no relevance so attending non-Russel groups unis won't put you at a great disadvantage for these subjects.
I agree with the later point about the tutors, but tutors also encourage students to publish their own articles and the final year of a science under-grad degree is spent carrying out a research project so being in an environment which is research focused will be beneficial. Therefore research is also important at under-grad level. My previous comment focused on the benefits of Russel group universities, in terms of research quality, that exceed that of non-Russel group unis, Attending Russel group, for the sciences, is advantageous when applying for masters/PHD programs that require you to put forward research proposals and you will often be asked to discuss any research you have carried out at under-grad level.
I completely agree with this which is why my previous post focused on the advantages of research at Russel groups for research-based degrees such as medicine, psychology and science subjects and not teaching aspects. Russel group unis have the best facilities for research, but that doesn't necessarily equate to better teaching.
Actually I disagree with this point I would say the sciences are the least immune to variance in quality of teaching as new content and discoveries are constantly emerging meaning what was learnt yesterday may no longer be applicable or true tomorrow. Psychology, especially if you want to specialise in cognitive or neuroscience at under-grad level, is research intensive and having some awareness of how to conduct research is advantageous. Teaching, for science subjects, at Russel groups is slightly better because research facilities are better funded, research is internationally brilliant and you are taught by experts in their field blah blah blah.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
But in honesty I would have thought the same in the past before I did my degree/MSc. For the masters my non-RG uni was fine, but I feel it may have been better to do my masters at a RG for the research component (psychology and cognitive neuroscience respectively).
At degree level I think you are just learning the ropes, and would probably be too early entering all the extremely high level stuff of innovation at the boundaries of scientific knowledge.
It's good to have an understanding of innovation at the undergrad level, and even masters, but you can get that from watching TED videos and reading insightful books and journal publications etc., so its not like you are shut out from research findings.
Both RG and non RG probably offer the same or similar in getting you ready to conduct research. I know this was the case for psychology.
I think I still stand by my point that the research innovation only really shines at masters level, simply because most people haven't developed their knowledge enough really at the undergraduate level to contribute to this, which is really only introductory (but still a hell of a lot, of course).
In medicine this may be different, but as far as I'm aware, most medical schools offer a good research component - with all schools being part of highly esteemed research universities (thus all uni's publishing a lot of good stuff).
At masters level you are probably knowledgeable enough to design your own studies (with the introductory research from undergrad) and at the same time have the direction from a tutor who is going for innovation, and chances may be improved if you want to push for publication.
This is assuming most people at undergrad don't publish (not enough knowledge/or student and supervisor don't want to). As far as I'm aware, only very few do, regardless of university - though bit more so at RG uni's.
Bare in mind that I haven't published, but know from my undergraduate psychology and masters cognitive neuroscience at a non-RG that teaching in research is sufficient and that, in my own experience, my undergraduate studies weren't effected.
To summarise, essentially I think for most, research publication at undergrad is too precocious and so it doesn't really make any difference. I think you are ready at the masters level, when many more decide to publish, and so going to a research based (rather than 'teaching based'
Sorry if blabbered or recapitulated anything, still very sleepy!