Russell Group = Ivy League? What a joke.

The relatively recent creation of a self-adulating group of so-called research intensive institutions - the Russell Group was an inevitable and perhaps desirable step necessary in order to preserve whatever credibility is left in the UK's higher education. However, its inherently diluted nature threatens to render it superfluos and, more worryingly, damaging. 19 institutions is a far too great number to retain any credibility. The comparison with the US' Ivy League is therefore dramatically flawed. There are only 8 universities in the Ivy League, in a country thriving with more than 3,000 higher education institutions and with at least 10 other universities enjoying outstanding world-class reputation and thus deserving such honour. The Uk, on the other hand, counts little more than 120 institutions with university title - and an "elite" constituted by 19 entities. Needless to say, this setting is not only purposeless but worrying. It would be far more appropriate to drastically reduce this number to a max. of 5 institutions - probably the "big 4" research intensive unis - Ox, Cam, Imperial and UCL with the obvious addition of the LSE - thus vesting the group with some sort of plausible credibility.

The relatively recent creation of a self-adulating group of so-called research intensive institutions - the Russell Group was an inevitable and perhaps desirable step necessary in order to preserve whatever credibility is left in the UK's higher education. However, its inherently diluted nature threatens to render it superfluos and, more worryingly, damaging. 19 institutions is a far too great number to retain any credibility. The comparison with the US' Ivy League is therefore dramatically flawed. There are only 8 universities in the Ivy League, in a country thriving with more than 3,000 higher education institutions and with at least 10 other universities enjoying outstanding world-class reputation and thus deserving such honour. The Uk, on the other hand, counts little more than 120 institutions with university title - and an "elite" constituted by 19 entities. Needless to say, this setting is not only purposeless but worrying. It would be far more appropriate to drastically reduce this number to a max. of 5 institutions - probably the "big 4" research intensive unis - Ox, Cam, Imperial and UCL with the obvious addition of the LSE - thus vesting the group with some sort of plausible credibility.

To be fair, the Ivy League isn't very credible as a list of the best higher educational institutions either. It has Stanford but not MIT, doesn't include the top LACs like Amherst or Williams, etc. etc. It was a league of sports clubs in origin.

To be fair, the Ivy League isn't very credible as a list of the best higher educational institutions either. It has Stanford but not MIT, doesn't include the top LACs like Amherst or Williams, etc. etc. It was a league of sports clubs in origin.

Yes, he's right. No Stanford m8. :P

The comparison with the US' Ivy League is therefore dramatically flawed.

Who ever tried to make that comparison?

I thought it was a union of sorts to press the government for changes the group wanted.

I'm pretty sure that's what the Russell Group is. When Imperial were pressing for higher variable fees I think they argued that the group should be cut down in size so that they could be more effective at lobbying the government.

Well, from what I can see (having relatives in the US), it would seem the educational system there is ' a joke' in comparison to the UK one anyway.

Their 'degrees' are little more than A-Levels here. People 'buy themselves' places at the 'top institutions'. Alternatively, if you excel at a particular sport whilst being only 'mediocre' academically, gaining a place at a 'top' uni, doesn't seem to be too difficult.

That's just my opinion anyway. I'll happily stick to my degrees here in the UK

Oh dear...