Least prestigious Russell Group universities. Watch

callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by Twinpeaks)
Because it's about research. That's what determines a Russell Group uni.

The amount of people who don't know that are shocking.
'The amount of people … are shocking.'

The RG is about research but there is a direct correlation between the amount of money spent, the quality of research done, and then finally the prestige of the university. After all, 'prestige' derives partly from the quality of the academics and it is truistical but the more money going into research, the better the quality of academics attracted to a particular institution.
0
reply
SiminaM
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
QUB, Liverpool, Newcastle/Sheffield/Leeds
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by Mad wife)
I'm surprised Qub gets such a bad review. It has a fantastic medical school and is pretty research intensive. It did pretty well in Ref. I don't think it's that bad a university.
Yes but Northern Ireland as a country only has two universities and those are the only two universities north of Dublin. A lot of its quality research relates to the law, politics, art, society, history, geography, biology, literature and archaeology of its own neighbourhood.

QUB medical school is one of the world's major centres for research into trauma injuries. I wonder why?

If Cornwall declared independence, the University of Falmouth would shoot up the rankings.
0
reply
SiminaM
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
(Original post by Borgia)
Newcastle is rated 20th in the country, ahead of Sheffield, Edinburgh and Manchester.

Leeds is not far behind at 23
Newcastle ahead of Edinburgh? :eek:
So glad I didn't look at domestic rankings when applying...:rolleyes:
0
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by callum_law)
'The amount of people … are shocking.'

The RG is about research but there is a direct correlation between the amount of money spent, the quality of research done, and then finally the prestige of the university. After all, 'prestige' derives partly from the quality of the academics and it is truistical but the more money going into research, the better the quality of academics attracted to a particular institution.
if I were going to pick someone up on a slip, I wouldn't go on to explain what's 'truistical'.

The Russell Group now is only a lobbying organisation/PR exercise/cartel, but at the beginning it was intended precisely to shore up the often false notion that the brute sum of research funding attracted is evidence of research quality.
1
reply
callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
if I were going to pick someone up on a slip, I wouldn't go on to explain what's 'truistical'.

The Russell Group now is only a lobbying organisation/PR exercise/cartel, but at the beginning it was intended precisely to shore up the often false notion that the brute sum of research funding attracted is evidence of research quality.
If I were going to correct someone's lexical usage, I'd first check a reputable dictionary to establish the usage was incorrect. I'd suggest looking in the OED: it's listed as a derivative under the entry 'truistic'.

Your argument is that 'X does not necessarily entail Y'. No one is saying that, but there is generally a positive correlation between X and Y as high research spending generally attracts quality academics to conduct lengthy and pricey research.
0
reply
M1011
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by Zachary T-H)
To be honest, it doesn't really matter. I would rather go to the worst of the best university's than the best of the worst university's. I think Queen Mary has received quite a lot of unfair hate on here. I went for an Interview today and it far surpassed the low expectations I had (based on TSR feed back). Good employment rates, excellent student satisfaction and the 11th highest average graduate salary- I don't see peoples problem with it!!
Your inference here seems to be that the worst RG universities are better than the best non-RG universities? Are you joking?

Do you even know what the Russell Group is...?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by callum_law)

Your argument is that 'X does not necessarily entail Y'. No one is saying that, but there is generally a positive correlation between X and Y as high research spending generally attracts quality academics to conduct lengthy and pricey research.
The point is that the amount of money spent on medical research into even trivial conditions dwarfs the amount spent on research in the humanities and many of the social sciences.

What attracts the best academics in these disciplines tends not to be the availability of research funds.
0
reply
callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by M1011)
Your inference here seems to be that the worst RG universities are better than the best non-RG universities? Are you joking?

Do you even know what the Russell Group is...?
Perhaps you could explain why you disagree with the user rather than simply express incredulity.
1
reply
callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The point is that the amount of money spent on medical research into even trivial conditions dwarfs the amount spent on research in the humanities and many of the social sciences.

What attracts the best academics in these disciplines tends not to be the availability of research funds.
Could you flesh out your point please? I don't follow how medicine's being well-financed has anything to do with the label 'research-intensive' connoting prestige.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by callum_law)
Could you flesh out your point please? I don't follow how medicine's being well-financed has anything to do with the label 'research-intensive' connoting prestige.
You are going much further than "research intensive" equalling prestige. You are saying amount spent on research=quality of research=prestige.

Possession or non-possession of a medical school is the single most important factor in the size of a university's research funding.

When the RG was formed, I think all of its original members had medical schools except LSE and that is still true today. No member has been added that doesn't have a medical school. Although Durham and Warwick only have limited provision for teaching medicine both have medical schools and undertake medical research.

There were only KCL, Cardiff (which were the first two new members), QUB, Leicester, Dundee and Keele that then had medical schools that were not original members of the RG.

The largest research income for a university without a medical school is that of Strathclyde.

Swansea's research income is about double that of Aberystwyth and about half as much again as the LSE. You wouldn't find many people turning down the opportunity to work at either LSE (which you might treat as a special case) or Aber to go and work at Swansea. Aber is well recognised in the subjects it teaches and in a few is internationally pre-eminent, but it doesn't have a medical school and (now) Swansea does.

The same can be said for Bath or Loughborough or Aston or Cranfield because even research into the physical sciences (provided you stay away from the big ticket end of physics) is relatively cheap.
2
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Yes but Northern Ireland as a country only has two universities and those are the only two universities north of Dublin. A lot of its quality research relates to the law, politics, art, society, history, geography, biology, literature and archaeology of its own neighbourhood.

QUB medical school is one of the world's major centres for research into trauma injuries. I wonder why?

If Cornwall declared independence, the University of Falmouth would shoot up the rankings.
Every cloud...
---
I learned something new about the Russell Group today...

according to wiki
(13:08 8/3/15)
The Russell Group was formed in 1994 by 17 British research universities – Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College London, Leeds, Liverpool, London School of Economics, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London and Warwick.
perhaps it's hardly surprising that no one knows what it is, who's in it or what it's for... even this website's own wikiarticles defer to the all knowing wiki http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki..._of_University
0
reply
Film
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
Queen Mary, Liverpool, Belfast
0
reply
callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by nulli tertius)
You are going much further than "research intensive" equalling prestige. You are saying amount spent on research=quality of research=prestige.

Possession or non-possession of a medical school is the single most important factor in the size of a university's research funding.

When the RG was formed, I think all of its original members had medical schools except LSE and that is still true today. No member has been added that doesn't have a medical school. Although Durham and Warwick only have limited provision for teaching medicine both have medical schools and undertake medical research.

There were only KCL, Cardiff (which were the first two new members), QUB, Leicester, Dundee and Keele that then had medical schools that were not original members of the RG.

The largest research income for a university without a medical school is that of Strathclyde.

Swansea's research income is about double that of Aberystwyth and about half as much again as the LSE. You wouldn't find many people turning down the opportunity to work at either LSE (which you might treat as a special case) or Aber to go and work at Swansea. Aber is well recognised in the subjects it teaches and in a few is internationally pre-eminent, but it doesn't have a medical school and (now) Swansea does.

The same can be said for Bath or Loughborough or Aston or Cranfield because even research into the physical sciences (provided you stay away from the big ticket end of physics) is relatively cheap.
I never said equalled. I said connotes, correlates. These are very different terms. The thing about medical spending dominating research spending is that is contributes to the overall spending. No one is supposing Mr A who is an academic in sociology is going to be attracted to University One because One's overall research budget is higher than University Two's research budget. What is significant is subject-specific spending which I believe is larger at RG unis, excluding medical research spending. Also, I don't think it's just medical research that contributes. Sciences in general dominate spending.
0
reply
frigg113
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
Tbh i dont see why people rave about russel group ,most of them are crap

Only Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE are rated as good. Rest are meh
3
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by callum_law)
Your argument is that 'X does not necessarily entail Y'. No one is saying that, but there is generally a positive correlation between X and Y as high research spending generally attracts quality academics to conduct lengthy and pricey research.
I had a nosy look at your user-profile and see that you're at Exeter. This is happy circumstance because I did my first degree at York and - for all that they've both allowed themselves to be seduced - these are two of the dozen or so universities with best reason to be peeved at the Russell Group and its agenda setting.

The Russell Group from its inception billed itself as representing 'the leading Research-Intensive universities'. And that was naughty since this was true only if parsed as 'The research-intensive universities leading the race to attract money understood as a brute sum rather than adjusted for size and partitioned by faculty', which is how no-one would parse that.

York, Exeter, Durham, Bath and so on were rightly cheesed. The notion that the quality of research activity could sensibly be measured like this seemed outrageous, some several of these were then a third of the size of some of the RG institutions and had a very strong bias toward the arts and social sciences rather than medicine, pharmacy and robotics. Well of course they weren't going to be attracting as much money if that was only an aggregate amount.

The 1994 group was set up solely to counter this narrative but the PR battle was lost as the Russell Group, and especially its lesser lights, kept pushing the notion that these were, yes, 'the leading research-intensive universities'. It was a maddening time to be a York or Exeter graduate conscious that the work being done at your alma mater was quite as good as at half the RG but that a popular imagination couldn't be convinced of it because persuaded that research money = research quality = prestige.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by callum_law)
We is significant is subject-specific spending which I believe is larger at RG unis, excluding medical research spending.
The differences are often insignificant and access to funding for your research project is much more likely to turn on whether your face fits.

The key differences in the humanities and social sciences are:-

(a) access to a permanent position

(b) promotion

(c) (lack of) managerial responsibility

(d) teaching obligations (and this is where many post-92s lose out. Academics are simply required to teach more).

(e) student quality-partly intelligence but often commitment

(f) library facilities

(g) quality of life (housing costs, schools, amenities, commuting time)

(h) geographic accessabiity
0
reply
Borgia
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by frances98)
Nottingham is nowhere near the north. I agree with it ending at York. Leeds at a push

Posted from TSR Mobile
Nottingham is in the midlands like I said

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North–S...vide_(England)
0
reply
Borgia
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by frigg113)
Tbh i dont see why people rave about russel group ,most of them are crap

Only Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE are rated as good. Rest are meh
Yeah m8 cambridge is **** isn't it
0
reply
Random1357
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by Borgia)
Yeah m8 cambridge is **** isn't it
He said Oxbridge not Oxford
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (137)
17.77%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (73)
9.47%
No I am happy with my course choice (454)
58.88%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (107)
13.88%

Watched Threads

View All