Article: How important is uni prestige?
Scroll to see replies
I did it the other way around - first degree at a good non-RG, Masters at a low ranking RG and PhD at an established RG.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
Original post by returnmigrant
I did it the other way around - first degree at a good non-RG, Masters at a low ranking RG and PhD at an established RG.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
I enjoyed reading your response
it's interesting to see how you experienced similar going from ex poly to rg. I'm really glad to have got a dialogue going on this because although I can't speak for all rg unis and it's never fair to tar anything with the same brush, I think it's important to urge people that so called prestige isn't the be all and end all. My stake in this is that I don't like to think of people choosing a course that isn't right for them based on so called prestige (what with many less traditional subjects being offered by ex polys). I just think it is important to open people's mind.I also went to an open day at an ex poly where I realised it definitely wasn't for me when the lecturers joked about the dissertation being this unpleasant thing you had to do and to me this seemed immature and patronising and anti academic. My point being that I think the course itself is vital for getting a good match (as well as location and availability of facilities).
Original post by beautifulbigmacs
I enjoyed reading your response it's interesting to see how you experienced similar going from ex poly to rg. I'm really glad to have got a dialogue going on this because although I can't speak for all rg unis and it's never fair to tar anything with the same brush, I think it's important to urge people that so called prestige isn't the be all and end all. My stake in this is that I don't like to think of people choosing a course that isn't right for them based on so called prestige (what with many less traditional subjects being offered by ex polys). I just think it is important to open people's mind.
I also went to an open day at an ex poly where I realised it definitely wasn't for me when the lecturers joked about the dissertation being this unpleasant thing you had to do and to me this seemed immature and patronising and anti academic. My point being that I think the course itself is vital for getting a good match (as well as location and availability of facilities).
it's interesting to see how you experienced similar going from ex poly to rg. I'm really glad to have got a dialogue going on this because although I can't speak for all rg unis and it's never fair to tar anything with the same brush, I think it's important to urge people that so called prestige isn't the be all and end all. My stake in this is that I don't like to think of people choosing a course that isn't right for them based on so called prestige (what with many less traditional subjects being offered by ex polys). I just think it is important to open people's mind.I also went to an open day at an ex poly where I realised it definitely wasn't for me when the lecturers joked about the dissertation being this unpleasant thing you had to do and to me this seemed immature and patronising and anti academic. My point being that I think the course itself is vital for getting a good match (as well as location and availability of facilities).
I completely agree and one of the huge issues in university choices for 17 year olds is that prestige plays has way too much weight. Did you see my blog post today and yesterday (it's in the blogs section, can send you a link to it if needed). But basically it was about how I chose universities the first time round and it was so ill informed. And I wasn't the minority in that respect.
I then dropped out of top RG uni (well Oxford) and went to Bath (nonRG but brilliant uni) and had the best time. One of the most eminent academics at Bath was my project supervisor in final year and he did his undergrad at Cambridge, PhD at Oxford and a fellow at Harvard. He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige. It's dynamic and the encouragement to do a placement also helps people to really grow during their degree and makes them more employable.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by returnmigrant
I did it the other way around - first degree at a good non-RG, Masters at a low ranking RG and PhD at an established RG.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
Without question, the non-RG was the better experience and for all the reasons listed above - smaller, campus based, more friendly, all resources were better (library, health care, transport etc etc), and the courses led the way in cross-discipline teaching. The Masters Uni was 'ok' - it was a city campus so had little atmosphere and relied on the city having the facilities so they didn't bother providing lots of things I had taken for granted previously, but it wasnt stuffed full of public-school kids and the lecturers were interested in their students, and I was encouraged to get involved in research in areas outside my MA.
Finally, the PhD Uni. I hated it. It was enormous, totally impersonal and I felt everything was revolving around the academics not the students. The buildings were awful (geriatric, tatty and with ancient fittings/furniture) and none of the PhD students had designated study space (unlike both my previous Unis where they had state of the art communal offices). Whilst my supervisors were both great, I felt I didnt belong there, that the Uni itself just wanted to take my Research Council funding (oooo goody, shiny money) and give me precisely nothing in return. The Uni was so snooty and so far up-itself it was laughable - it was like stepping back into the 1950s.
So, don't ever think RG is 'better'. Its not. Go to a Uni that encourages you, that welcomes you and values you, and In my experience that is far more likely to be a non-RG/'top' Uni.
Hi,
I think that your experiences sounds interesting.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied. I would say having a RG uni in your CV does look better overall.
Where did you study?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by EtherealNymph22
I completely agree and one of the huge issues in university choices for 17 year olds is that prestige plays has way too much weight. Did you see my blog post today and yesterday (it's in the blogs section, can send you a link to it if needed). But basically it was about how I chose universities the first time round and it was so ill informed. And I wasn't the minority in that respect.
I then dropped out of top RG uni (well Oxford) and went to Bath (nonRG but brilliant uni) and had the best time. One of the most eminent academics at Bath was my project supervisor in final year and he did his undergrad at Cambridge, PhD at Oxford and a fellow at Harvard. He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige. It's dynamic and the encouragement to do a placement also helps people to really grow during their degree and makes them more employable.
Bath over Oxford any day for me.
I then dropped out of top RG uni (well Oxford) and went to Bath (nonRG but brilliant uni) and had the best time. One of the most eminent academics at Bath was my project supervisor in final year and he did his undergrad at Cambridge, PhD at Oxford and a fellow at Harvard. He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige. It's dynamic and the encouragement to do a placement also helps people to really grow during their degree and makes them more employable.
Bath over Oxford any day for me.
Link please
I'm really pleased to see a dialogue opening up on this because I think it's what is needed because the A level years are hard enough without this huge pressure of it being a case of rg or bust (a mentality that had a very stressful influence on me at the time).
Original post by Pete80
Hi,
I think that your experiences sounds interesting interesting.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied. I would say having a RG uni in your CV does look better overall.
Where did you study?
I think that your experiences sounds interesting interesting.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied. I would say having a RG uni in your CV does look better overall.
Where did you study?
maybe I'm playing devils advocate, maybe I'm being blunt. But who sez??
Prestige matters more in the humanities if you want to get a job in a different area. You'll get a better shot for this with a degree from Oxbridge, Durham, UCL, St Andrews, etc. than from Hull, Sunderland or Kingston.
The student experience is something different. I really appreciate the attractive architecture of 'prestigious' unis, but it doesn't mean that those who are inside are better people. The rents are also likely to be more important at prestigious unis...
Ex polys and some other unis can be very attractive for their industry and professional courses, which often guarantee a job soon after graduation, but this is perhaps more relevant at master's level.
It depends on what you want to do after.
The student experience is something different. I really appreciate the attractive architecture of 'prestigious' unis, but it doesn't mean that those who are inside are better people. The rents are also likely to be more important at prestigious unis...
Ex polys and some other unis can be very attractive for their industry and professional courses, which often guarantee a job soon after graduation, but this is perhaps more relevant at master's level.
It depends on what you want to do after.
Original post by returnmigrant
I did it the other way around - first degree at a good non-RG, Masters at a low ranking RG and PhD at an established RG.
Sussex->Liverpool->Bristol->"BINGO!"?
Original post by EtherealNymph22
I completely agree and one of the huge issues in university choices for 17 year olds is that prestige plays has way too much weight. Did you see my blog post today and yesterday (it's in the blogs section, can send you a link to it if needed). But basically it was about how I chose universities the first time round and it was so ill informed. And I wasn't the minority in that respect.
I then dropped out of top RG uni (well Oxford) and went to Bath (nonRG but brilliant uni) and had the best time. One of the most eminent academics at Bath was my project supervisor in final year and he did his undergrad at Cambridge, PhD at Oxford and a fellow at Harvard. He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige. It's dynamic and the encouragement to do a placement also helps people to really grow during their degree and makes them more employable.
Bath over Oxford any day for me.
I then dropped out of top RG uni (well Oxford) and went to Bath (nonRG but brilliant uni) and had the best time. One of the most eminent academics at Bath was my project supervisor in final year and he did his undergrad at Cambridge, PhD at Oxford and a fellow at Harvard. He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige. It's dynamic and the encouragement to do a placement also helps people to really grow during their degree and makes them more employable.
Bath over Oxford any day for me.
Depends on what you and your supervisor studied. If your supervisor found something great in his research then maybe that is why other unis would want to poach him.
I just think it's more easier to be more marketable in a very competitive world, if you go to a RG uni.
(edited 8 years ago)
I don't disagree with the article or the points raised in this thread, but personally I am not prepared to pay £60-70k for a degree from a university that most people have never heard of. If I couldn't go to a top 10 uni I would just study with the OU, much cheaper.
Oxford isn't "stuck in tradition and prestige" (whatever that means) either.
Original post by EtherealNymph22
He had Oxbridge and the rest banging at his door to poach him but he maintained that he loved Bath because it's so refreshing- not stuck in tradition and prestige.
Oxford isn't "stuck in tradition and prestige" (whatever that means) either.
for law and finance it certainly helps to go to a russel group but then again its down to you and experience counts for a lot. if this is the case i.e conservative profession then you certainly help yourself by going to an old and respected institution which was not previously a polytechnic.
Original post by Pete80
I just think it's more easier to be more marketable in a very competitive world, if you go to a RG uni.
I just think it's more easier to be more marketable in a very competitive world, if you go to a RG uni.
no. It's easier, typically, if you go to a university that is in the Russell Group, but this as contingent circumstance, because they are anyway well-regarded universities. I mean, if Oxford or the LSE were tomorrow to leave the Russell Group, no-one would then rethink his plans for applying "I had fancied Balliol but, well, now it's just not RG".
Original post by Snufkin
I don't disagree with the article or the points raised in this thread, but personally I am not prepared to pay £60-70k for a degree from a university that most people have never heard of. If I couldn't go to a top 10 uni I would just study with the OU, much cheaper.
Oxford isn't "stuck in tradition and prestige" (whatever that means) either.
Oxford isn't "stuck in tradition and prestige" (whatever that means) either.
Well in terms of the a lot of the academics. But I can only talk from his experience and his opinion and that was clear in the context of the sentence. No need to be so precious about Oxford because you went there. I will explain my point if you want to message me.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Pete80
Hi,
I think that your experiences sounds interesting.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied. I would say having a RG uni in your CV does look better overall.
Where did you study?
I think that your experiences sounds interesting.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied. I would say having a RG uni in your CV does look better overall.
Where did you study?
List employers that specifically say they prefer students from the RG on their recruitment website or any that you know personally.
They don't 'prefer' it in my opinion. But say for the top IB jobs, I predict that 90% of total applicants went to RG. So if stats say that at X company 90% of grads went to RG then it's not because they prefer the RG it's because that is in proportion to the applicants. So the question is more around culture and why more RG students are likely to do better. I suggest it's not because of the name on their CV (apart from a couple of exceptions perhaps) but because of the type of person and the type of education and the type of environment. And these types of people who are driven and want to do X believe at 18 that RG is be all and end all so they HAVE to go there to the next step. I just think the RG thing is mostly because the students mentality is generally more a treadmill type one.
Maybe A lot of traditional non RG students do creative stuff and maybe don't want all that corporate graduate stuff. It doesn't mean that if they wanted to they couldn't and that they would be dismissed in favour of a weaker overall applicant just because they have 'RG uni' on the CV.
The maintenance of the stance that RG is life is what maintains the skew towards high achieving students choosing to go there at 17 and in turn those people are going to take up a significant proportion of people in the running for top jobs?
It's kind of like the black and minority thing at the oscars this year. Is the problem that the academy prefer white actors? No. Is the problem that white actors are simply better than black actors on a raw ability level? No. The problem is lack of representation in the top top roles by black and minority actors in the type of cinema the oscars celebrate.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by beautifulbigmacs
Link please
I'm really pleased to see a dialogue opening up on this because I think it's what is needed because the A level years are hard enough without this huge pressure of it being a case of rg or bust (a mentality that had a very stressful influence on me at the time).
I'm really pleased to see a dialogue opening up on this because I think it's what is needed because the A level years are hard enough without this huge pressure of it being a case of rg or bust (a mentality that had a very stressful influence on me at the time).
Post #25 and #38 on this page :
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3858445&page=2
This is about my mentality during a levels about university and how it turned out for me when I realised I wanted to get off the treadmill of some 'golden route to life success'.
the next post will be about what I did next with regard to choosing to apply to Bath.
The problem is that mentality is skewing the statistics for employment in terms of RG- a lot of good students go there because they need to verify they are good students by going to a uni in an arbitrary group that they believe the employers favour so significantly that it's more worthy of an equally good or better uni for their course and subject than a non RG. And then the stats reinforce themselves and it looks as though it's because of the RG that students do well. Actually deep down its because of the students themselves as individuals and their drive and ambitions.
I went to a non RG and got a position recently that is RG dominated world- top law firm. I talked to grad recruitment and they said that 80% of their applicants are generally from the RG.
The other problem is because the top students are going there a lot of the employers are going to target them- because it's the most economical thing to do. so again the cycle continues.
It's a bit like a system which perpetuates and creates the need for itself but in my opinion if you have the same drive and ability and potential as someone at an RG your long term outcomes will be equal. I know that from personal experience.
There seems in this article a false distinction between Russell Group Universities and ex-Polys, as if every school is one or the other of these. St Andrews, Surrey, UEA, Bath, Essex, Reading, SOAS, Birkbeck &c are not former polys.
This is an interesting thread right at the moment - in September Deloitte said it is blanking where an applicant got their degree to prevent people from recruiting from the same narrow base of "known" names. And recently Penguin dropped its "graduate only" policy. So if the employment market is making a real effort to recruit more widely, maybe it's about time students looked to apply more widely.
The Sutton Trust report "Earning by Degrees" was also very interesting on the issue of employability, with a clear conclusion that the subject you study is more important than where you study it. A good proportion of the higher starting salaries earned by graduates from traditional RG type unis is explained by the fact that they just don't offer the kinds of degrees that are low-earning. An engineer from an ex poly is going to earn more than a French graduate from Oxford.
I've been a long time fan of The Life Scientific interviews of leading scientists etc by Jim Al Khalili, and after a while I began to notice that I wasn't hearing "So you were one of those straight-A students and went straight to Cambridge/Imperial...' intros. I hear a lot more people with unpromising starts and plenty of "where was that?" unis in the life stories of these high achievers. Anecdotal, I haven't counted them all, but I'd put a bet on most of them being from very ordinary unis. Uni is just the beginning, and the name on the degree is not so critical as panicking sixth formers think.
The Sutton Trust report "Earning by Degrees" was also very interesting on the issue of employability, with a clear conclusion that the subject you study is more important than where you study it. A good proportion of the higher starting salaries earned by graduates from traditional RG type unis is explained by the fact that they just don't offer the kinds of degrees that are low-earning. An engineer from an ex poly is going to earn more than a French graduate from Oxford.
I've been a long time fan of The Life Scientific interviews of leading scientists etc by Jim Al Khalili, and after a while I began to notice that I wasn't hearing "So you were one of those straight-A students and went straight to Cambridge/Imperial...' intros. I hear a lot more people with unpromising starts and plenty of "where was that?" unis in the life stories of these high achievers. Anecdotal, I haven't counted them all, but I'd put a bet on most of them being from very ordinary unis. Uni is just the beginning, and the name on the degree is not so critical as panicking sixth formers think.
Original post by florabritannica
This is an interesting thread right at the moment - in September Deloitte said it is blanking where an applicant got their degree to prevent people from recruiting from the same narrow base of "known" names. And recently Penguin dropped its "graduate only" policy. So if the employment market is making a real effort to recruit more widely, maybe it's about time students looked to apply more widely.
The Sutton Trust report "Earning by Degrees" was also very interesting on the issue of employability, with a clear conclusion that the subject you study is more important than where you study it. A good proportion of the higher starting salaries earned by graduates from traditional RG type unis is explained by the fact that they just don't offer the kinds of degrees that are low-earning. An engineer from an ex poly is going to earn more than a French graduate from Oxford.
I've been a long time fan of The Life Scientific interviews of leading scientists etc by Jim Al Khalili, and after a while I began to notice that I wasn't hearing "So you were one of those straight-A students and went straight to Cambridge/Imperial...' intros. I hear a lot more people with unpromising starts and plenty of "where was that?" unis in the life stories of these high achievers. Anecdotal, I haven't counted them all, but I'd put a bet on most of them being from very ordinary unis. Uni is just the beginning, and the name on the degree is not so critical as panicking sixth formers think.
The Sutton Trust report "Earning by Degrees" was also very interesting on the issue of employability, with a clear conclusion that the subject you study is more important than where you study it. A good proportion of the higher starting salaries earned by graduates from traditional RG type unis is explained by the fact that they just don't offer the kinds of degrees that are low-earning. An engineer from an ex poly is going to earn more than a French graduate from Oxford.
I've been a long time fan of The Life Scientific interviews of leading scientists etc by Jim Al Khalili, and after a while I began to notice that I wasn't hearing "So you were one of those straight-A students and went straight to Cambridge/Imperial...' intros. I hear a lot more people with unpromising starts and plenty of "where was that?" unis in the life stories of these high achievers. Anecdotal, I haven't counted them all, but I'd put a bet on most of them being from very ordinary unis. Uni is just the beginning, and the name on the degree is not so critical as panicking sixth formers think.
I love that programme too... but there's going to be a selection bias in favour of interesting and varied stories - but it does show you that things are less tramlined than the usual TSR consensus holds... or perhaps were less tramlined in the past anyway.
one of my favourites was Prof Mark Lythgoe who went from a diploma in radiology (at Salford tech - now part of Salford uni) to an MSc to a Phd but I don't know if that path would even be possible in the massified sausage factory industry of C21st higher education
Original post by Pete80
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied.
Some employers do prefer the students from RG unis, and others look more at experience rather than where you studied.
This a very common error made by graduates - that because ABC Employer has more grads from X University on their payroll that a company actively prefers that Uni.
In fact is usually a combination of coincidence and that applicants from those Unis assume they will be preferred and therefore more apply. They also tend to have a greater sense of entitlement - and interview confidence - from their possibly more privileged background. Leading companies like Deloitte are now actively recruiting 'Uni blind' and this may result in a more eclectic mix of Uni backgrounds on grad schemes. The days of the old boy network are increasingly being eroded.
No, no-one has ever sneered at my non-RG first degree - both employers and within academia. This 'RG or bust' attitude is very much a school-leaver obsession - it actually isn't born out in the real world. The idea that the 'new Unis' are some sort of second rate consolation prize for the less able, is a myth perpetuated by school staff/parents who were educated within the era of Poly/Uni binary divide and haven't noticed that the HE environment is now a totally different world.
The newer Unis are far more commercially savvy and have their finger firmly on sponsorship and other collaborative deals. They also have a less 'traditional' attitude to what a degree is for, and what drives students to go to Uni. If students are paying ££ for their degree they want to be employable at the end of it. Increasingly the older Unis are realising that providing degrees in single traditional subjects is loosing them ground in terms of student recruitment. As in the 70s when places like Oxford Poly (now Oxford Brookes) led the way in modular/combined subject degrees (and the old Unis suddenly woke up and developed their own), this year we have seen the advent of more 'employability' built into RG Uni degrees - 'with innovation', 'and Management ', 'with year in industry', 'with study abroad' etc - exactly the sort of degrees the ex-Polys have been successfully offering for years. Where they lead, the older Unis will eventually awake from their complacency and follow.
There is nothing inherently wrong with 'older' or 'RG' Unis - its just that applicants must start looking beyond the class snobbery that perpetuates the idea that they are automatically 'better' and the ex-Polys or newer Unis are therefore second-rate. If some of the students who targeted exclusively RG for their Open Day visits actually got over their own or their parents out-dated prejudices, and went to visit some 'other' Unis they would be amazed at the quality of the facilities, teaching and degrees on offer.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Which university would you go to for a career in commercial law?
- Accounting and Finance Bsc in LSE, Warwick or Manchester
- N/A
- Need Help deciding university (RG foundation vs Non-russel)
- Is prestige actually important?
- .
- University repute and prestige
- go to more prestigious uni and get a job, or go to a fairly prestigious uni and not
- Cambridge vs UCL vs KCL A100 Medicine
- Bristol E&M or UCL HPE
- LSE or UCL???
- Rank these for me please
- bath or LSE
- Not so prestigious Uni or Gap Year
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- Deciding between Durham & Leeds
- nottigham vs bristol vs durham vs exeter
- PhD Neuroscience Cambridge vs Oxford vs UCL
- Confused about which uni to go to
- Royal Holloway or Russel Group Uni?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 1 week ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 2 weeks ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 2 weeks ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 2 weeks ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs WarwickTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Decisions Drop In 2024 - open any time - help choosing university offersLast reply 1 week ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 week ago
I've been rejected by UoN Law School but given an alternative offerLast reply 2 weeks ago
2024 applicants: what's your main concern around starting uni?Last reply 2 weeks ago
UCAS Applications + Uni Applicant Thread Directory for 2024 **Official Thread**Last reply 2 weeks ago
Study now at Exeter or wait one year to study at KCL or Bristol?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Deciding between universities - Exeter vs Warwick
