Russel group?

Why is there this mania about the Russel Group it sometimes seems like people think it's all or nothing (well except Oxbridge) but there are some exemplary universities not in the Russel group like St Andrews or Royal Holloway so why do people kind of look down on non Russel Groups sometimes?

RG is ultimately just a brand - although a strong one at that.

I think people emphasise the importance of attending an RG university just because of some of the power house universities that are part of the group - places like oxbridge, the LSE etc. Obviously it's a big deal for any uni to be lumped into the same group as them. What people overlook is that RG eligibility is based on research intensity/quality, something which is pretty subjective in and of itself.

Unis like St Andrews just aren't big enough to qualify - the quality of undergraduate tuition is great but one look at global rankings such as QS show that their research reputation is far from crazy simply due to small departmental size.

All in all, the brand is all that counts in some eyes. Many people overlook the fact that you might receive a better quality of education at say, St Andrews rather than QMUL, in favour of having "Russell Group" on your CV. People who hate on non-RG unis just because they're non-RG shouldn't really be listened to; most of the discussion is nonsense anyway.

RG is totally irrelevant to most employers - they prefer to see work experience e.g a year in industry.

RG doesn't preclude work experience.

RG is a marketing body set up by older universities in the bigger cities because they feared the changes made to higher education would mean they would lose some of their research funding. Prior to 1992 Polytechnics werent able to apply for research funding and the new rules at that tie opened up for Polytechnics to apply for university status.

There are universities outside the Russell Group every bit as good as and often better than some of the RG. Examples being Bath, Lancaster and St Andrews.

Prior to 2011 there were 2 groups representing leading universities. One was the RG and the other was the 1994 group. Prior to that time Durham, Exeter, York and Queen Mary were in same group as universities such as Bath, Lancaster, St Andrews and a number of other universities mainly in smaller cities. Whilst 4 decided to pay to join the RG others decided not to. The 4 that left are not any better for joining and the group that stayed are not any worse for not joining.

There is absolutely no reason why students would be any better in the RG group than some of the others. Students are falling for the RG hype often being misled by parents and teachers many of whom arent aware of why the RG was set up.

You stated, 'RG is totally irrelevant to most employers - they prefer to see work experience e.g a year in industry.'
I replied that RG does not preclude work experience! Everything else you said made sense, but you were wrong on that point, you can go to an RG and have work experience e.g a year in industry.

I didn't ask about the history of RG etc etc. I'm too long in the tooth for that .

I didnt make that statement check. There are so many students being misled that everything abut the RG is wonderful and anything outside is poor. All lies. Places like Bath have better year in industry than RG.

RG doesn't preclude work experience.

My mistake! it was good old mutley79, apologies, however, my response still stands.
I honestly think the story of the RG on these threads has been done to death. I'm sure everyone and their mother has been educated on it but you are missing a trick! People are choosing to go to RG's not because they don't know how it began (a few still don't), but because it has evolved beyond that and RG has become the brand for excellent UK universities. That doesn't mean there aren't any excellent unis outside of it. I didn't want to get into this debate except for my comment re: RG and work experience but I've dragged myself it.

No but not many offer a year in industry do they? The degrees tend to be theoretical too - engineering at RG is not a great idea.

I haven't said a single thing about Bath or teaching at RGs. Your annoyance at RGs and the hype is making you irrational please step back and stop having an argument with yourself.

I haven't

You miss the point. There are actually some universities outside the RG that are actually better than some within it. It isnt right that RG is necessarily better than non RG. That is the myth the RG puts about which fools so many and leads to students being misled into thinking only RG is good,

RG doesn't preclude work experience.

I notice you have not been able to accept you were wrong for implying studying at an RG means you can not have a yr in industry or have work experience.

Please

.