Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
I've noticed people on TSR are often quick to criticise RG universities, specifically those which aren't typically thought of as being in the UK top 10 (so basically all of the Redbricks plus Glasgow, Southampton, Queen Mary, Cardiff and QUB).
The main criticisms are that there's an awful lot of marketing involved, that they are a 'self-selecting' club and that some are stronger than others. These are all true, but that doesn't mean these universities are no good. Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, even the 'worst' Russell Group universities are pretty decent. Even the 'lowest' ranked ones are pretty high on global league tables (all of them usually sit within the top 200 and can actually claim to being part of the global top 1%, unlike supposed rivals like Reading, Sussex, Lancaster etc. which make similar claims), are extremely well-endowed and unlikely to face any sort of financial trouble in the future (which is extremely relevant in current times).
Yes there are other good universities, but it's only really a couple of exceptions (St Andrews and Bath) which are on a par with this group. If pressed, most people would probably rather attend an RG uni than some non-descript plateglass or an ex-poly.
The main criticisms are that there's an awful lot of marketing involved, that they are a 'self-selecting' club and that some are stronger than others. These are all true, but that doesn't mean these universities are no good. Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, even the 'worst' Russell Group universities are pretty decent. Even the 'lowest' ranked ones are pretty high on global league tables (all of them usually sit within the top 200 and can actually claim to being part of the global top 1%, unlike supposed rivals like Reading, Sussex, Lancaster etc. which make similar claims), are extremely well-endowed and unlikely to face any sort of financial trouble in the future (which is extremely relevant in current times).
Yes there are other good universities, but it's only really a couple of exceptions (St Andrews and Bath) which are on a par with this group. If pressed, most people would probably rather attend an RG uni than some non-descript plateglass or an ex-poly.
Scroll to see replies
On TSR theres a lot of snobbery of thinking that a Russell group is like the God tier of universities, when in fact some of them are on a par or even less with some other non RG unis (course depending). Russell group unis are good on the research funding, around 70% of grants, so for subjects that need that its really good thing. for any uni, you do have unis that are very good in some subjects more than others. So like Lancaster (non RG) is good in physics, management, business, computer studies and medicine. Loughborough (non RG) is sports.
Re financial trouble, Lincoln (non RG) and York (RG), cardiff (RG) are facing that https://thetab.com/uk/2024/07/22/uk-universities-are-crumbling-these-are-the-exact-unis-at-serious-risk-of-closing-375931. Although Im very sure they will get bailed out if they do.
I can only go by our own example and my two. Eldest studied particle physics at Lancaster (non RG) and is now at Manchester (RG) for her phd. The support she had during her time at Lancaster getting placements was fantastic, and provided the means to do her masters project which helped set up the phd in the right field.
The youngest will be studying at Notts Trent (non RG) for Zoo biology. She joined Reading (non RG) last year but wanted to be more closer to home, so she took a gap year and when she saw Notts trent, she wondered why she dismissed it; because its one of the very few places where you can be hands on with animals on the campus, getting first hand experience rather than just solely the classroom.
So for the eldest, she had the funding at both a non RG and a RG, so she cannot complain about either as they are both just as good. I wont know more about Notts trent until later on and seeing what support she gets so ill stand judgement.
The main thing is, as long as you a) get support from your uni department if you have any struggles and not dismiss you, b) they help and assist you getting a work placement, and c) they have a great help and support in getting you a grad job, and futher alumni work and careers support for when you leave uni, thats the main thing.
Re financial trouble, Lincoln (non RG) and York (RG), cardiff (RG) are facing that https://thetab.com/uk/2024/07/22/uk-universities-are-crumbling-these-are-the-exact-unis-at-serious-risk-of-closing-375931. Although Im very sure they will get bailed out if they do.
I can only go by our own example and my two. Eldest studied particle physics at Lancaster (non RG) and is now at Manchester (RG) for her phd. The support she had during her time at Lancaster getting placements was fantastic, and provided the means to do her masters project which helped set up the phd in the right field.
The youngest will be studying at Notts Trent (non RG) for Zoo biology. She joined Reading (non RG) last year but wanted to be more closer to home, so she took a gap year and when she saw Notts trent, she wondered why she dismissed it; because its one of the very few places where you can be hands on with animals on the campus, getting first hand experience rather than just solely the classroom.
So for the eldest, she had the funding at both a non RG and a RG, so she cannot complain about either as they are both just as good. I wont know more about Notts trent until later on and seeing what support she gets so ill stand judgement.
The main thing is, as long as you a) get support from your uni department if you have any struggles and not dismiss you, b) they help and assist you getting a work placement, and c) they have a great help and support in getting you a grad job, and futher alumni work and careers support for when you leave uni, thats the main thing.
who says RG are bad. They are not. Are there other universities equally as good. Yes. Do international rankings mean anything. No.
International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one. RG applies to the first group. Non RG tend to be in the latter group.
International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one. RG applies to the first group. Non RG tend to be in the latter group.
Original post by Ghostlady
On TSR theres a lot of snobbery of thinking that a Russell group is like the God tier of universities, when in fact some of them are on a par or even less with some other non RG unis (course depending). Russell group unis are good on the research funding, around 70% of grants, so for subjects that need that its really good thing. for any uni, you do have unis that are very good in some subjects more than others. So like Lancaster (non RG) is good in physics, management, business, computer studies and medicine. Loughborough (non RG) is sports.
Re financial trouble, Lincoln (non RG) and York (RG), cardiff (RG) are facing that https://thetab.com/uk/2024/07/22/uk-universities-are-crumbling-these-are-the-exact-unis-at-serious-risk-of-closing-375931. Although Im very sure they will get bailed out if they do.
I can only go by our own example and my two. Eldest studied particle physics at Lancaster (non RG) and is now at Manchester (RG) for her phd. The support she had during her time at Lancaster getting placements was fantastic, and provided the means to do her masters project which helped set up the phd in the right field.
The youngest will be studying at Notts Trent (non RG) for Zoo biology. She joined Reading (non RG) last year but wanted to be more closer to home, so she took a gap year and when she saw Notts trent, she wondered why she dismissed it; because its one of the very few places where you can be hands on with animals on the campus, getting first hand experience rather than just solely the classroom.
So for the eldest, she had the funding at both a non RG and a RG, so she cannot complain about either as they are both just as good. I wont know more about Notts trent until later on and seeing what support she gets so ill stand judgement.
The main thing is, as long as you a) get support from your uni department if you have any struggles and not dismiss you, b) they help and assist you getting a work placement, and c) they have a great help and support in getting you a grad job, and futher alumni work and careers support for when you leave uni, thats the main thing.
Re financial trouble, Lincoln (non RG) and York (RG), cardiff (RG) are facing that https://thetab.com/uk/2024/07/22/uk-universities-are-crumbling-these-are-the-exact-unis-at-serious-risk-of-closing-375931. Although Im very sure they will get bailed out if they do.
I can only go by our own example and my two. Eldest studied particle physics at Lancaster (non RG) and is now at Manchester (RG) for her phd. The support she had during her time at Lancaster getting placements was fantastic, and provided the means to do her masters project which helped set up the phd in the right field.
The youngest will be studying at Notts Trent (non RG) for Zoo biology. She joined Reading (non RG) last year but wanted to be more closer to home, so she took a gap year and when she saw Notts trent, she wondered why she dismissed it; because its one of the very few places where you can be hands on with animals on the campus, getting first hand experience rather than just solely the classroom.
So for the eldest, she had the funding at both a non RG and a RG, so she cannot complain about either as they are both just as good. I wont know more about Notts trent until later on and seeing what support she gets so ill stand judgement.
The main thing is, as long as you a) get support from your uni department if you have any struggles and not dismiss you, b) they help and assist you getting a work placement, and c) they have a great help and support in getting you a grad job, and futher alumni work and careers support for when you leave uni, thats the main thing.
That’s odd, because I find people on TSR are usually quick to say things like ‘Russell Group doesn’t mean anything’ and ‘reputation doesn’t matter’, unless of course it’s Oxbridge, or maybe a top 10 university.
Just as an example, on threads in which people ask for advice on whether they should study at, say, Birmingham University or Aston, you’ll often get people saying that there’s not really much difference between those two institutions in terms of quality and prestige. I mean, really?!
Whereas if you substitute Birmingham with a similar university like Warwick, which happens to be seen as a top 10 institution, people will say ‘absolutely, go for Warwick, no question!’
I’m talking more about the universities which are thought of as being in the top 11-25 range, so basically Birmingham, Nottingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Exeter, York, Bath, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southampton, QUB, QMUL, and sometimes even Manchester and KCL. (Maybe less so with Bath, York and Exeter – these are often seen as ‘posh’ universities and sometimes considered top 10.) KCL suffers simply because it’s not Imperial/LSE/UCL, despite being only marginally less good than those institutions and objectively a top 6/7 UK university, but the logic of TSR says otherwise.
But it’s particularly the ex-industrial, regional Redbricks which seem to get a rough deal in terms of perception on here, even though they are all strong, traditional universities, do pretty well on most important measures and, I would have thought, are basically in a league of their own outside of Oxbridge, the top London universities and maybe Edinburgh. Yet a lot of people on here seem to think that the historic Redbricks are not really that much better than places like Reading, Kent, UEA, etc.
I don’t understand why this is. It's an impression I’ve got from reading threads on TSR and elsewhere on the internet.
My perception is that there’s a (noticeable) gap between the top 20-25 and then the next 20-25 (non-RG plate glass and other institutions like Aberdeen, SOAS, Hull, etc.), and then the next 50-60 (so basically the ex-polys). There might be some hierarchy within these groups, but essentially those are the main dividing lines.
But apparently not? According to TSR, it’s all about Oxbridge, then maybe LSE/Imperial/UCL, then maybe Durham/St. Andrews/Warwick (on a good day). But beyond that, no one cares. That’s the attitude. And frankly it’s a toxic attitude – this idea that even genuinely excellent universities like Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester are in fact nothing special, because they don’t belong to this very small circle of elites.
I’m just eager to know what’s causing this perception. Have league tables distorted our perceptions of prestige over the last 30 years? Or does it have something to do with our widening social inequality?
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by weepinbell
I've noticed people on TSR are often quick to criticise RG universities, specifically those which aren't typically thought of as being in the UK top 10 (so basically all of the Redbricks plus Glasgow, Southampton, Queen Mary, Cardiff and QUB).
The main criticisms are that there's an awful lot of marketing involved, that they are a 'self-selecting' club and that some are stronger than others. These are all true, but that doesn't mean these universities are no good. Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, even the 'worst' Russell Group universities are pretty decent. Even the 'lowest' ranked ones are pretty high on global league tables (all of them usually sit within the top 200 and can actually claim to being part of the global top 1%, unlike supposed rivals like Reading, Sussex, Lancaster etc. which make similar claims), are extremely well-endowed and unlikely to face any sort of financial trouble in the future (which is extremely relevant in current times).
Yes there are other good universities, but it's only really a couple of exceptions (St Andrews and Bath) which are on a par with this group. If pressed, most people would probably rather attend an RG uni than some non-descript plateglass or an ex-poly.
The main criticisms are that there's an awful lot of marketing involved, that they are a 'self-selecting' club and that some are stronger than others. These are all true, but that doesn't mean these universities are no good. Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, even the 'worst' Russell Group universities are pretty decent. Even the 'lowest' ranked ones are pretty high on global league tables (all of them usually sit within the top 200 and can actually claim to being part of the global top 1%, unlike supposed rivals like Reading, Sussex, Lancaster etc. which make similar claims), are extremely well-endowed and unlikely to face any sort of financial trouble in the future (which is extremely relevant in current times).
Yes there are other good universities, but it's only really a couple of exceptions (St Andrews and Bath) which are on a par with this group. If pressed, most people would probably rather attend an RG uni than some non-descript plateglass or an ex-poly.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. For Engineering non-RG is often better as they offer a year in industry.
RG = research and little focus on good teaching.
Original post by swanseajack1
who says RG are bad. They are not. Are there other universities equally as good. Yes. Do international rankings mean anything. No.
International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one. RG applies to the first group. Non RG tend to be in the latter group.
International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one. RG applies to the first group. Non RG tend to be in the latter group.
'International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one.'
Yes, and older universities in larger cities tend to be better universities, whether that's fair or not. Generally, that's where the bulk of research activity and investment is concentrated. There might be some exceptions, but that is the tendency.
Original post by Muttley79
Wrong, wrong, wrong. For Engineering non-RG is often better as they offer a year in industry.
RG = research and little focus on good teaching.
RG = research and little focus on good teaching.
That's nice. But research is the baseline of a university's reputation. That's why RG universities tend to buoy. It doesn't really matter if they fall down rankings or have poor student satisfaction. Good teaching is not a very reliable proxy.
This might be a controversial opinion, but you're not really there to be looked after. You're there to become an independent learner and researcher, and seek opportunities, resources and support for yourself.
Original post by weepinbell
'International ranking table have always favoured older universities in larger cities over newer ones in smaller one.'
Yes, and older universities in larger cities tend to be better universities, whether that's fair or not. Generally, that's where the bulk of research activity and investment is concentrated. There might be some exceptions, but that is the tendency.
Yes, and older universities in larger cities tend to be better universities, whether that's fair or not. Generally, that's where the bulk of research activity and investment is concentrated. There might be some exceptions, but that is the tendency.
Just a couple of universities. Bath and St Andrews are small cities and dont do too well in international rankings but are better than others that do. QMUL does well in international tables but not so well in UK rankings. Rankings are totally inaccurate. Ignore them.
Original post by swanseajack1
Just a couple of universities. Bath and St Andrews are small cities and dont do too well in international rankings but are better than others that do. QMUL does well in international tables but not so well in UK rankings. Rankings are totally inaccurate. Ignore them.
I agree that rankings are flawed. But international rankings are less flawed.
Original post by weepinbell
I agree that rankings are flawed. But international rankings are less flawed.
That may be your opinion. It isnt mine. There has been a historical issue with international tables favouring big city universities especially in London and going against small city universities.
Original post by Muttley79
Wrong, wrong, wrong. For Engineering non-RG is often better as they offer a year in industry.
RG = research and little focus on good teaching.
RG = research and little focus on good teaching.
so tell me this - who is most likely to get a job offer for engineering someone who graduates from Imperial or someone who graduates from a NON-RG University?
Original post by swanseajack1
That may be your opinion. It isnt mine. There has been a historical issue with international tables favouring big city universities especially in London and going against small city universities.
Right, but that's because they do in fact tend to be better universities, whether we like it or not.
And that's not just an opinion. It is almost objectively the case that these universities perform better at research, again, whether that's fair or not.
Research is pretty much the raison d'être of universities.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by hfufdub466
so tell me this - who is most likely to get a job offer for engineering someone who graduates from Imperial or someone who graduates from a NON-RG University?
Well funny you should ask. I've taught students who've gone to Brookes beat Imperial and Oxbridge grads to top jobs. It isn't where you go it's your ability to do the job. Non-RG grads have projects to show, up-to-date knowledge, often newer facilities [3D printing included 12 years ago].
Look at Formula Student, for example, top UK unis Brookes and Bath!
https://imeche.org/events/formula-student/previous-events
Original post by weepinbell
Right, but that's because they do in fact tend to be better universities, whether we like it or not.
And that's not just an opinion. It is almost objectively the case that these universities perform better at research, again, whether that's fair or not.
Research is pretty much the raison d'être of universities.
And that's not just an opinion. It is almost objectively the case that these universities perform better at research, again, whether that's fair or not.
Research is pretty much the raison d'être of universities.
All unis do research but they are also there to teach! RG doesn't guarantee a good uni - far from it!
Google uni x research and you will see. Non-RG usually focus on some areas e.g EV, new tech and often it’s cutting dge stuff. Edge Hill, for example, has a brilliant Maths intervention programme for Early years https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/departments/academic/education/every-child-counts/
RG unis are just a club – often teaching is low priority. Please do some research on how they came about!
Original post by Muttley79
Well funny you should ask. I've taught students who've gone to Brookes beat Imperial and Oxbridge grads to top jobs. It isn't where you go it's your ability to do the job. Non-RG grads have projects to show, up-to-date knowledge, often newer facilities [3D printing included 12 years ago].
Look at Formula Student, for example, top UK unis Brookes and Bath!
https://imeche.org/events/formula-student/previous-events
Look at Formula Student, for example, top UK unis Brookes and Bath!
https://imeche.org/events/formula-student/previous-events
If someone does not go to a top RG uni, what should they do throughout their time to improve their chances of securing top jobs once they graduate?
Original post by weepinbell
Right, but that's because they do in fact tend to be better universities, whether we like it or not.
And that's not just an opinion. It is almost objectively the case that these universities perform better at research, again, whether that's fair or not.
Research is pretty much the raison d'être of universities.
And that's not just an opinion. It is almost objectively the case that these universities perform better at research, again, whether that's fair or not.
Research is pretty much the raison d'être of universities.
Your last statement shows that you don’t know much about the history of universities (in the UK or the world).
For every pound a RG university spends on research they get 20p of the cash from tuition fees. That’s the structure of “full economic costing” of research grants and contracts in the UK. The more research a university does the more cash redirected from teaching to subsidise the research.
In some cases that will enrich the teaching environment. In most cases it doesn’t.
A university having a strong research reputation says nothing about the quality or content of their teaching.
That misconception that good research = teaching quality is why you’ll get pushback on TSR. Birmingham were known at one point for having zero hours of teaching by academic staff in the first year of some of their degrees (all teaching was done by PhD students and temp staff contracted in to teach on zero hours contracts - in most cases with zero teaching qualifications). It became standard practice at a large number of RG universities for about a decade until the government introduced the TEF and scared some changes into them.
So yes - in many cases a teaching focused university, particularly one like Aston with an established placement year programme (proven to improve employment prospects post-degree), would be a better choice than a RG university.
There’s some RGs that do prioritise teaching - but they’re the exception not the norm.
(edited 2 months ago)
As someone that works in RG admissions+recruitment, I spend a huge amount of my time telling people to ignore RG status. The downside to the marketing dept doing their job too well.
Original post by keep improving
If someone does not go to a top RG uni, what should they do throughout their time to improve their chances of securing top jobs once they graduate?
Get work experience and aim for a good degree - many jobs recruit institution blind now anyway.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by hfufdub466
so tell me this - who is most likely to get a job offer for engineering someone who graduates from Imperial or someone who graduates from a NON-RG University?
The one who has submitted the best overall application, has relevant experience, and understands the context of the job/industry. And often that isn't the over-confident RG grad.
Another pointed question where it’s really about pick your side, when it isn’t really a good debate. The Russell Group as consistently pointed out is a lobby group for research funding, by & large they have the most significant research contributions in the UK.
Of course for choosing an undergraduate university this will generally not be overly significant interest to most students. Generally most “prestigious” universities are more often then not the RG universities but it is not an exclusive list and im sure Bath/St Andrews/Loughborough have already been pointed out.
It is true that reputation can matter in future opportunities, although its importance is generally over-egged & frankly the careers where it can be significant (i.e. trying to break into GS/Mckinsey/Jane St/similar professional services firms) the list of universities which really provide a competitive advantage is far smaller than the RG members.
Having attended both a non-RG univerity & a RG university there is certainly a benefit to going to universities with excellent facilities, significant annual facilities investment & employer research connections, these do open up opportunities for industry connected dissertations, internships and networking opportunities; and this is a big benefit (although these opportunities tend to go to a relatively moderate percentage of the more proactive students) and again these opportunities are not exclusive to RG universities although I would say the RG disproportionately has these access points.
By in large the RG are strong universities with excellent reputations but RG affiliation is not the reason to choose the university. What you see on a macro level is also very different to choosing for a specific applicant with specific set of requirements.
Of course for choosing an undergraduate university this will generally not be overly significant interest to most students. Generally most “prestigious” universities are more often then not the RG universities but it is not an exclusive list and im sure Bath/St Andrews/Loughborough have already been pointed out.
It is true that reputation can matter in future opportunities, although its importance is generally over-egged & frankly the careers where it can be significant (i.e. trying to break into GS/Mckinsey/Jane St/similar professional services firms) the list of universities which really provide a competitive advantage is far smaller than the RG members.
Having attended both a non-RG univerity & a RG university there is certainly a benefit to going to universities with excellent facilities, significant annual facilities investment & employer research connections, these do open up opportunities for industry connected dissertations, internships and networking opportunities; and this is a big benefit (although these opportunities tend to go to a relatively moderate percentage of the more proactive students) and again these opportunities are not exclusive to RG universities although I would say the RG disproportionately has these access points.
By in large the RG are strong universities with excellent reputations but RG affiliation is not the reason to choose the university. What you see on a macro level is also very different to choosing for a specific applicant with specific set of requirements.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Loughborough- russell groups
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- Got CCD for my as levels and i'm lost
- Does anyone have an opinion on this?
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- Bath, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester or UCL for Architecture
- Wanting to study law but have some questions please help!!
- A level resits
- From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
- In terms of prestige and reputation for Law, Reading or Surrey?
- Durham, York or Lancaster for Business (Management/Studies)?
- Loughborough vs. Southampton for Mechanical Engineering
- University
- Training contracts
- Northumbria or Newcastle University for Computer Science
- russel group
- Is queen Mary good ?
- Lse accounting and finance 2024
- Is Russell Group the UK Ivy League?
- Applying to only russell group universities?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Govt considers raising tuition fees and bringing back maintenance grants in EnglandLast reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.Last reply 3 months ago
Recognition of UK Universities in Germany - Anabin Database Inquiry
