Are Russell Group universities really 'leading universities'?

Dr Vikki Boliver leads a seminar discussing whether Russell Group universities are really "leading universities".

[philmccluskey]

wow, i'm glad I watched that. Excellent!

[teamncrm]

Comparative research, Analysis of Composite Data

[binkyboobosh]

I hadn't heard of the Russell Group until I went to an open evening at my daughter's new school earlier in the year. Certainly, back in the day we never discussed the topic. Universities were ranked on how leafy the surrounding burbs were, or if the buildings looked like something out of Harry Potter. We also knew that some unis made you work hard, with plenty of reading, research and essays, and that others made you wear an academic gown to dinner. Certain names meant 'well connected.' Others meant you will probably be taken very seriously in certain careers after graduating. Others meant that you didn't do very well.  The rich went to St Andrews, for example, regardless in many cases of how well they had performed at A level. Hard workers went to Warwick and Southampton, and, well you know about some of the others.  The LSE meant hard work and well connected.  This RG status has become more important in recent times when a comparative 'Ivy League' is being established. I still think, and hope, that students consider course content, future needs for skills and the relevance of their skills in society, today. I suspect a degree in the 'Greats' from Balliol will still get the rich, and 'one of us' types into the Civil Service, BBC and City.