Would you recommend a degree?

[UK-AL05]

You often use the RAE to rank universities, however nearly ALL Russell groups destroy 1994 universities on RAE ranking system because they obtain far more funding for research because they contain large departments.

The point being RAE actually isn't that good at determining teaching quality. It is a purely research centric metric.

 

[InKursion]

Not "ALL" at all, far from it. Perhaps on an overall measure they score higher because of their higher research profile and funding, but on a department-by-department basis (which is always what you should be looking at on the RAE), the Russell Group are far from on top in academic research quality. Many smaller universities (i.e. some 94 institutions) are far outperforming the RG in terms of research performance. Same with teaching quality ratings. York/Durham were great examples of small campus universities that outperformed most RG institutions academically, but alas, in the new political funding climate they have this year joined the RG. But the basic structure and idea of each group is still intact.

I know this for a fact because I've flitted around the Golden Triangle and RG/94 group between my BA and MA. The departmental rankings and specialisms in particular areas favoured certain 94 group institutions over the bigger RG ones. It's just a nuance that the media are no longer giving time or attention to, sadly. To say "ALL" RG unis out-perform the rest academically is not true - just because they attract the most funding as a bloc, it does not follow that all their institutions are top-level. Places like Cardiff, Newcastle and recently the newly-joined Exeter/QMUL raise some questions about the total 'research supremacy' of the RG.

I'm a bit confused by your post, overall. You say they attract more funding because of bigger departments, therefore they "destroy" the smaller ones. The RAE isn't ranked on total research granted - it's the quality, and it's influence on an international/worldwide scale. Then you have things like citations which determine a universities influence and outreach in the international scholarly community, with some small measure of how respected its output is (again, many 94 group unis despite their small size thrash the bigger RG universities on this measure). And I never said the RAE was a definitive guide to ranking universities, only that it is based in more of an academic reality than newspaper tables such as the Guardians. Would you rather use a metric that evaluates how good a department is at scholarship, or an annual student satisfaction poll?

 

[JonJ678]

What would the "golden triangle" be?

 

[Amp34]

Just for the sake of being a pedant and doing my part to help the higher-education industry in the UK as well: make sure you check out 1994 Group universities as well if you are ever considering the Russell Group.

There's a lazy shorthand developing in the media right now (mostly because that grand incompetent Gove is romancing them) as the Russell Group as the 'elite', which doesn't really correspond to actual academic reality. The prestigious/reputable universities are made up of Russell Group AND 1994 Group universities, with a few extra exceptions as well. Many RG universities perform worse than 94 group universities - the only fundamental difference is their size (RG are the big ones with science/med schools, 94 are the small campus unis).

Always feel the need to point out that the UK education system isn't another Ivy League where there's a super-group at the top and everyone else snivelling behind. This 'Russell Group' epithet is wearing thin.

I agree with that entirely, but everyone in this thread has said Russell's group so far and most don't know what a 1994 group university is. I didn't know about it until I went to one!

You often use the RAE to rank universities, however nearly ALL Russell groups destroy 1994 universities on RAE ranking system because they obtain far more funding for research because they contain large departments.

The point being RAE actually isn't that good at determining teaching quality. It is a purely research centric metric.

Generally true. Most Russell's group unis receive significantly more funds and have significantly more researchers (and students for the matter). Think 10x as much in many cases.

 

[InKursion]

What would the "golden triangle" be?

Oxon, Cantab and Lond. It forms an academic Bermuda triangle in the home counties.

 

[JonJ678]

London in general, or one of them in particular?

If it's London in general, it'll have to include Brookes and Anglia Ruskin as well :s

 

[InKursion]

I agree with that entirely, but everyone in this thread has said Russell's group so far and most don't know what a 1994 group university is. I didn't know about it until I went to one!

Haha, I know exactly what you mean. Opinion in the HE sector is that this is because the previous Chairman of the 94 Group (this year resigned) wasn't as much of a media darling as the industrious RG spokespeople. They seem to be much better at getting mentioned and having articles written about them in the mainstream press. Also Gove seems to be charmed by them at the expense of every other prestigious/good institution in UK Higher-Ed. Which is perhaps why York/Durham etc. jumped ship this year. The 94 group really needs to raise its media profile if it is going to retain its prestigious reputation. Which is a shame, because these institutions have all been there in the business of scholarship for over a century. It's just in the last 5 years or so that the media has fallen in love with newspaper tables and promoting the RG as the UK 'Ivy League' that the picture has slipped out of focus.

 

[InKursion]

London in general, or one of them in particular?

If it's London in general, it'll have to include Brookes and Anglia Ruskin as well :s

Oxford Brookes isn't part of the Oxon colleges. Same for all the mid-table universities that are in London but are not part of the University of London. Though I believe in Lond it refers to UCL/KCL, possibly in the past Imperial College.

 

[craptakular]

I didn't even know I went to a 1994 group, I just new the UEA was good.

 

[JonJ678]

Oxford Brookes isn't part of the Oxon colleges. Same for all the mid-table universities that are in London but are not part of the University of London. Though I believe in Lond it refers to UCL/KCL, possibly in the past Imperial College.

Ok. The "Golden Triangle" is an attempt by some middle-of-the-road universities to aggrandise themselves by association with somewhere better. Fair enough.

Imperial / KCL / UCL have nothing going for them over the other non-Oxbridge places, unless you count really high rent as a plus.

I should probably stop thread trashing at this point. Think I'll go and learn who's in the 1994 group and who's in the Russell group. edit: Russell does look rather more respectable than 1994. Pity mine is in the 1994 group.

 

[InKursion]

UEA is another good example of a small campus university that outperforms many RG universities in certain departments on the RAE. It was just a small point, anyway. The 94 Group is the smaller unis that never get spoken about because everyone's too busy busting a nut over Oxbridge and the 'RG', even though a lot of the RG that cosy up to Oxbridge are pretty second-tier.

 

[Amp34]

London in general, or one of them in particular?

If it's London in general, it'll have to include Brookes and Anglia Ruskin as well :s

InKursion has answered it but even if it wasn't specifics it would have been the colleges of Oxford, Cambridge and London Universities.

For example, as my old course supervisor used to joke, none of the best colleges in London actually award degrees... They are part of the University of London, much like Cambridge and Oxford, except everyone knows the the London colleges by name (UCL, Kings, London Business School, Goldsmith, St. Marys, Royal Academy of Music etc. ). The UOL awards the degrees.

Imperial used to be part of the UOL (one of the reasons for the college name) but went it's separate way a while ago IIRC.

 

[InKursion]

Ok. The "Golden Triangle" is an attempt by some middle-of-the-road universities to aggrandise themselves by association with somewhere better. Fair enough.

Imperial / KCL / UCL have nothing going for them over the other non-Oxbridge places, unless you count really high rent as a plus.

I should probably stop thread trashing at this point

Um UCL/KCL/Imperial are the only other 3 universities in the UK that regularly chart in the world top 20. They are all regularly domestic top5/top10, and they have far more international/worldwide stature than other RG universities. Hence the extra qualifier. The Golden Triangle are considered the UK's super elite on the worldwide level.

For self-aggrandizement by middle-road / second tier universities, look at the RG. Cardiff, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Queens Belfast. As good as Oxbridge? Nowhere near. Do any of them rank in the world top100? Nope. All of the Golden Triangle do. The RG has lately become a voting bloc for just what you say: large, first- and second- tier universities to bunch behind the weight of Oxbridge and UCL.

 

[UK-AL05]

Honestly I don't think he should give **** about this. We are going way to far into university flame wars.

The guy wants a job as a software developer or an I.T job, I don't think he wants to become a researcher.

People have given little decent advice on this, other than spending 2 years redoing your a-levels or resigning yourself to I.T Certs and support roles.




You don't even need degree sometimes, I know software developers working at a game developer(Extremely competitive) without hardly any formal qualifications at all. Thus a-level results are not the end all. However degrees do make it considerably easier since most starter roles ask for it, so i recommend you get one.

 

[JonJ678]

Ah. I thought the Uni of London was a distinct one. It makes a fair amount of sense if they're considered as colleges. Fair enough, I withdraw my concerns about unfortunately including Anglia Ruskin.

*Shrug*. London is welcome to consider one of the best Universities in the country. Taken together as a group, they probably are 3rd after the big two. Still, the gap between Oxbridge and London is far greater than the gap between London and the Russell group. It's clearly in London's interest to be associated with Oxbridge rather than Bristol and Exeter, so fair enough really.

The guy wants a jobs as software developers or an I.T job, I don't think he wants to become a researcher.

A valid point, though he may want to go into research. It's hard to know much about it at 18, but as I stumble blindly towards graduation it looks increasingly attractive relative to industry. I wouldn't have guessed that a few years ago.

 

[InKursion]

Ah. I thought the Uni of London was a distinct one. It makes a fair amount of sense if they're considered as colleges. Fair enough, I withdraw my concerns about unfortunately including Anglia Ruskin.

*Shrug*. London is welcome to consider one of the best Universities in the country. Taken together as a group, they probably are 3rd after the big two. Still, the gap between Oxbridge and London is far greater than the gap between London and the Russell group. It's clearly in London's interest to be associated with Oxbridge rather than Bristol and Exeter, so fair enough really.

Membership isn't exclusive. Golden Triangle / Uni. of London colleges are all part of the RG/94 groups as well. But on an international scale the London unis tend to do better in prestige. This is partly to do with research strength (Imperial, UCL and KCL are far better than most RG for research) and partly to do with the fact that, globally, capitol cities normally home the nation's best university. So London conveys a certain amount of prestige (and it is an amazing federation of universities, across the board). London is generally one of the top stops for graduate recruitment, behind Oxbridge and Manchester/Warwick, afaik. It's more respected as a short-hand term than "RG".

But I agree, we have digressed too far!

 

[RomanNose]

Um UCL/KCL/Imperial are the only other 3 universities in the UK that regularly chart in the world top 20. They are all regularly domestic top5/top10, and they have far more international/worldwide stature than other RG universities. Hence the extra qualifier. The Golden Triangle are considered the UK's super elite on the worldwide level.

For self-aggrandizement by middle-road / second tier universities, look at the RG. Cardiff, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Queens Belfast. As good as Oxbridge? Nowhere near. Do any of them rank in the world top100? Nope. All of the Golden Triangle do. The RG has lately become a voting bloc for just what you say: large, first- and second- tier universities to bunch behind the weight of Oxbridge and UCL.

They are good but I turned down UCL as it just costs a bomb to live in London and you have to pick small accommodation.
One of my friends nearly killed me for that but it's worth taking in mind where you are living, after all you might be there for 3-5 years. Generally the Uni I was going to was ranked higher for my course than UCL so I don't think it's going to make much a difference. Another reason why UCL put me off was that not many people actually went into engineering and loads of people went into finance, which is not what I want to do.

 

[mithrandir]

THIS and THIS might be of use.

 

[JonJ678]

Another reason why UCL put me off was that not many people actually went into engineering and loads of people went into finance, which is not what I want to do.

How far into the course are you? In my first year, everyone wanted to be an engineer. At the end of the 3rd year, we're down to 5-10%. Finance pays better and management is easier.

 

[BoonMonkey]

Far too many posts to reply to each individually! Thanks for all the responses guys.

Ideally I would like to not be a helpdesk support, for example "Have you installed the printer correctly? No? Okay let me remote onto your machine." etc. My company is saying they will try get me onto that soon, but they've been saying that for a while. It's a start to break into the IT sector, so I imagine that would help?

Resitting my A-Levels/Uni wouldn't be an option till next year, as I believe I've missed the cut off date, but I was just wanting to know what I'll be aiming for as a direction to move in.


Also apologies for confusing electrical engineer and electrician.

THIS and THIS might be of use.

I've book marked both of these, however! Pretty helpful information on there.


Thanks again everyone!