The Guardian: Is the Russell Group irrelevant?

[Hibush]

"The Russell Group has successfully stage-managed the position that it is seen as comprising the best universities. Some are and some aren't, but by and large this is nonsense. However, parents increasingly say they want their child to go to one."
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/is-the-russell-group-still-relevant

That provocative quote encapsulates a piece in The Guardian that introduces their latest university ranking.

British higher education has been through a lot of upheaval, so it is hard to know where many schools stand based on information a generation or two old (i.e. parents and grandparents helping students choose based on their experience). That situation makes a current assessment valuable. I don't know whether THe Guardian's has been gamed by schools to the extent that the USWR guide has been gamed in the US. 

The good part is the conclusion that student's should find a school that is strong in things that matter to them, not to soem random toff.

Rachel Hewitt, chief executive of the MillionPlus group of modern universities, says: "It's not that some universities are lesser versions of other universities, it's that there are universities that offer different things. That means there are great options for students across the whole system."

So the cynic sees this as the boring case where the measure of one characteristic is a poor measure of a different characteristic, turned into a provocative rejection of perceptions by a school-ranking publication focused on the latter characteristic. The Russell Group is composed of top UK research universities. The Guardian publishes a list ot the best undergraduate schools. Unsurprisingly, some undergraduate-focused institutions provide a better undergraduate education than some strong research-focused institutions. But the top 10 look about the same on both lists.

[Hegemony]

Well, it's like saying "Is the Ivy League really better than less selective schools?" And the answer is the same: not for everything, and maybe not always great on teaching quality, but on the whole, the schools with more resources and more selective admission will often be able to offer more opportunities and more advanced courses.

[dismalist]

The publicized rankings are one of those things -- they [all of them] seem to be  trying to rank prestige, or things to demand, or willingness to pay, not quality.

They reflect selection, not treatment. Grads of school X are really smart, 'cause they were really smart when they got in! Maybe one should call this the ranking of the admissions department.

As bad, they put a positive weight on expenditure per student. Thus, the more expensive the better! No, what you want is most value added for the smallest amount of dollars.

The Guardian rankings are interesting because they make all these mistakes, but at least try to measure value added. I know that's hard with undergraduates, because they weren't working when they entered college. But the point is that the rankings of value added are very different from the overall rankings.

The opinion part of the Guardian survey asks about the quality of teaching. Fine, but it should be quality of teaching per dollar! :-)

[Hibush]

As bad, they put a positive weight on expenditure per student. Thus, the more expensive the better! No, what you want is most value added for the smallest amount of dollars.

The US Department of Education statistics often look as if the school worked hard to maximize this number. But I suppose parents see it as how much is spent on their student, not how inefficiently their tuition dollars are used.