Russell Group, Schmussell Group

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by SteveFoerster, Aug 23, 2013.

Loading...
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Since the issue of pre-1992 and post-1992 universities in the UK has ome up a few times lately, I thought this piece in today's InsideHigherEd called Inflated Premium might be of interest.

    Basically, a British government study suggests that graduates of Russell Group schools (the older, more established institutions) have no advantage in lifetime earning potential than those of the newer schools.

    I haven't looked at the methodology, so I'm posting this merely as informational, not to support any particular position.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Fascinating. I'm not surprised, though, since so many other factors come into play over the course of one's career.

    But since these schools have only become universities in the past 20 years, I wonder how we can know about "lifetime" earnings?

    There are enough other assumptions and questions that more research would certainly help. Still, very interesting stuff!
     
  3. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    It's more complicated than that. The IHE story says:

    So Russell Group (UK research university) grads do, in fact, earn more than polytechnic (UK less prestigious university) grads. The question is whether this is because the RG schools are better, or because the RG students are better.

    The study claims that it is the latter. In general, the RG grads have higher test scores, and come from more educated families, than the polytechnic grads. The study claims that if you adjust for these factors, then the lifetime earning potential is equal regardless of school. So in theory, two students with equal test scores and equal family backgrounds would do equally well, whether they attended an RG school or not.
     
  4. major56

    major56 Active Member

  5. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Similar studies have been done in the US. For example, Ivy League grads outearn state school grads. Is this because Ivy League schools are better, or because Ivy League students are better ?

    It's probably because the students are better. One famous study looked at students who were accepted at Ivy League schools, but chose to attend state schools instead. Those students reportedly did just as well, in terms of earnings, as their Ivy League counterparts.

    So again, the claim is that students with equal qualifications -- in this case, as measured by Ivy League acceptance, which largely reflects grades and SAT scores -- do equally well, regardless of school.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2013
  6. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Interesting. If that's so, it would suggest that the social networking advantages of attending prestigious schools has been overblown, which I would find not a little surprising.
     

Share This Page