It’s time to debunk the myth that Russell Group universities are best for student education

The Russell Group is growing its UG market share because students, parents, teachers and employers have been falsely persuaded that its members offer a better education than the other 110. The truth is, that what their members care most about is the quality and volume of their academic research, and the global ranking and reputation that results. Student education has always played second fiddle.  

The Group is a self-selecting set of 24 research-intensive universities who account for the lion’s share of UK university research income and dominate the Research Excellence Framework. The Group’s core criteria for membership is centred on research quality, research volume and research income. Unlike the Premier League, weaker performers aren’t relegated and strong outsiders aren’t promoted, characteristics shared by anti-competitive cartels.

Over the last 20 years, the Russell Group has unjustifiably morphed into a byword for all-round excellence, and now claims to stand for world-class research and education. Students, parents, teachers and employers have all been persuaded that the Russell Group is shorthand for educational excellence, encouraged by its members’ marketing departments who promote their membership as a badge of honour. 

Employers use it to make recruitment easier. Parents use it as a shortlisting aid to help guide their children. Teachers use it to promote their school’s academic credentials. Students use it as a filter in an overcrowded market beset by confusing ranking claims. 

But the truth is that the Russell Group has never lost its focus on research and that with a few honourable exceptions, this is to the detriment of the quality of student educational experience they provide. It’s time that the Russell Group’s reputation for educational excellence was called out for what it is. A myth which is deluding students into thinking that choosing a member university means they’re going to receive the best education their loans can buy.

The table below charts the overall ranking of Russell Group members in the latest Complete University Guide, together with their overall ranking for Student Satisfaction. The disparities are consistently wide.

Russell Group Member	Overall Rank	Student Satisfaction Ranking	The Drop	Russell Group Member	Overall Rank	Student Satisfaction Ranking	The Drop
LSE	3	91	88	York	18	44	26
Imperial	5	87	82	Birmingham	19	116	97
Durham	6	70	64	Leeds	20	96	76
UCL	8	104	96	Kings	21	124	103
Warwick	9	50	41	Nottingham	24	108	84
Edinburgh	12	122	110	Cardiff	25	108	83
Exeter	13	65	52	Sheffield	26	50	24
Manchester	13	104	91	Liverpool	30	65	35
Southampton	15	65	50	Queen’s Bel.	34	108	74
Glasgow	16	58	42	Newcastle	37	99	62
Bristol	17	96	79	Queen Mary	41	122	81

NB: ‘Student satisfaction’ is an amalgam of satisfaction with course, teaching and feedback. Oxford and Cambridge do not report on these factors.

Research is an important factor in driving overall rankings so it’s no surprise to find most Russell Group members in the top quartile. What will be a surprise to many outside higher education is that all but three are ranked in the two bottom quartiles for student satisfaction with their education. Some recognise that this inequality of performance between research and teaching is not sustainable, and are planning to rectify it.

Edinburgh’s 2030 Strategy aspires to “teaching that matches the excellence of our research. We will improve and sustain student satisfaction and wellbeing.” Ranked 122nd out of 130, they start from a low base.

King’s College claims that education there is “going through an exciting transformation.” Ranked 124 out of 130 for student satisfaction, they too have a way to go. 

Manchester’s goal is to reach "a top quartile sector position for student satisfaction by 2025.” Currently 104th out of 130, this is about as likely as Boris Johnson being our Prime Minister at the next general election.

Birmingham’s 2030 strategy aims for Top 50 global ranking by striving “to increase the volume and quality of our research to make an even greater difference to the world around us,” which goes some way to explaining why they rank 116th for student satisfaction.

The truth is that the main priority of Russell Group universities is improving the quality and volume of their research, driving up research income and securing a higher global ranking as a result. It would be slightly unfair to say that teaching undergraduates is a distraction for many of their academics, but it is certainly secondary.

Helped by an elitist aura, Russell Group members are growing their undergraduate market share, accelerated in the past couple of years by teacher assessed grades grossly inflating the number of students achieving A*A. Students want the best bang for their student loan buck and have not been slow to ‘upgrade’ to what they perceive as better universities. The Group has become a powerful brand, sustaining a set of brand perceptions based sometimes on truths and sometimes on total misconceptions. 

The rest of the sector has in large part, let them get away with it. By playing the same game, pretending to be research-intensive when their income is diddly squat. Being obsessed with rankings when they should be obsessed with working out how best to serve their communities. 

You don’t beat strong opponents by fighting on their ground. You work out what you do better than them, then focus on delivering that benefit and using it to promote a more distinctive and competitive proposition.

It's time to take the gloves off, play to your strengths and stop Russell Group members getting away with murder.

More about how, in my next blog a week from now.