Talk:Russell Group

message: :Quality is a factor, in addition to quality:and many of them also have very high government ratings for the calibre of their research.
I've removed the above from the text, as it doesn't make sense, and adds very little anyway. If there is a genuine point that was trying to be made here, it needs rewording. - IMSoP 19:25, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement about quality

message: The paragraph detailing the statistics of which universities are where in terms of research funding, etc, is rather verbose at the moment, and reads like part of a discussion, rather than actually expressing the facts.  Perhaps someone could refactor it into something more readable. - IMSoP 19:39, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps someone could make the stats more readable

message: "An example of the mistakes that are made about the constituents of the Russell Group is the study done by the Centre for the Economics of Education that found that graduates from Russell Group universities earn more on average than those from other universities."
- This study lists the constituents of the Russell Group correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.18.145 (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Study by the CEE

message: The first paragraph states that neither the Ivy league nor the Russel Group are comprehensive lists of the top universities.  It then goes on to say that because of this obvious similarity the statement 'the Russel group is a kind of British Ivy League' is wrong.  Surely it is correct as they are both self claimed groups of the best universities, neither of which include all of the best ones in their respecitve countries... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.70.30 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of the five paragraphs in the introduction, two of them are devoted to detailed comparisons of the group to the ivy league. For an introductory paragraph, these comparisons are probably inappropriate. As there is much to be said on the matter, however, perhaps  these points could be placed under a separate heading pertaining to comparisons with US university leagues. It would certainly make the introduction more relavent to British readers (to whom the group is mostly of interest to) by removing references to US universities which the reader cannot be expected to have any knowledge on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.98.179 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think Vanderbilt should be on the list of top US Unis not in the Ivy league.  It doesn't have a reputation as a top US Uni in or, as far as I'm aware, outside of the USA (except maybe for some in the Southern US).  I've taken it out, though really I think including a whole list is silly.  The article is "Russell Group," not "Misconceptions About the Ivy League" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.148.131 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There should be no reference to the US within the article.  See Also only. Shall I go and litter Russell Group references all over the Ivy League page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.160.141 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an American who only lived in the UK for two years, I won’t argue one way or the other whether it’s germane to compare the Russell Group to American academia in this article.  I would point out, however, that the Association of American Universities is probably a better North American analog to the Russell Group than is the Ivy League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The emphasis on comparisons with ivy league

message: Queen's University Belfast has joined as of 6th November 2006, it was announced to our office but I'm not sure when it would be on the website  Alastairward 12:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New member

message: Listing school groups in the see also section. I added the Rubgy Group and the Woodard Schools group since the Eton group was already there. Considering these groups of schools specifically focus on sending their children to Russell Group Universities and together they form the 'top' schools in the country, they are quite relevant to this article. The see also section might want to be cleaned up into sections of european groups, international groups and school groups that focus on Russell Group acceptance. Spanky Deluxe 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how these pages have information have help readers to understand the Russell Group. For example, many students who attend the Russell Group's members take A Levels, but we don't link to that page. There's no information on those pages that help with this topic. --Duncan 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of schools

message: I think we should take initiatives to improve this article. Ive League page can be an idol for this article. Besides,  this is a research based university group and research funding and all those stuffs should get emphasized here. Higher Education Funding Council for England has declared its research funding (2007-08) for the uk universities . Top Ten university goes in this way,
Higher Education Research Funding for England (2007-08)
SN	University               	funding (£,000)
01	University of Cambridge  	107,058
02	University of Oxford     	104,204
03	University College London	101,333
04	Imperial College London  	91,800
05	University of Manchester 	76,994
06	King's College London    	58,401
07	University of Leeds      	47,243
08	University of Southampton	46,530
09	University of Sheffield  	43,895
10	University of Bristol    	43,192
      
I think it will help us to provide some citation and proper data for this article where it lacks extremely. Niaz bd 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Funding

message: I have created a new section entitled 'Crests and Mottos'. I could not find some of the universities motto and failed to put them under the university Creast/Logo. It's my request to other wikipedians: please help me by updating those empty fields. (Niaz bd 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crests and Mottos

message: The inclusion of the following in the opening paragraph is utterly bizarre.  Clearly the English Premier League is also an athletic conference, and is more famous for being so than the Ivy League. 
"It is sometimes referred to as the British equivalent of the Ivy League of the United States,[2] but since the Ivy League is principally an athletic conference, a more apt analogy might be the Premier League in English football."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.33.116 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Ivy League 

message: Currently The Times is used as the source for the league tables. As the content the reference refers to is behind a paywall, and thus not freely accessible, should an alternative league table be used instead? The Guardian's leagues tables are freely accessible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeldt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the source used for League Tables 

message: This article needs significant updating with the introduction of four new members: Durham, Exeter, Queen Mary and York. The main list and the map have been done, but the other tables with research funding etc. need revision too. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the four new members don't actually join until August. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only source I could find for this is the Queen Mary's press release, the other three don't mention it and neither does the actual Russell Group announcement or the two newspaper sources used as references for the claim. Not disputing it, just noting it. I've been having trouble updating the Durham page since it seems the four have left the 1994 group but have not officially joined the Russell Group yet. Personally I think they should be marked as members with a note saying they only officially join in August, but I'm biased. It doesn't help that the Durham press release made it sound as if it took place with immediate effect whilst the others emphasised they had only accepted the invitation.--23230 talk 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true that the August date doesn't seem to appear anywhere outside of the Queen Mary's press release, although it is correct. Note that the four universities also haven't yet left the 1994 Group. The 'current members' sections of the Russell Group and 1994 Group websites reflect this:  and . Rangoon11 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New members 

message: I've redirected the Aldwych_Group page to this one, and merged in the small amount of original content, because WP:BOLD. Do feel free to chip in and add any additional info about the Aldwych Group
82.39.57.207 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aldwych Group 

message: :
from?  Do they travel much? —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘from’ 

message: I was wondering what the purpose of these is. At the moment there is a mismash of earliest charters, charters as a University, and charters following recent mergers, which makes no sense. Furthermore, there are a number of group members who don't have charters at all. The current approach is inconsistent, foot example why have Manchester as 2005 (merger with UMIST) but not Cardiff as 1998 (merger with UWIST)? Why have the collegiate charter date for UCL but not for Nottingham (1903)? Why not use UCL's refoundation in 1976, for that matter?
Two approaches would seem to make sense: either having the date of the earliest charter awarded to the institution or its predecessors (although this is still debatable, depending on how predecessors is defined), or replacing it with the institutions claimed date of foundation. Of we need a date, the latter seems most sensible, but we could just remove it all together, as irrelevant to the article.Robminchin (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody objected, I've removed the Royal Charter dates and related historical footnotes. If people want to know this information, it's on the pages of the individual universities. This reduced the footnotes to a far more manageable two (once the orphaned footnote referring to a previously-removed column on Vice-Chancellors was also removed). Robminchin (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Charter dates 

message: I've removed references to the "British Ivy League" as the references cited did not establish that this is a standard alternative name for the Russell Group, and searching for the term online shows or is not used as a synonym for the group. This sort of thing had been discussed at length on the past on this talk page.
I also removed references to the "QS UK T18" and similar which used confusing terminology, only discussed a single ranking (and thus a single pov), and refactored an international ranking as a national ranking.
I removed a sentence claiming that critics pointed to St Andrews not being a member and Queen's being a member that appeared to be WP: Original Research and certainly wasn't in the reference cited.
We need to be sure that this article remains factual and doesn't include conclusions drawn from rankings by editors, as appeared to be the case where these recent additions. Robminchin (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of the lead 

message: I've added a list of chairs since 2000 including the new appointment of Nancy Rothwell. It might be nice to add a third column here showing the "host" institution that the chairs were from at the time?  Anyone with historian hat on could also look at the more precise date the previous chairs were in place, I only got the from-to- years from the press release.
Stain (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairs over time 

message: The article seems not to be a very balanced view. Robski Swain (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: More balance is always welcome. Do you have specific suggestions of parts that don't appear balanced? Robminchin (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads like advertising, 

message: The most recent summary of research assessment cites the following page https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ref-2021-golden-triangle-looks-set-lose-funding-share
And says 'The top 19 English institutions in terms of funding continued to all be from the Russell Group, with the top 20 being rounded off, as before, by Lancaster. ' 
To focus on funding - a secondary metric - when the table defaults to listing GPA of the actually assessment seems odd. Funding, as noted a few paragraphs below in the main text, is almost meaningless as it is totally dependent on the subject being assessed. While in some cases it is the only metric to go by, here we have the actual research assessment weighting, which is a much better key to research performance.
My suggestion would be for paragraph to still keep the leading summary on funding, but to summarise the top 20 based on GPA ranking as listed by the source table from the Times Higher (a brief look, the group has 16 of the top 20 places)
Foxdown (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Funding is the point of the REF, and how much funding was allocated by the research council is a primary metric – it's an actual number, with no further calculation needed. GPA, on the other hand, is a secondary metric derived by various publications from the REF results. I'm not sure what table you're referring to, as GPA isn't even listed in the table in the article cited. Robminchin (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see that point, though while the REF is primary around funding, this section it titled 'status', so perhaps some way of incorporating quality of research, rather than funding. Re table, when I follow the link i mentioned, several columns are for GPA, and clicking on 'view full table' it shows the ranking order is by GPA. my only thought is that the summary given in the main text does not match the table on the cited article - ie the article lists ICR as second. Foxdown (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation for that paragraph is to https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/post-92s-gain-research-funding-expense-golden-triangle, which is a different article based on the funding round following the REF rather than the REF results themselves. Possibly the place for a discussion of the REF results would be the paragraph on how funding figures rely on factors other than the research quality, which is currently leaving a citation. Robminchin (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status / Research