The favouritism shown to Russell Group universities is completely unfair

A survey of 1,500 new graduates has found that those who attended Russell Group universities are more likely to find work after graduation than others.

Honestly, it took me a few minutes of consideration to figure out how I felt about that statement; and I would be lying if I said I didn’t feel just the tiniest bit of relief that I am amongst the students’ fortunate enough to be attending a Russell Group institution. However, when I looked at the statistics from the study more closely, the sense of relief quickly faded and I was left with one thought – that this is completely unfair. 

Now, the fact that ‘four-fifths of Russell Group graduates entered full-time work within weeks of leaving’ higher education, in comparison with ‘two-thirds of those from other institutions’, may not be a surprise to some. 

Typically, the Russell Groups dominate the top of the university league tables, and enforce more difficult admissions processes – with students being expected to attain the highest grades in order to be accepted. Arguably, therefore, it is perhaps understandable that graduate employers veer towards these universities when looking recruiting for jobs – hoping to find the ideal candidate faster. 

For one, the university experience is no different for students, Russell Group or not. We are all expected to submit work on time, attend lectures, show interest and generally provide a contribution to our university community

Yet, what stuck out to me the most from the survey was the revelation that firms often use a ‘tick-box system to filter candidates via the league table position of their universities’, disregarding applications from graduates whose university does not rank highly enough for the firm’s liking. 

Whilst it may be natural to lean towards candidates from certain universities based on reputation, it is another thing entirely to overlook candidates from other universities completely. 

For one, the university experience is no different for students, Russell Group or not. We are all expected to submit work on time, attend lectures, show interest and generally provide a contribution to our university community. 

As such, how could it possibly be fair for some students to graduate with an automatic leg up over other equally hard working students, simply because their university is part of an association which has no bearing on the efforts or attainment of that university’s student body? And what of the personal effect that this study may have upon current students and recent graduates?

In a society that is increasingly putting emphasis on the importance of equality and fairness, should we not expect recruiters to take the time to evaluate each candidate individually?

I’m sure I speak for many of us when I say that it’s a struggle enough finding work experience as it is, and we are lucky enough to attend a Russell Group university. Having to worry about being overlooked by graduate employers simply because your university is not a part of this group simply makes an already stressful situation that much worse. 

In a society that is increasingly putting emphasis on the importance of equality and fairness, should we not expect recruiters to take the time to evaluate each candidate individually? To give everyone a fair chance at the job, rather than disregard them immediately based on their choice of university.

Yes, discounting a ‘tick-box system’ may lengthen the recruitment process for some companies, but it also increases the chances of the right candidate being selected from the larger pool of applicants. As Georgina Brazier, a graduate jobs expert at Milkround, says, business are simply missing out on the chance to recruit ‘fantastic grads from other universities’. By considering applications from graduates of all universities, and judging them on individual calibre rather than university prestige, everyone benefits.