Comparing Ivy League, Russell Group, Oxbridge and Other US-UK Groupings

A couple years ago, I wrote down a few thoughts on what the UK’s Russell Group represents in terms of university “quality”, and how that compares to something like the US’s Ivy League.

I’m not sure what it says about human nature that it has been by far the most read thing I’ve ever written, so I’d like to revisit it and unpack a few conclusions, which are largely unchanged.

First, to be clear, the Ivy League does not refer to the US’s top universities. It’s an athletic grouping, not an academic one. It refers to a group of 8 older universities in the Northeast, all of which are prestigious, but not all of which are more prestigious than some non-Ivies.

• These are some Ivy League universities: Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia
• These are NOT Ivy League: University of Chicago, Stanford, CalTech

The non-Ivies above are at least as prestigious and selective as any Ivy League university.

Second, the Russell Group is a far less rarefied group than the Ivy League. About 30% of UK undergraduates go to a Russell Group university, versus less than 2% in the US going to an Ivy League or similar.

Third, there’s nothing in the US that’s comparable to Russell Group. It would be the top 30% of US colleges and universities by undergraduate enrolment would begin to include some more obscure names far down whatever university ranking system you want to use. If for some reason you want to work out what’s equivalent to the UK’s Russell Group in the US, take the top 200 or so US colleges and universities from your ranking list of choice. That’s your “Russell Group-equivalent list”.

Fourth, Oxbridge: what’s the US equivalent? Oxbridge admits about 2% of the UK undergraduate population, so this is a job claimed by something like the top ~15–25 US universities (much more than the Ivy League). So does admission to a top-25 US university signal as much as admission to Oxbridge? Well, sort of. We’re assuming: 1. Oxbridge and the US Top 25 are equally efficient at attracting and selecting the top 2%, and 2. the top 2% of undergraduates in the UK are just as good as the US’s top 2%, and vice-versa.

Who cares?

Everything above is mostly BS for folks focused on the wrong things. What follows is what I think matters.

Overrated vs. Underrated, University Edition

• Where you go to university: overrated usually
• Your university’s ranking or other prestige marker: overrated in most cases, unless you’re pursuing an academic research career in a non-technical subject
• What you study, broadly speaking (e.g., humanities vs. hard sciences): underrated
• What you study, narrowly-speaking (e.g., “american studies” vs. history, or “linguistics” vs. languages): overrated, and the development of individualized degrees or study programs is not a good development. Just pick the right major and within those constraints, the courses that are most interesting or useful to you.
• Building technical skills, how to solve problems, and how to be productive: underrated by students, correctly rated by people 5-10 years into their post-university careers.
• Becoming an effective writer or communicator: correctly rated
• Developing interests that set you up for a life of learning and inquiry: underrated
• The importance of who you meet at university and your friends: underrated

Rather than top this and top that, consider instead…

• that a perfectly excellent education without all the psychological and financial baggage of a top-25 university can be obtained for a reasonable price from any number of good state colleges or land grant universities in the US.
• that the more technical and substantial the subject, the less the rank and other prestige markers matter.
• that if your goal is a career in academic research in a non-technical subject, then rankings matter more.