Quartet pay hefty admission fee to join elite club

Russell Group’s latest members have agreed to stump up £500,000 each

May 30, 2013

Source: Getty

Worth every penny: new members are happy that the extra cash represents value for money

The Russell Group’s four new members have each agreed to pay a joining fee of £500,000, Times Higher Education can reveal.

Queen Mary, University of London and the universities of Durham, Exeter and York announced in March last year that they were leaving the 1994 Group to join the Russell Group. At the time, no mention was made of a joining fee, but a Freedom of Information request to the four institutions by THE has revealed that each has agreed to pay an extra £100,000 a year to the group over the next five years.

This means that their annual subscriptions over that period will be £159,000, compared with about £22,000 paid by 1994 Group members.

A spokeswoman for the Russell Group (which the quartet officially joined last August) said it had sought the extra contributions “to cover the one- off costs of the expansion and in recognition of the investment…made by existing members when developing the organisation”.

In a statement, Queen Mary agrees that the elevated fee is “appropriate” in light of existing members’ “previous investment”.

Minutes of a meeting of the institution’s senior executive held on 13 March 2012 state that the magnitude of the fee was “questioned” but ultimately accepted.

The executives agreed “as it reflected the immediate benefits that joining institutions would accrue, based on the work of the Russell Group since its inception”.

The mission group has 15 full-time equivalent staff and now has 24 university members. On this basis, its income from membership fees this year is likely to be just over £1.8 million. This compares with just under £250,000 for the 1994 Group, which now has just 11 members after the universities of St Andrews, Bath, Surrey and Reading withdrew last year in the wake of the exodus to the Russell Group.

A spokesman for the University of York said: “The Russell Group is a well- staffed and highly effective organisation that speaks clearly on behalf of the top universities in the UK. In addition, it provides high-quality advice and support for its members. Taking these points together, we believe the subscription fee charged…to new members represents value for money.”

A spokesman for the University of Exeter said: “Membership of the Russell Group is a brand asset…so it is well worth the cost of joining.”

Soon after the move was announced, Exeter’s vice-chancellor, Sir Steve Smith, told THE that the university’s “research strength” and high proportion of students with AAB A-level grades not subject to an admissions cap made the Russell Group a “more natural fit”.

The price is right?

Rob Cuthbert, professor of higher education management at the University of the West of England, said that “clubs [for] rich universities” were “like shops where if you have to ask the price you can’t afford it”.

“The new members of the Russell Group obviously think it is worth diverting nearly 60 student fees from teaching and learning to advertise their exclusivity,” he added. “The surprise is not so much the price but that the Russell Group chose to make itself less exclusive.”

He contrasted this with the Association of American Universities, which represents top US and Canadian institutions, noting that in 2011 it expelled the University of Nebraska and Syracuse University had “jumped before it was pushed”, with only Boston University being invited to join in recent years.

He said that exclusivity worked against the integrated university system required by the “public good”.

By calling its 2012 report Jewels in the Crown, the Russell Group showed disregard for the rest of the UK higher education sector, Professor Cuthbert said, adding: “The other mission groups take a more inclusive approach by arguing their members are distinctive rather than separate from the rest.”

John Holmwood, co-founder of the Campaign for the Public University, agreed: “It is clear that the Russell Group feels that it needs a large ‘fighting fund’. It is a pity that it doesn’t fight for university education in general, but only for the narrow interests of its members.

“No doubt [the money] will be used to lobby for the lifting of the fee cap or the lowering of the repayment threshold for loans: something that will have a detrimental effect on all students…not just its own.”

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

I calculate that the (private and confidential) voluntary severance offer for five senior academics in the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences (SBCS) to retire this August nearly matched (collectively) the Russell Group joining fee reported here. In SBCS (of one newly-joining institution) we 'celebrated' the news of Russell Group status with the arrival of a new Head of School (who had previously effected the shut down of a Chemistry department in another newly-joining institution). Discussions regarding the quality of teaching and research we provided for our students (i.e. negotiations between academics on how to best allocate institutional and external support for the department's optimal function) were replaced by a "new" language of "comparators", "per capita funding", "3*/4* publications" and "workload allocation models". One other change (although not necessarily linked to the Russell Group 'promotion') is that before each student used to pay three thousand and HEFCE would match that sum for our School. These days, the University pockets nine thousand per student. With a loss of approximately 20 experienced colleagues since 2012, the new "Russell Group" students will be taught by and large from teachers contracted annually, freeing up time for the rest to participate on REF-dry runs, Mock-grant panels, Open-Days, and (newly introduced) "future funding trend" prediction and according adjustment of their research plans. A teaching allocation committee in the midst of frenzy recruitment drives to replace those who were asked to go or chose to do so themselves also faces quite impressive (and novel) tasks. Those readers still wishing to concentrate on research and teaching will question whether the new types of transactions involving students, Russell Group peers and (often anonymous) senior executives effectively served knowledge creation and dissemination.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Vice-Chancellor THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL
Head of Visual Arts UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE
Research Officer - Big Data for Better Outcomes LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & POLITICAL SCIENCE LSE

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Application for graduate job
Universities producing the most employable graduates have been ranked by companies around the world in the Global University Employability Ranking 2016
Retired academics calculating moves while playing bowls

Lincoln Allison, Eric Thomas and Richard Larschan reflect on the ‘next phase’ of the scholarly life