Lower ranked Universities that look promising

There's not that much of a difference between three or four league table positions. It's unlikely that a graduate from UCL will be chosen over a graduate from Durham just because on is fifth and the other only eigth in a league table.

But then again, Durham is top five in the Independent and UCL is seventh or eigth which is kind of the problem. There's to definitive top five/top ten/top twenty. This is me being sad and pedantic as I certainly take your point. But a more sensible way of putting it is that in, say, a Magic Circle law firm a Durham or UCL grad (with a 2:1) is unlikely to be chosen ahead of a Leeds or Manchester grad who has a first (in the unlikely event of all things being equal). Degree classification, work experience, personal qualities and, sometimes, extra-curriculars all carry great importance.

It's the ignorance and writing universities off as "crap", when they know little to nothing about the uni, that I don't like. Or trying to speak with authority when they have little experience themselves (some aren't even at university, let alone graduates).

University of Manchester

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/vision/

edit: not that UoM is a "low rank" university by any means, just I think it has a very rigorous and structured plan for the future.

University of Manchester

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/vision/

edit: not that UoM is a "low rank" university by any means, just I think it has a very rigorous and structured plan for the future.

I agree with alot of what you said but in the Magic Circle there is no difference in preference (in general) in the unis you compared. Furthermore, I get the impression you don't rate the world rankings, why is this? - Why do you prefer the domestic league tables? The world rankings have empahasis on quality of research and academics, quite fundamental for good teaching, whereas things like student satisfaction surveys which hold alot of weight in domestic tables are done in a piecemeal fashion.

I don't prefer the domestic league tables, really. I don't really like any league table.

The world rankings look at quantty of research as well as quantity and, as a resulr, favour the larger universities. As a sidenote, a research intensive department doesn't always equal a department which has good teaching, although to a university its research is obviously important.

You can criticse the NSS but then I can criticise the THES world ranking for looking at the percentage of international staff and students (is this really a fair reflection of quality? Debateable).

They also use an employer ranking which is something my university (Durham) does perform well in but I don't agree with it being included and just seems so Anglo-American biased. They are just as guilty of being as biased, subjective and inconsistant as any other table including the domestic ones.

Oxford Brookes?

University of Manchester

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/vision/

edit: not that UoM is a "low rank" university by any means, just I think it has a very rigorous and structured plan for the future.

I know your bias but I do really agree with you! And the hoodies are fit too

This is General University discussion. Threads are here for discussion and I have every right to reply to a post. If you don't want to contribute constructively (and don't like others contributing) then just leave. Simple as.



There's not that much of a difference between three or four league table positions. It's unlikely that a graduate from UCL will be chosen over a graduate from Durham just because on is fifth and the other only eigth in a league table.

But then again, Durham is top five in the Independent and UCL is seventh or eigth which is kind of the problem. There's to definitive top five/top ten/top twenty. This is me being sad and pedantic as I certainly take your point. But a more sensible way of putting it is that in, say, a Magic Circle law firm a Durham or UCL grad (with a 2:1) is unlikely to be chosen ahead of a Leeds or Manchester grad who has a first (in the unlikely event of all things being equal). Degree classification, work experience, personal qualities and, sometimes, extra-curriculars all carry great importance.



I understand people want to go to the best university they can but that isn't snobbery in itself. I have nothing wrong with this. Often the mods (and other members, Chemsitboy being one example) are older and more experienced. Some have studied and/or taught at a range of universities (Russell Group/1994 Group and former polytechnics) and. so no better than to just dismiss degrees like David Beckham studies (which doesn't exist) or say ex-polys are all crap and their students have no hope of getting a job.

It's the ignorance and writing universities off as "crap", when they know little to nothing about the uni, that I don't like. Or trying to speak with authority when they have little experience themselves (some aren't even at university, let alone graduates).

I love that, I get the impression they just started running out of "goals" about half way down the list. High International Standing and World Class Research is one thing but, "More Effective Community Service"? They had to stop at nine, since ten would probably be something like "Slightly Friendlier Library Staff", or "More Choice in the Refectory".

I never said you didn't have the right to post... edyat. I contributed constructively, just in a frank manner. It's my opinion. Your responses were in fact a hinderance to the thread because you knew what I was talking about but you tried to be clever and just wasted time. Jam.

The catering is excellent, especially since the new building and the library staff are very helpful in my experience.