Whats so "bad" about a Met Uni?

I'm applying to Manchester Met as well because I am only able to do two A levels because I did rubbish in a couple of subjects last year, but the course I am applying for wants 280 points (psychology) so it will be a tall order to get those points! I think it's basic snobbery simply because they aren't amazingly high in the league tables (who honestly needs them?). For me, your education is about you, and whether you do well and if you enjoy it. So what if some snobs look down on it, it's their issue not yours

You're a joke.

In fairness, not a lot of graduates are managing to get jobs, so... I stand by my point, get over yourselves.

No, you can't get away with that.

The University of Central Lancashire, Preston Poly as was, had 38% in further study and 52% working. Only 10% were unemployed or out of the labour market. Of the 52% working, 56% of these had graduate jobs.

In other words whilst Manchester Met had 56% unemployed or burger flipping, UCLAN had only 39% unemployed or burger flipping.

That is a very big difference for supposedly similar institutions

The way I see it, if you enjoy what you are doing there is nothing wrong with going to a less prestigious university. Who cares if it takes a while for you to get a decent job, it's life, and chances are there are other factors besides the university you went to why those particular people didn't get jobs. It was a recession. I don't see why I'm wasting my time actually, there are many more snobs like yourself trying to put others down because you think you are so fantastic.

Leeds Met:

To be fair Leeds Uni isn't exactly aesthetically pleasing...most of the buildings are concrete eyesores.

(I love it though)

Exactly. I'm honest to god so sick of people flinging statistics around as though we're all automatically going to be in the percentage that don't get employed straight away.
And they also don't seem to get that just because people aren't employed straight away, that it won't be that way forever.
And just because people are employed straight away, it doesn't mean that it'll be in a relevant career. For instance I clean at a hospital in order to get my bills paid and stuff, and that means I'll still have a job when I finish my degree. But it's a completely different situation.

People need to actually realise that sometimes they're rubbing the fact that they're going to a "proper" university, under the nose of someone who really couldn't give a ****.

The way I see it, if you enjoy what you are doing there is nothing wrong with going to a less prestigious university. Who cares if it takes a while for you to get a decent job, it's life, and chances are there are other factors besides the university you went to why those particular people didn't get jobs. It was a recession. I don't see why I'm wasting my time actually, there are many more snobs like yourself trying to put others down because you think you are so fantastic.

Exactly. I'm honest to god so sick of people flinging statistics around as though we're all automatically going to be in the percentage that don't get employed straight away.
And they also don't seem to get that just because people aren't employed straight away, that it won't be that way forever.
And just because people are employed straight away, it doesn't mean that it'll be in a relevant career. For instance I clean at a hospital in order to get my bills paid and stuff, and that means I'll still have a job when I finish my degree. But it's a completely different situation.

People need to actually realise that sometimes they're rubbing the fact that they're going to a "proper" university, under the nose of someone who really couldn't give a ****.

Firstly, I haven't referred to the prestige of Manchester Met at all. The statistics I have quoted have been about employability. If you had read my statistics carefully you would see that I have been distinguishing graduate jobs from other sorts of employment. Many statistics on student employment fail to do so.

The comparison over employability I have drawn is between Manchester Met and its peers such as UCLAN. I am not comparing it with Oxbridge or the Ivy League but with another ex-Poly down the road. I am certainly not trying to put you down but I am raising the very serious question of why Manchester Met is doing much more poorly than other comparable institutions. You say that they may be other factors besides the university why more people get jobs at UCLAN than Manchester Met. Is the water better in Preston than Manchester?

Exactly. I'm honest to god so sick of people flinging statistics around as though we're all automatically going to be in the percentage that don't get employed straight away.
And they also don't seem to get that just because people aren't employed straight away, that it won't be that way forever.
And just because people are employed straight away, it doesn't mean that it'll be in a relevant career. For instance I clean at a hospital in order to get my bills paid and stuff, and that means I'll still have a job when I finish my degree. But it's a completely different situation.

People need to actually realise that sometimes they're rubbing the fact that they're going to a "proper" university, under the nose of someone who really couldn't give a ****.