Whats so "bad" about a Met Uni?

Scroll to see replies

For example, Manchester Met uni, Leeds Met uni.

Why does everyone look down on these unis so much! Seems to be everyone I know (and not all are even the brightest button in the box...) looking down on any met uni.

I'm even starting to, and I don't even know whats 'wrong' with them!

Can someone explain the difference, and any possible reason that they're not as good as other unis, etc?

I'm looking at applying for leeds or manchester met or something along those lines, depending on courses and stuff. :smile:

To put it really bluntly, the students who did better in school tend to go to the non-Met version for most courses. Also the non-Met schools have more of a history and more money and do more research. They are different and for different people.

Reply 101

Okorange

I'm sure there was. UCL was founded as a secular school which allowed it access to talent that was denied Oxbridge for religious reasons, I think this may even be the reason why UCL ended up doing better than Kings.

Reply 102

billydisco

Oh get off the fence you bunch of pussies!

Its pretty simple, "met" universities offer easier degrees, with easier entrance requirements. In short, it would be like offering a degree in "breathing air", its not very difficult to do and doesnt really tell an employer much more than they can already guess.

There's a reason why Oxbridge and Imperial are prestigious- ALL the entrance requirements are tough and so too are the degrees.

I havent stated anything which is beyond common sense deduction.....

Reply 103

billydisco

Original post by River85

They, along with places like Northumbria, Oxford Brookes, De Montfort, University of West of England and Birmingham City University are all the former polytechnics.

They were institutions of higher education who were given university status in 1992. Before then most major cities had a university and a polytechnics. So Newcastle had Newcastle University and (what is now) Northumbria. For Sheffield then the University of Sheffield alonside what is now Sheffield Hallam.

Just like there was some snobbery with the plate glass universities (eg. Warwick, York, Kent) in the 1960s there is snobbery from some about former polytechincs.

The former polytechnics still offered academic courses, but they were also known for providing more techincal and vocational courses like teaching and nursing. So this has created a little bit of snobbery over the years

Its not "snobbish" to state an establishment with easier entrance requirements and not as picky regarding their students is inferior...... its the truth.

The reason I dislike them is because they waste a lot of money which could be used on the proper universities and reduce the costs people would have to pay to read for proper degrees.

Reply 104

billydisco

Original post by madders94

So it's quite silly of the snobs to look down on it, because without nurses, the healthcare system would fail and without teachers, they'd have no way of getting into their fancy top University or whatever.

University snobbery is stupid.

Why do nurses require degrees?

Do you think plumbers should require degrees?

What about hairdressers?

Locksmiths?

Hell, why dont we ensure everybody has a degree.......

Reply 105

billydisco

Original post by madders94

Its funny you mention teachers:

Most of the top private schools employ teachers who hold Oxbridge degrees in their subject and aren't socially retarded, rather than somebody who has a shiny PGCE stating they can teach, but has a 2.2/3rd in their subject from Portsmouth university.....

Another qualification artificially required when it wasn't needed centuries beforehand.....

I don't remember Florence Nightingale having a nursing degree, how did she cope?!

Reply 106

River85

Original post by billydisco

I don't remember Florence Nightingale having a nursing degree, how did she cope?!

OK, I'll bite.

You're using an example from so long ago that it's not even from the last century! Or even late in the century before that!

The professionalization of nursing did not begin until around the 1860s, so after Florence Nightingale's activities in the Crimean War. Nursing has continued to develop over the years and is in many respects a lot different to how it was a generation ago, let alone 150 years ago.

Or don't you think a medical professional, who can be involved in the diagnosis and management of long term health conditions (including medication management) should have a good education? One that balances the academic and vocational aspects of the role.

Moreoever, this is irrelevant, as the provision of nursing degrees is not unique to "Mets", or post-1992 universities :hat2: