Modern Universities - What do you think?

Where is the boundary between an old and new university for a start?

Apologies, I skimmed your post earlier and missed the point where you already mentioned the boundary. Sorry again

Anyway, people more often than not these days need to get some kind of qualification to help them get a job. Since not everyone can get top grades there needs to be some form of establishment that allows people with average/lower grades to do what they want. If it was up to me I would have kept an emphasise on vocational establishments (not everyone is an academic afterall). They have the right to call themselves universities, just because they're not filled with the academic elite doesn't mean they are worthless.

I think sicarius is right- we need more focus on alternatives to academic furthering. I know when I went to 'Career's Advice' they basically said 'What uni are you going to?' which is fine, as that's what I was aiming for, but a lot of other students weren't up to uni/ didn't want to do uni, and felt like as soon as they said they wanted to do something else they weren't as important and were left without any support.

The only reason univertities are becoming devalued is because everyone feels they need a degree and so newer universities are picking up the lower performing students to do traditional degrees.

It's a shame we're losing training colleges. There were times when going to secretarial college or nursing college was seen as the height of achievement- now, if you do a vocational option, it's seen like you're less intelligent and aren't worth as much.

I'm currently getting a hard time for turning down a Russel group University and going to a Polytechnic,but I don't really care

My own personal opinion is that the modern universities are giving great opportunities to students who wouldn't have traditionally gone to university. They've also allowed people more choice in what they study, OK so a degree in Golf Management might seem silly to some, but for someone who has a passion for the game it may well make complete sense.

I think that people who bash new universities are wasting their time when they should be focusing on their own affairs. It is unfair to criticise that some universities are not "proper" or "real" universities as it undermines the hard work of an ambitious student there, who might be studying for a good degree other than the mickey-mouse courses.

I am at a modern university and the teaching has not been subpar, but of high standards, since my instiution has a good reputation for my degree. From a general perspective, old universities might have more prestige than new ones, but it depends on particular institutions (Oxford Brookes and Hertfordshire are usually above "traditional" or "pre-1992" universities such as Brunel and Hull in the league tables).

Modern universities provide their advantages: they can be a springboard for students towards further study at leading universities (a Law graduate at my university is now doing her Masters at Cambridge) and inspire those who have no family experience of going to university. I've known many with good jobs after their time at modern universities and the students I have met are all generally bright and hard-working. So far, my course has been worth the money and I am happy with my time at university.

None of the ex-polys are 'usually' ranked above the post-1992 universities. They might sneak into the top 50 every few years, but that's the extent of it.

At any rate, none of the ex-polys are even ranked in the top 500 worldwide, whereas every pre-1992 university is.

They may be good ,sure, but they're hardly going to be competing with any traditional universities in terms of academic rankings.