It only gets hated on so much since people got tired of "getting DMUsed to it". It's not like these students actually have any knowledge about the university itself, it's just "cool" and "funny" to hate on certain things e.g. Cher Lloyd, London Met, Daily Mail. It's effing tiresome and people really need to get some more material.
Pshh, seriously? Okay it's not UCL or KCL...whatever yeah, but to all you idiots just copying each other and chatting off your arses that 'oh it's ****', guys it's a uni, I mean to hell with the rankings, have you had any experiences of the uni yourselves? If yeah okay that's fine but a uni is a uni no stupid people go there. One of my sisters and two cousins go to met and their perfectly happy with it.
(Original post by Pi R Squared)
Damn, I've browsed through TSR to see on other students comments of London Met, and it seems this place is a complete piece of ****. I ****ed up this year, and I don't want to pay 9000 fees for uni next year, so A-level retake is a no-no, and London Met is like my only choice who have accepted me. Here's me getting 'excited' about going there, and suddenly realising that I might have ****ed up BIG TIME. So tell me, if you're a London Met student or ex-student, is it REALLY that bad as people on TSR say? Feel free to be honest with me.
Lets try and give you a more detailed response.
They "cooked the books" on student numbers two or three years ago and have had to pay back millions of pounds in overpayments. As a result they are under very great financial pressure. That cost the heads of the VC and Governors
A goodly number of the academic staff are left wingers of the Dave Spart tendency. As a result management/staff relations are abysmal and have been for years. Changing the pegs in the cloak room is likely to prompt a walkout.
The merger between London Guildhall (formerly City of London Poly) and North London (formerly North London Poly) hasn't really worked. On a management level it was a takeover by North London because of financial problems at Guildhall but most of the better courses were at Guildhall. The Guildhall staff, courses and premises have been forced out.
The current VC was squeezed out of his last job at City University because of artistic differences with the governors.
London Met offered a lot of courses that employed a lot of part-time academics to teach courses that had few students. The VC has culled more than half the courses. That has resulted in a loss of not many students. There were a lot of complaints about the course closures. The academics who taught those courses predictably complained; but it is all very well saying that it is a great loss axing the course on Caribbean Literature but nobody wanted to study it. More seriously, the courses were axed after students for 2011 had accepted places and rejected other offers. Even worse, instead of the usual practice of closing a course by running it out until everyone completed their degrees, those in the middle of their degrees were simply told to find somewhere else to study next year.
London Met isn't charging £9K per annum for a degree. They claim that their low results is as a result of offering opportunities back into education for non-traditional and mature students. Frankly, there are others that do this and do it far better.
London Met's problems have been decades in the making. This is an abstract of an article from as long ago as 1971 concerning the establishment of North London Poly:-
As a case study in the development of higher and further education, the proposed North London Polytechnic may be a good example of what not to do. A shotgun marriage between two unwilling and basically incompatible partners (the Northern and Northwestern Polytechnics), an academic structure that has not been even remotely worked out and at times open hostility between students and the administration are just a few of the major problems that will land in the lap of Professor Terence Miller when he takes up his controversial appointment as director of the proposed polytechnic this month. But Professor Miller's biggest problem may be his own lack of knowledge and working experience of the binary system, a fact which has been seized firmly by students at both institutions, and which is being used effectively as a stick with which to beat the governing bodies.
In the 1980s, North London Poly was the scene of a war about academic freedom when a National Front organiser enrolled at an institution with a lot of black students and left wing lecturers.
(Original post by essentric)
Pshh, seriously? Okay it's not UCL or KCL...whatever yeah, but to all you idiotssarcasm? - we're not the ones defending it just copying each other and chatting off your arses that 'oh it's ****', guys it's a uni, I mean to hell with the rankings, have you had any experiences of the uni yourselves? No and I'd like to keep it that way
If yeah okay that's fine but a uni is a uni no stupid people go there. Clearly you've never been either.
One of my sisters and two cousins go to met and their perfectly happy with it.
(Original post by ch0llima)
I heard that the now defunct Luton University was inferior to some of the top end fee paying schools let alone other universities . It was higher ranked than London Met, so go figure...
(Original post by Lionslayer)
I'm pretty sure London met doesn't even publish their yearly results
They didn't used to but they have started release their data now. There are still some other universities such as Wolverhampton or Swansea Metropolitan - you wont find these on the league tables as they refuse to release data.