Can current University of Manchester students explain low student satisfaction rating

I do maths at manchester and to be honest, i dont know what my money is going towards as many of my lectures have ~200 people in them, and tutorials of ~40 are a norm, when in other departments people get tutorials of around 4 or 5! tutors are often hard to track down (i swapped from maths and language to just maths, and i needed my tutor to sign it, it took me weeks longer than it should have) and i have not seen my personal tutor since last christmas (yes, 2010) and he is supposed to be the one writing my reference at the end of this?!
overall, if i could start over, i dont think i would do this course, or even be here.

Why does MU say it is founded in 1824 when clearly it is NOT.

Isn't there some sort of law against misrepresentation ?

UMIST was formed in 1824, and UoM is a merger of Victoria and UMIST. Victoria was founded in the 1830s or so. Also 200 in a lecture really isn't that many.

Universities always compete about their age.

What are you on about ?

The merger happened in 2004.

And UoM was only given its license in 1888.

No, most universities don't ' compete on their age ' or feel the need to embellish their stats, so it reveals the true attitude of the institution concerned.

200in a lecture really isn't that many to you perhaps but to the thousands who take the NSS survey it IS.

That's why your rank is so low.

Haha, something makes me think you have a chip on your shoulder.

Just to make it clear, 'date of degree-giving licensing' and 'date of foundation' are two different things.

Why is 200 people in a lecture such a problem? Does their presence hinder your ability to understand the lecture or something? Or do you expect a far smaller number a la Oxbridge?

Maybe those who complete the NSS survey and rate it lower simply because of its size should have considered that before they applied...

Also, your preoccupation with the rankings is interesting. I read a transcript from a board meeting of a high-ranked 1994 University (best guess is Sussex) where they explicitly admitted that the rankings were 'rubbish'. He said something along the lines of 'we all know the rankings are rubbish'. Now, why would it matter for Universities to participate and why would they have a vested interest to keep their positions high? Probably because of people like you.

Another thing, if you ever go onto the rankings and consider the most important of the criteria, being the entry levels difficulty and contrast it with the, admittedly very poor, satisfaction rates (which I believe are somewhat unreliable but still an ok indicator of where the uni needs to improve), you'll see that despite how far the satisfaction rates bring it down, the university does reasonably well in the tables considering.

Sorry for the long post haha.

So if I have a 3 rooms on top of a kebab shop and call it the great college of Manc and then in 2062 I become a university by royal charter/license - I can then say I was university since 2012 ?

No I don't so, don't matter what you are before your royal charter, your university date starts then and only then, anything else is not a true representation.


Who has the chip now huh ?


Why is 200 people in a lecture such a problem?

It's not my problem for sure, as I do not and will never attend UoM that is for sure.

But it IS for the 10's of thousands who take the NSS survey.

You don't worry about who thinks what about which tables - you just let the people decide.

And what ' vested interest ' are you on about ?

I'm a student questioning the wisdom of mass education in small UK cities - is there a Law that prohibits that ?

No I don't think so.

High Entry Grades don't mean a course is good it only means it is popular.

A popular thing is not always good. Heroin is popular but it is not good.

UoM is too big - it is unjustified in such a small city.

It's quite clear that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about.

I know in my French dept I personally just find the staff incredibly unapproachable. I am a shy person naturally which probably means alot of it is coming from me and even after a year I feel like most of my teachers even my seminar leaders don't even know my name. In terms of feedback it's 50/50. Alot of my units are exam based and if we want feedback from them we usually have to go and see the lecturer for individual feedback. For coursework however, it's pretty good.

It's quite clear that you have no more coherent arguments left and thus resort to slogan chanting.

UoM was a university in 1888 not 1824. That's a fact and it can't be denied.

no point anyway, in today's world, information is just a click away.

Trying to hide facts will never work.

Manchester uni hasn't said it gned university status in1824... It said the institution that currently stands was established in 1824... Eg it can trace it's roots back to then... When a football club gets promoted it doesn't have to update its founding date...

FYI st Andrews brags about it being established in 1413 and it received its royal charter in 1532...are they misleading people now?

I think the arts departments are neglected, the History department said they had been awarded more funding by the university, and were going to recruit 6 new members of teaching staff for 2012 entry. I don't no whether to believe them. There's also a part of me that feels History is something you can sort of study yourself, as long as you keep disciplined. They have a massive library so they won't be short of resources. Apparently it's similar elsewhere; not much contact time for social sciences/arts/humanities, I just don't know why it is especially bad at manc...

LOL @ someone who thinks a university charter date is an ' opinion ', or that the THES is not just another opinion like any other table.

Also pay for what name ? 45k for the number 30 university in UK, why not pay the same for something in the top 10.

not only that but do you guys know that UoM is giving away many of your same degrees for 1/2 price at various twinny and offshore deals in foreign countries like Malaysia, Singapore and China ?

Cute.

200 people to a lecture ? LOL

Might as well watch it on YT

200in a lecture really isn't that many to you perhaps but to the thousands who take the NSS survey it IS.

This Txi fella has the almost intolerable ability to speak opinion as if it is fact.

What university do you attend, Txi, out of interest?

It's quite clear that you haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about.

It's quite clear that you have no more coherent arguments left and thus resort to slogan chanting.

I'm a student questioning the wisdom of mass education in small UK cities - is there a Law that prohibits that ?

High Entry Grades don't mean a course is good it only means it is popular.

I do maths at manchester and to be honest, i dont know what my money is going towards as many of my lectures have ~200 people in them, and tutorials of ~40 are a norm, when in other departments people get tutorials of around 4 or 5! tutors are often hard to track down (i swapped from maths and language to just maths, and i needed my tutor to sign it, it took me weeks longer than it should have) and i have not seen my personal tutor since last christmas (yes, 2010) and he is supposed to be the one writing my reference at the end of this?!
overall, if i could start over, i dont think i would do this course, or even be here.

Why is 200 people in a lecture such a problem? Does their presence hinder your ability to understand the lecture or something? Or do you expect a far smaller number a la Oxbridge?

Maybe those who complete the NSS survey and rate it lower simply because of its size should have considered that before they applied...

Also, your preoccupation with the rankings is interesting. I read a transcript from a board meeting of a high-ranked 1994 University (best guess is Sussex) where they explicitly admitted that the rankings were 'rubbish'. He said something along the lines of 'we all know the rankings are rubbish'. Now, why would it matter for Universities to participate and why would they have a vested interest to keep their positions high? Probably because of people like you.

Another thing, if you ever go onto the rankings and consider the most important of the criteria, being the entry levels difficulty and contrast it with the, admittedly very poor, satisfaction rates (which I believe are somewhat unreliable but still an ok indicator of where the uni needs to improve), you'll see that despite how far the satisfaction rates bring it down, the university does reasonably well in the tables considering.

Universities always compete about their age.

I think the arts departments are neglected, the History department said they had been awarded more funding by the university, and were going to recruit 6 new members of teaching staff for 2012 entry. I don't no whether to believe them. There's also a part of me that feels History is something you can sort of study yourself, as long as you keep disciplined. They have a massive library so they won't be short of resources. Apparently it's similar elsewhere; not much contact time for social sciences/arts/humanities, I just don't know why it is especially bad at manc...

I study here now it's in most respects a fantastic university with no more niggles than anywhere else, the low student satisfaction rating comes from only those with something negative to say filling out the survey. If you come here you'll realise that an absolute minority actually bother to fill in the survey and it tends to be the whiny idiots.

I don't really care about its ranking; I'm sure it will improve. But I was just intrigued as to why it was 30th in the UK, and the TSRians who actually feel they are a mid-table uni in the UK make me laugh.