Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How good is the Univeristy of Greenwich?

Announcements Posted on
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Einheri)
    88th is still pretty awful.
    Where would you consider an acceptable place on the league table is?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattyJo)
    Where would you consider an acceptable place on the league table is?
    I think you've got to question any university that routinely falls below, say, the 30 mark. There's got to be a reason for that, although league tables aren't everything there's got to be a reason it's falling so far behind it's peers.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Einheri)
    I think you've got to question any university that routinely falls below, say, the 30 mark. There's got to be a reason for that, although league tables aren't everything there's got to be a reason it's falling so far behind it's peers.
    so, russell group more or less.

    Some won't get the grades to aim that high. Some don't want to go through all the requirements needed for a school that highly ranked. Priorities are different. I would argue that if you're going for a specialised course, a course that grants you access to a particular career, then it's not so bad. For example, pharmacy, computer science

    for something like English literature for example, it's more risky.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    If you do a quick search, you'll find someone from London Met got an offer from the LSE to do their Masters. And as I said, I did my UG in an unknown Uni, and still got in a top Uni.

    Precisely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion I believe that as long as you can get higher that a 2:2 (or a 2:1?) in your UG from ANY university, you are eligible to do a masters from whichever HE institution you choose (depending on their postgrad entry requirements).
    Besides, these days I think that having a masters is pretty much incumbent if you want a well-paid and a good job.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Well I won't counter argue about Greenwich's lack of job opportunity since I don't have any factual data on that; do you?

    My whole point is to get good education; from the good education you can display it to your future employers. If your future employers reject you based on the merits of tables and not your skills or intellect, they aren't really sound minded people are they then?

    *but it seems that there are many negative comments for Grenwich on this thread :teehee:
    There is a thing called reputation
    Of course the employers do not give a **** about the league tables, at least the big companies. It depends on what opinion they have about the University, research, students' knowledge, abilities, etc.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Having a lot going with them? What kind of 'a lot going with them' mind me asking? Your analogy of Primark, although appreciated, is a failed analogy; one is a store, another is an institution of higher learning. The tables don't help the students in anyway. It's just there to tell who's better doing research, which helps very little to UG students such as the OP.

    Nope. If you do a quick search, you'll find someone from London Met got an offer from the LSE to do their Masters. And as I said, I did my UG in an unknown Uni, and still got in a top Uni. Your argument is easily refuted.
    It's 'a lot going for them', not 'a lot going with them'. That's not an expression. By 'a lot going for them' I mean the kind of things which are taken into account by the league tables, which do not just include research. It includes student satisfaction, resources (perhaps most importantly), graduate employment rates, standard of teaching, and yes, an element of research. Do you think you gain nothing from being taught by the people who are doing the real work in your subject? I'm not taught by people who have only read the articles written by the people writing in Philosophy at the moment, I'm taught by the people that wrote them, or at least people who have been supervised by those people.
    Of course some people from low ranking universities get into high ranking universities sometimes, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't do you any favours. A 2:1 from Oxford is going to look better on a masters application than a 2:1 from Greenwich, that's pretty obvious.
    I enjoy how you've tried to point out that my analogy is flawed by pointing out that it's an analogy... Uhu, I know, Primark's a shop, Greenwich a Uni, my point was that when something is charging far less than the going rate, it's probably because there's very low demand for it, or that people are unwilling to pay more because the quality is low. So... I'm not sure how that analogy fails. Greenwich charge lower fees because they want to get students and it's hard to get students when you have such a low ranking and are so unappealing to employers.
    Having supervisors who are at the forefront of research is incredibly valuable to UGs. These people know their stuff better, they're able to give you ideas that are cutting edge and chances are if they're the people doing the most important research, it's because they're the best in their field. I'm pretty sure being taught by the best in your field is an advantage. I understand that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be the best teachers, but in my case I've found there's a pretty good correlation.
    And using two exceptions to disprove a trend is just really not how you do argument....
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gawjuz.x)
    Precisely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion I believe that as long as you can get higher that a 2:2 (or a 2:1?) in your UG from ANY university, you are eligible to do a masters from whichever HE institution you choose (depending on their postgrad entry requirements).
    Besides, these days I think that having a masters is pretty much incumbent if you want a well-paid and a good job.
    Yeah, eligible. That doesn't mean you'll get it, and your chances of getting a funded masters from a uni like that are going to be pretty much nil, and funded masters are obviously pretty cool.

    Having a masters might be incumbent in the jobs market, but it's essential if you want to do further study. It all depends what you want to do with your degree. Plus, I'm not so sure about the value of a masters... I've heard a few people saying they lost out on jobs because people are so qualified now that you do, in many cases, have to have a masters to compete.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bimbleby)
    Its 'a lot going for them', not 'a lot going with them'. That's not an expression. By 'a lot going for them' I mean the kind of things which are taken into account by the league tables, which do not just include research. It includes student satisfaction, resources (perhaps most importantly), graduate employment rates, standard of teaching, and yes, an element of research. Do you think you gain nothing from being taught by the people who are doing the real work in your subject? I'm not taught by people who have only read the articles written by the people writing in Philosophy at the moment, I'm taught by the people that wrote them, or at least people who have been supervised by those people.
    Of course some people from low ranking universities get into high ranking universities sometimes, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't do you any favours. A 2:1 from Oxford is going to look better on a masters application than a 2:1 from Grenwich, that's pretty obvious.
    I enjoy how you've tried to point out that my analogy is flawed by pointing out that it's an analogy... Uhu, I know, Primark's a shop, Greenwich a Uni, my point was that when something is charging far less than the going rate, it's probably because there's very low demand for it, or that people are unwilling to pay more because the quality is low. So... I'm not sure how that analogy fails. Greenwich charge lower fees because they want to get students and it's hard to get students when you have such a low ranking and are so unappealing to employers.
    Having supervisors who are at the forefront of research is incredibly valuable to UGs. These people know their stuff better, they're able to give you ideas that are cutting edge and chances are if they're the people doing the most important research, it's because they're the best in their field. I'm pretty sure being taught by the best in your field is an advantage. I understand that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be the best teachers, but in my case I've found there's a pretty good correlation.
    And using two exceptions to disprove a trend is just really not how you do argument....
    In writing, whenever you want to end your sentence, there's this thing called a full stop. Owh! And punctuation has their own format. Look it up! So many things I can comment about your writing but I'm not bothered.

    Of course some people from low ranking universities get into high ranking universities sometimes, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't do you any favours.
    Wow! What a claim!

    A 2:1 from Oxford is going to look better on a masters application than a 2:1 from Grenwich, that's pretty obvious.
    Whose opinion? Yours? Where's the source to back this up? Does not make a good argument without any evidence...

    Owh! Before you want to cite your precious league tables, they don't have this criteria. Find a better evidence that's not bias. I'm sure if you know statistics, the league tables have some serious flaws with them; sure you know this. :rolleyes:

    A 2:1 in any uni will not get you the job/funds/whatever if you perform poorly during the interview/application process. And if you 'act' as if you're the princess of the world, thinking that you're from a certain Uni and you deserve to get the job/funds/future whatever, as you are hinting quite clearly, employers/future whatever wouldn't even dream of taking such a snob. Stop acting like you're so important and be humble. They are other well deserving people out there and the HR/interview personnel know how to differentiate between a good future employee and a bad pompous one.

    Having supervisors who are at the forefront of research is incredibly valuable to UGs. These people know their stuff better, they're able to give you ideas that are cutting edge and chances are if they're the people doing the most important research, it's because they're the best in their field.
    Evidence? Claiming again isn't it? Who are you to say that they are going to be 'incredibly valuable' to UGs? Even some of the PGs find it incredibly hard to work with these people and now you want the UGs to work with them!?

    There are so many 'I's' on your post as I highlighted quite nicely that people would wonder whether you actually know how to argue and present facts.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gawjuz.x)
    Precisely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion I believe that as long as you can get higher that a 2:2 (or a 2:1?) in your UG from ANY university, you are eligible to do a masters from whichever HE institution you choose (depending on their postgrad entry requirements).
    Besides, these days I think that having a masters is pretty much incumbent if you want a well-paid and a good job.
    Yes. Depends on the scholarship provider. If you satisfy the requirements of the scholarship/fund provider, you'll get the scholarship.

    (Original post by Bimbleby)
    Yeah, eligible. That doesn't mean you'll get it, and your chances of getting a funded masters from a uni like that are going to be pretty much nil?, and funded masters are obviously pretty cool.
    Claims, claims and more exaggerated claims. Who are you to say those unis won't allow you to get the scholarship? Are you a scholarship provider? Have you worked with one? Have you even applied to any PG MSc/MA before other than your own UG?

    God... some people.

    EDIT: You haven't even finished Uni and here you are talking about funded PG MSc/MA as if you've been through one!? :nope:

    :yawn:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Yes. Depends on the scholarship provider. If you satisfy the requirements of the scholarship/fund provider, you'll get the scholarship.



    Claims, claims and more exaggerated claims. Who are you to say those unis won't allow you to get the scholarship? Are you a scholarship provider? Have you worked with one? Have you even applied to any PG MSc/MA before other than your own UG?

    God... some people.

    EDIT: You haven't even finished Uni and here you are talking about funded PG MSc/MA as if you've been through one!? :nope:

    :yawn:
    Um, because weirdly, you can actually apply for an MA and associated funding as an UG... weird, I know.

    That's like saying to someone 'who are you to say you can't get into Harvard with 3 Cs? The admissions tutor?' I've spoken to the careers service about it, I've spoken to my tutors, I've spoken to current and past MAs, I've read a lot about it, and everyone I've spoken to has said to get funding for an arts subject you need a high 2:1, probably a 1st from a very respectable uni. If most people at Cambridge with high 2:1s can't get funding, how the hell is someone from Greenwich going to get it? There may be exceptional cases, of course, but generally funding is incredibly hard to get and all the careers and higher education advisers I've spoken to about it (yes, I know, I don't know everything, but they're pretty knowledgeable about that kind of thing) have said that really you need to have proven an outstanding academic record, and that means a high 2:1 or 1st from a top university.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    In writing, whenever you want to end your sentence, there's this thing called a full stop. Owh! And punctuation has their own format. Look it up! So many things I can comment about your writing but I'm not bothered.



    Wow! What a claim!



    Whose opinion? Yours? Where's the source to back this up? Does not make a good argument without any evidence...

    Owh! Before you want to cite your precious league tables, they don't have this criteria. Find a better evidence that's not bias. I'm sure if you know statistics, the league tables have some serious flaws with them; sure you know this. :rolleyes:

    A 2:1 in any uni will not get you the job/funds/whatever if you perform poorly during the interview/application process. And if you 'act' as if you're the princess of the world, thinking that you're from a certain Uni and you deserve to get the job/funds/future whatever, as you are hinting quite clearly, employers/future whatever wouldn't even dream of taking such a snob. Stop acting like you're so important and be humble. They are other well deserving people out there and the HR/interview personnel know how to differentiate between a good future employee and a bad pompous one.



    Evidence? Claiming again isn't it? Who are you to say that they are going to be 'incredibly valuable' to UGs? Even some of the PGs find it incredibly hard to work with these people and now you want the UGs to work with them!?

    There are so many 'I's' on your post as I highlighted quite nicely that people would wonder whether you actually know how to argue and present facts.
    Chippy much?

    Never heard of an ellipse? It's a perfectly appropriate way to end a sentence. And you've highlighted a load of completely irrelevant 'I's in my post. Yes, I'm writing from my own experience, which is why I say things like 'in my experience' and 'I've found'. Is that somehow not an acceptable thing to do?

    And seriously, fine, you carry on thinking that employers will look just as well on a degree from Greenwich as one from Oxford... I'm not saying one's guaranteed a job, of course a crap candidate from anywhere won't get a job. But you're not automatically pompous because you've been to a high ranking university and are pointing out basic things like that some universities have better reputations than others. You're right, I don't have any evidence to support that claim other than the league tables, the words of employers I've met and the relative success of people I know from high ranking universities. Those are all subjective, but I've never really decided to do a study on it because I think most people take it as pretty much a given. If you have evidence that Greenwich has a better reputation than, say, UCL, I think the burden of proof is really on you there.

    And really, there are so many issues with my writing? From a person who strung together the words 'And punctuation has their own format'. I really have no idea what's going on with that sentence at all...

    (See what I did there, I ended with an ellipse, which is actually totally fine, perhaps you ought to check your strangely plural-ised punctuation reference book.)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Owh! Before you want to cite your precious league tables, they don't have this criteria. Find a better evidence that's not bias. I'm sure if you know statistics, the league tables have some serious flaws with them; sure you know this. :rolleyes:
    Uh, and yeah, they do have the criteria I mentioned, if you're so desperate for the insanely widely available evidence: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...gue-tables/key

    I never said they weren't hugely flawed, just that even if they're not greatly accurate, you can probably say that a uni which consistently ranks in the bottom few is worse than one which consistently ranks in the top few, but there we go, I don't have evidence for that statement to hand, because I consider it blindingly obvious, but clearly that's merely because I am bad at arguing, for which I apologise.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bimbleby)
    Um, because weirdly, you can actually apply for an MA and associated funding as an UG... weird, I know.

    That's like saying to someone 'who are you to say you can't get into Harvard with 3 Cs? The admissions tutor?' I've spoken to the careers service about it, I've spoken to my tutors, I've spoken to current and past MAs, I've read a lot about it, and everyone I've spoken to has said to get funding for an arts subject you need a high 2:1, probably a 1st from a very respectable uni. If most people at Cambridge with high 2:1s can't get funding, how the hell is someone from Greenwich going to get it? There may be exceptional cases, of course, but generally funding is incredibly hard to get and all the careers and higher education advisers I've spoken to about it (yes, I know, I don't know everything, but they're pretty knowledgeable about that kind of thing) have said that really you need to have proven an outstanding academic record, and that means a high 2:1 or 1st from a top university.
    So? :teehee: Have you? Have you finished a PG MA? or any UG MAs if you have applied for it? You haven't even finished your UG and here you are bragging as if you know all possible situations for grad studies in the UK (the world?). Very poor advice/opinion.

    Poor analogy. Yet again. What have you learned really?

    Current and past MAs? Which MAs? UG MAs or PG MAs? What, when, where, who and how did you gather the data? How many people you've interviewed? Demography? Answer all of these then we can proceed.

    Read (theory) != Practical knowledge and real world. :rolleyes:

    Source that Greenwich can't get it? Who's the person (how many?) from Cambridge that can't get it?; perhaps some showy student that thinks she's better than other Uni students? What's the year? And finally; everyone? who's this everyone? God... what a nightmare reading all of these. >=(

    Advisers don't know a lot of things FYI. They know the information within the realm of their/specific Unis or gathered data; therefore the former is obviously biased and the later would need to be checked; I thought you should have known this by know. And for God's sake, I just met an Asst. Professor but she herself said "my opinion" and "you'd need to check this and that because this is not my field", very humbly when she reviewed and commented my work; unlike you who seemed to know confidently 'a lot of things' by meeting just a few people.

    Source that you need a high class from 'a top uni'?

    Poor argument.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bimbleby)
    Chippy much?

    Never heard of an ellipse? It's a perfectly appropriate way to end a sentence. And you've highlighted a load of completely irrelevant 'I's in my post. Yes, I'm writing from my own experience, which is why I say things like 'in my experience' and 'I've found'. Is that somehow not an acceptable thing to do?

    And seriously, fine, you carry on thinking that employers will look just as well on a degree from Greenwich as one from Oxford... I'm not saying one's guaranteed a job, of course a crap candidate from anywhere won't get a job. But you're not automatically pompous because you've been to a high ranking university and are pointing out basic things like that some universities have better reputations than others. You're right, I don't have any evidence to support that claim other than the league tables, the words of employers I've met and the relative success of people I know from high ranking universities. Those are all subjective, but I've never really decided to do a study on it because I think most people take it as pretty much a given. If you have evidence that Greenwich has a better reputation than, say, UCL, I think the burden of proof is really on you there.

    And really, there are so many issues with my writing? From a person who strung together the words 'And punctuation has their own format'. I really have no idea what's going on with that sentence at all...

    (See what I did there, I ended with an ellipse, which is actually totally fine, perhaps you ought to check your strangely plural-ised punctuation reference book.)
    Urm... learn to read? You do know what are punctuation marks don't you? You don't even know which one I'm referring don't you!? lol!

    So, from the second paragraph of your post, you've just admitted your posts are completely biased, not factual and probably hearsay/gossips you've read and heard from the net or from some really biased advice/opinions. So why should we listen to you? Your tone of writing from your previous posts is forcing the idea to everyone that what you're saying is factual, which it is not, and with almost 0% evidence to support your bizarre claims (and this is the part where I am really biting my tongue) which you've actually admitted it, who wants to listen to it? No wonder you got so many neg reps!

    I don't need to proof anything. The burden of proof is 100% on you seems you've made some really bizarre claims, and you've provided me only 1% of it; and that's from a 'league table' :teehee:

    Urm... probably you need to sharpen your comprehension perhaps?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bimbleby)
    Uh, and yeah, they do have the criteria I mentioned, if you're so desperate for the insanely widely available evidence: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...gue-tables/key

    I never said they weren't hugely flawed, just that even if they're not greatly accurate, you can probably say that a uni which consistently ranks in the bottom few is worse than one which consistently ranks in the top few, but there we go, I don't have evidence for that statement to hand, because I consider it blindingly obvious, but clearly that's merely because I am bad at arguing, for which I apologise.
    LOL at your source.

    Yes, you are. As indicated by your own post; you accused people of bad at arguing but you yourself can't provide facts to support your arguments; smell the irony here?

    /END

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 24, 2012
New on TSR

Your favourite film of the year?

For you personally what has been the best 2014 movie

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.