(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
've found there's a pretty good correlation.
And using two exceptions to disprove a trend is just really not how you do argument....