Why are ex-polys so badly mocked on TSR?

Average starting salaries are a big thing actually. People seem to think a university ranked 40 or 50 places above another uni somehow equates to better prospects. Well starting salaries reflect prospects whether you like it or not. You earn more with experience, not by having a university name on your CV.

I've already acknowledged that those from 'lesser' unis will not have access to larger companies, but the fact that they can earn more than those at 'Red Bricks'/RG unis says a lot about big companies. Don't be fooled, they attract applicants because they're big and well known and many students out there think big is great. Well it usually isn't.

As for the bragging, it's pretty stupid really. There's only 2 universities worth bragging about in the UK because everyone has heard of them and they go by the names of Oxford and Cambridge. No one cares if you went to Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield, Lancaster etc. they're all generic unis, there simply is nothing to 'brag' about attending one of those institutions. Fair enough it's a pretty good accomplishment, but no one's going to look at you in awe of your institution. In fact anyone who does brag about attending something outside Oxbridge ought to be embarrassed to be perfectly frank.

The OP has missed the point about top end uni's; the facilities are better (libraries etc) and the students have access to academics experts in their field. People don't just go to uni to get a good job; people go to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.

Also, to say there is Oxbridge and then everyone else is delusional. Just because you think there is no difference in UWE and Bristol doesn't mean to say there isn't; you can guarantee you are in a minority.

Degrees are harder at the better institutions with a greater work load and thus degrees from top uni's carry more weight.

I'm not sure if that's 100% true. I'm at an ex-poly at the moment myself, and am one of the few people who can actually compare it to Oxbridge having drop out. I actually find myself having far more facilities at my current polytechnic, and I have access to some of the top in the field. I learn poetry from the poet laureate, for example.


In terms of difficulty... I won't comment. There's a raging dispute about it. The concept of external examiners is based around keeping a 1st from each university on equal par, despite Oxford subverting that by introducing the 1:1.

Anyway, I think the real reason people on TSR are so very negative about them is based on a fascination with league tables and just a spoonful of insecurity. Personally, a degree to me is a step towards my PHD, meaning the establishment is irrelevant.

It depends. I used the argument in public "I went to the 11th best university in the country, actually" when some grumpy old man on the train told me I was uneducated because I had long hair.

They're unfairly mocked because people can get away with it on the internet because there's no accountability for their ridiculous comments.

The people inferring that there is no difference between the top ranked traditional universities and the ex-polys are living on friendly cloud nine though I'm afraid. If this was the case, they'd be ranked higher and the traditional ones ranked lower. I'm not saying all parts of ex-polys are incomparable to traditional universities and all traditional universities are 100% effective but quite frankly there is a clear class off difference, hence why they get reputations.

The league tables aren't just made up of people picking the universities they like.

That's true, of course there is a difference. But I believe figures should do the talking and when it turns out that by going to a 'lesser' uni and doing a work placement earns you more than doing something like Philosophy, History or Politics at a leading university, this mocking of ex-polys should be questioned.

There are many on here who are saying 'ex-polys shouldn't exist'. There's even talk in the media of there being a focus on top 40 unis and the others slowly being converted into another sort of educational establishment. Well when their graduates can earn more than graduates from leading universities, ex-polys should, in some cases, be seen as more productive and more beneficial to the UK economy.

This is all wrong though. You're just making stuff up which you think will be true and that you can get away with. No.

It doesn't at all, maybe at first, maybe for the small bunch or on specific courses but overall this is a lie. Philosophy I am not sure, it doesn't interest me, but I know for sure purely because I study History and Politics at one of the traditional universities. Let me tell you, the placements aren't bad, neither is the graduate employment, average starting salary or some of the alumni that regularly pop back to visit.

I'm going to ignore the last paragraph unless you back it up instead of just taking the opinions of some extreme TSR members, remember that universities are about research and education not pushing the economy round and realise that not having the word degree on your qualification does not render the rest of your skills irrelevant and unemployable.

Why does the degree have to be devalued if these degrees that are being taken at such institutions provide the necessary skills? Why can't they be rightly called something else?

I think it has a lot to do with insecurity and I believe the majority of people who go on about ex-polys are people who have no real world experience, nor any experience at university.

The educational system in the UK is flawed. A hell of a lot of weight is put on A-Level results in determining your future academic pursuits. All this at an age where you may not truly comprehend the ramifications of not getting the very best grades. Also taking into account the huge step up in difficulty from GCSE level to A level in certain subjects (particularly the sciences, in my experience).

Selection of A-levels can be a huge factor as well. I went from 5A*s, 5As and a B (not great GCSEs, but they were the best in my year) to ACD in my A2s. I didn't change my work ethic or anything, the material was just a lot more difficult compared to GCSE and I think a lot of people tend to pick A-levels in the subjects they enjoyed at GCSE (for me this was Chemistry and Biology). But I got my A in Law, and so am now doing a Law degree at an ex-poly.

Do I wish I got better grades and went to a 'better' more prestigious university? Sure, but I know that's my inner gloating nature thinking for me.

When you're actually in the work place earning real world experience though, your degree won't matter.

Long and rambling post, apologies!

We all want to seem more important than we really are. A common tactic my parent used to use was telling me a ticket for something was always the last ticket. I know better now, nobody is ever that lucky!

As someone already said, it used to be a lot worse than it is now. I still remember when bashing media studies was a big thing on this site.

Actually, universities have a lot to do with the economy, hence there's been a push to get more and more to go. The fact of the matter is business leaders don't want liberal arts graduates, they're more after business and vocational graduates - someone who can actually add something to their business - this is coming from someone doing a History and Econ degree.

Oh and all this crap about going to uni to study something for interest rather than prospects is BS. There's a tiny fraction who do this but most go because traditionally it leads to better prospects and is seen as the norm in society, especially among the British middle-class - which take up most places at UK universities.

Forget my last paragraph from the post above, it wasn't off TSR, but I read an article around about the time of the expansion of the Russell Group to 24, but I can't find it, so render that point invalid.

There has been a push yes, under a very specific political agenda for the reasons of bridging the gap and creating more equality. Systematic pushes have done nothing but devalue degrees. There is also a common myth about how nobody wants liberal arts graduates. That is simply not true, there are less obvious and available jobs out there for them but they are still sought after. Most people from top 20/30 with a good honour and relevant experience do fine. I'm yet to see any contradictory stats.

If as you say, nobody wants these arts graduates then why are people still going if it increases prospects? Paradox?

The OP has missed the point about top end uni's; the facilities are better (libraries etc) and the students have access to academics experts in their field. People don't just go to uni to get a good job; people go to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.

Also, to say there is Oxbridge and then everyone else is delusional. Just because you think there is no difference in UWE and Bristol doesn't mean to say there isn't; you can guarantee you are in a minority.

Degrees are harder at the better institutions with a greater work load and thus degrees from top uni's carry more weight.

Insecurity about their own university = the need to slag off others.