What is the point in 'lower ranked unis'?

Why should consumer choice be limited? If people want to pay for a sub-standard education then so be it.

Also, there are a multitude of flaws in your logic. What about bright but lazy students? Now assume that somebody got B/C at GCSE but got AAA at A level, top universities may not take them. What about people that go to low universities but then go on to do a Masters at a top one?

If these people (including myself) are wasting time at university then we won't get jobs and will have wasted three years however there is every chance that we will be employed whilst some arrogant posh boy who thought that a part time job in a bar was below him will fail to find a decent job.

The point being that if universities want to offer a service then who are you tell the customer they cannot buy it.

actually, employment figures from ex-polys tend to pretty high...

So you cannot, in fact, find a league table that ranks universities by the difficulty of their exams as per your original claim.



What I am saying is fairly clear, if you cannot understand it then do not twist its meaning. If you are not capable of understand it - which, given the drivel you consistently spew out on TSR is quite likely - then please do not enter such discussions.



This is because you are still a child and thus you don't actually have any work experience. This is mainly a discussion for adults.

There is a difference, of cause, and it's getting bigger the lower down the tables you go, but saying that there is a 'noticeable difference' and claiming that there is no point in lower ranked universities at all is not the same.

I didn't claim such a point was true in the first place?

Equal oppurtunity?

Equal oppurtunity?

Hmm?

What do you mean?

Wasn't it Tony Blair who thought it wise to convert all of those polytechnic colleges into universities in the 1990s? What an absolute disaster that has proven to be. Sending droves of vacant minded youths to study a degree in some mickey mouse subject appears to have devalued the 'worth' of a degree considerably.

I like Maths but I realize that I'd never be able to do a degree in it.

Just because we like something doesn't mean we have the ability to pursue it to a higher level. In this case, a degree.

Should anyone fail to get into a 'decent uni' and by decent any institution ranked in the top 10 is feasible, then this implies they aren't suitable to continue studying the subject.

Knowing your limitations is an important part of life.

If there is a surplus of graduates from the higher ranked unis then it is nigh on impossible for grads from lower ranked unis to find a graduate job.

So what is the purpose of lower ranked unis when it's more likely you'll leave with 40k+ debt and no career prospects?

Some unis that rank lower overall, have specialist strengths, in more vocational subjects such as Optometry and Physiotherapy.

.

Like, I struggle to believe that you actually believe that. Just compare how much work people at different uni's do to get a given grade (let's say a 2.i.). The 2.i. rate isn't any higher at top ranked uni's than at bottom ones. The people at the top uni's do way more work, as a rule. Unless you're going to say either (a) that people at top uni's are generally less intelligent or less efficient, or (b) that the teaching at top uni's is substantially worse, I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that exams at top uni's are more difficult.