Lets have a real debate on the Mets

To be fair it isn't "set" be the government. The co-coalition government abolished the cap and allowed universities to charge up to 9k. Those who wanted to charge 9k needed permission and to show they were not disadvantaging the less well off. Several universities, especially former polytechincs, didn't set their fees at 9k. Some introduced variable fees according to course. For example, a science course (with expensive lab equipment) is set at 8.5k whereas an arts course, with no expensive facilities and fewer contact hours, at 7k.

Still isn't what I'd call a rip off, though, considering a number of courses are as worthwhile as courses at their RG counterparts and, with cutbacks in funding,

OK then I apologise. That was a mistake. I did mean teaching.





Again, I am not referring to Oxford and Cambridge specifically, neither were you. Nowhere had you mentioned Oxford and Cambridge previously. I am referring to Russell and 1994 Group universities more broadly. Yes, teaching standards can be comparable to Russell Group universities.

Can you please provide evidence that demonstrates this is not the case? If you state something, then I expect you to provide evidence.





Firstly you clearly don't visit the university forums much if you don't know the university I attended. I might be less vocal about the university I attended than I was in 2008 - 2009, but I still think it's quite well known. As you don't seem to be aware, I attended Durham.

Secondly, I have a graduate job.

Thirdly, some of the supermarket graduate schemes are among the most competitive and highly desired graduate schemes.

Now can we please get to doing some actually sensible debating and discussion, rather than such childish comments?



Except what is being referred here is graduate level employment. You will find that Robert Gordon University, for example, have a large presence in the off-shore engineering and oil industry.



I repeat - there is no distance learning Bachelors degree in OT.

As far as that course goes, which must be new as I saw no mention of it in a COT handbook last year, many may chose not to pursue it. OT involves a heavy placement element (at least a third of the course is spent in placement). The placements in this course seem a bit odd, in my opinion. It's more difficult to arrange to placements in a distance learning course, hence why no other university offers a distance learning OT degree.

Except it can't as Sheffield don't have the facilities, staff or experitise. Moreoever, why shouldn't it be offered by Sheffield Hallam? Why must strong departments be transferred to pre-1992s? How is this to be achieved? Would the pre-1992 universities want these departments?



I think this may be quite naive. I'm sure there are. There will certainly be former polytechnics who offer more contact hours than Manchester, and universities with better student support (including disabiity support) than Russell Group universities generally. This is an important part of support and the facilities you mentioned.

There are certainly former polytechnics who produce world class research in specific areas of history. I will discuss this more when I have the time.

What about Law? Or Petroleum engineering?

It may well be that Russell Group universities are, broadly speaking, of a higher quality than the former polytechnics. This isn't what you wanted to debate. You said that former polytechics are all rubbish and "cheating" students (and they should be reported for false advertising - what adverts have you seen that you think are false advertising?)

What is surprising about the universities in the lower end of the league tables is the drop out rate. I knew someone who went to one and said- 'there was over 100 students crammed into a room to small to sit them all down around tables and at the end of the year there were only a dozen students left who completed the course' That to me is ridiculous. The admissions policy must be to cram as many students into a room knowing full well that - in the above case 90% - most will drop out.

Here is one example in how Russell group is better than polys. This is computer science for university of Birmingham v University of Bedfordshire.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjec...eturnTo/Search

Teaching = 91 % (Staff are good at explaining things)


http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjec...eturnTo/Search

Teaching = 76%

And going by your logic Durham means nothing. Because all unis are the same with exact same educational opportunities and teaching and research etc etc...

Thank you.

And you have people like River sprouting out Bull **** that all Mets are good and perfect and there are no problems with them, and in fact they are better than Russell group.

Firstly I'd like to say that Occ Therapy MSc course you found earlier was a post-registration course. Being too tired I didn't realise this at the time. I was referring to pre-registration courses (those that allow registration with the Health Professions Council, and to work as an Occupational Therapist, after completion). The MSc you found was for those who already have an accredited degree and are registered with the HPC.

As for this post, yes,you've already posted this. And? That's one former polytechnic, one Russell Group university, and one course. What is it supposed to be prove? You may well find pre-1992s who have inferior stats to Bedfordshire, or several post-1992s with superior stats to Birmingham.

This doesn't mean that former polytechincs don't have considerable strengths.



Where have I ever said, or even implied, that going to a Russell Group university "means nothing"? Or that "all universities are the same"? You're implying things I've never said and your posts full of fallacies.

In fact one of my concluding sentences in that post was: -

"It may well be that Russell Group universities are, broadly speaking, of a higher quality than the former polytechnics."

I am not saying that every university is the same. What I am saying is that several former polytechnics do have a number of strong courses. On a department level they can be comparable to Russell Group universities. Evidence of this can be found in QAA teaching reports, the RAE and student satisfaction scores. They can also point to strong employment stats among their graduates.

They also, and this is only my experience, provide better disability support than a large number of Russell Group universities.

Not at all - I know someone else who left a Met because the teaching was so poor and the lecturers so ignorant etc. On the other hand I know someone else who got a degree from a met uni has an MA from Goldsmiths and teaches in a top London college. I think it can work both ways. Some lecturers go to top unis and teach at met unis for the challenge.

It makes me sick. Mets treat students like animals.

TBH at the beginning of the year my friend said - 'the seminars were so packed that had they been livestock protestors would have been outside lobbying for their freedom.' LoL

I think it depends on the person if you're determined to get a degree can handle stupid lecturers and are lucky enough to get some good ones then you can succeed at a met and go on to do great things. Some people or 90% aren't cut out for the rough ride that is inevitable at a met.

I agree, the cost really ought to reflect the quality of teaching.

You are implying it!!!!!!!!! Don't give me that BS!! You are implying it right now by defending the Mets. Met does not = Russell Group. Simple. No BS sidestepping, I used the computer science course as an example to show how like or not, Russell group education is on the whole superior to Metropolitan education.

Places like Bolton, Wolves, Mets etc provide low quality teaching, low quality courses with low quality graduate prospects. They come out with all this **** saying "oooo we got an award for this" "That local company took 2 of our graduates, and here is what they said about them" "We are top 50 in the North West for green campus according to the guardian" etc etc. No http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmechatheslag.net%2Fgaming%2FThread-Freak-Fortress-2-tip-suggestion-thread%3Fpage%3D3&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=frXRqtR6aWYTAM&tbnh=171&tbnw=294&zoom=1&docid=cL7Ah1-Rp0RJ7M&hl=en&ei=HiBoUp2WIuu20wXv0oCQAg&ved=0CAEQsCU

Not good enough. They rip off students and leave them with a worthless piece of paper and 27k debt.

just to note that non Russells doesn't mean a bad uni. The way you post things imply that non Russells=not worth the bother.

for comp sci, I know for a fact that Swansea uni grads go places (Swansea is not Russell group) and for some jobs, employers gladly take the Swansea uni grads rather than Oxford grads.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Which is wrong. Why try in this country when mediocre = best? Luckily, Oxbridge computer science graduates will usually all end up working for Blue chip companies, rather than your local IT business. But its the fact that people turn their noses up at you just because your better than them that annoys me, and they always try to justify their own university and come out with things like "oh we have industrial placements, Manchester does not." Do I care? No, you still did not get AAA & I will still end up getting a better job and earning more in the long term. (happens all the time at school reunions as I'm the only one in my year to go Russell group)

Not a personal rant at you btw.

I wasn't talking about a local IT company. I don't want to name it on here but it's one of the biggest companies in the world. I've seen it with my own eyes, them turning Oxford grads for the supposedly inferior Swansea grads. They didn't care about the grades or where they went, but the experience and the fact that they could do the job better was what counted.

I can say the exact same thing for the industry I am going for. A level grades means nothing in real life, that is something I've learned.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Then what is the point of even trying then? Why have A levels or GCSE's? why not just have a pass/ fail qualification if grades mean nothing. What is the point of trying to get the best grades and go the best university, if inverse snobbery is going to count against you .This is what pisses me off on mediocre standards in this country.

However, I know for the career I am in, if I have low standards, I and my team will get killed, and at the higher end, national security threatened.

The company I was talking about is a defence company so the people who work there are important in terms of national security. One person there has an A level grade of BDU, that did not count against him.

Grades matters to get you in the next step of your education, after that it is meaningless. Even if one got AAA in A levels, went to a Russell group uni but ended up with a third or pass in degree, well that person couldn't exactly compete with someone who got CCC, went to a supposedly lesser uni and received a first in their degree. It's depressing but all the anxiety over GCSE and A levels mean nothing after going in the next step of education.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you get a third or 2:2, then again you don't deserve a graduate job. However, if you get a 2:1 or first from UCL, it is stupid that you are counted the exact same as somebody from London Met. No wonder this country is slipping down the world education leader boards.

I think, to sum this thread up, it's incredible how much you can learn about the 'real world' after university (with all the information about what employers want, and job prospects) despite having never actually lived in it yourself. Best of luck with it nevertheless.

An interesting thing to mention is that your future employer (I assume, based on your posts, that you'll be going for graduate entry as an officer in the Royal Navy, or elsewhere in the forces) is equally happy with Mets as it is with the Russell Group. A friend of mine did mechanical engineering at a Met back in the 00s and is now doing very nicely for himself in the RN. But don't worry, I'm sure the lowly Met graduates will be queuing up to shine your Russell Group shoes at Dartmouth.

No, regular Army, not Royal Navy. I'm in it for the career, I'm already in the military as an officer (TA), I'm just getting my degree before I get transferred to regulars in 2016. I plan to get as far up the career ladder I can, then get an extension once I hit 22 years. So yes, they will be, I know I'll be ****ted on for the first 10 years or so by people higher than me who went to Mets (the commander of the land forces has a BSc in Agriculture at Reading University for ffs) , but the Army is/will be my life, I am determined to progress to higher command, I plan to be the best of the best, and I expect those under me to be the best of the best. Which is why I have no respect for Mets, they are time wasters and work for only mediocre results. We lost our edge because of incompetent officers and incompetent politicians (wrong decisions, insufficient resources), which is why we lost the guerrilla war In Iraq, and we were/are losing it in Afghanistan. (amongst other factors) The British Armed Forces is a shadow of its former self, and we have to hide behind the protective umbrella of NATO. I'm ranting now so I shall stop.