London Met / Middlesex

Has anyone been to Middlesex university london or london metropolitan and have any opinions on the accomodation / location ect ?

Iv'e heard some really bad reviews on london met.What are your thoughts on middlesex ? the only thing putting me off slightly is the location of the accomodation.

it doesn't do a teacher training course.This is why I have had to rule out a lot of uni's as usually only mets do teacher training courses.

London Met should not be considered.

Middlesex is in a very suburban and pleasant area (even the Halls by the RAF musuem - that area has improved dramatically in the last few years), I would go so far as to say that there actually isn't much to do in Hendon. Going out is fairly limited, you will have to travel a bit for anything more than a couple of boring pubs. Either into central London, or maybe Hampstead if you have a few pounds. Otherwise Camden etc. I certainly wouldn't go to Harrow or anything.

It is not possible for someone to disagree with anyone more strongly than I disagree with this, apparently baseless, statement (and the many others like it that abound on this website). I think that The Student Room's inhabitants are too often woefully misguided as to the purpose of education and as to the role of The University in the modern world: so many of you have bought, whole-heartedly, into New Labour ideaology. You seemingly believe that the purpose of education is to increase one's value within an all-powerful, commercial jobs market. That is not what education is. It is not what universities do. Education is for it's own sake. It is emancipatory, it is empowering and, in my opinion, needs to be available to everyone.

That is what London Met does and it does it well.

I have studied at one of the hallowed and TSR-revered Russell Group institutions. I have achieved the commodified and homogenous 2:1 that can be wrought from thoughtlessly following the path hegemonously dictated by all and sundry. And it was ok. But now I am undertaking a Masters qualification at London Met and it is comparing more than favourably: the breadth of experience and diversity across the student body is truly staggering. Throughout this experience I have had my world-view utterly shattered and robustly rebuilt with a far broader, global scope. Utterly life-changing and self-improving and arguably an experience unique to institutions of a certain ilk.

A final caveat: any system of ranking is flawed and open to manipulation, and any observation notably (and sometimes indelibly) alters the observed. Within all university ranking systems a significant weighting is given to the 'drop-out rate' of students. If an institution has a high 'drop-out rate' does that mean it is bad? or does it mean that it is simply offering, in greater numbers, opportunity for social mobility and taking on a more significant challenge? do some universities play a far worthier social-role than others and is that important to the student-experience?

I know what I believe and I know which institutions have the most of my respect.

I wish you all the very best with your studies and your futures.

It is not possible for someone to disagree with anyone more strongly than I disagree with this, apparently baseless, statement (and the many others like it that abound on this website). I think that The Student Room's inhabitants are too often woefully misguided as to the purpose of education and as to the role of The University in the modern world: so many of you have bought, whole-heartedly, into New Labour ideaology. You seemingly believe that the purpose of education is to increase one's value within an all-powerful, commercial jobs market. That is not what education is. It is not what universities do. Education is for it's own sake. It is emancipatory, it is empowering and, in my opinion, needs to be available to everyone.

That is what London Met does and it does it well.

I have studied at one of the hallowed and TSR-revered Russell Group institutions. I have achieved the commodified and homogenous 2:1 that can be wrought from thoughtlessly following the path hegemonously dictated by all and sundry. And it was ok. But now I am undertaking a Masters qualification at London Met and it is comparing more than favourably: the breadth of experience and diversity across the student body is truly staggering. Throughout this experience I have had my world-view utterly shattered and robustly rebuilt with a far broader, global scope. Utterly life-changing and self-improving and arguably an experience unique to institutions of a certain ilk.

I know what I believe and I know which institutions have the most of my respect.

I wish you all the very best with your studies and your futures.

I like your point of view to the concept of education in general, and definitely agree. I also appreciate your objective observations of the two universities you have attended. (I do not know about either of them, other than some reading on the web).
Regards,

I have a great deal of sympathy with your view that education should where possible be encouraged for its own sake, this creates an impossible conundrum in institutions like London Met.

Many such universities don't offer the same range of subjects as older institutions, and concentrate on "employable" subjects such as business, law and IT as well as new subjects like accountancy and nursing. As long as this is happening, there is no education for its own sake as the students themselves don't buy into your model of education.

I'm trying to get a handle on what you are saying with "Met does xyz well - education should be for everyone". Are you saying that students of all abilities should be allowed the opportunity to study at every level - and for the academically weaker students - this is the niche fulfilled by places like Met?