Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Are there any truly 'bad' universities in the UK?

Scroll to see replies

Okay I've wasted an hour of my time doing exactly that and see no mention of a required EE.

As best I can tell from UCAS tariff points (which I wasted even more time looking up) the most you'll get for any kind of EE grade is 80 points. The lowest points requirement I can find for any course is 200 points.

From what I'm seeing you can't even do an Fda with less than 100 points.

So in other words, BDE at A-level? That's pretty much a disagrace.

No honestly, do you think a student who has achieved two A-levels at a sub-par standard should be going to "university"?

Reply 281

StarOfGerrad

Original post by im so academic

So in other words, BDE at A-level? That's pretty much a disagrace.

I think it's 200 points in two subjects but I could be wrong and I don't care.

I just instinctively knew EE had to be bull**** because I saw people getting **** for their grades when I interviewed.

Original post by im so academic

No honestly, do you think a student who has achieved two A-levels at a sub-par standard should be going to "university"?

I didn't get any A-levels or GCSEs so what do you think?

Reply 282

Superstar6318

Thames Valley University

Reply 283

im so academic

Original post by Wozzie

I think it's 200 points in two subjects but I could be wrong and I don't care.

Still, two A-levels? What does that suggest about the academic capabilities of the students at said university?

They only did two A-levels and still failed to achieve the top grades (inc. B grades)?

I just instinctively knew EE had to be bull**** because I saw people getting **** for their grades when I interviewed.

I didn't get any A-levels or GCSEs so what do you think?

That's even worse than EE. :erm:

So, what did you get?

University should be for the academic elite. This is my opinion.

Reply 284

Mombasa Raha

Original post by Einheri

Any univeristy that needs to pay to advertise on the frontpage of TSR must be pretty shocking.

I've seen a couple good unis who've had banners on TSR, including Nottingham. But for the most part I agree with you.

Reply 285

DopplerEffect

I don't think so....
There are a lot of factor involved....

Lets say someone attends U of Westminister, works hard and genuinely learns the stuff and improves himself, and gets a 1st...

Even though his degree will be far less prestigious than someone with a first from a top 15 uni, in a academic discussion both of them may perform to the same level...

Its all about the student... teaching staff matters too.. but the quality of the student and willingness of the student to learn plays the main role...

Reply 286

chrislpp

I heard about this one called Cambridge just north of London, apparently their brightest professor has to use a machine to talk! Stephen Hawling you call him or something

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 287

Pharm Boy

No.
Some are better than others.
But each University has its pros and cons. -some perhaps with more pros than cons.
But every University I believe has its own strength :smile:

Reply 288

infernalcradle

yes....ones that is not good at anything, and does a few million courses to try and get as many people (as more people=more money)...many of the courses will be stupid and shouldn't be degrees...

eg. christian youth work at chester uni

Reply 289

puddlejumper

Original post by RupertTheBear

Because the subject content is not the same?

I don't know. I know nothing about maths as a subject. That's why I asked.

But it seems to me that from my position if you're teaching algebra, for example. then the same facts and knowledge base is applicable regardless of where you being taught. So you are either capable of learning and applying those facts or you aren't. But location and teachers are irrelevant, except that some lecturers may be able to explain the difficult in a way in which the slower student can understand.

Maths is not a subject where it is up to interpretation. 2+2 =4 regardless of whether you are in Cambridge or in Hull.

I quite understand that Cambridge ask for higher admission standards, but given that Maths laws are the same anywhere, why is maths more difficult in Cambridge? Surely it should be easier as the students are presumably more academically able?

Reply 290

puddlejumper

Original post by Wookie42

For starters do you have any idea how much harder an Oxbridge student has to work than someone studying at say Sheffield Hallam? In all honesty though, I can't even be bothered to argue with someone who can't understand why a university that is internationally one of the best in the world is superior to one that is unheard of outside of Britain...

Look I do understand that Cambridge has higher admission standards, okay?

I also understand that students work hard at Cambridge - but then many students at other universities also work equally hard and it is presumptous of you to imply that they don't especially if you have not studied at the other universities .

World status does not make a good university for teaching - just for research. Besides the first on the block tend to be the ones that get the money. When the post 1992 universities have been around for as long as Oxbridge then we might be able to start to compare.

But it is moronic to stand there with your fingers in your ears, going la la la unless you can define what it is that makes Cambridge a better place for an undergraduate to study maths. Because if that student leaves with an ordinary Honours degree then they at the same level academically as a student with a Maths degree from bog-standard university. The QA will verify this statement as being correct.

Reply 291

Miraclefish

"Goodbye first-rate education, hello University of Lincoln."

Reply 292

Wookie42

Original post by puddlejumper

Look I do understand that Cambridge has higher admission standards, okay?

Its not about that. Before I start you should also know I'm not at university and am a 2011 applicant. A 2011 applicant for much lesser universities than Oxbridge or even top 10. In fact, I've only applied to two Russell Group universities.

Original post by puddlejumper

I also understand that students work hard at Cambridge - but then many students at other universities also work equally hard and it is presumptous of you to imply that they don't especially if you have not studied at the other universities .

It does sound incredibly snobbish to say Oxbridge students work harder than others, but there is a difference - especially in the final year. I won't hang onto this though since not only does it make me look like a massive snob, but of course I appreciate how hard students work at other universities. This isn't easy to measure anyway so was a bit of a foolish point to make.

Original post by puddlejumper

World status does not make a good university for teaching - just for research. Besides the first on the block tend to be the ones that get the money. When the post 1992 universities have been around for as long as Oxbridge then we might be able to start to compare.

I know what you mean, but post 1992 universities will never be as old as Oxbridge. I hope you understand how that works?

Original post by puddlejumper

But it is moronic to stand there with your fingers in your ears, going la la la unless you can define what it is that makes Cambridge a better place for an undergraduate to study maths. Because if that student leaves with an ordinary Honours degree then they at the same level academically as a student with a Maths degree from bog-standard university. The QA will verify this statement as being correct.

Oxbridge students have far superior teaching to those at (for the sake of argument) Sheffield Hallam. My sister who has just graduated was taught almost 1 to 1 for most of her studying - very few other places offer that. Another fundamental is that the content of the degree is simply harder to get through. Don't believe me? Compare it for yourself - I can only speak for English in this aspect, but the reading list my Sister was crazy compared to some of her friends at 'lesser' universities.

So the basic two things I'm trying to convey are that as you move up the league tables the difficulty of a degree generally increases, and at Oxbridge teaching is more superior due to the nature of how it works there. I didn't really want to get into an argument about this and I am by no means an Oxbridge snob, I just think you're being short sighted when you say that a degree from any UK university is going to be worth the same as each other. Just as an example, for IB there is a list of universities that the major firms select students from - many even have systems where if you aren't holding a degree from that list you're filtered out all together or your application loses points.

Reply 293

StarOfGerrad

Original post by im so academic

Still, two A-levels? What does that suggest about the academic capabilities of the students at said university?

They only did two A-levels and still failed to achieve the top grades (inc. B grades)?

That's the thing with TVU, you really can't lump the students together and pass judgement on them as a whole because the subjects being studied as well as the student body itself is just far too diverse.

The only thing everyone at TVU has in common is they went to some form of state school.

For people studying Law (which is 240 points) I'd agree academic qualifications should be taken seriously but how many A-Levels do you think a chef should have? How academically astute do you need to be to study advertising?

Now I know you, I see the "those aren't academic subjects" coming from a mile away and before starting at TVU I would have agreed with you but you know what? They would have gone out of their way to make those courses at least partially academic in nature just to sate people (mostly faculty) who share your view of what a university "should" be.

My course shouldn't be heavily academic yet here I am finishing a 55 page (and counting) analysis of Rembrandt's Night Watch and that isn't even the tip of the ice berg.

Original post by im so academic

That's even worse than EE. :erm:

So, what did you get?

University should be for the academic elite. This is my opinion.

I got six years of self employment a short list of clients willing to give me a good reference and a portfolio which proved I could have already graduated.

I know all about your opinions, sadly the world we live in demands a university education for pretty much any job worth doing whether it's deemed a graduate position by the HESA or not.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 294

im so academic

Original post by Wozzie

That's the point. Look at courses at Oxford and Cambridge - a small selection of courses which they can really focus on.

The only thing everyone at TVU has in common is they went to some form of state school.

So?

For people studying Law (which is 240 points) I'd agree academic qualifications should be taken seriously but how many A-Levels do you think a chef should have? How academically astute do you need to be to study advertising?

You do not need to study advertising at university.

Now I know you, I see the "those aren't academic subjects" coming from a mile away and before starting at TVU I would have agreed with you but you know what? They would have gone out of their way to make those courses at least partially academic in nature just to sate people (mostly faculty) who share your view of what a university "should" be.

Then you have to accept that there will always be academic elitism.

My course shouldn't be heavily academic yet here I am finishing a 55 page (and counting) analysis of Rembrandt's Night Watch and that isn't even the tip of the ice berg.

An anecdote will not change my opinions.

I got six years of self employment a short list of clients willing to give me a good reference and a portfolio which proved I could have already graduated.

So why go to university for? Why don't you just drop out and take the job?

I know all about your opinions, sadly the world we live in demands a university education for pretty much any job worth doing whether it's deemed a graduate position by the HESA or not.

Fair enough.

Reply 295

Jono404

Southampton Solent is total ****

Just throwing it out there.

Reply 296

jenny.chu

London Met: -Lecturers and Admin are really unhelpful, obnoxious and rude
- They don't even appear in the top 100 in the Guardian league table
- Every single course of theirs had Clearing spaces
- Building is really run down, no student "village" like many good universities have that incl accom and student shop
- Open days prove that the lecturers and admin are really unorganised

Just saying.. I might possibly have a grudge against them because they told me they were too good for my predicted grades, funny how I got A*APass though huh?!

Reply 297

Baula

Original post by Wookie42

I'm probably going to get negged for this but if the requirements for one uni is AAA and the other is CCC, the first is bound to have a better reputation because the smarter students are there. It doesn't really say that much about the teaching but more about the students, in my opinion.

Reply 298

TheSownRose

Original post by im so academic

Still, two A-levels? What does that suggest about the academic capabilities of the students at said university?

They only did two A-levels and still failed to achieve the top grades (inc. B grades)?

Two A-levels making 200 points would be BB.

Reply 299

ch0llima

Original post by Wozzie

I know all about your opinions, sadly the world we live in demands a university education for pretty much any job worth doing whether it's deemed a graduate position by the HESA or not.

This, dear readers, is why our education system is broken. I would wager that about 40% of university courses are vocational and need not exist.

Why do you need a degree in Fashion Design? Advertising and Marketing? Film Production? These are all vocational and practical disciplines, with it also being highly likely that those in the top of their game in such fields have never set foot in a university and got there through some natural talent and a lot of hard work. Even Nursing is a recent degree option - I guarantee you there are thousands of highly competent and experienced nurses who have never done a degree, it used to be diploma and placement based.

This country is too focussed on "academic" and "educational" achievements and not on tangible, practical experience. Last year, I read in the paper about an experienced secretary/PA/receptionist type person who got made redundant in the recession and applied for an identical role at the local blood donor clinic. She was refused, because she didn't have the NVQ in something ridiculous like "Blood Donor Clinic Administration" despite having 20 years of secretarial experience and being a perfect fit for the role. Absolutely effing ludicrous :fuhrer:

My argument is ostensibly sound, but feel free to fire 50cal bullets into it as you surely will. As much as I hate the Labour Party, I freely admit that John Major set the ball rolling on this nonsense by upgrading the polytechnics in 1992. Tony Blair could have stopped it, but he decided to go with "Education, education, education", which eventually manifested itself as dumbing down the English school system and forcing universities to drop their standards as a result.