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

Nichrome's post was pretty good.

These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.

I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.

So whilst this regulatory body might like to try to make all degrees comparable, their existence and attempts don't prove that all degree are indeed comparable.

Nichrome's post was pretty good.

These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.

I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.

So whilst this regulatory body might like to try to make all degrees comparable, their existence and attempts don't prove that all degree are indeed comparable.

We were forced into arguing about Cambridge maths because people will always go to the extremes but realistically it's stupid to make any comparison.

A 2.1 from Cambridge in 2010 may well be seen as equal to a first from UCL, that's a matter of opinion that can be argued either way.

What's being largely ignored is the fact that a 2.1 in 2010 may well of been a first in 2011, or a third in 2012, which may of been a first in 2013. If one Cambridge degree is not worth the same as another in the same subject how can we compare them to other universities let alone other subjects at other universities?

22. Comparability of standards as between successive student cohorts should also be achievable in theory. However it is rare for assessed work to be judged against the standards of work of candidates on the programme in earlier years: it is far more common for examiners to carry the standards in their memories from year to year (there are several studies casting doubt on the efficacy of this).

thames valley and any other universities that have entry requirements on some courses of EE.

if a student has basically failed their A'levels, there is no way they should be allowed to waste taxpayers money having even more education at a higher level. so any university that lets them do that is obviously run terribly

and a good job abroad?

Oh, is that what you're calling it? You use terms as abitrary as "top employers", then when faced with information that demonstrates how absurd such a term is - given the ridiculously invalid methods used to determine what constitutes a "top employer" - you respond with:

1. Saying stats are irrelevant.
2. Requesting MORE stats.
3. Hyperbolic strawman rubbish, such as responding to a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how such a term is utterly empty by saying "sure, it's all a big conspiracy."

Then going on to completely miss the point, which is that a bunch of students (let alone an unrepresentative bunch of students) have absolutely no authority on who the "top employers" are, having likely never been employed by ANY company, let alone that one.

You then completely ignore the real meat of the argument, which is that students seem to grossly overestimate how much your degree and where you got it matters to employers, particularly given that the vast majority of degrees endow a graduate with little to no competence at the job they will be performing. The degree alone is a mere formality. Recruiters generally hold academia in lower esteem than most students would like; what matters is the person, what they have actually done (as opposed to what they have read and in what building), what they can do and how they present themselves.

Those who attribute such importance to these frankly rather trivial details - unless pursuing a career as an academic - are going to find themselves rather bitterly disappointed when they discover that, in the real world, nobody gives a ****.

Okay, ish90an I don't want to reply to you but I don't want you to think the reason I'm not replying to you is because I have nothing to say.

I'm not going to answer your post diectly because Planto quite accurately summed up most of what I would have said also your counter arguments were quite ridiculous, for example:


There's a difference between fact and opinion. Opinions are beliefs we hold based on what we already know but we don't have to be certain of them, they don't have to be backed up by studies and statistics because unless you're a complete ****ing moron you're willing to change an opinion should it be proven false.

That more recruitment fairs at a university doesn't prove that the standard of a 2.1 in the same discipline is not comparable between universities. Remember this:

Funny that and yet it is you who keeps claiming that I don't read your posts.

IT firms like Google have an unofficial policy(and this is coming from an HR rep) of preferring grads from Imperial because of the course quality over other universities. This alone proves that yes, a degree from certain universities is devalued over others.

I didn't I said had you considered any other factors such as location. Something that clearly is an influence. However again this point is irrelevant for a recruitment fair isn't a job offer. It doesn't disprove that a 2.1 is comparable across universities for individual disciplines.

Assuming I take your word for it, it proves that a second year exam in one university is of a higher standard than the other. It doesn't prove that a 2.1 (the outcome of the summation of all the results, particularly those in the final year) is not comparable across universities for individual disciplines.

So you actually think there is no relation whatsoever with university quality and employers going to a particular place? What factors, in this case, do you then think they take into account when deciding where to hold recruitment fairs(and presentations, talks, campus ambassador programmes etc)?



And I quote myself:


I like this selective reading you continue to engage in. I bet I'll have to keep repeating this as well until you finally decide to acknowledge it.

"Clearly is an influence". Prove that it is a major influence when the gap between the universities is huge, and its more than just a case of one university being a specialist one(like LSE). I asked you previously why if this was the case why certain universities in London (City University, Greenwich University etc) did not feature on the list when Oxbridge and Warwick, both further away from most firms' head offices, did. Or why Manchester Met didn't feature but Manchester did. You have simply ignored this.

I made this clear plenty of times before, the third year degree exam at Caledonian covered material that was second year in Glasgow(not the second year non-degree exam), and that the third year degree exam in Glasgow in the same subject was of a higher standard. Do you mind reading my posts properly and completely before you respond? I don't see why you keep harping on about final years, the third year counts to 40% of the final degree grade so it is very much a valid tool for comparison.

The rest, we've gone from "all universities are clearly the same because there're standards" to "we can't say". This is where you'll have to look at employer and student perception, because that is what ends up driving what employers go where and what students go where.

I don't know whether a 2.1 is truly the same in one university as it is in another

But What I will say is that if universities count degrees as equivalent, and most employers do. And if universities are forced to be regulated to ensure that standardisation takes place, then one can say that in all probability, degrees are of an equivalent standard

And any study which tells us what firms are reprehensible and what universities/course are somehow more credible despite being based on the same perception?

Nope, I said

followed by


I made the point that they probably are based on the combination of points I'd brought up. However, despite all you're posts trying to post the contrary, there wasn't evidence to disprove this assessment. I made a point, you tried to disprove it, but could only offer one course and 'more recruitment fairs' happening at certain universities. This was insufficient to disprove the claim, and yet it is you who for some reason now wishes for me to prove mine, when I already laid out the basis for which the statement was made. You hadn't disproved it, for you haven't produced any evidence which states conclusively that this isn't the case.

The brown report shows that such comparisons can't be made, and indeed shouldn't be made. If such people can't compare even degrees within the same institution proficiently, who are you to say a degree from university A is poor, and worth less than a degree with the same mark in the same discipline from university B?

It is as you've rightly stated then on the employer to decide and this is where the most misinformation comes in. Knowing a HR rep from an IT company stating what they think is company recruitment policy doesn't encapsulate the view of all or even the majority of employers. The fact that, using your example of TVU, that graduates from said institution have managed to find such high levels of subsequent employment is testament to the fact that the degrees from there are not rubbished like you claim. And this is where I take an issue, and this point is separate from the comparisons, I take issue that "all things being equal" is something that's thrown around like its common-place. All things are hardly ever equal and the reality is that these "other factors" to a lot of employers matter much more so than the specific institution from which you got your '2.1' from. However posters such as yourself proliferate the idea that all employers simply see Cambridge 2.1 and swoon desperate to offer employment, and see TVU 2.1 and instantly scoff.

These external examiners can't enforce changes, they just recommend them.

I've seen quotes from a external examiner's report for Cambridge maths, saying that it seemed very difficult to get a First compared to other universities, or something like that. I've also read on TSR (although the actual report wasn't posted in this case) that the same thing is said every year on the English Tripos external examiner's report for Cambridge.

So you actually think there is no relation whatsoever with university quality and employers going to a particular place? What factors, in this case, do you then think they take into account when deciding where to hold recruitment fairs(and presentations, talks, campus ambassador programmes etc)?

Oxbridge somehow being popularly resented is not fact(nor does it draw from any), it is merely your opinion. As is your opinion of the Times. Keep it to yourself when you are correcting people's stats and pointing out flaws, but if you get asked to prove your own opinions don't go crying about the differences b/w opinion and fact after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
And I did present you stats, and I presented you a perfect reasoning behind why they're as valid as any other perception based study which is so commonly accepted (be it the good chocolate to buy or what airlines offer good customer service), you just seem to have ignored that.

Polys have always offered 'traditional' subjects such as law and many science courses. Trent polytechnic for example had a very good reputation for law, therefore I don't really think that is a correct distinction.

I think you are absolutely right that the former polytechnics are leading the way in creative courses such as graphic design, computer game design and fashion. However, I really can't see why there is a need to class these as different qualifications to a degree. Learning these things takes a long time and a lot of effort and I see no reason why people should not be granted a BA at the end. I think there is an argument that universities offer too many subjects at degree and do not facilitate vocational subjects which could be taught for a shorter time at less expense (for example hotel management), but I don't think it should be assumed that all creative subjects should be taught in this way.