Are there any truly 'bad' universities in the UK?
Scroll to see replies
*Looks at 3/4 empty bottle of vodka*
*Looks at reply*
Screw it, I don't get rational replies posting sober what harm could it do?
ish90an I would love to be you, you're like those insane republicans I see on Fox news. You have this uncanny ability to say something and pretend the world is crazy for interpreting what you say the way you said it.
That there is the stamp of authenticity of a 24 karat ****er so what else is there to say but...
Bravo!
I really do admire people who don't care what people think of them and to be able to do a blatantly lie (in plain text no less!) in the manner you have shows true commitment, I mean this was just incredible:
Yet just one reply away...
Now even drunk I can see the rebuttal.
"ne ne ne ne ne didn't mention the study ne ne ne ne!"
So I have to skip further down the same post to point out:
Now for the Sky Sports blow by blow for those who missed it the seventh time:
Do I need to say more? It's there in plain text, your words in direct contradiction.
Do you have an argument to make against yourself? Which you should I be arguing with? I bet your name isn't even ish90an!
*Looks at reply*
Screw it, I don't get rational replies posting sober what harm could it do?
ish90an I would love to be you, you're like those insane republicans I see on Fox news. You have this uncanny ability to say something and pretend the world is crazy for interpreting what you say the way you said it.
That there is the stamp of authenticity of a 24 karat ****er so what else is there to say but...
Bravo!
I really do admire people who don't care what people think of them and to be able to do a blatantly lie (in plain text no less!) in the manner you have shows true commitment, I mean this was just incredible:
Original post by ish90an
Christ you also have issues with reading? I was talking about your opinion on Oxbridge being resented and your opinion of the Times, not the stuff afterwards. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
Yet just one reply away...
Original post by ish90an
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
Now even drunk I can see the rebuttal.
"ne ne ne ne ne didn't mention the study ne ne ne ne!"
So I have to skip further down the same post to point out:
Original post by ish90an
after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
Now for the Sky Sports blow by blow for those who missed it the seventh time:
Original post by ish90an
like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
Original post by ish90an
after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
Do I need to say more? It's there in plain text, your words in direct contradiction.
Do you have an argument to make against yourself? Which you should I be arguing with? I bet your name isn't even ish90an!
Original post by llpokermuffinll
What are you talking about? Manchester is some lower middle class uni and far from the top of UK.
ahahahahaha what the heck ... the university of manchester has an outstanding reputation, one of the original red-brick uni's along with Oxbridge ... its in the top league tables for loads lol
[QUOTE]
You have mangled together me saying that your statement on Oxbridge being hated by everyone is opinion with my actual criticism(the one I don't' call your
opinion) of the flaws you point out in the study's methodology.
I was talking about your opinion on Oxbridge being resented and your opinion of the Times, not the stuff afterwards. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
I particularly like how you have ignored my first sentence in this paragraph so you can take the 2nd out of context. Its like watching, ironically enough, a bad impersonation of Fox News.
See, I was under the impression from your earlier post that you did consider your statement on Oxbridge being resented as your opinion(hence you posted the whole "holier than thou" rant on opinion vs fact). Now I do not have a problem with you pointing out flaws in the study's methodology(as you did), infact I did respond to it. But I do have a problem with you using your opinion of Oxbridge and the Times as some sort of fact you can use to discredit a study. See the difference? No? Drown yourself in some more vodka then.
Now for the Sky Sports blow by blow for those who missed it the seventh time:
Do I need to say more? It's there in plain text, your words in direct contradiction.
Do you have an argument to make against yourself? Which you should I be arguing with? I bet your name isn't even ish90an!
like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
See what you are missing again here is context. Your criticism of the study itself is your criticism of the methodology, which I do not refer to as opinion in that 2nd quote. What I do refer to(and this should be clear to anyone with more than a peanut for a brain) as opinion, and what I have a problem with, is you using your personal opinion of Oxbridge and the Times to discredit the study(and if you were not using it at all, why post it in a reply to me? No one here, and certainly not me, asked for random chunks of your personal tastes). When you have managed to grasp the simple difference between your actual criticism of the study(i.e the bit on methodology) and your opinion that you tried to pass off as valid criticism, come back here.
Original post by Wozzie
You have mangled together me saying that your statement on Oxbridge being hated by everyone is opinion with my actual criticism(the one I don't' call your
opinion) of the flaws you point out in the study's methodology.
I was talking about your opinion on Oxbridge being resented and your opinion of the Times, not the stuff afterwards. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
I particularly like how you have ignored my first sentence in this paragraph so you can take the 2nd out of context. Its like watching, ironically enough, a bad impersonation of Fox News.
See, I was under the impression from your earlier post that you did consider your statement on Oxbridge being resented as your opinion(hence you posted the whole "holier than thou" rant on opinion vs fact). Now I do not have a problem with you pointing out flaws in the study's methodology(as you did), infact I did respond to it. But I do have a problem with you using your opinion of Oxbridge and the Times as some sort of fact you can use to discredit a study. See the difference? No? Drown yourself in some more vodka then.
Now for the Sky Sports blow by blow for those who missed it the seventh time:
Do I need to say more? It's there in plain text, your words in direct contradiction.
Do you have an argument to make against yourself? Which you should I be arguing with? I bet your name isn't even ish90an!
like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't.
after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion.
See what you are missing again here is context. Your criticism of the study itself is your criticism of the methodology, which I do not refer to as opinion in that 2nd quote. What I do refer to(and this should be clear to anyone with more than a peanut for a brain) as opinion, and what I have a problem with, is you using your personal opinion of Oxbridge and the Times to discredit the study(and if you were not using it at all, why post it in a reply to me? No one here, and certainly not me, asked for random chunks of your personal tastes). When you have managed to grasp the simple difference between your actual criticism of the study(i.e the bit on methodology) and your opinion that you tried to pass off as valid criticism, come back here.
Original post by tropicalia_la
yeah i agree with wookie42 according to friends who are at cambridge now, each for different subjects at different colleges, they have to write two 4000-word essays every week not including other work/project they're thrown at. its pretty well known that the pressure at oxbridge is incredibly intense and each term is eight weeks long so professors try to cram everything into such a short space of time.
I suppose you could say that if the lecturers were not so hell-bent on their own research interests then the term would not need to be squashed into 8 weeks and the students would have a better experience and less pressure.
I see nothing admirable in students having to fork out vast sums of money to get a second-rate academic experience with unnecessary pressure, in order to fit round their lecturer's other, (main?), interests.
Original post by ish90an
Surely it is far more difficult to find a proactive organiser at a place you haven't been to before, because you have no contacts and no people there?
It's up to a university or a department or student society to take the first step in that case, especially at the moment. It's not exactly difficult for firms to get plenty of applications for jobs these days.
Does your firm not feel that it may be losing out on potentially very bright graduates if they are not targeting certain courses/universities? Say you were one of the top IT firms in the world, surely instead of saying "we are based in Birmingham so we'll only recruit from the Midlands" it would be better to look at the best IT courses in the country and then work out if its feasible to go there? Cost is only so much a factor, Edinburgh's quite far out yet many London based employers target it instead of bigger places(like Liverpool) nearer to them(even if they take on just 1-2 Edinburgh graduates every year, so the prior contacts etc aren't exactly great), why do you think that is?
It's a balancing act for any firm as to how much they invest in recruitment events versus the return they get on that investment and the other contacts they have and their feeling of the quality of staff they are recruiting at the moment. If firms are getting plenty of quality applications then there isn't much of a driver to expand into pastures new to hunt for graduates.
I think that final year students from our 'top' universities need to realise that they really aren't all that special when it comes to most jobs. Most firms aren't going to bust a gut trying to get graduates from certain universities when other graduates are fulfilling the roles they have perfectly well.
As for London-based firms targeting Edinburgh grads ahead of liverpool ones in certain industries, that could easily be due to any one of the factors I mentioned previously, not just cost (although the cost difference between getting to Edinburgh and Liverpool by train is marginal at best). How many graduates are recruited in the end doesn't really give you any basis to look at the level of contact between the firm and the University.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by puddlejumper
I suppose you could say that if the lecturers were not so hell-bent on their own research interests then the term would not need to be squashed into 8 weeks and the students would have a better experience and less pressure.
I see nothing admirable in students having to fork out vast sums of money to get a second-rate academic experience with unnecessary pressure, in order to fit round their lecturer's other, (main?), interests.
I see nothing admirable in students having to fork out vast sums of money to get a second-rate academic experience with unnecessary pressure, in order to fit round their lecturer's other, (main?), interests.
Actually, the teaching requirements placed on Oxbridge dons are much greater than their counterparts at other Russell Group universities, especially in the arts.
Middlesex Uni
Original post by ish90an
Beautiful. See this is exactly what I was talking about.
You throw up a defense trying to deflect the argument (context when you were quoted verbatim, wtf?) whilst distorting my own words? Fantastic.
I didn't say Oxbridge is hated by everybody I said "Not everyone likes and respects Oxbridge, most people resent it" and whilst that is an opinion it's an opinion rooted in logic not blind instinct.
Mangled also implies a hack and slash of your words, what we have here are direct quotes which link directly to the original posts. If you don't like what you're reading you shouldn't have typed them and you've made no "actual criticism" you really haven't.
What you've been trying to put forward is a defense of previous claims which I and others have taken issue with, your rebuttal to my questioning has been nothing more than "That's just your opinion so keep it to yourself!" "So what?" and an attempt to switch the burden of proof onto me when I countered your opinion with an off the cuff opinion of my own.
You've done nothing but blow hot air and be condescending whilst back peddling and contradicting yourself yet the problem isn't your inability to make a point it's everyone else "misinterpreting" you.
Really it should not be this hard for you to put forward your arguments, you're either full of **** or in desperate need of English lessons.
Original post by ish90an
You can't just say "context" and then reinterpret everything you've been saying for 10 posts.
Your words are right there in plain text, the context of your overall argument in each individual post "might" change but I'm not highlighting or making an argument with what I quoted I'm exposing how you are more than willing to say something and then completely contradict yourself should your words become inconvenient.
This really is very simple, it's as simple as:
Post 1 - No he didn't
Post 2 - Yes he did
Please tell me how the first sentence (which I included in the quote) changes the context to a degree where:
"like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't."
Wouldn't contradict:
"after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion."
Original post by ish90an
Yes I make a shockingly bad liar and hypocrite which is why I strive to have a little integrity in my posts, you however are a natural.
Original post by ish90an
Kind of had to after you pushed me for facts to back up "Not everybody likes and respects Oxbridge" and "I have yet to see a study featured by the times that wasn't at best dubious." which were both clearly opinion and wouldn't be called out for evidence by any rational person.
Original post by ish90an
What were those responses?
1) So what?
2) That's just your opinion, so keep it to yourself!
Followed by:
3) I didn't say it was just your opinion.
4) I didn't say it was/wasn't just your opinion you're taking me out of context I actually said...
I'm assuming we'll be coming back to number 4, or it will be struck off making the original point stand and making this post a waste of my time.
Oh and you tried to shift the argument to be about perception, an attribute so flimsy and subjective that it would be impossible to claim any kind of objective standard over.
Original post by ish90an
You and "I'm so academic" were the ones who got caught out making unfounded assertions. Unlike you I've always known the difference between opinion and fact and I love how you've been taken to task for that **** for pages and you're here trying to flip it on me with no basis to do so.
Original post by ish90an
I wish I could your posts are mildly entertaining when I'm drunk.
I'm wondering what infallible arguments you think you've made that would allow you to pull off this condescending attitude without looking like a ****.
From where I sit every point you've made, every baseless assertion and every opinion has been shown for what it is and thrown back at you. You were the one presenting opinions as facts, most of this response to me is a rehash of points and comments I made to you earlier for doing exactly what you're saying I did.
Once again.
I didn't make baseless assertions, you did. I didn't pass off my opinions as facts, you did.
The arguments you're putting to me are arguments that I and Complex Simplicity put to you which you obviously took issue with because we're still arguing.
This whole conversation has become ****ing insane.
Original post by ish90an
Yet you made both of those replies after I drilled you on the differences between opinion and fact.
Which incredibly you are now repeating back to me, crazy.
Original post by ish90an
First of all you knew it was opinion, you asked for evidence because you were sick of having your arguments thrown back at you because you couldn't back them up but you forgot that you were making assertions which is why you were asked to back up your statements.
You were just being petty which was why I never responded to your post directly.
I'm So Academic tried exactly the same crap on another thread roughly the same time.
Secondly you're talking *******s again, you post like you don't think I can go back and read what you said.
You were saying the same crap about how my criticism of the study was opinion after I clearly pointed out that those comments were opinion and explained why we don't need to provide facts for opinions, that same post I know you read and understood because it contains the arguments which you are currently and incorrectly repeating back to me.
Everything I have quoted from you was posted after my "holier than thou rant" on the difference between opinion and fact.
I shouldn't of needed to make that post, most people can tell the difference between and opinion and an assertion by the language.
"I have yet to see a study featured by the times that wasn't at best dubious."
You can tell I'm speaking of my own personal experience, if I was making an assertion that would require some form of evidence it would look more like:
"The Times has never featured a study that wasn't flawed."
I could go into a whole spiel about this but you ****ing know the difference you're just trying to wriggle off the hook and wasting my time in the process.
Original post by ish90an
You are joking...
All you've done is give your asinine opinions and try to defend them and you're going to come at me with that because I made the stupid (and never to be repeated) mistake of talking to you like you're a human being?
There are no words...
Original post by ish90an
off as valid criticism, come back here.
Amazing...
I don't know if you have the memory span of a goldfish, if you exist in a weird vortex that's transporting you to a dimension where our roles in this argument are apparently reversed, maybe you're schizophrenic or some **** whatever the hell your deal is I don't care anymore.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Wozzie
Beautiful. See this is exactly what I was talking about.
You throw up a defense trying to deflect the argument (context when you were quoted verbatim, wtf?) whilst distorting my own words? Fantastic.
I didn't say Oxbridge is hated by everybody I said "Not everyone likes and respects Oxbridge, most people resent it" and whilst that is an opinion it's an opinion rooted in logic not blind instinct.
You throw up a defense trying to deflect the argument (context when you were quoted verbatim, wtf?) whilst distorting my own words? Fantastic.
I didn't say Oxbridge is hated by everybody I said "Not everyone likes and respects Oxbridge, most people resent it" and whilst that is an opinion it's an opinion rooted in logic not blind instinct.
Well done, you have now won another prize for pedantry and deflecting the point, which is that you included your own opinion of Oxbridge and the Times while trying to pass it off as fact without presenting any logic to back it up.
Mangled also implies a hack and slash of your words, what we have here are direct quotes which link directly to the original posts. If you don't like what you're reading you shouldn't have typed them and you've made no "actual criticism" you really haven't.
See below.
What you've been trying to put forward is a defense of previous claims which I and others have taken issue with, your rebuttal to my questioning has been nothing more than "That's just your opinion so keep it to yourself!" "So what?" and an attempt to switch the burden of proof onto me when I countered your opinion with an off the cuff opinion of my own.
You seem to think we've established the study as mere opinion that has no worth in the context of the argument of a correlation between university prestige and employers(the way your personal tastes in newspaper has no worth in this), we haven't. Which is why I brought up perception to respond to your criticism of the study's methodology.
You've done nothing but blow hot air and be condescending whilst back peddling and contradicting yourself yet the problem isn't your inability to make a point it's everyone else "misinterpreting" you.
Really it should not be this hard for you to put forward your arguments, you're either full of **** or in desperate need of English lessons.
Yes, it is me, who, as we will discover, does not read full paragraphs and chooses bits and pieces and then rants on them for a few posts while sidetracking the thread. Clearly.
You can't just say "context" and then reinterpret everything you've been saying for 10 posts.
Your words are right there in plain text, the context of your overall argument in each individual post "might" change but I'm not highlighting or making an argument with what I quoted I'm exposing how you are more than willing to say something and then completely contradict yourself should your words become inconvenient.
This really is very simple, it's as simple as:
Post 1 - No he didn't
Post 2 - Yes he did
Please tell me how the first sentence (which I included in the quote) changes the context to a degree where:
"like I was calling your criticism of the study itself opinion, I wasn't."
Wouldn't contradict:
"after you're found trying to discredit stats based on your own personal opinion."
The full paragraph for that 2nd quote is:
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.
So what am I referring to as opinion here? The Oxbridge and Times statements(from my first 2 lines). Do I mention your actual critique of the study anywhere here? Yes, when I say "pointing out flaws"(which I don't call opinion anywhere btw). Its called reading the whole paragraph and not just the part of the sentence you like so you get the context, come back when you have achieved this.
Yes I make a shockingly bad liar and hypocrite which is why I strive to have a little integrity in my posts, you however are a natural.
I don't know about liar and hypocrite, but you do have reading issues.
Kind of had to after you pushed me for facts to back up "Not everybody likes and respects Oxbridge" and "I have yet to see a study featured by the times that wasn't at best dubious." which were both clearly opinion and wouldn't be called out for evidence by any rational person.
No? So why use them? Do you just throw in random opinions into posts, then tell everyone else to talk fact not opinion? Face it, you got caught trying to use your personal opinion of Oxbridge as some sort of valid critique to my post. Stop throwing a tantrum, accept it, move on.
What were those responses?
1) So what?
2) That's just your opinion, so keep it to yourself!
Here I talk about your opinion of Oxbridge and the Times.
3) I didn't say it was just your opinion.
Here I talk about your actual criticism of the study's methodology.
Difference? Of course you don't see it yet.
4) I didn't say it was/wasn't just your opinion you're taking me out of context I actually said...
I'm assuming we'll be coming back to number 4, or it will be struck off making the original point stand and making this post a waste of my time.
Oh and you tried to shift the argument to be about perception, an attribute so flimsy and subjective that it would be impossible to claim any kind of objective standard over.
I'm assuming we'll be coming back to number 4, or it will be struck off making the original point stand and making this post a waste of my time.
Oh and you tried to shift the argument to be about perception, an attribute so flimsy and subjective that it would be impossible to claim any kind of objective standard over.
So now you get to decide what's subjective and flimsy what isn't, without actually telling us why. Great, Ladies and Gentlemen, the chair has spoken, the show's over. he's clearly won.
You and "I'm so academic" were the ones who got caught out making unfounded assertions. Unlike you I've always known the difference between opinion and fact and I love how you've been taken to task for that **** for pages and you're here trying to flip it on me with no basis to do so.
Yes, which is why you have yet to properly respond to my actual criticism to your critique of the study's methodology, and have instead diverted this to personal levels. Yeah mate, you win. I am not going to bother responding any more, when you get over the hangover and can actually respond after reading my complete posts instead of just bits and parts you like, come back. Till then, enjoy the "win".
Original post by ChemistBoy
Actually, the teaching requirements placed on Oxbridge dons are much greater than their counterparts at other Russell Group universities, especially in the arts.
If you are going to make a statement like that, then you need to back it up with evidence, I'm afraid.
Original post by TheSownRose
That says nothing though - they are completely different. I was figuring out the correlation a few hours ago and my (possibly rusty from two years away from it) calculations showed that there is no correlation, at least within the top thirty, between the Guardian and Complete tables.
correlation to what?
if its a bad uni then it wouldnt be in the top 30 would it lol x
Original post by Hhan
correlation to what?
if its a bad uni then it wouldnt be in the top 30 would it lol x
if its a bad uni then it wouldnt be in the top 30 would it lol x
Correlation between the rankings the two different tables I can access (Guardian and Complete) gave unis within the top thirty - they had a value of -0.18 (I think, did it a while ago now.) Values need to reach 0.5/-0.5 before beginning considered to have any correlation.
Basically, there is no similarity between how Guardian and Complete rank unis in the top thirty.
Original post by puddlejumper
If you are going to make a statement like that, then you need to back it up with evidence, I'm afraid.
Weekly one-on-one tutes with your students in college (say 15 or so) plus the odd lecture compared to 1 or 2 lectures a week and tutorials farmed out to PhD students. It's hardly rocket surgery to realise that the oxbridge system is more time-consuming for academics than other teaching systems.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by ChemistBoy
Weekly one-on-one tutes with your students in college (say 15 or so) plus the odd lecture compared to 1 or 2 lectures a week and tutorials farmed out to PhD students. It's hardly rocket surgery to realise that the oxbridge system is more time-consuming for academics than other teaching systems.
I can't commenton the Oxbridge stuff but I have to disagree with the bolded bit above. During my first degree at a non Russell Group/1994 Group university none of our tutorials were handed out to PhD students and our lecturers were each taking a lot more than one or two lectures per week, not to mention seminars.
Original post by el pollo diablo
I can't commenton the Oxbridge stuff but I have to disagree with the bolded bit above. During my first degree at a non Russell Group/1994 Group university none of our tutorials were handed out to PhD students and our lecturers were each taking a lot more than one or two lectures per week, not to mention seminars.
You study an arts subject?
Even in the sciences teaching commitments for even the most junior staff (who generally have the largest workload in that respect) rarely exceed 10 hours a week in any of the universities I'm aware of apart from Oxbridge and the new universities. In fact I know many academic staff who have a contractual limit of no more than 10 hours teaching in their contracts at several Russell Group universities. I also know several academics who have moved from/to Oxford or Cambridge and all have commented on the fact that during term-time the teaching workload is significantly higher (as this impacts the time they can devote to research). When you have 6 or 7 students in college, each requiring an hour-long tutorial or supervision each week then it is pretty clear that with other duties (such as lectures, lab sessions, etc.) that you will quickly reach levels around 15 hours or so.
It's also a reason why 'super post-docs' or more senior research fellows are far more common at Oxford and Cambridge than at other universities as academics have less time to manage their research directly during the terms.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by ChemistBoy
You study an arts subject?
Ha, this is a good point - yes I did.
Original post by beckyl92
Manchester Metropolitan.
We had to do an exam on computers, the system was down so we got the password for the online exam and did it at home. I googled all the answers and got almost 100% 8-) (didn't wanna make it too obvious)
So yeah, WIN
We had to do an exam on computers, the system was down so we got the password for the online exam and did it at home. I googled all the answers and got almost 100% 8-) (didn't wanna make it too obvious)
So yeah, WIN
wow that seems to good to be true...
luck you i suppose
Original post by puddlejumper
I suppose you could say that if the lecturers were not so hell-bent on their own research interests then the term would not need to be squashed into 8 weeks and the students would have a better experience and less pressure.
I see nothing admirable in students having to fork out vast sums of money to get a second-rate academic experience with unnecessary pressure, in order to fit round their lecturer's other, (main?), interests.
I see nothing admirable in students having to fork out vast sums of money to get a second-rate academic experience with unnecessary pressure, in order to fit round their lecturer's other, (main?), interests.
Sounds like you've got a grudge against Cambridge or something weird. Instead of seeing the massive workload as a time for the lecturers to have a jolly, don't you see it as "oh, Cambridge students have a higher workload than other university students, therefore their degree should, in some ways, be better respected".
Besides, where does all this business about the Oxbridge terms being shorter to allow for more research time come from? My sister would complain about the terms being short, but her tutors went home just a few days after she did
Anyway, for the sake of argument lets say you're correct and that the reasoning behind the shorter terms is for research etc etc. It still stands that Oxbridge students have to fit more work into less time than other universities. In finals some subjects get two essays a week which I've not heard of anywhere else. Bit pointless posting this really since you'll just ignore it and maintain your twisted views, but I'm bored.
Original post by ChemistBoy
You study an arts subject?
Even in the sciences teaching commitments for even the most junior staff (who generally have the largest workload in that respect) rarely exceed 10 hours a week in any of the universities I'm aware of apart from Oxbridge and the new universities. In fact I know many academic staff who have a contractual limit of no more than 10 hours teaching in their contracts at several Russell Group universities. I also know several academics who have moved from/to Oxford or Cambridge and all have commented on the fact that during term-time the teaching workload is significantly higher (as this impacts the time they can devote to research). When you have 6 or 7 students in college, each requiring an hour-long tutorial or supervision each week then it is pretty clear that with other duties (such as lectures, lab sessions, etc.) that you will quickly reach levels around 15 hours or so.
It's also a reason why 'super post-docs' or more senior research fellows are far more common at Oxford and Cambridge than at other universities as academics have less time to manage their research directly during the terms.
Even in the sciences teaching commitments for even the most junior staff (who generally have the largest workload in that respect) rarely exceed 10 hours a week in any of the universities I'm aware of apart from Oxbridge and the new universities. In fact I know many academic staff who have a contractual limit of no more than 10 hours teaching in their contracts at several Russell Group universities. I also know several academics who have moved from/to Oxford or Cambridge and all have commented on the fact that during term-time the teaching workload is significantly higher (as this impacts the time they can devote to research). When you have 6 or 7 students in college, each requiring an hour-long tutorial or supervision each week then it is pretty clear that with other duties (such as lectures, lab sessions, etc.) that you will quickly reach levels around 15 hours or so.
It's also a reason why 'super post-docs' or more senior research fellows are far more common at Oxford and Cambridge than at other universities as academics have less time to manage their research directly during the terms.
There is a touch of swings and roundabouts regarding this.
Anyone knowledgeable in their subject can take an hour long tutorial led by a student's essay with no prep. In any subject with even a minimal level of movement from year to year, lectures will require preparation. So will tutorials if they are being led by the tutor.
The "real" staff student ratio at Oxbridge is much lower than at other pre-1992 universities. The published statistics hide the extent to which redbricks and plate glass universities rely on hourly paid staff (not just PhD students). Hourly paid staff do not carry the burdens of either course management or academic support. That is why, although to a much greater extent Oxbridge academics run their universities, they spend far less time on course management and academic support than full time academics in redbricks and plate glass universities. A smallish department in a non-Oxbridge university may have 600 students across 3 years but be managing those with 5-10 full time academics. An Oxbridge college might have 30-40 students in a subject and 2-3 full-time academics and will usually have a senior tutor and chaplain to assist with pastoral issues.
Redbrick academics do far more marking than Oxbridge ones.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- In which universities (UK & USA) can I apply with 4A in AS levels (CIE)?
- Certified translators in the UK for academic transcripts/grades
- Is SOAS the Right Choice for Comparative Literature MA? Insights Wanted!
- How accurate is ChatGPT at grading assignments?
- UCL reputation in uk
- Studying abroad in Czech Republic, opinions?
- How many people get 2:1s and better?
- Choosing acting course'22
- Easy/moderate Universities in to get into in the US
- psychology at loughborough
- Why I chose DMU: Leicester, A Student City.
- Is Oxford reapplication truly something I should do?
- predicted grade C in a levels. am i cooked for med school?
- Law 25 entry (seeking for advice
- University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest
- Gcse grade from africa are equal to which grades in uk.
- med to vet school?
- advice please i ruined my life
- UEA or Sheffield University?
- 3 C's and E's
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
