But then, I don't consider Essex "exceptional" as claimed by the Government with regards to £9000 fees. "Exceptional" would be the top 10, at a maximum.
Imo "Exceptional" is top 2. The other 18 or so are just "top".
I not saying Essex is top prestigious university. However I feel it's not given the recognition it deserves. Essex is my insurance choice and when I tell people, their facial expression reads: ''
A few reputable top 20 universities also offer 'Micky Mouse' courses with fairly low grade requirements.
Why do you think it's not given the recognition it deserves? What makes you think it's underrated? Maybe it doesn't deserve any other recognition...
What are these specific universities? Which specific courses? I want details.
I read that. The title alone pissed me off... 'Even Essex???' I think most universities will charge £9000. It makes sense with university funding being cut...
To be honest, I expected pretty much all universities to be charging £9000.
But had the £9000 price tag been exclusively for the elite (and the elite courses), then yes, it would be a shock.
The RAE is a few year out of date, has been argued as flawed in how it is produced, and if I can recall there was controversy surrounding Essex's submission of research.
so discount it because it doesn't show the results that should be, 2001 it was 9th, 2008 9th again, its not done every year
show me a league table that isn't flawed
if your going on ranking by league table than really really
Different table give you different results, they use different measurements. =.=
I personally find league table more unreliable even if it's up to date.
Well, if a university is 4th in the Guardian league table, and then 30th in the other league tables (with the Times being the most reliable) - then I agree that it would be foolish for someone to say (regarding that university): "my university is in the top 5!". However, if a university is generally in the same position in all of the league tables, then I think that's a pretty reliable indicator. Essex is in the early 40s in most of the league tables, Warwick is in the top 10 in most of the league tables, etc.
I think league tables are more reliable than RAE results.
Well, if a university is 4th in the Guardian league table, and then 30th in the other league tables (with the Times being the most reliable) - then I agree that it would be foolish for someone to say (regarding that university): "my university is in the top 5!". However, if a university is generally in the same position in all of the league tables, then I think that's a pretty reliable indicator. Essex is in the early 40s in most of the league tables, Warwick is in the top 10 in most of the league tables, etc.
I think league tables are more reliable than RAE results.
Different league tables use different measurements, so you cant believe any of them really.
I prefer RAE table more, though. It's all about academics and researches that come out from universities. It reflects the quality.
Essex is not the best uni, but it is a good uni. ... Why do you think Times is the most reliable league table?
so discount it because it doesn't show the results that should be, 2001 it was 9th, 2008 9th again, its not done every year
show me a league table that isn't flawed
if your going on ranking by league table than really really
what sort of controversy is this than
Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
I never claim it's prestigious. =.= All we said is that it has always been a uni, a good one. And it's hardly London Met like the DailyMail seems to think.
Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
what makes these other league tables so much better, the RAE looks at research, other look at entry points (not a good tell of a uni), staff to student ratio things like how
and you can change the rankings based on what you are looking at
It's a good university. The name 'Essex' really brings out some misconceptions. It's not the best in the country but certainly not the worst.
I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.
Just because it's "Essex" it doesn't mean it's bad. It's bad due to the fact the university does not have a lot of academic rigour in its courses, it is not famed academically and its poor entry requirements reflect the university's intake.
I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.
Some of their departments are very good, Department of Government is very respected alongside with LSE and Oxbridge. It is a good university. It's no Oxbridge, but it's not below average. ....
I personally think entry requirements reflects, pfft, entry requirement. Entry requirement could be based on the location/where it is, just like Aberystwyth has a very very strong International Relation but due to its location, the entry requirements aren't high. But relevant people know for definite hot good it is for IR. Same for Essex. (Although, I peronally don't mind living in Colchester at all. )
Its reputation for research are among the top as well.
what makes these other league tables so much better, the RAE looks at research, other look at entry points (not a good tell of a uni), staff to student ratio things
Because league tables take research into account, and other crucial factors that are important in establishing the overall quality of a university.
don't quote the times league table as that is poor as the others
Again, the RAE has been subject to various criticisms:
The RAE has not been without its critics. Amongst the criticisms is the fact that it explicitly ignores the publications of most full-time researchers in the UK, on the grounds that they are employed on fixed term contracts. According to the RAE 2008 guidelines, most research assistants are "not eligible to be listed as research active staff". Publications by researchers on fixed term contracts are excluded from the Assessment Exercise unless those publications can be credited to a member of staff who is eligible for the RAE. This applies even if the member of staff being assessed only made a minor contribution to the article. Another issue is that it is doubtful whether panels of experts have the necessary expertise to evaluate the quality of research outputs, as experts perform much less well as soon as they are outside their particular area of specialisation.
Since 1996 the AUT, now incorporated within the UCU, has maintained a policy of opposition to the Research Assessment Exercise. In its view:
The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education system, leading to the closure of departments with strong research profiles and healthy student recruitment. It has been responsible for job losses, discriminatory practices, widespread demoralisation of staff, the narrowing of research opportunities through the over-concentration of funding and the undermining of the relationship between teaching and research.
The official Review of Research Assessment, the 2003 "Roberts Report" commissioned by the UK funding bodies,[7] recommended changes to research assessment, partly in response to such criticisms.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee considered the Roberts report, and took a more optimistic view, asserting that, "the RAE had had positive effects: it had stimulated universities into managing their research and had ensured that funds were targeted at areas of research excellence", it concluded that "there had been a marked improvement in universities' research performance". Nevertheless, it argued that "the RAE in its present form had had its day", and proposed a reformed RAE, largely based on Roberts' recommendations.
What is your basis for criticising the Times league table?
Again, I don't believe that if a university is 10th in the Guardian, 30th in the Independent and 50th in the Times that an overall guide to its quality can be established. However, if a university is in the same area in all of the league tables (or at least two reliable ones) then that provides a good indicator of the university's quality.
How do you explain the disparity between Essex's result in the 2008 RAE results and subsequent years of league table results? Why is Essex in the top 10 in the 2008 RAE results, but then in the early 40s in most league tables and has been for a few years? Are the league tables simply wrong?
I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.
Below average? Even though - on every single measure, as far as I know - it's always ranked within the top half of all UK universities; not to mention that it's a member of the same group as universities such as Durham?