Why do people still subscribe to anachronistic notions of university prestige?

In my view, "prestige" is an anachronistic term that refers largely to social and historical status, rather than quality and merit. It's a static concept, compared with quality which is largely fluid depending on how much is invested into it.

Why do people still inadvertently subscribe to the notion that certain universities, due to their location and age are sealed in terms of their reputation and prestige? Even if they falter in academic quality or are overtaken by newer, less well-known institutions - they will still remain more "prestigious".

How is this concept logical? Why should arbitrary factors such as age and location trump quality and academic rigour?

Granted, a lot of older institutions based in large cities do have levels of prestigiousness that correspond with their academic quality. However, some have lagged behind newer institutions in terms of quality, yet still remain more prestigious in the eyes of society.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1

kat2pult

18

Older unis have had their courses tried and tested by hundreds/thousands of students beforehand. Even if the course layout or content is different, it's more foolproof. Ditto goes for the social life, accommodation, investment in the university/library etc over the years and years it's been in existence etc. Newer universities don't have these safety guards, and it's kind of like jumping in the deep end. I don't think it's all to do with prestige.

Reply 2

username511256

2

People like to think that they're better than others, uni prestige is a way of helping them to feel superior.

Reply 3

Aexis

OP

3

Original post by kat2pult

Older unis have had their courses tried and tested by hundreds/thousands of students beforehand. Even if the course layout or content is different, it's more foolproof. Ditto goes for the social life, accommodation, investment in the university/library etc over the years and years it's been in existence etc. Newer universities don't have these safety guards, and it's kind of like jumping in the deep end. I don't think it's all to do with prestige.

So you're saying that the courses, accommodation and social life of the University of Birmingham (for example) have remained static since 1900? Regardless of the fact that lecturers and administrative staff have died; science, law and medicine have dramatically changed; new accommodation has been built; the social life of a teenager in 1900 is hugely different to that of one in 2011. :confused:

Reply 4

michael clayton

15

I think the history of some of the older institutions make them somewhat more appealing as places to study. I'll be studying at Sheffield uni which is a traditional redbrick- the fact that eminent scientists such as Krebs and Alexander Fleming have worked/taught in my department was a big swing factor in my decision to go there.

Reply 5

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Aexis

In my view, "prestige" is an anachronistic term that refers largely to social and historical status, rather than quality and merit. It's a static concept, compared with quality which is largely fluid depending on how much is invested into it.

Why do people still inadvertently subscribe to the notion that certain universities, due to their location and age are sealed in terms of their reputation and prestige? Even if they falter in academic quality or are overtaken by newer, less well-known institutions - they will still remain more "prestigious".

How is this concept logical? Why should arbitrary factors such as age and location trump quality and academic rigour?

Granted, a lot of older institutions based in large cities do have levels of prestigiousness that correspond with their academic quality. However, some have lagged behind newer institutions in terms of quality, yet still remain more prestigious in the eyes of society.

I don't think that you will find that it is set in stone. To give you some examples of universities whose reputations have declined over the last 30 years:

Bangor
Aberystwyth
Lampeter
Exeter (but now rising again)
Nottingham (compared with 10 years ago rather than 30)
Ealing College of HE/Thames Valley
Bishop Grossteste
Buckingham
Sussex
Surrey
Hull
Kent

Reply 6

kat2pult

18

Original post by Aexis

So you're saying that the courses, accommodation and social life at the University of Birmingham have remained static since 1900? Regardless of the fact that lecturers and administrative staff have died; science, law and medicine have dramatically changed; new accommodation has been built; the social life of a teenager in 1900 is hugely different to that of one in 2011. :confused:

No, but the standard of lecturer has been decided by those that have taught before. Many new staff are just taking over the roles that were left by staff that have died/retired/moved on to different things. Newer universities have to start completely afresh in this respect and create their own standard, which may not necessarily live up to that of older universities.

As for the accommodation, there will be trends about what accommodation types work, about the cost, student feedback for years and years, which again, newer unis won't have. They think they might know but they don't (tale Liberty Quays, Kent accommodation).

And as for social life, like accommodation, what has proven itself to be popular and not popular has been tried and tested, and of course it changes, but how has it really changed in the past 30 years or so?

Older universities can use the history and statistics to aid the current university and future students. Newer universities don't have the knowledge.

Reply 7

Aexis

OP

3

Original post by nulli tertius

I don't think that you will find that it is set in stone. To give you some examples of universities whose reputations have declined over the last 30 years:

Bangor
Aberystwyth
Lampeter
Exeter (but now rising again)
Nottingham (compared with 10 years ago rather than 30)
Ealing College of HE/Thames Valley
Bishop Grossteste
Buckingham
Sussex
Surrey
Hull
Kent

But, I don't consider many of those prestigious in the same way that some redbricks enjoy a static concept of being prestigious, due to their age and location.

Those universities had good academic reputations, and that has faltered. If the quality of a redbrick faltered (for example), it would still remain "prestigious".

Reply 8

ChaoticSkills

12

Just get a 2.1 from the course you're on its all the same ****.

Reply 9

Est.

Original post by Aexis

Granted, a lot of older institutions based in large cities do have levels of prestigiousness that correspond with their academic quality. However, some have lagged behind newer institutions in terms of quality, yet still remain more prestigious in the eyes of society.

can you give examples of these institutions?

Reply 10

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Aexis

But, I don't consider many of those prestigious in the same way that some redbricks enjoy a static concept of being prestigious, due to their age and location.

Those universities had good academic reputations, and that has faltered. If the quality of a redbrick faltered (for example), it would still remain "prestigious".

You only regard the position of the redbricks as static because you are looking across too short a timeframe.

In say 1975, most people would have regarded someone who attended Aberystwyth as having a more prestigious education than someone who attended Liverpool or Sheffield

Reply 11

thewiseone

12

Original post by Aexis

In my view, "prestige" is an anachronistic term that refers largely to social and historical status, rather than quality and merit. It's a static concept, compared with quality which is largely fluid depending on how much is invested into it.

Why do people still inadvertently subscribe to the notion that certain universities, due to their location and age are sealed in terms of their reputation and prestige? Even if they falter in academic quality or are overtaken by newer, less well-known institutions - they will still remain more "prestigious".

How is this concept logical? Why should arbitrary factors such as age and location trump quality and academic rigour?

Granted, a lot of older institutions based in large cities do have levels of prestigiousness that correspond with their academic quality. However, some have lagged behind newer institutions in terms of quality, yet still remain more prestigious in the eyes of society.

i)have a conversation with imsoacademic
ii) record it
iii) post it on youtube
iv) more views than rebecca black.
v) ..?????
vi) profit

Reply 12

Nick Longjohnson

16

Because they go to a better uni than you and you're sore about it.

Reply 13

d123

17

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I disagree that you're lumping location in with prestige. For me, location was the most important factor in deciding what uni to go to, and it has nothing to do with prestige. Unless you're saying that universities have a certain level of prestige due to their location, which isn't an argument I'd agree with as there are 'prestigious' unis in a wide variety of locations.

Reply 14

Aexis

OP

3

Original post by d123

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I disagree that you're lumping location in with prestige. For me, location was the most important factor in deciding what uni to go to, and it has nothing to do with prestige. Unless you're saying that universities have a certain level of prestige due to their location, which isn't an argument I'd agree with as there are 'prestigious' unis in a wide variety of locations.

Apart from the ancient universities, most of the red bricks are located in large, historic and often industrial cities.

I do think it's a case for a lot of people that the University of insert large, historic, industrial city here is automatically going to be prestigious and well-known.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 15

Reems

14

Original post by ChaoticSkills

Just get a 2.1 from the course you're on its all the same ****.

True for anything outside the top 15.

Reply 16

adam_zed

16

Original post by nulli tertius

I don't think that you will find that it is set in stone. To give you some examples of universities whose reputations have declined over the last 30 years:

Bangor
Aberystwyth
Lampeter
Exeter (but now rising again)
Nottingham (compared with 10 years ago rather than 30)
Ealing College of HE/Thames Valley
Bishop Grossteste
Buckingham
Sussex
Surrey
Hull
Kent

Nice to see 4 out of my 5 uni choices there.

Reply 17

nulli tertius

21

Original post by adam_zed

Nice to see 4 out of my 5 uni choices there.

At least one will be on the way up again next year then :smile:

Reply 18

notanumber

7

Original post by nulli tertius

I don't think that you will find that it is set in stone. To give you some examples of universities whose reputations have declined over the last 30 years:

Bangor
Aberystwyth
Lampeter
Exeter (but now rising again)
Nottingham (compared with 10 years ago rather than 30)
Ealing College of HE/Thames Valley
Bishop Grossteste
Buckingham
Sussex
Surrey
Hull
Kent

What a load of rubbish. How on earth have you come up with this list, apart from subjective opinion? There were no league tables as such so reputation wasn't as significant as it is now. Certain universities like Oxford, Cambridge Durham etc were world -renowned and generally redbricks were considered better than others, but to say all these others have declined in reputation is absolute nonsense.

30 years ago, Buckingham had only just been founded, Kent, Surrey and Sussex were only about 15 years old, Bishop Grossteste was a teacher training college, and Thames Poly (now TVU) never had a good reputation. Exeter and Nottingham have hardly got declining reputations either!!!