Why are polytechnic universitys seen as bad?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SpicyStrawberry
Technically they're ex-polys, but people look down on them because they haven't had as long to establish themselves as universities (hence why they tend to be lower in league tables compared to their "more prestigious" counterparts e.g. MMU and UoM) and don't generally have as much money to spend on facilities and research etc. It's generally just ignorance though, you're still getting a degree at the end and if you get a 2.1 or above graduate vacancies are still open to you.
They don't tend to be research powerhouses, the standard of teaching has a tendency to be atrocious and, generally, they are much easier to get into and the course content is much easier. There is a reason they are looked down on; they are a laughable excuse for a university.
Plenty of employers take on ex poly graduates. It is their opinion that matters. Not stuck up TSR snobs.
Well if we had to generalise most polytechnics are seen as bad for the following reasons:
1) they have lower entry requirements
2) their courses are less rigorous since historically they offered vocational rather than academic degrees
3) they are less research intensive
4) As a result less percentage of their teaching staff own a PhD or even do world leading research
5) since most of them gained university status in 1992 they do not have a long history and tradition.
6) generally speaking they do not have a good reputation with employers
I know a friend who initially went to study economics at an ex poly, he quickly realised he was waisting his time, the course was to easy and had a very low mathematical content. He left at year 2 repeated his A levels and was accepted in a Russell group university. He said it was night and day. The Russell group university economics course was extremely rigorous and highly mathematical. Plus all of the students were good and motivated unlike the students at the ex poly. He recently graduated and now works for a respectable bank. From all the friends he made at the ex poly he has the best paid job ( at least that is what he told me).
1) they have lower entry requirements
2) their courses are less rigorous since historically they offered vocational rather than academic degrees
3) they are less research intensive
4) As a result less percentage of their teaching staff own a PhD or even do world leading research
5) since most of them gained university status in 1992 they do not have a long history and tradition.
6) generally speaking they do not have a good reputation with employers
I know a friend who initially went to study economics at an ex poly, he quickly realised he was waisting his time, the course was to easy and had a very low mathematical content. He left at year 2 repeated his A levels and was accepted in a Russell group university. He said it was night and day. The Russell group university economics course was extremely rigorous and highly mathematical. Plus all of the students were good and motivated unlike the students at the ex poly. He recently graduated and now works for a respectable bank. From all the friends he made at the ex poly he has the best paid job ( at least that is what he told me).
Original post by Joinedup
interesting... But Salford isn't an ex-polytechnic.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Salford is not an ex-polytechnic, but it is not a pure traditional university nor it is a redbrick university either.
It received its Royal Charter in 1967 (before that it was a CAT just like Bath or Surrey) and hence until 1996 it would be considered a plate glass university. However, in 1996 it decided to merge with the university College Salford.
So since 1996 it is a hybrid (a bit like Ulster University which is a result of the merging of NUU and Ulster polytechnic).
I can not believe also that many people think that a degree in chemistry from an ex-poly has the same value to a RG university. It just does not, accept it. Yes many factors influence your future career but in terms of the degree the differences between ex-polys and RG unis are significant
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I cannot believe that you're digging up threads from 2013 to boost your own egos.
Original post by Anyafrieda
Just wondered - it seems you get the same degree at the end of it?
I have accepted a place for Neuroscience at a polytechnic university but hoping through adjustment I can get into a Russell Group one (Such as Leeds) but then I realised would this be any different to the degree I would be taking at the polytechnic?
I have accepted a place for Neuroscience at a polytechnic university but hoping through adjustment I can get into a Russell Group one (Such as Leeds) but then I realised would this be any different to the degree I would be taking at the polytechnic?
People have been brainwashed into thinking that only Russel Groups are good universities, when in reality they are just a group of self - appointed research universities. You will most likely end up with a similar job whatever university you go to. A 1st at an ex - poly will most likely be more valued than a 2:1 at a Russel Group (Unless it's a really bad metropolitan uni or something)
All the 'newer' Universities have courses/subjects that they are far better at teaching than the so-called established Universities - and these are not just vocational subjects. Engineering, Maths, Physics and many other STEM subjects, Fine Art, Art & Design, Social Sciences, Applied Subjects, Languages, Teaching, Nursing etc etc
They also have a HIGHER graduate employment rate - because they teach their students how to get jobs and give them the skills that employers value alongside academic study/achievement.
And - because they are not over-focussed on research, the day-to-day undergraduate teaching of all subjects tends to be better, and you are far more likely to be taught by an academic in your first year than a postgraduate student.
Quite why the myth of RG being 'wonderful' persists is for many courses/subjects totally silly - and is often based on nothing more than middle-class ideas of 'a better class of student' going to RG Unis or 'older buildings'.
They also have a HIGHER graduate employment rate - because they teach their students how to get jobs and give them the skills that employers value alongside academic study/achievement.
And - because they are not over-focussed on research, the day-to-day undergraduate teaching of all subjects tends to be better, and you are far more likely to be taught by an academic in your first year than a postgraduate student.
Quite why the myth of RG being 'wonderful' persists is for many courses/subjects totally silly - and is often based on nothing more than middle-class ideas of 'a better class of student' going to RG Unis or 'older buildings'.
Original post by returnmigrant
All the 'newer' Universities have courses/subjects that they are far better at teaching than the so-called established Universities - and these are not just vocational subjects. Engineering, Maths, Physics and many other STEM subjects, Fine Art, Art & Design, Social Sciences, Applied Subjects, Languages, Teaching, Nursing etc etc
They also have a HIGHER graduate employment rate - because they teach their students how to get jobs and give them the skills that employers value alongside academic study/achievement.
And - because they are not over-focussed on research, the day-to-day undergraduate teaching of all subjects tends to be better, and you are far more likely to be taught by an academic in your first year than a postgraduate student.
Quite why the myth of RG being 'wonderful' persists is for many courses/subjects totally silly - and is often based on nothing more than middle-class ideas of 'a better class of student' going to RG Unis or 'older buildings'.
They also have a HIGHER graduate employment rate - because they teach their students how to get jobs and give them the skills that employers value alongside academic study/achievement.
And - because they are not over-focussed on research, the day-to-day undergraduate teaching of all subjects tends to be better, and you are far more likely to be taught by an academic in your first year than a postgraduate student.
Quite why the myth of RG being 'wonderful' persists is for many courses/subjects totally silly - and is often based on nothing more than middle-class ideas of 'a better class of student' going to RG Unis or 'older buildings'.
Claiming that RG unis are worse for graduate employment is disingenuous.
If you look at this article - top 25 unis for graduate prospects - you'll find that it's comprised almost exclusively of research intensive, mostly RG unis. They're basing the statistics off of how many are in professional jobs or in further study after 6 months (stacking shelves in tesco doesn't count) which is the most sensible available data set to use - there's no point including graduates in jobs they could have done without a degree https://www.timeshighereducation.com/carousels/top-25-uk-universities-graduate-employment
It's not really possibly to quantify the overall quality of teaching at the moment (though the Teaching Excellence Framework will be interesting for all concerned). There are certainly excellent teaching staff at all universities, but those who are at the cutting edge of their field will invariably be found at research intensive universities.
FWIW I've been taught by some excellent postgraduate students, and in my opinion first years are rarely at a level to need the input of an academic anyway - it's
a) best to save the manpower for later years, and
b) necessary to train up postgraduate students so that when they become academics they already have teaching skills - it's not a skill magically bestowed upon them at graduation.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PQ
I cannot believe that you're digging up threads from 2013 to boost your own egos.
Multiple people have commented on this recently. Also discount that thumbs up, I don't know how to undo it, lol
Original post by Origami Bullets
Claiming that RG unis are better for graduate employment is disingenuous..
I quite agree.
Please see : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11711177/Top-10-universities-for-employment-prospects.html
Original post by returnmigrant
I quite agree.
Please see : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11711177/Top-10-universities-for-employment-prospects.html
Please see : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11711177/Top-10-universities-for-employment-prospects.html
It was a typo (now fixed).
The difference between the two sets of stats is whether or not you include people in non graduate jobs. If you do include the tesco shelf stackers then the new universities look better. Look only at graduate level jobs and further study, and the RG unis look better.
Seemingly those from RG unis are more willing to hold out for graduate level jobs than those from new unis - probably for a variety of reasons.
Original post by Origami Bullets
It was a typo (now fixed).
The difference between the two sets of stats is whether or not you include people in non graduate jobs. If you do include the tesco shelf stackers then the new universities look better. Look only at graduate level jobs and further study, and the RG unis look better.
Seemingly those from RG unis are more willing to hold out for graduate level jobs than those from new unis - probably for a variety of reasons.
The difference between the two sets of stats is whether or not you include people in non graduate jobs. If you do include the tesco shelf stackers then the new universities look better. Look only at graduate level jobs and further study, and the RG unis look better.
Seemingly those from RG unis are more willing to hold out for graduate level jobs than those from new unis - probably for a variety of reasons.
I am afraid that whilst your stat does not have the weakness of counting burger flipping as a win, it counts further study as a win whereas for many people immediately after graduation, further study is disguised unemployment.
The best stat I am aware of for judging employability are columns P and Q of the long tail study of where graduates end up 31/2 years after graduation.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dlhe_longitudinal/1011/tables/long_dlhe_1011_table_11a.xlsx
One would love to see these figures for undergraduate only broken down by institution.rather than mission group.
But is it actually realistic now for graduates to aim at 'graduate jobs' as immediate employment?
It might have been once when University attendance was comparatively rare and graduates were definitely an exception. However, now we have the majority of school-leavers aiming at University, and there cannot possibly be 'graduate level jobs' as immediate employment for all of them. Therefore 'employment' that may include salaries below £20,00 (or any other benchmark) IS the reality for many graduates regardless of the Uni they went to.
It might have been once when University attendance was comparatively rare and graduates were definitely an exception. However, now we have the majority of school-leavers aiming at University, and there cannot possibly be 'graduate level jobs' as immediate employment for all of them. Therefore 'employment' that may include salaries below £20,00 (or any other benchmark) IS the reality for many graduates regardless of the Uni they went to.
Original post by nulli tertius
I am afraid that whilst your stat does not have the weakness of counting burger flipping as a win, it counts further study as a win whereas for many people immediately after graduation, further study is disguised unemployment.
The best stat I am aware of for judging employability are columns P and Q of the long tail study of where graduates end up 31/2 years after graduation.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dlhe_longitudinal/1011/tables/long_dlhe_1011_table_11a.xlsx
One would love to see these figures for undergraduate only broken down by institution.rather than mission group.
The best stat I am aware of for judging employability are columns P and Q of the long tail study of where graduates end up 31/2 years after graduation.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dlhe_longitudinal/1011/tables/long_dlhe_1011_table_11a.xlsx
One would love to see these figures for undergraduate only broken down by institution.rather than mission group.
Indeed, those are interesting sets of stats seeing as it does show that the uni you goes to does have a lingering effect. However, I too would be interested to see the institutional stats - I'm sure there are some surprises in there!
I think it would be very hard to penalise institutions for students choosing to do masters. Of the people I know, most have done it because they want to rather than out of desperation. Should a university be penalised if, for instance, lots of their biomedical students get into graduate entry medicine, or if their students disproportionately pursue an academic career?
Original post by returnmigrant
But is it actually realistic now for graduates to aim at 'graduate jobs' as immediate employment?
It might have been once when University attendance was comparatively rare and graduates were definitely an exception. However, now we have the majority of school-leavers aiming at University, and there cannot possibly be 'graduate level jobs' as immediate employment for all of them. Therefore 'employment' that may include salaries below £20,00 (or any other benchmark) IS the reality for many graduates regardless of the Uni they went to.
It might have been once when University attendance was comparatively rare and graduates were definitely an exception. However, now we have the majority of school-leavers aiming at University, and there cannot possibly be 'graduate level jobs' as immediate employment for all of them. Therefore 'employment' that may include salaries below £20,00 (or any other benchmark) IS the reality for many graduates regardless of the Uni they went to.
There aren't enough graduate jobs to go around, but we're looking at which graduates are more likely to get those which do exist.
However, those that take non graduate jobs as a stopgap are disproportionately likely to find themselves still there 3.5 years later. Pulling pints as a graduate isn't a strong stepping stone to a grad scheme. http://graduatefog.co.uk/2013/2492/pulling-pints-waiting-tables-stopgap-job/
Posted from TSR Mobile
The surely the reason for 'doing a degree' is not just 'earning loads of money' or even 'getting an impressive sounding job'.
If we only value education and learning for this reason, we are impoverished society.
If we only value education and learning for this reason, we are impoverished society.
Original post by returnmigrant
The surely the reason for 'doing a degree' is not just 'earning loads of money' or even 'getting an impressive sounding job'.
If we only value education and learning for this reason, we are impoverished society.
If we only value education and learning for this reason, we are impoverished society.
You can travel on the Settle and Carlisle Railway to admire the view or to go to Carlisle. If your train breaks down on the Ribblehead viaduct it is no consolation to have a stupendous view if you will miss your meeting in Carlisle.
If you are doing a degree for reasons of employment, being told you won't improve your prospects but will improve your mind is like that.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by PQ
I cannot believe that you're digging up threads from 2013 to boost your own egos.
It has nothing to do with egos, its has to do with informing future students about were and what to study. I messed up my A-levels and ended up reading economics at an ex-poly (mind you also it was one of the higher ranked ex-polys). After a year I realized that I was wasting my time, that is why I decided to resit the A-levels. I finally got good results and was accepted in an old and well established RG university. I had to start my degree again from scratch (I got almost no exemption). Had someone informed me in advanced about this I might have spared two years of my life.
Now, since I did the first year in economics at an ex-poly and the whole degree in an RG university and it was exactly the same degree (Economics) I can compare the first years. I can tell you this, it was night and day, the level of difficulty and mathematics at the RG university was way higher. The books we had to read were more sophisticated and rigorous. At the ex-poly although the teaching was good (so its not only how good you teach but what you teach also) the material was so vocational and so common sense you could almost read it on your own. A few years have passed since I graduated so it might be the case that some convergence between ex-polys and RG universities has taken place, but I will still argue that the differences are still there, given also the level of students each university attracts.
So please spare me the "ego" argument, believe me I do not need to boost my ego, I just want to inform a few people that might have found themselves in a same situation like me. If they believe they can do better have another go at your A-levels, if not (in order to have good students we must also have average and bad students) then fine go to an ex-poly but be aware of what is expecting you.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ppapanastasiou
It has nothing to do with egos, its has to do with informing future students about were and what to study. I messed up my A-levels and ended up reading economics at an ex-poly (mind you also it was one of the higher ranked ex-polys). After a year I realized that I was wasting my time, that is why I decided to resit the A-levels. I finally got good results and was accepted in an old and well established RG university. I had to start my degree again from scratch (I got almost no exemption). Had someone informed me in advanced about this I might have spared two years of my life.
Now, since I did the first year in economics at an ex-poly and the whole degree in an RG university and it was exactly the same degree (Economics) I can compare the first years. I can tell you this, it was night and day, the level of difficulty and mathematics at the RG university was way higher. The books we had to read were more sophisticated and rigorous. At the ex-poly although the teaching was good (so its not only how good you teach but what you teach also) the material was so vocational and so common sense you could almost read it on your own. A few years have passed since I graduated so it might be the case that some convergence between ex-polys and RG universities has taken place but I will still argue that the differences are still there, given alone at the level of students each university attracts.
So please spare me the "ego" argument, believe me I do not need to boost my ego, I just want to inform a few people that might have found themselves in a same situation like me. If they believe they can do better have another go at oyur A-levels, if not (not everybody is a good student) then fine go to an ex-poly but be aware of what is expecting you.
Now, since I did the first year in economics at an ex-poly and the whole degree in an RG university and it was exactly the same degree (Economics) I can compare the first years. I can tell you this, it was night and day, the level of difficulty and mathematics at the RG university was way higher. The books we had to read were more sophisticated and rigorous. At the ex-poly although the teaching was good (so its not only how good you teach but what you teach also) the material was so vocational and so common sense you could almost read it on your own. A few years have passed since I graduated so it might be the case that some convergence between ex-polys and RG universities has taken place but I will still argue that the differences are still there, given alone at the level of students each university attracts.
So please spare me the "ego" argument, believe me I do not need to boost my ego, I just want to inform a few people that might have found themselves in a same situation like me. If they believe they can do better have another go at oyur A-levels, if not (not everybody is a good student) then fine go to an ex-poly but be aware of what is expecting you.
You realise reciting your life story for the nth time does nothing to back up your argument that this isn't about ego. You're repeatedly reframing objective debates into a discussion about yourself.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Manchester Met reputation
- Is leicester a good uni?
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- How is Brunel for physiotherapy?
- Enquiring about Distance Learning IT Degrees
- difference between sheffield uni and sheffield hallam uni??
- is dietetics a good career?
- Surrey Vs Reading
- Why is it still looked down upon to attend an ex polytechnic university
- Do they make lower offers if they really want you?
- Sheffield Hallam or Sheffield University
- DMU - A Rich and Vibrant History of Improving Lives through Education
- Application help
- Alevels remark 2023
- Is reading university good for law
- Unethical American Surveillance Recently,
- Manchest Met Uni or Oxford brooks
- am i being realistic (life plans)
- University of Hertfordshire vs University of Greenwich?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days 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 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days 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 ?
