opinions : do you think uni is worth £9000 a year?

Scroll to see replies

Ha. I can assure you you’re a hell of a lot more employable with a First from Warwick than a 2:2 from Cambridge.

Attending 1 term at Oxbridge and then dropping out would make you more employable than graduating with a first from warwick.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 21

adamantacademic

Original post by PhilandTheo

Attending 1 term at Oxbridge and then dropping would make you more employable than graduating with a first from warwick.

Your chances of employability wouldn't be affected by the reputability of your uni neither your attendance, when the interviewer sees a green ugly troll squelching down on the seat with a gush of rancid air hurling at them, they'll already gain a rough idea as to whether you'll be hired or not...

Reply 22

peeked

For a good degree, then yes it’s worth it

Reply 23

FloralHybrid

Original post by PhilandTheo

Attending 1 term at Oxbridge and then dropping would make you more employable than graduating with a first from warwick.

It’s a shame there isn’t a dislike button on TSR. 😂

Reply 24

username3570632

Original post by FloralHybrid

It’s a shame there isn’t a dislike button on TSR. 😂

Just give me a rep instead :smile:

Not really no

nope. at least not for me

Ofcourse .... not

I think I get my money's worth for my course. I have 20 hrs contact per week and have access to great libraries, journal subscriptions, career services and feel supported in my studies. However, it's the costs associated with attending uni which get me, having to rent somewhere or travel, but I guess that's cos I'm in London so cost of living is kinda high.
I understand that my lecturers need to be paid, that labs cost a lot to run and maintain safely, and so I feel like the money going into my course is justified. However there seems to be an onus to get a job to survive, but being dyslexic and with high contact hours, it's not that easy to fit a job in too. If you have financial worries as well as trying to complete your degree, it's a real distraction and can ultimately be damaging for your end result. My degree has a 90% employability rate after graduation, so it's very likely I'll pay back my loan. However if I stress too much over finances I may do worse in my degree and ultimately pay back less of my loan. So that's the kind of thing that gets me a bit annoyed, if you kind of get what I mean? Although arguably it's all good life-skills budgeting etc.
(I'm studying chem at UCL btw)
I mean free education would be brilliant, but it also doesn't feel feasible, and I do feel like I value my lecturers' time more because I'm paying for it more directly. Idk, there's a demonstration on wed campaigning for free education if any of you are in London and feel like you shouldn't have to pay.

Reply 29

DaftVader

For a stem subject, sure. For most other areas you'll be unlikely to actually use your degree and past your first/second job the only thing employers are looking at are your previous jobs.

Reply 30

GovernmentEarner

Original post by FloralHybrid

Ha. I can assure you you’re a hell of a lot more employable with a First from Warwick than a 2:2 from Cambridge.

I somewhat disagree. Some employers will just go 1st > 2:2. But employers that really know or went to Oxbridge know that in many cases a 2:2 from Oxbridge requires more work than a 1st from quite a few universities. This sounds ridiculous and I probably wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t know someone who goes to Cambridge. But I looked at their personal timetable and they work literally 10-12 hours a day and they’re on a borderline 2:1/2:2. While I have friends at other unis (not Warwick but other mid to top Russell Group) work between 4/5 and are on firsts.

Speaking to Cambridge students they often say those who get a first, wake up, work, sleep and repeat for 3+ years.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 31

Natalie_01

yes it's worth it. I want to go and I can get a life long career out of it

Reply 32

FloralHybrid

Original post by GovernmentEarner

I somewhat disagree. Some employers will just go 1st > 2:2. But employers that really know or went to Oxbridge know that in many cases a 2:2 from Oxbridge requires more work than a 1st from quite a few universities. This sounds ridiculous and I probably wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t know someone who goes to Cambridge. I looked at their personal timetable and they work literally 8-12 hours a day and they’re on a borderline 2:1/2:2. While I have friends at other unis (not Warwick but other mid to top Russell Group) work between 4/5 and are on firsts.

Speaking to Cambridge students they often say those who get a first, wake up, work, sleep and repeat for 3+ years.

You have to factor in individual aptitude. Some people naturally have to work harder to get better grades. The number of hours doesn’t equate to them being used effectively, it’s entirely possible and a lot more likely you’re friends working 4/5 hours a day are using their time more effectively, or just naturally are better at the subject.

I don’t believe it’s harder to achieve more highly from some Universities, because surely those of high intelligence wouldn’t go to Oxbridge and get a first from somewhere else?

That being said I’m an A-Level student, so I don’t have firsthand experience with this.

Reply 33

Asterac

I personally think it is; the whole experience, doing something you enjoy, meeting new people, exploring new places, greater possibility in jobs. I do think it does all come down to what you want to get out of it and if its worth the money. I decided initially after finishing college it was not worth it but now i have had a few years out i feel i am more prepared and feel that the course i am applying for is worth the high amount of money.

Reply 34

GovernmentEarner

Original post by FloralHybrid

Think about it logically though. It’s relative to who you’re being compared with.

In a university of extremely intelligent people it is going to require much more work to be in the top 20% than it is in a university of fairly intelligent people.

I don’t really get what you mean when you say ‘they would just go somwhere else’. Oxbridge students are usually their because they’d love their subject and want to do it in the best environment possible, not for a grade. Also I’m pretty sure Oxbridhe students know how to effectively revise, most have been getting top grades for years.

The only time these people were compared on an equal level was at A Level and the Oxbridge student likely got 2/3A* while the Mid Russell Group ABB-AAA.

So the 2:2 Oxbridge student likely works harder, and would get a first at a university where people worked less than them. However they’re surrounded by people even more determined.

It’s a bit like big fish little fish theory.
That’s why IMO grades should be considered in the context of the uni.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 35

jkls92

You are too commercial in your approach to education.

Reply 36

FloralHybrid

Original post by GovernmentEarner

Think about it logically though. It’s relative to who you’re being compared with.

In a university of 10,000 extremely intelligent people it is going to require much more work to be in the top 2000 than it is in a university of fairly intelligent people.

The only time these people were compared on an equal level was at A Level and the Oxbridge student likely got 2/3A* while the Mid Russell Group ABB-AAA.

So the 2:2 Oxbridge student likely works harder, and would get a first at a university where people worked less than them. However they’re surrounded by people even more determined.

It’s a bit like big fish little fish theory.
That’s why IMO grades should be considered in the context of the uni.

I’m not sure where the cap of being among the top 2000 of 10,000 has come from.

Your grade depends on what percentage you get in your course. A first being 70%+ etc etc.
They don’t work based on a system of “The top 20%, despite your grading, get a first!”

(Do they?)
Grades should only be considered in context of the university, if you’re in competition with those on your course. But as far as I’m aware, it’s about individual percentages.

Reply 37

Agash.S

If you take apprenterships they will pay for u

Reply 38

Killgrave

Original post by rleah1998

Do you think uni is worth the money it'll cost you in the future? I'm interested what people think and especially between science and arts

I certainly think it's "worth" 9k a year.but I think certain subjects and degrees should be 100% funded by tax payers and corporations.

Reply 39

GovernmentEarner

Original post by FloralHybrid

I actually edit it before you responded.

To be honest I don’t think you really understand the points I’m making or what relativism is, which is fine, but it makes responding a bit pointless for me.