Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we get rid of weaker universities? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    So in other words you don't have an argument so you're going to play the statistics card? There's no validation to suggest going to a low ranked university to study a Philosophy of Harry Potter course is better than doing a legal apprenticeship to becoming a lawyer... But if we use common sense we know the answer right? It's empirical. It's why our government is trying to have more students study STEM, so people from lower ranked universities don't study nonsense like Media Studies. Inferences buddy, even though you're good looking, I'm not going to go trawling through the web to find statistical evidence for you when we have common sense.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    First of all you seem to be confusing two different issues, low ranked universities and mickey-mouse degrees. You do realise that the majority of those low ranked universities offer degrees such as engineering, law, criminology and psychology, all of which are important degrees, no?

    Secondly, the statistics "card" is in and of itself a very valid argument. If you have nothing to support whatever you're conjecturing, you might as well claim you pee gold and breath fire.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Binary Freak)
    I agree somewhat (Even though I'm attending at a bad university - As far as the league tables go anyway) - At least the statement regarding they're practically handed out like leaflets.

    As for closing them, I don't agree with so much. Some of the lower ranked universities perform pretty well in some subject areas and prepare graduates pretty well for what they're likely to encounter in their desired field.

    I personally think they just need to be far more selective with who they accept. Not strictly from an academic accomplishment standpoint, but factoring in the drive and motivation to learn and succeed in their desired field. Not just accepting any old fool because they apply. In fact, the majority of my bad experiences pretty much narrow down to students with poor attitude rather than the difficulty of the curriculum. Though I guess the former impacts the latter somewhat
    Thats true, and not helped by the fact universities can set their own student quotas, and now we have the facebook clause anything produced at uni is effectly theirs to profit from. Add that to massive fees paid now for tuiton and It becomes a business model rather than an educational model which is where the problem lies imo.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Thinking that GCSEs and A Levels are such hard work.
    Yes, a lot of work and money. You got top grades at A-Level and got into oxbridge so you're bossing around?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redplant)
    Which universities are cheaper? I know there's the very tiny college like institutes which award degrees and are cheaper but the vast majority charge £9000, that includes Russell Group, Redbrick and the ones op wants to take a fat steamy **** on
    I'm an international student. Fees are different for me. All the non-*****y universities start at 17k pounds.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fadel)
    I'm an international student. Fees are different for me. All the non-*****y universities start at 17k pounds.
    could you not maybe use the open university? they would be much cheaper and would also Be of a much higher standard then the standard of weak universities in the UK.

    I know its not the same as been in a class but at the weaker institutions you dont get much class time anyway.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    could you not maybe use the open university? they would be much cheaper and would also Be of a much higher standard then the standard of weak universities in the UK.

    I know its not the same as been in a class but at the weaker institutions you dont get much class time anyway.
    That last point is nonsense.

    http://m.unistats.ac.uk/subjects/stu...eturnTo/Search
    http://m.unistats.ac.uk/subjects/stu...eturnTo/Search

    Anglia Ruskin - double the contact hours of Bristol. That was just the first 2 universities I looked at.

    Contact time does not correlate with reputation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    'Muh education is a human right'

    It is, until 16. Then it's further education. Entirely different thing.
    That is an incredibly ignorant statement, stemmed from a conceited governmental policy. Education to ANY level is a definable human right - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/right2education - there is nothing about an age where education stops being a human right, because anyone who claims otherwise are the root of the problem in the first place.

    As UNESCO are essentially policy makers within the United Nations, they know a hell of a lot more about it than you or anyone else using that argument in this entire thread.

    By the fact that the OP missed out on grades for an Oxbridge place, i'd hazard a guess at Exeter, as it's usually their students who come up with the majority of elitist threads on here over the years, more so even than Oxbridge students.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Throwing money at the issue won't solve it.

    Uni of Manchester gets an absolute fortune and yet they were so **** compared to MMU and I have studied at both.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iainvg)
    That is an incredibly ignorant statement, stemmed from a conceited governmental policy. Education to ANY level is a definable human right - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/right2education - there is nothing about an age where education stops being a human right, because anyone who claims otherwise are the root of the problem in the first place.

    As UNESCO are essentially policy makers within the United Nations, they know a hell of a lot more about it than you or anyone else using that argument in this entire thread.

    By the fact that the OP missed out on grades for an Oxbridge place, i'd hazard a guess at Exeter, as it's usually their students who come up with the majority of elitist threads on here over the years, more so even than Oxbridge students.
    >implying the UN should exist

    Graduates have higher employment rates and higher earning potential. Paying for that right makes sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
    Throwing money at the issue won't solve it.

    Uni of Manchester gets an absolute fortune and yet they were so **** compared to MMU and I have studied at both.
    Really? What course? I've heard this a bit about the non-STEM degrees at Manchester as I've read that Manchester Uni was actually the merger of two unis, Victoria University (which was apparently not very good) and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (which was apparently really good).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkEnergy)
    Really? What course? I've heard this a bit about the non-STEM degrees at Manchester as I've read that Manchester Uni was actually the merger of two unis, Victoria University (which was apparently not very good) and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (which was apparently really good).
    Wouldn't want to name it as it would make it obvious who was ****ging it off and you don't know who is reading :s: but honestly it was countless admin errors with our assignment results, non response to emails, last minute changes to the course content because it was inadequate, staff shortages etc. it was very stressful and I wouldn't recommend it. The uni did absolutely nothing to help us when we collectively made a formal complaint either and basically said we didn't have enough evidence (despite handing them everything on a platter).

    It's technically a non-STEM course but it is within the Biology, Medicine & Health faculty.

    Definitely preferred MMU but that's just my experience.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
    (..)
    That doesn't sound too good at all... Thanks for the reply!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    Just because those departments are merging doesn't mean they have to be subsidised by the university itself. As a separate college they raise their own funding or they simply vanish. There's already enough institutions to go around anyway.



    I agree technical colleges and apprenticeships should be of better quality and should be emphasised more by schools.



    Not ridiculous. What's your solution then? Continue having naive students take out £27,000 debt in a degree in magazine journalism from a university ranked no. 89 and then be unemployed?

    We are a small country in comparison. It won't cause any damage considering we already have a plethora of top universities in the global top 100. We need to focus on getting our other universities in the top 100 that are already esteemed in our country.
    of course its a ridiculous idea. 50 universities for a country of over 60 million people? let me guess, they'll all be concentrated down south too, with a couple in the midlands and 1 in scotland? the maths alone tells a different story. not to mention the ethics and social problems (elitism//classism) that you will stir up once you attempt to forcefully limit the number of university educated students. i guess you could always tell companies to pay degree-less employees the same amount as their better educated counterparts....take it from someone who has spent quite a lot of time in korea, you dont want a lot of kids being funneled into a tiny group of universities. you do that and you'll start witnessing diminishing birth rates, and sky-rocketing suicide rates. not to mention the cost of education will soar.

    my solution would be to relentlessly and critically evaluate proposals for new universities, pressure and manage existing universities (say, outside the top 100), prevent misleading advertising, limit the discrepancy between offers and accepted grades and ensure minimum standards are met. on the demand side, promote apprenticeships and work-hire schemes to low-achieving students and make corporations well aware of any benefits from aiding these schemes. you can even implement a national 'floor' for grades (say, BCC at A-level) and that any students wishing to attend university are ready to either pay more, or get the desired grades.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkEnergy)
    That doesn't sound too good at all... Thanks for the reply!
    I get good vibes about the uni from what I've seen from people on other courses but they massively dropped the ball on this one so I think looking at a uni's reputation from league tables doesn't give you a full picture... I chose UoM based on its reputation and unfortunately it didn't live up to it for me but I'm sure thousands of other students on different courses have had a fab time
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the degrees that OP made up are comedy gold, perhaps suitable for some sort of Harry and Paul sketch?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fadel)
    Yes, a lot of work and money. You got top grades at A-Level and got into oxbridge so you're bossing around?
    Money?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    That last point is nonsense.

    http://m.unistats.ac.uk/subjects/stu...eturnTo/Search
    http://m.unistats.ac.uk/subjects/stu...eturnTo/Search

    Anglia Ruskin - double the contact hours of Bristol. That was just the first 2 universities I looked at.v

    Contact time does not correlate with reputation.

    Yes, I believe this comes from some universities attaching a seminar to every lecture to enable discussion and debate, some just have lectures.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iainvg)
    That is an incredibly ignorant statement, stemmed from a conceited governmental policy. Education to ANY level is a definable human right - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/right2education - there is nothing about an age where education stops being a human right, because anyone who claims otherwise are the root of the problem in the first place.

    As UNESCO are essentially policy makers within the United Nations, they know a hell of a lot more about it than you or anyone else using that argument in this entire thread.

    By the fact that the OP missed out on grades for an Oxbridge place, i'd hazard a guess at Exeter, as it's usually their students who come up with the majority of elitist threads on here over the years, more so even than Oxbridge students.
    Great post - loved some of the assertions in it.

    The first part of your argument is a lazy appeal to authority - so what if UNESCO says it's a human right? Who gets to decide these and how? Indeed, isn't the market for education in the 21st century a lot more complicated than "education is good, let's have more of it"?

    You haven't explored the implication of the above. Does that entitle everyone to free education? Or merely equal access to education? Or some form of education of some sort? Where does restricting university places come into this? Indeed, is having an unlimited access to university places worth it when each of these low-achieving students has an opportunity cost and adversely affects the funding students in other unis receive? I'm not fully in favour of what the OP is proposing, but I can at least appreciate the idea of redirecting university funding and stopping the blatant false advertising that lower-ranking unis are all too happy to indulge in to suck up some of the funds from the EU student honey pot.

    Your last point is yet another lazy stereotype - not all Exeter types are arrogant *******s, and I doubt that most of the posters supporting the OP in this thread have any connection to the place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    I have never understood why suddenly it's everyone's God given right to go to university, I don't believe it is. I believe if you reach a certain standard of academic excellence, then you get to go to university, so a university degree is still something we aspire to. Nowadays we just hand out degrees like leaflets in the streets. They've lost their value.

    Just recently the top UK universities dropped down in ranking on the global top 100. To solve this we could get rid of all the universities outside of the top 50 and invest that money into our top 50 universities. Boosting the standards of those said universities.

    Anglia Ruskin, London Met and the likes are appalling institutions and are basically conning their students off £9000 a year. When videos like these are made by students:



    You know there is an issue.

    I say we should cull a huge tranche of the universities at the bottom, that are not meeting the standards and invest the money from that into our top 50 universities. Some of these universities are better off being vocational technical colleges and should be free or have lower tuition fees.
    Oh yes lets reinforce WC barriers limiting people the ability to further educate and better themselves just because of some meaningless world ranking. Patriotism in its finest?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Too many . Not a god given right and just the best students from the best schools could go. It would make a degree rarer and worth having. It would also make sure the top 5 were adequately funded. Top 50 way too common. MIght even be better if we went back to just Oxbridge. Imperical could be a technical college and LSE just be able to teach economics to the Chinese.

    Everyone who wasnt able to get in should know their place and be made to do apprentichships or work in a shop.
    Unlike 30 years ago, degrees are required for a lot of jobs, not just for specialist or top positions in society. Do you think there would be enough space for every teacher, for every school (primary, secondary etc) to get a degree? Or should we just have the privately educated sector have teachers with degrees? Better yet, lets scrap education from ages 13+ from those not pre-determined by their social class to have a shot at the top 5.
    You're literally going back in time where there were few universities in which only the top elite could attend and most working class people were in service and social mobility was rare.
    Literally the most idiotic idea i've ever heard of. You're clearly out of touch from reality.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.