(Original post by Byllie)
I agree - but university snobbery isn't just reserved for TSR. Remember when your mum used to say to you 'work hard to get into a good redbrick university'. .
No, she didn't say that (and I'm not at a redbrick university). She still has no idea of what a redbrick is and never pushed me to get good grades. Providing I tried my best (aware that I have some ability and intelligence), she was always happy. I don't think she would have cared have I went to, say, Manchester Met instead of Durham.
(Original post by Byllie)
People are inherantly ignorant about universities everywhere and your average joe will not know that middlesex is 4th in the table for bible studies. Not many people know what they wan't to do at 18-21. It's better to take less risk and go with the redbrick IMO.
First of all, it's usally called "Theology" - an ancient and well respected (as well as very respected) academic discipline. Not "Bilbe studies"
More seriously, we are not discussing an arts based subject here. We're talking about a solid degree, which gives graduates a range of professional-related and techincal skills as well as a wide range of transferable skills.
As for the difference in university name the "average joe on the street" migtn't know much about universities. But why on earth should that matter? In my experience few "average joes" are aware of any universities beyond Oxbridge and possibly Durham and two of the Scottish Ancients. They might be faintly aware of Imperial or UCL (or LSE, as the whore themselves to the media). Then they might also have some idea that redbricks or big city unis (Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle....) are reasonably good.
The "average joe on the street" who has little idea about universities probably not the person doing the hiring of gradautes. Someone who does the hiring in the professions usually will have a reasonable idea about universities and will have their own preferences.
But most importantly, I can safely bet that the people who were so dismissive of Westminster probably think Nottingham has a better department, simply because it's so much higher in the league tables. Westminster can't have a good department simply because it's an ex-poly. That's the main point I wanted to attack. I see it all the time. The best part of two years ago there was a "Durham V. Birmingham" thread in the old Choosing a University thread. It was filled with people, few of them at university and even a fewer number with any knowledge of the deparments in question, being very dismissive of Birmingham and refused to believe it could have a better department (and these are excellent universities!). Same in an Imperial V Durham for physics thread in the Durham forum. People invaded that creaming over Imperial, completely unaware that Durham have one of the strongest departments in the country (and, in some areas, the world). But because Imperial is Imperial, it must be better. Again, these are two excellent universities. It's even worse when comparing a Russell or 94 Group uni to a former polytechnic.
I still maintain that it's more important the OP picks the correct architecture department for him. If he choses Nottingham, still a decent architecture school and established name, then all the better.
Architecture is not the sort of course to take lightly. Hopefully the OP is aware that architecture, or an architecture related career, is for him.