Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A my university is better than your university thread.... seriously grow up. Do you think anyone in the real world cares about your average grade in a modest degree subject. Find better things to do with your time, personally I wouldn't rate people on their university choice because most pick them based on what they've actually seen and what they are personally looking for.

    That's a point, for those mocking universities outside the russell group. Have you actually been to these universities and studied for your degree there? I'm guessing not, infact im guessing your opinion is based on outdated information from your parents or from a newspaper league table. Where funnily enough the people who produce these tables inevitably apply whatever subjective means to the list based on their own personal preferences. Just think about it, before asking retarded questions...

    Yes I am aware employers in some organisations may choose candidates based on the university 'brand' but this is clearly a poor method of choosing a potential employee. And so, just because employers are flawed in their approaches it doesn't mean we all must follow suit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    if you decided to go to stirling over glasgow because the course was rated higher in the subjects league tables for that year, then you are a bit of a dunce.

    if you went to stirling because you prefer the place, preferred the course modules, preferred the university overall then, that was the best choice for you. but if it was because you thought it was the 'better philosophy course' based on league tables which are just constantly in flux, then you're just as bad as all the other pathetic league table nitpickers on this website.
    I went for the loch and the campus and ducks too
    and the nice students

    And the fact the philosophy lecturer made me lol till I was crying on the open day


    Anyway I went for my reasons how did that make me a dunce? the whole point of the thread is that 'outside the russel groups the courses are crap' and glasgow you uni is a russel group uni and stirling is not but it had a better course


    + the fact my mum who is an admissions officer to a uni made clear that the uni tables are not a complete waste of time and they do indicate truth based on the subject matter not the uni as a whole means that yes I'm an idiot because I also took her advice
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    IMO a lot of the prejudice against people with degrees from ex polys is because those unis usually have lower entry requirements, so the top A level students tend to end up at the older more prestigeous unis, and the lesser A level students tend to end up at the others.

    It's more about perceptions of how tough the Admissions process is to get in rather than the education once you're there, which is ultimately why Oxbridge is a big thing to have on your CV, they know that the fact you've got in means you've got through a highly selective admissions process.

    The curriculum at undergraduate level is broadly similar wherever you go, you aren't taught some exclusive selective secrets at the older unis. A lot of the time the lecturers who teach you at one of the "ex polys" have been educated at the more prestigeous unis anyway and are early career academics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)

    That's a point, for those mocking universities outside the russell group. Have you actually been to these universities and studied for your degree there? I'm guessing not, infact im guessing your opinion is based on outdated information from your parents or from a newspaper league table. Where funnily enough the people who produce these tables inevitably apply whatever subjective means to the list based on their own personal preferences. Just think about it, before asking retarded questions...
    I completely agree with you, by the way. Everyone who is saying 'russell group are the only good ones / russell group and a few others are good, but ex-poly are ****', are basing their opinion only on things they have heard.

    I have had the pleasure to study at both a russell group uni and ex-poly, albeit at the renowned media campus of the latter. There are huge differences, but not in the degree of academic rigour. I will list a couple of observations from the last half a year:

    1) There is far less academic research going on here (there is still a lot, but every member of staff is not a researcher like at most RG unis). It is mainly practice-based and vocational. However, the staff are true industry practitioners and real experts. They also tend to be great teachers.

    2) There are far more international students here. In my MA course of around 15, only two are British (including me). It's a brilliant environment to be around Americans, Scandinavians, Brazilians, Columbians, Greeks, Italians etc...

    3) As a result of 2), the level of academic written papers is high in terms of original thought but sometimes poor in terms of the standard of written English. Research quality varies.

    4) The level of talent at the campus is HUGE.

    5) The university is actually really in touch with employers. There are a lot of part-time media law masters students, for example, mainly from the main television channels. The part-time modes are very flexible and adaptable, which obviously suits working professionals. The industry links are also far wider spread than anything I experienced at my last uni.

    6) The quality of mainstream subjects at the university at undergraduate level appears to be poor. The reputations of different campuses / courses at the uni vary enormously also.

    7) There is not actually that much difference in the university or the students.

    Overall, for a transition from studying to work, it's excellent. It is so much more directly relevant to the area of work and the kind of work to be undertaken. The opinion that ex-polys are rubbish is laughable. Certain aspects are, undoubtedly. But I'd go as far as saying that nearly every university has subjects that it is one of the best for in the country. You need to be aware of what area / aspect of an ex-poly you are talking about specifically, and not make such sweeping statements.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronar)
    lolol I rejected glasgow for stirling

    See it is not a cse of what the best you can do is, for stirling was better than glasgow for philosophy last year

    but alas people seem to think I picked a worse choice even though the friggin course is better :facepalm2:
    You made the right choice. You still have your good total of UCAS points to prove you did well at A levels and employers in your industry will know that Stirling have a good reputation for Philosophy.

    Even if Glasgow was better, there's more reasons to choose a university than X is better than Y. Living there for 3+ years is an important consideration too. That's why some people turn down Oxbridge offers.


    (Original post by Natasha_c)
    It would be hard to get into a russel group uni with just 260 ucas points was my point, many ex-polys would ask for that or possibly more such as oxford brooks.
    Well fair enough, though it depends on the ex-poly. I mean people with less than 260 points must be going to some unis. Obviously some ex-polys are better than others, which is why it's silly to group them all into one category. Oxford Brooks has a very good reputation for an ex-poly, compared to somewhere like Thames Valley.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    IMO a lot of the prejudice against people with degrees from ex polys is because those unis usually have lower entry requirements, so the top A level students tend to end up at the older more prestigeous unis, and the lesser A level students tend to end up at the others.

    It's more about perceptions of how tough the Admissions process is to get in rather than the education once you're there, which is ultimately why Oxbridge is a big thing to have on your CV, they know that the fact you've got in means you've got through a highly selective admissions process.

    The curriculum at undergraduate level is broadly similar wherever you go, you aren't taught some exclusive selective secrets at the older unis. A lot of the time the lecturers who teach you at one of the "ex polys" have been educated at the more prestigeous unis anyway and are early career academics.
    I think you are 100% spot on with what you have said here. Actually, when you look further into the regulation of universities, there are very strict requirements for the course provision of every degree type; overall attainment, course content, etc, so it is safe to assume that there cannot be much variation.

    Further, the 'good honours' statistic on most league tables shows us that you are far less likely to get a first or 2.1 at a university lower down in the league tables. Clearly, then, the overall standard for awarding degree classifications is fairly uniform across the universities. You can therefore assume that 'a first is a first', or a 2.1 is a 2.1, regardless of institution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronar)
    Anyway I went for my reasons how did that make me a dunce? the whole point of the thread is that 'outside the russel groups the courses are crap' and glasgow you uni is a russel group uni and stirling is not but it had a better course
    Better course according to whom? The Times in 2008? I'm sure the Times in 2006, 2007 and 2009 probably had a slightly differing opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian had a wildly differing opinion. The Sunday Times probably had a different opinion.

    What if, upon your graduation, that same newspaper league table said that Glasgow was better for Philosophy than Stirling? Would that lessen the worth of your degree, would it make the course you came from worse? If you think that an employer is going to look up the philosophy league table from the year you began your degree in order to weigh up how better educated you are than a Glasgow philosophy student then you've lost the plot. I can't see how league tables, in this instance, make a SHRED of difference. I can't comprehend anyone looking them up or taking into account the fact that there's five places difference between this uni and that uni, so I'll go to the "better" one.

    Of course all universities and courses outside Russell Group unis aren't crap. And I don't say this to denigrate your course or Stirling University, I'm sure it's lovely, but bringing up the fact that your course was higher than Glasgow's in a league table is just ********. It means nothing.

    Oh, actually, I don't even mind, maybe your course is "better", however you want to evaluate 'betterness' of courses, this whole league table obsession just pisses me off and I hate it when people bring them up, especially in reference something as facile as the difference between a Glasgow or Stirling philosophy degree.

    In fact, this is just a massive rant. Groaaaan.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dpb23)
    Bath isnt in the group, and is an ex-poly (sort of...). Yet it consistenltly ranks top 20.
    How exactly is it ex poly?

    It was built from nothing in the 60s in the same way warwick was... ok it can trace roots back to a pharmacy college in the 1890s but that doesn't mean its in any way ex-poly...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How exactly is it ex poly?

    It was built from nothing in the 60s in the same way warwick was... ok it can trace roots back to a pharmacy college in the 1890s but that doesn't mean its in any way ex-poly...
    It does kind of, from the technical definition of a polytechnic (as it came from the Bristol Trade School).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wrooru)
    i was reading this thread here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1164749 and towards the end someone talked about courses from non-russel group unis being pointless and you won't get a good job at the end. i sort of disagree, for why would a university exist like this if you could skip going to it and get the same standard job without going to it. surely if you get a first class degree and do lots of work experience and get involved in your uni, it will be better than a 2.1 from a russel group uni where all the person does is do the course and thats it. what does everyone think? thanks
    yep, you may as well sign on the doll right now if you get a degree from york or st andrews or Bath or Durham or ....

    what a stupid question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-o dore)
    So you think all universities are different and so equal? I'm sorry but thats just extreme relativism ignoring reality!
    Well, I am personally going to make my university decision based on how suited I am to each course and how much I like the atmosphere at each university. Somebody else in the same position might pick their university with more emphasis on graduate prospects.

    Would either choice be objectively 'better'?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Better course according to whom? The Times in 2008? I'm sure the Times in 2006, 2007 and 2009 probably had a slightly differing opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian had a wildly differing opinion. The Sunday Times probably had a different opinion.

    What if, upon your graduation, that same newspaper league table said that Glasgow was better for Philosophy than Stirling? Would that lessen the worth of your degree, would it make the course you came from worse? If you think that an employer is going to look up the philosophy league table from the year you began your degree in order to weigh up how better educated you are than a Glasgow philosophy student then you've lost the plot. I can't see how league tables, in this instance, make a SHRED of difference. I can't comprehend anyone looking them up or taking into account the fact that there's five places difference between this uni and that uni, so I'll go to the "better" one.

    Of course all universities and courses outside Russell Group unis aren't crap. And I don't say this to denigrate your course or Stirling University, I'm sure it's lovely, but bringing up the fact that your course was higher than Glasgow's in a league table is just ********. It means nothing.

    Oh, actually, I don't even mind, maybe your course is "better", however you want to evaluate 'betterness' of courses, this whole league table obsession just pisses me off and I hate it when people bring them up, especially in reference something as facile as the difference between a Glasgow or Stirling philosophy degree.

    In fact, this is just a massive rant. Groaaaan.
    Gosh I don't care anymore lol, cos i'm happy at my uni regardless of where it is in a table or whatnot
    I just get annoyed when people treat me like some thicko when I say i'm at stirling
    You get annoyed when people talk about league tables
    I think we should kiss, make up and leave the thread :getmecoat:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candytreeman)
    It does kind of, from the technical definition of a polytechnic (as it came from the Bristol Trade School).
    You're right of course but I don't think you can call the redbrick uni ex-polys. Otherwise you end up calling Sheffield a Russel Group, Redbrick, ex-poly.

    I hate the terms since they are this meaningless, which means your right, but as you note, its only a technical thing.

    Gonna set me up a sheffield uni thread now :P
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronar)
    Gosh I don't care anymore lol, cos i'm happy at my uni regardless of where it is in a table or whatnot
    I just get annoyed when people treat me like some thicko when I say i'm at stirling
    You get annoyed when people talk about league tables
    I think we should kiss, make up and leave the thread :getmecoat:
    alright. plentiful snogs to you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    You're right of course but I don't think you can call the redbrick uni ex-polys. Otherwise you end up calling Sheffield a Russel Group, Redbrick, ex-poly.

    I hate the terms since they are this meaningless, which means your right, but as you note, its only a technical thing.

    Gonna set me up a sheffield uni thread now :P
    Indeed, but it is a funny observation when you note that most 'russell group' universities started off a hell of a lot like ex-polys, yet they get ripped for their more technical / vocational beginnings.

    Definitely, the terms are meaningless. Like someone else said, all anyone can do is just research your course, see where people are talking about, visit the place, talk to ex-students, look at accreditation, maybe pay some attention to the subject league tables... you have nobody to impress with 'prestige' except yourself, to be honest.

    Judging based on 'ooh this uni is 5 above that one' is absolute ********. They change so much every year.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    A my university is better than your university thread.... seriously grow up. Do you think anyone in the real world cares about your average grade in a modest degree subject. Find better things to do with your time, personally I wouldn't rate people on their university choice because most pick them based on what they've actually seen and what they are personally looking for.

    That's a point, for those mocking universities outside the russell group. Have you actually been to these universities and studied for your degree there? I'm guessing not, infact im guessing your opinion is based on outdated information from your parents or from a newspaper league table. Where funnily enough the people who produce these tables inevitably apply whatever subjective means to the list based on their own personal preferences. Just think about it, before asking retarded questions...

    Yes I am aware employers in some organisations may choose candidates based on the university 'brand' but this is clearly a poor method of choosing a potential employee. And so, just because employers are flawed in their approaches it doesn't mean we all must follow suit.
    I have studied at both a non-Russell Group uni and have since moved to a Russell group one, and I partially disagree with what you say. I was easily top of my class and would've had a 1st with no effort whatsoever had I stayed at my previous uni, because the course was dumbed down, there was zero competition or will in the class to actually learn and the tutors were quite poor in their research areas. I would rather study a course where you need a bit more than a buggy flash presentation on cooking for your dissertation to get a first.
    That being said, there are some very good universities outside the Russell Group (St Andrews and Durham being prime examples) and as long as you are doing a degree from a top 25-30 university you have as good a chance as anyone of getting a very good graduate job.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    I have studied at both a non-Russell Group uni and have since moved to a Russell group one, and I partially disagree with what you say. I was easily top of my class and would've had a 1st with no effort whatsoever had I stayed at my previous uni, because the course was dumbed down, there was zero competition or will in the class to actually learn and the tutors were quite poor in their research areas. I would rather study a course where you need a bit more than a buggy flash presentation on cooking for your dissertation to get a first.
    That being said, there are some very good universities outside the Russell Group (St Andrews and Durham being prime examples) and as long as you are doing a degree from a top 25-30 university you have as good a chance as anyone of getting a very good graduate job.
    Read my post (with the 6 or 7 points) ^^, I have done the opposite to you except I completed my undergraduate degree at a russell group uni and am now doing a masters.. Am I right in thinking you did not see your degree past one or two years? I'm afraid it is a bit difficult to compare, in that case. A feature of lower ranked universities is a longer easing in period in courses. Regulations state the overall attainment requirements for degrees, but not for each year of a degree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candytreeman)
    Read my post (with the 6 or 7 points) ^^, I have done the opposite to you except I completed my undergraduate degree at a russell group uni and am now doing a masters.. Am I right in thinking you did not see your degree past one or two years? I'm afraid it is a bit difficult to compare, in that case. A feature of lower ranked universities is a longer easing in period in courses. Regulations state the overall attainment requirements for degrees, but not for each year of a degree.
    You are right that I only did 2 years out of the 4 of the degree.
    However, I actually have a pretty good idea of what the final 2 years are like. My post was based on the course content of the last 2 years(I actually went through around 80% of the lectures and assignments of the last 2 years of the course in around a month and found it barely challenging), the Honours projects I had seen previous students work on and the quality of work those in their penultimate year on track for 1sts are producing.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by AdHock)
    Well, I am personally going to make my university decision based on how suited I am to each course and how much I like the atmosphere at each university. Somebody else in the same position might pick their university with more emphasis on graduate prospects.

    Would either choice be objectively 'better'?
    Well the choices themselves (I.e your way of making the decision) won't be better than someone elses (although you could probably make an argument that some reasons for choosing a university are better than others, whatever 'better' means). But, at least in categories that are directly or indirectly measurable, universities can be easily ranked from first to last, or from best to worst, however you want to put it. I don't understand people's reluctance in seeing that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-o dore)
    Well the choices themselves (I.e your way of making the decision) won't be better than someone elses (although you could probably make an argument that some reasons for choosing a university are better than others, whatever 'better' means). But, at least in categories that are directly or indirectly measurable, universities can be easily ranked from first to last, or from best to worst, however you want to put it. I don't understand people's reluctance in seeing that.
    Well yeah, I don't think anyone's disputing that yes, you can take objective statistical measures and use them to create a ranking system. But the intangible, subjective aspects can also make a huge difference.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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

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

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