Are there any truly 'bad' universities in the UK?

Staffs have been running computing courses for a looong time. Good department there for CS and such. Thing is though, if they really were that good they would be higher up the rankings as both a uni and more importantly a department. I know tables aren't everything, but it does make you wonder what's really going on.

When I went to Stafford, I saw that they now also have "mickey mouse" courses in the department, such as Media studies.

I hate to worry you but so do Oxford and Cambridge:-


http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate_courses/course_guide/film_aesthetics.html


http://www.screenmedia.group.cam.ac.uk/

Don't forget BA Fine Art at Oxford lololol

This forum posts so much crap it's unbelievable! If anyone looked at actual statistics, they would know that most of the universities at the top have totally undeserved reputations! For example Mathematics at Cambridge, a course bandied about here as being one of the most prestigious, according to unistats, average UCAS points entry for Cambridge mathematics was 570 ( + 1,1 in STEP II, III), and the degree results were 29% Firsts, 41% 2.1, 20% 2.2 and 10% 3rd/fail.

Yet, University of Greenwich (derided as an ex-poly) the average entry points is 240, yet the degree results are 55%Firsts, 30% 2.1, 10% 2.2 and 5%3rd/fail. From this, we can see that Greenwich maths department is taking lower quality entrants and turning them into better quality grads with better results, obviously showing reputation means nothing, and that people should be looking elsewhere for top quality degrees.

This forum posts so much crap it's unbelievable! If anyone looked at actual statistics, they would know that most of the universities at the top have totally undeserved reputations! For example Mathematics at Cambridge, a course bandied about here as being one of the most prestigious, according to unistats, average UCAS points entry for Cambridge mathematics was 570 ( + 1,1 in STEP II, III), and the degree results were 29% Firsts, 41% 2.1, 20% 2.2 and 10% 3rd/fail.

Yet, University of Greenwich (derided as an ex-poly) the average entry points is 240, yet the degree results are 55%Firsts, 30% 2.1, 10% 2.2 and 5%3rd/fail. From this, we can see that Greenwich maths department is taking lower quality entrants and turning them into better quality grads with better results, obviously showing reputation means nothing, and that people should be looking elsewhere for top quality degrees.

Because it has an average entry requirement of 180 ucas points. Garbage in, Garbage out. Simples.

1st Greenwich Maths =/= 1st Cambridge Maths

That just shows you how difficult it is to attain a 1st at Cambridge Maths and it's of a reputable quality seeing as students have to do STEP before they are admitted (which I doubt Greenwich graduates could even do).

What an insult to Cambridge to even compare the two courses.

Just look at the course content for God's sake.

Just cos Cambridge learns it faster, doesn't mean they are any better at it. That is just an example of one module (which is pretty similar to the first year analysis and vectors and matrices courses at Cambridge I might add), the material gets a lot more advanced later on.

As we all know, the QAA and other external examiners regulate exams across the country so all students who get a particular grade (first/2.1/2.2 etc) are the same standard, therefore a first is a first wherever you go. Greenwich are clearly exceptionally good at teaching mathematics, Cambridge might be good at researching, but they are producing some lousy grads

Just cos Cambridge learns it faster, doesn't mean they are any better at it. That is just an example of one module (which is pretty similar to the first year analysis and vectors and matrices courses at Cambridge I might add), the material gets a lot more advanced later on.

As we all know, the QAA and other external examiners regulate exams across the country so all students who get a particular grade (first/2.1/2.2 etc) are the same standard, therefore a first is a first wherever you go. Greenwich are clearly exceptionally good at teaching mathematics, Cambridge might be good at researching, but they are producing some lousy grads

Out of interest, where are those figures from

This forum posts so much crap it's unbelievable! If anyone looked at actual statistics, they would know that most of the universities at the top have totally undeserved reputations! For example Mathematics at Cambridge, a course bandied about here as being one of the most prestigious, according to unistats, average UCAS points entry for Cambridge mathematics was 570 ( + 1,1 in STEP II, III), and the degree results were 29% Firsts, 41% 2.1, 20% 2.2 and 10% 3rd/fail.

Yet, University of Greenwich (derided as an ex-poly) the average entry points is 240, yet the degree results are 55%Firsts, 30% 2.1, 10% 2.2 and 5%3rd/fail. From this, we can see that Greenwich maths department is taking lower quality entrants and turning them into better quality grads with better results, obviously showing reputation means nothing, and that people should be looking elsewhere for top quality degrees.

Just cos Cambridge learns it faster, doesn't mean they are any better at it. That is just an example of one module (which is pretty similar to the first year analysis and vectors and matrices courses at Cambridge I might add), the material gets a lot more advanced later on.

As we all know, the QAA and other external examiners regulate exams across the country so all students who get a particular grade (first/2.1/2.2 etc) are the same standard, therefore a first is a first wherever you go. Greenwich are clearly exceptionally good at teaching mathematics, Cambridge might be good at researching, but they are producing some lousy grads

Sarcasm?

Because seriously... you cannot compare getting a First in Cambridge maths to a First in Greenwich maths. They don't sit the same exams.

This forum posts so much crap it's unbelievable! If anyone looked at actual statistics, they would know that most of the universities at the top have totally undeserved reputations! For example Mathematics at Cambridge, a course bandied about here as being one of the most prestigious, according to unistats, average UCAS points entry for Cambridge mathematics was 570 ( + 1,1 in STEP II, III), and the degree results were 29% Firsts, 41% 2.1, 20% 2.2 and 10% 3rd/fail.

Yet, University of Greenwich (derided as an ex-poly) the average entry points is 240, yet the degree results are 55%Firsts, 30% 2.1, 10% 2.2 and 5%3rd/fail. From this, we can see that Greenwich maths department is taking lower quality entrants and turning them into better quality grads with better results, obviously showing reputation means nothing, and that people should be looking elsewhere for top quality degrees.

Sweet Jesus.

Do you actually believe what you have written in this post, or are you actually this stupid?

Stupid? You can't argue with cold hard stats bro. Why don't universities specifiy universities that are acceptable on entry requirements for postgrad courses. Because all the degrees are worth the same. Only a tiny amount (7%) of misguided employers use where you got your degree from to discriminate candidates also. If you had two applicants for a mathematics MSc/PhD, one with a 1st from Greenwich and one with a 2.2 from Cambridge who are they going to choose? The first class every time mate.

Posters in this thread have collectively identified you as a retard. From now I choose to shun you, and I am happy for anyone else to join me in my shunning of the retard.