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

Essex to charge £9000 fees alongside Oxford and Imperial Watch

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by storna)
    But then, I don't consider Essex "exceptional" as claimed by the Government with regards to £9000 fees. "Exceptional" would be the top 10, at a maximum.
    Imo "Exceptional" is top 2. The other 18 or so are just "top".
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by T-Toe)
    I not saying Essex is top prestigious university. However I feel it's not given the recognition it deserves. Essex is my insurance choice and when I tell people, their facial expression reads: ':lolwut:'

    A few reputable top 20 universities also offer 'Micky Mouse' courses with fairly low grade requirements.
    Why do you think it's not given the recognition it deserves? What makes you think it's underrated? Maybe it doesn't deserve any other recognition...

    What are these specific universities? Which specific courses? I want details.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by diamonddust)
    I read that. The title alone pissed me off... 'Even Essex???'
    I think most universities will charge £9000. It makes sense with university funding being cut...
    To be honest, I expected pretty much all universities to be charging £9000.

    But had the £9000 price tag been exclusively for the elite (and the elite courses), then yes, it would be a shock.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    Top 10 in league tables.

    The RAE is a few year out of date, has been argued as flawed in how it is produced, and if I can recall there was controversy surrounding Essex's submission of research.
    so discount it because it doesn't show the results that should be, 2001 it was 9th, 2008 9th again, its not done every year

    show me a league table that isn't flawed

    if your going on ranking by league table than really really

    what sort of controversy is this than
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    Hmmm... How reliable is the league table though?

    Different table give you different results, they use different measurements. =.=

    I personally find league table more unreliable even if it's up to date.
    Well, if a university is 4th in the Guardian league table, and then 30th in the other league tables (with the Times being the most reliable) - then I agree that it would be foolish for someone to say (regarding that university): "my university is in the top 5!". However, if a university is generally in the same position in all of the league tables, then I think that's a pretty reliable indicator. Essex is in the early 40s in most of the league tables, Warwick is in the top 10 in most of the league tables, etc.

    I think league tables are more reliable than RAE results.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Why do you think it's not given the recognition it deserves? What makes you think it's underrated? Maybe it doesn't deserve any other recognition...

    What are these specific universities? Which specific courses? I want details.
    It's underrated because people associated it with the nature of the town, Colchester, which is rather 'rough'.

    If you classed Textile as a mickey mouse degree > http://www.soton.ac.uk/study/undergr...e_design.shtml

    I was thinking of putting down Ship Science degree as well, but then.... I don't wan tot be horrible. =.=
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I look at Essex as a University in which alot of intercourse takes place.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by storna)
    Well, if a university is 4th in the Guardian league table, and then 30th in the other league tables (with the Times being the most reliable) - then I agree that it would be foolish for someone to say (regarding that university): "my university is in the top 5!". However, if a university is generally in the same position in all of the league tables, then I think that's a pretty reliable indicator. Essex is in the early 40s in most of the league tables, Warwick is in the top 10 in most of the league tables, etc.

    I think league tables are more reliable than RAE results.
    :K:

    Different league tables use different measurements, so you cant believe any of them really.

    I prefer RAE table more, though. It's all about academics and researches that come out from universities. It reflects the quality.

    Essex is not the best uni, but it is a good uni. ... Why do you think Times is the most reliable league table?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    so discount it because it doesn't show the results that should be, 2001 it was 9th, 2008 9th again, its not done every year

    show me a league table that isn't flawed

    if your going on ranking by league table than really really

    what sort of controversy is this than
    Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like a collusive oligopoly here fixing the prices....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    41st in the country! money grabbing *****!
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by storna)
    Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
    I never claim it's prestigious. =.=
    All we said is that it has always been a uni, a good one. And it's hardly London Met like the DailyMail seems to think.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    Essex isn't a poor university, but I just think it's a bit facile to claim Essex is a prestigious, top 10 university because of an obscure, out of date RAE result - when most league tables, year by year, have placed it in the early 40s.
    what makes these other league tables so much better, the RAE looks at research, other look at entry points (not a good tell of a uni), staff to student ratio things like how

    and you can change the rankings based on what you are looking at

    there is no good league table, using them to look for unis is pretty silly
    http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Workin...eview-2004.pdf another league table of a department


    league tables mean nothing really

    don't quote the times league table as that is poor as the others
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Why do you think it's not given the recognition it deserves? What makes you think it's underrated? Maybe it doesn't deserve any other recognition...

    What are these specific universities? Which specific courses? I want details.
    It's a good university. The name 'Essex' really brings out some misconceptions. It's not the best in the country but certainly not the worst.

    University of Birmingham - Applied Golf Management Studies BA
    http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/prog..._studies.shtml


    University of Manchester - Textile Design & Design Management BSc
    http://www.manchester.ac.uk/undergra...ode=03590&pg=2

    These are the only two I could come up with from the top of my head

    I hear they're loads of 'Mickey Mouse' courses at top American universities.

    I don't really like the term 'Micky Mouse' as it's rather subjective. These courses get people specific jobs.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by T-Toe)
    It's a good university. The name 'Essex' really brings out some misconceptions. It's not the best in the country but certainly not the worst.
    I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.

    Just because it's "Essex" it doesn't mean it's bad. It's bad due to the fact the university does not have a lot of academic rigour in its courses, it is not famed academically and its poor entry requirements reflect the university's intake.

    University of Birmingham - Applied Golf Management Studies BA
    http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/prog..._studies.shtml

    University of Manchester - Textile Design & Design Management BSc
    http://www.manchester.ac.uk/undergra...ode=03590&pg=2
    Scrap them both, or you don't get subsidised for it.

    I'm shocked the latter is a BSc degree.

    I hear they're loads of 'Mickey Mouse' courses at top American universities.
    Oh? Which ones?

    I don't really like the term 'Micky Mouse' as it's rather subjective. These courses get people specific jobs.
    The purpose of university is to give an academic education, not to prepare people for jobs (and that's it).
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by im so academic)
    I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.
    Some of their departments are very good, Department of Government is very respected alongside with LSE and Oxbridge. It is a good university. It's no Oxbridge, but it's not below average. ....

    I personally think entry requirements reflects, pfft, entry requirement. Entry requirement could be based on the location/where it is, just like Aberystwyth has a very very strong International Relation but due to its location, the entry requirements aren't high. But relevant people know for definite hot good it is for IR. Same for Essex. (Although, I peronally don't mind living in Colchester at all. )

    Its reputation for research are among the top as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    what makes these other league tables so much better, the RAE looks at research, other look at entry points (not a good tell of a uni), staff to student ratio things
    Because league tables take research into account, and other crucial factors that are important in establishing the overall quality of a university.

    (Original post by robinson999)
    league tables mean nothing really

    don't quote the times league table as that is poor as the others
    Again, the RAE has been subject to various criticisms:

    The RAE has not been without its critics. Amongst the criticisms is the fact that it explicitly ignores the publications of most full-time researchers in the UK, on the grounds that they are employed on fixed term contracts. According to the RAE 2008 guidelines, most research assistants are "not eligible to be listed as research active staff". Publications by researchers on fixed term contracts are excluded from the Assessment Exercise unless those publications can be credited to a member of staff who is eligible for the RAE. This applies even if the member of staff being assessed only made a minor contribution to the article. Another issue is that it is doubtful whether panels of experts have the necessary expertise to evaluate the quality of research outputs, as experts perform much less well as soon as they are outside their particular area of specialisation.

    Since 1996 the AUT, now incorporated within the UCU, has maintained a policy of opposition to the Research Assessment Exercise. In its view:

    The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education system, leading to the closure of departments with strong research profiles and healthy student recruitment. It has been responsible for job losses, discriminatory practices, widespread demoralisation of staff, the narrowing of research opportunities through the over-concentration of funding and the undermining of the relationship between teaching and research.

    The official Review of Research Assessment, the 2003 "Roberts Report" commissioned by the UK funding bodies,[7] recommended changes to research assessment, partly in response to such criticisms.

    The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee considered the Roberts report, and took a more optimistic view, asserting that, "the RAE had had positive effects: it had stimulated universities into managing their research and had ensured that funds were targeted at areas of research excellence", it concluded that "there had been a marked improvement in universities' research performance". Nevertheless, it argued that "the RAE in its present form had had its day", and proposed a reformed RAE, largely based on Roberts' recommendations.
    Another article.

    What is your basis for criticising the Times league table?

    Again, I don't believe that if a university is 10th in the Guardian, 30th in the Independent and 50th in the Times that an overall guide to its quality can be established. However, if a university is in the same area in all of the league tables (or at least two reliable ones) then that provides a good indicator of the university's quality.

    How do you explain the disparity between Essex's result in the 2008 RAE results and subsequent years of league table results? Why is Essex in the top 10 in the 2008 RAE results, but then in the early 40s in most league tables and has been for a few years? Are the league tables simply wrong?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    they shouldn't be allowed to charge 9k a year...only the very best should be able to do so....
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper

    RAE table look at research in a MUCH MUCH more detail. They graded each research submitted by a university.

    Again, league table have been subject to varying degrees of criticism;

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Accuracy and neutralityThere has been criticism of attempts to combine different rankings on for example research quality, quality of teaching, drop out rates and student satisfaction. Sir Alan Wilson, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Leeds argues that the final average has little significance and is like trying to ‘combine apples and oranges.’[22] Other criticisms he made included the varying weights given to different factors, the need for universities to 'chase' the rankings, the often fluctuating nature of a university's ranking, and the catch-22 that the government's desire to increase access can have negative effects on league table rankings.[22]

    The Guardian suggests that league tables may affect the nature of undergraduate admissions in an attempt to improve a university's league table position.[23]

    Roger Brown, the former Vice Chancellor of Southampton Solent University argues the limitations of comparative data when comparing Universities.[24]

    The Guardian league table has a peculiar habit of ranking quite highly courses given by departments that have recently closed down. For example mathematics at Bangor[25] which closed in 2006 was rated fifth in the UK in the "2008" league table, Hull also did reasonably well considering it too no longer had a mathematics department or degree.[26] The Guardian later published a correction.[27]

    Professor Geoffrey Alderman writing in the Guardian makes the point that by including the percentage of 'good honours' this can encourage grade inflation so that league table position can be maintained.[28]

    The rankings are also criticised for not giving a full picture of higher education in the United Kingdom. There are institutions which focus on research and enjoy a prestigious reputation but are not shown in the table for various reasons. For example, the Institute of Education, University of London, is not usually listed in the undergraduate rankings despite the fact that it offers an undergraduate B.Ed and is generally recognised as one of the best institutions offering teacher training and Education studies (for example, being given joint first place, alongside Oxford University, in the 2008 Research Assessment 'Education' subject rankings, according to both Times Higher Education and the Guardian).[29][30]

    Full-time biasLeague Tables, which usually focus on the full-time undergraduate student experience, commonly omit reference to Birkbeck, University of London, and the Open University, both of which specialise in teaching part-time students at the undergraduate level. These universities, however, often make a strong showing in specialist league tables looking at research, teaching quality, and student satisfaction. In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, according to the Times Higher Education, Birkbeck was placed equal 33rd, and the Open University 43rd, out of 132 institutions.[31] And the 2009 student satisfaction survey placed the Open University 3rd and Birkbeck 13th out of 153 universities and higher education institutions (1st and 6th, respectively, among multi-faculty universities).[32]

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_tables_of_British_univers ities#Disparity_with_global_univ ersity_rankings


    :K:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    I wouldn't say it's a good university. I'd rate it as below average.
    Below average? Even though - on every single measure, as far as I know - it's always ranked within the top half of all UK universities; not to mention that it's a member of the same group as universities such as Durham?

    Some good logic there... :holmes:
 
 
 
  • 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
    Is cheesecake a cake?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    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.