Turn on thread page Beta

Essex to charge £9000 fees alongside Oxford and Imperial watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    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.


    Scrap them both, or you don't get subsidised for it.

    I'm shocked the latter is a BSc degree.


    Oh? Which ones?

    The purpose of university is to give an academic education, not to prepare people for jobs (and that's it).
    That's solely your opinion. Each to their own. I still believe most academically ignorant people would class universities based on their geographical location. My little sister thought Hertfordshire was a posh university because the name Hertfordshire sounds fancy...


    Queer Musicology – UCLA
    http://www.musicology.ucla.edu/index...106&Itemid=126

    Golf Management - Florida Gulf Coast University
    http://www.fgcu.edu/Catalog/udetail.asp?ID=88

    Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University
    http://courses.georgetown.edu/index....demicYear=2007

    The Science of Harry Potter - Frostburg University
    (I'm not sure if they still do it)

    Elvish, the language of “Lord of the Rings” – University of Wisconsin
    http://waa.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/...02/elvish.html

    Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology – Melbourne University (Australia)
    http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5319
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by mc1000)
    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:
    Are you seriously comparing Durham to Essex?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Are you seriously comparing Durham to Essex?
    He was not comparing. :K:

    He was just stating the fact that it is int he same research group as Durham, that's all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-Toe)
    That's solely your opinion. Each to their own. I still believe most academically ignorant people would class universities based on their geographical location. My little sister thought Hertfordshire was a posh university because the name Hertfordshire sounds fancy...


    Queer Musicology – UCLA
    http://www.musicology.ucla.edu/index...106&Itemid=126

    Golf Management - Florida Gulf Coast University
    http://www.fgcu.edu/Catalog/udetail.asp?ID=88

    Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University
    http://courses.georgetown.edu/index....demicYear=2007

    The Science of Harry Potter - Frostburg University
    (I'm not sure if they still do it)

    Elvish, the language of “Lord of the Rings” – University of Wisconsin
    http://waa.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/...02/elvish.html

    Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology – Melbourne University (Australia)
    http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5319
    Most of those seem to be postgraduate degrees or optional minors within an umbrella course; therefore, the comparison with undergraduate degrees is flawed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh there isn't much incentive for universities to not charge £9000 a year. You'll get terrible universities (in comparison to other universities) such as London Met, who hardly get enough applications at £3k per year, that will have no option but to charge the minimum or else no one will apply to that institution.

    The two-tier university classifications (by us) will probably be back from next year. There'll be the universities that charge £9k a year and those that don't. The former will e the ones worth going to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    Because league tables take research into account, and other crucial factors that are important in establishing the overall quality of a university.
    they are not all crucial factors

    Again, the RAE has been subject to various criticisms:


    Another article.
    those are some down side, i'm not leading in with say league table must be looked at, as they all have down side
    What is your basis for criticising the Times league table?
    why does tsr seem to think its the gold standard
    it only really looks are full time students, so rules out the open uni Birkbeck, so these a disadvantage towards them
    i'm not just criticising that one, you can't take one as the be all to end all

    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?
    they look at different things and different weighting

    the times may weight more on the student satisfaction survey, entry points, staff/student ratio, how much they spend on each student


    what are your view on Manchester uni as no doubt they will be charging fee of £9k, and if we go by the times its ranked about the same place as essex
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    some of the comments on that daily mail site, like essex a old polytechnic,even calling surry a old polytechnic is a bit hard
    essex has always been a uni, formed along with many in the 60s known as Plate glass university, don't see any one going ewww york or so on nor Warwick, Lancaster, Bath


    its one of the countries good unis, punches way above its weight in terms of its size, a top 10 uni for its research, a uni that has departments that rank with Oxbridge and above

    just because its Essex don't rule it out, its in the 1994 group as well, which will pretty much charge the full £9k, every uni that is in the group

    the daily mail really need to learn something here
    its just stirring up emotions is all, its what they do
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    Most of those seem to be postgraduate degrees or optional minors within an umbrella course; therefore, the comparison with undergraduate degrees is flawed.
    I never said they were undergraduate degrees so I fail to see your logic :curious:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    they are not all crucial factors
    How are "entry standards, student satisfaction, staff/student ratio, academic services and facilities expenditure per student, research quality, proportion of Firsts and 2:1s, completion rates and student destinations" not crucial factors? Or at least some of them?

    Would you honestly be happy to attend a university that had pretty good research but poor teaching standards, high drop-outs, large amounts of 3rds and an unequal staff/student ratio?

    why does tsr seem to think its the gold standard
    it only really looks are full time students, so rules out the open uni Birkbeck, so these a disadvantage towards them
    i'm not just criticising that one, you can't take one as the be all to end all
    Because it has established a solid reputation and is largely respected by employers and academics as one of the most reliable national university league tables.

    they look at different things and different weighting

    the times may weight more on the student satisfaction survey, entry points, staff/student ratio, how much they spend on each student
    Exactly, but it's quite telling when a university appears in broadly the same place in all league tables.

    what are your view on Manchester uni as no doubt they will be charging fee of £9k, and if we go by the times its ranked about the same place as essex
    If Manchester is dropping behind in quality, then it's dropping behind in quality. I don't really subscribe to a university's quality and reputation being based on social and historical factors. Just because a university is old and well-known does not mean that it's quality is permanently sealed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-Toe)
    I never said they were undergraduate degrees so I fail to see your logic :curious:
    The context of your discussion was clearly focused on undergraduate degrees, you posted two Mickey Mouse undergraduate degrees from Birmingham and Manchester and then proceeded to claim that good US institutions also offer Mickey Mouse courses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    The context of your discussion was clearly focused on undergraduate degrees, you posted two Mickey Mouse undergraduate degrees from Birmingham and Manchester and then proceeded to claim that good US institutions also offer Mickey Mouse courses.
    Me and ISA went slightly off topic, if you've got a problem with that then you're just doing to have to deal with it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Are you seriously comparing Durham to Essex?
    Both good universities. Yes, Durham is the better of the two, but still - they're both decent universities. What point are you trying to prove?

    In any case, I seem to remember reading one of your TSR posts a while back, stating that Loughborough is a very mediocre university. I may be biased... but the fact of the matter is that it is ranked slightly higher than Exeter (which I'm sure you know is one of the classic Oxbridge reject universities), in pretty much every measure.

    You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, and this - combined with your assertion that Essex is below average - simply confirms this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    some of the comments on that daily mail site, like essex a old polytechnic,even calling surry a old polytechnic is a bit hard
    essex has always been a uni, formed along with many in the 60s known as Plate glass university, don't see any one going ewww york or so on nor Warwick, Lancaster, Bath


    its one of the countries good unis, punches way above its weight in terms of its size, a top 10 uni for its research, a uni that has departments that rank with Oxbridge and above

    just because its Essex don't rule it out, its in the 1994 group as well, which will pretty much charge the full £9k, every uni that is in the group

    the daily mail really need to learn something here
    Understatement of the year.

    This is the Daily Mail we're talking about here remember.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by storna)
    How are "entry standards, student satisfaction, staff/student ratio, academic services and facilities expenditure per student, research quality, proportion of Firsts and 2:1s, completion rates and student destinations" not crucial factors? Or at least some of them?
    it depends how much weight they put on them, entry standards at essex are not AAA, nor are a good tell of how a uni more how popular it is
    Would you honestly be happy to attend a university that had pretty good research but poor teaching standards, high drop-outs, large amounts of 3rds and an unequal staff/student ratio?
    the teaching standard is not that bad in my view, i have a module that the lecturer is from UCL he about as good as anything else we have had, drop out rate shouldn't really matter unless they are failing exams, questions about degree class because UEL could give less 3rd than Oxford doesn't mean it any better

    staff/student ratio depends on the size of the department really, mine its like 4-3 students pre staff in the final year

    Because it has established a solid reputation and is largely respected by employers and academics as one of the most reliable national university league tables.
    no league is reliable


    If Manchester is dropping behind in quality, then it's dropping behind in quality. I don't really subscribe to a university's quality and reputation being based on social and historical factors. Just because a university is old and well-known does not mean that it's quality is permanently sealed.
    yeah but is it dropping in quality, in one year leicester uni jumped up to 9th, is it part of the top 10 now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    it depends how much weight they put on them, entry standards at essex are not AAA, nor are a good tell of how a uni more how popular it is
    Entry standards are still pretty significant. Why don't you think Oxbridge accept BCC for their law course, for example?

    the teaching standard is not that bad in my view, i have a module that the lecturer is from UCL he about as good as anything else we have had, drop out rate shouldn't really matter unless they are failing exams, questions about degree class because UEL could give less 3rd than Oxford doesn't mean it any better

    staff/student ratio depends on the size of the department really, mine its like 4-3 students pre staff in the final year
    I wasn't referring to Essex, it was mainly hypothetical.

    no league is reliable
    True, but some are more reliable than others.

    yeah but is it dropping in quality, in one year leicester uni jumped up to 9th, is it part of the top 10 now
    Some argue that since the merger and due to some under-performing departments, it has slightly dropped in overall quality. That's not to say it isn't still a good university.

    And, the uni you refer to has been around the top 20 mark for a few years now, so a jump to the top 10 is not that shocking. University quality is fluid. If a university invests to a higher extent in its students and facilities, improves its research quality, teaching standards and so on then its quality will naturally improve. This has been seen with a lot of the plate glass universities who have gradually built up a reputation and overtaken some of the older universities.

    Let me make something clear - I don't think Essex is a poor university. Indeed, I think it's pretty good when taking everything into account.

    However, the context of this discussion is league tables (whether they be RAE or otherwise), and it is my view that the newspaper league tables are more reliable in this case. That's not to say the RAE results are useless, but I don't believe people can claim Essex is an overall top 10 university because of the 2008 RAE results.

    I don't, in the grand scheme of things believe league tables are the be all and end all, and I think when all factors are considered - Essex is a pretty good institution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ha why has this thread degraded into an argument about how good essex is compared to oxbridge/ucl and shiz. Just grow up. Durham might be a better uni but there's **** all do to there anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    "University for retards" - not quite:

    *It's hardly Oxford or Cambridge
    *It's hardly universities like UCL, Durham, Bristol etc
    *They do offer some Mickey Mouse courses
    *Their entry requirements aren't exactly high

    But to be fair:

    *It's hardly London Met
    *They do offer some good degrees
    Why are you so ****ing snobby? I've seen so many of your posts and it winds me up so much, you act like if a university isn't in the top 10 it's basically a pile of **** that no-one should go to
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by mc1000)
    Both good universities. Yes, Durham is the better of the two, but still - they're both decent universities. What point are you trying to prove?

    In any case, I seem to remember reading one of your TSR posts a while back, stating that Loughborough is a very mediocre university. I may be biased... but the fact of the matter is that it is ranked slightly higher than Exeter (which I'm sure you know is one of the classic Oxbridge reject universities), in pretty much every measure.

    You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, and this - combined with your assertion that Essex is below average - simply confirms this.
    You do know that rankings change every year?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    You do know that rankings change every year?
    RAE 2008...

    Further proof that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    All the unis that want to attract richer background students are doing it now.

    Ever since labour there was far more working class students made it to good unis, the dons do not approve.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,856

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

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.