Why do London's former polytechnics always perform the worst?

Watch
ultimate mashup
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
I think its a bit harsh to say all former polytechnics are bad because there a couple that rank in the top half of all the league tables but I was just wondering why the London ones always perform so badly?

Why is this? Is it the water in London or something, or maybe the language barrier?

*London Metropolitan University
*University of East London
*London Southbank
*West London University (formally thames valley)
*University of Greenwich
*University of Westminister
0
reply
tillytots
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
Oh god better not get imsoacademic started on london met...
1
reply
street.lovin'
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
University of Westminster is quite decent IMO.

For others, I have no idea.
0
reply
im so academic
Badges: 15
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
(Original post by ultimate mashup)
I think its a bit harsh to say all former polytechnics are bad because there a couple that rank in the top half of all the league tables but I was just wondering why the London ones always perform so badly?

Why is this? Is it the water in London or something, or maybe the language barrier?

*London Metropolitan University
*University of East London
*London Southbank
*West London University (formally thames valley)
*University of Greenwich
*University of Westminister
In comparison with other top London universities (Imperial, LSE, UCL, KCL for starters):

*Poorer student facilities
*Poorer course content
*Poorer entry requirements (if any?)
*Students are of a poorer academic nature
*Greater focus on "employability" as opposed to an employability AND an academic education
*London Met - Not financially stable
*London Met - refused to be part of newspaper league tables
*THAMES VALLEY - Offered (offers?) pseudoscientific BSc courses
1
reply
ultimate mashup
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#5
(Original post by im so academic)
In comparison with other top London universities (Imperial, LSE, UCL, KCL for starters):

*Poorer student facilities
*Poorer course content
*Poorer entry requirements (if any?)
*Students are of a poorer academic nature
*Greater focus on "employability" as opposed to an employability AND an academic education
*London Met - Not financially stable
*London Met - refused to be part of newspaper league tables
*THAMES VALLEY - Offered (offers?) pseudoscientific BSc courses
Obviously it goes without saying that they are poor in comparison with the top uni's but I was only refering to the former polytechnics. I think its fair to say that most former polytechnics are poor in contrast to top unis. What my question was getting at was why London's former polytechnics perform badly in contrast to other former polytechnics around the UK such as Oxford Brooks and Trent university.
0
reply
prince13
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
They're all as bad as each other. The only good ex-poly out there is Northumbria, possibly DMU as well.
4
reply
im so academic
Badges: 15
?
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
(Original post by ultimate mashup)
Obviously it goes without saying that they are poor in comparison with the top uni's but I was only refering to the former polytechnics. I think its fair to say that most former polytechnics are poor in contrast to top unis. What my question was getting at was why London's former polytechnics perform badly in contrast to other former polytechnics around the UK such as Oxford Brooks and Trent university.
Oxford Brookes and Notts Trent offer better courses?

OK, they're no Oxbridge (for obvious reasons), but let's take one example:

Oxford Brooke's MEng Mech Eng course is fully accredited by the IMechE.

Whereas Greenwich's MEng Mech Eng course is not. The website states: "It is the intention to have the MEng Hons programme accredited by the IET to meet the full academic requirements as a chartered engineer".

Also, Oxford Brookes specifies BBC, Greenwich specifies "300 points". Despite 300 points being equivalent to BBB, who is to say students who apply to Greenwich will apply with 3Bs at AS level? I am slightly dubious of the points system and despite OB asking for BBC - it is solid A-level grades, and you have to achieve a minimum in Mathematics and Physics.

Oxford Brookes DOES NOT deserve the reputation of such "universities" like London Met and the rest... Definitely one of the better "modern" universities. :yep:
0
reply
tigermoth99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
(Original post by ultimate mashup)
I think its a bit harsh to say all former polytechnics are bad because there a couple that rank in the top half of all the league tables but I was just wondering why the London ones always perform so badly?

Why is this? Is it the water in London or something, or maybe the language barrier?

*London Metropolitan University
*University of East London
*London Southbank
*West London University (formally thames valley)
*University of Greenwich
*University of Westminister
Probably because of their low entry requirements and the fact that they'll accept anyone to make up the numbers. This, coupled with lower spending on courses and facilities, makes for a shoddy excuse for a 'university'. No wonder then that London Met, for instance, has one of the highest drop out rates (19.3% in 2010-11)
0
reply
street.lovin'
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
(Original post by prince13)
They're all as bad as each other. The only good ex-poly out there is Northumbria, possibly DMU as well.
So they are not all as bad as each other. :P
1
reply
ukstudent1989
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
I really dont no why that the University of East London is near the bottom of the league tables. It dosent deserve to be near the bottom. Its a good university and has very good facilties and modern facilities. The teaching is also very good and so is the employabilty with companies like barclays, ubs, barclays capital, FSA, credit suisse doing internship and mentroing schemes with UEL students.

i think the league table are very against former polytechnic universities. I think its wrong, they are universities for a reason! because they provide a high level of education.
4
reply
im so academic
Badges: 15
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
(Original post by ukstudent1989)
I really dont no why that the University of East London is near the bottom of the league tables. It dosent deserve to be near the bottom. Its a good university and has very good facilties and modern facilities. The teaching is also very good and so is the employabilty with companies like barclays, ubs, barclays capital, FSA, credit suisse doing internship and mentroing schemes with UEL students.

i think the league table are very against former polytechnic universities. I think its wrong, they are universities for a reason! because they provide a high level of education.
Evidence it provides a high level of education?
1
reply
tigermoth99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
(Original post by ukstudent1989)
I really dont no why that the University of East London is near the bottom of the league tables. It dosent deserve to be near the bottom. Its a good university and has very good facilties and modern facilities. The teaching is also very good and so is the employabilty with companies like barclays, ubs, barclays capital, FSA, credit suisse doing internship and mentroing schemes with UEL students.

i think the league table are very against former polytechnic universities. I think its wrong, they are universities for a reason! because they provide a high level of education.
League tables aren't 'against' former polytechnics. Look at their methodology and see how they're compiled.

Look at this one for instance. They say that:

Figures are provided from HESA which provided data for entry standards, student-staff ratios, spending on academic services, facilities spending, good honours degrees, graduate prospects, completion and overseas student enrolments. HESA is the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about the universities.

So you can't argue that league tables are completely biased. Data is data.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 years ago
#13
Look, the question is not "Why are these Universities rubbish?" The question is "Why are these specifically London Universities worst of all?"

I don't think there's much in it. Like someone else said - Westminster isn't the end of the world. Sure South Bank, TVU (or whatever it's called now) and London Met are pretty much the bottom of the barrel - but it's not as if Hertfordshire is that much better.

If anything, I would say that the costs of running a London University (especially a central one) are extremely high - so there's less to spend on facilities and staff.
0
reply
tigermoth99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
(Original post by Clip)
Look, the question is not "Why are these Universities rubbish?" The question is "Why are these specifically London Universities worst of all?"

I don't think there's much in it. Like someone else said - Westminster isn't the end of the world. Sure South Bank, TVU (or whatever it's called now) and London Met are pretty much the bottom of the barrel - but it's not as if Hertfordshire is that much better.

If anything, I would say that the costs of running a London University (especially a central one) are extremely high - so there's less to spend on facilities and staff.
Not all London unis are terrible, though. I think it's also a question of management and available resources. Remember that UCL, SOAS and LSE are in central locations as well and have managed to spend more on staff and students than the unis in this thread.

I think their ability to garner large donations and research funds help, in addition to the significant numbers of students willing to pay high fees for some of their courses (look at the fees for LSE's postgrad finance MSc's, for instance)
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 years ago
#15
Of course not all London Unis are terrible - in a sense, Westminster is the odd man out being "ok" (although Brunel and maybe City probably fall into that category too). All the others are either awesome or terrible.

I think it comes from the established ones being venerable and respected seats of learning, with generations of goodwill and funding behind them. The new comers have no such reputation, but have to support the same overheads. London Met has some pretty f-ing expensive real estate, but no-one would give them toffee for their research.

I mean, it looks like its more or less divided by age:

Premier League:

UoL and former UoL colleges - UCL, Kings, LSE, Imperial etc etc.


Championship:

City, Brunel (in a few areas on a good day)


First Division:

Brunel (in everthing else), Westminster


--BIG GAP--


Sunday kickabout in the park league

Middlesex, Greenwich, South Bank, TVU, Met etc etc etc
2
reply
tigermoth99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 10 years ago
#16
The problem with London Met (formerly London Guildhall) is its size. The 2002 merger with the University of North London wasn't the smartest move since it stretched its resources, compounding the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting problems. Bad management (lying over drop out rates) didn't help matters either.
0
reply
Busby_Babe
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 10 years ago
#17
You forgot strand poly.
0
reply
ukstudent1989
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 10 years ago
#18
(Original post by tigermoth99)
Probably because of their low entry requirements and the fact that they'll accept anyone to make up the numbers. This, coupled with lower spending on courses and facilities, makes for a shoddy excuse for a 'university'. No wonder then that London Met, for instance, has one of the highest drop out rates (19.3% in 2010-11)
Too say they spend less on their courses and facilties is wrong. UEL has spent between £300 - £400 million on new facilities on their campuses over the last 20 years. Thats more than most universities have spent on new facilities.
0
reply
ultimate mashup
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#19
(Original post by Busby_Babe)
You forgot strand poly.
What's that?
0
reply
ukstudent1989
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 10 years ago
#20
(Original post by ultimate mashup)
What's that?
Its what UCL students call kings college as a joke
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Has your education been disrupted this academic year due to the pandemic?

Yes (115)
86.47%
No (18)
13.53%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed