Smaller universities not given a chance?????

The smaller universities are often smaller because less students choose to study there, so they have less money to expand. Good Universities become big, not the other way around.

So the system is corrupt? -Small Unis will always remain small and big Unis will always remain big?

I think the education system reflects the hierarchies that exist in society, which are perpetuated instead of being broken down. For example, Oxbridge continue to be perceived as the carriers and frontiers of knowledge, even though there are a number of newer universities which are doing fascinating work. One should also be aware that a number of the smaller universities were earlier smaller colleges, training institutions or even polytechnics. So, it was organised as if the important and the hard to attain knowledge resided in the Oxbridge and older universities and the vocational training or working knowledge/trades were available and taught in polytechnics and smaller colleges which trained people for work. Even though all this has now changed, with the polytechnics becoming full universities, the research councils, the general student population, other academicians, the government continues to feel the same. And so they get lesser money, their collegiate systems are not as well endowed. When they are lesser endowed they offer lesser scholarships, and so many "bright" students tend to chase Oxbridge and like.

I think shouldn't our education challenge this instead of perpetuating it?

I think the education system reflects the hierarchies that exist in society, which are perpetuated instead of being broken down. For example, Oxbridge continue to be perceived as the carriers and frontiers of knowledge, even though there are a number of newer universities which are doing fascinating work. One should also be aware that a number of the smaller universities were earlier smaller colleges, training institutions or even polytechnics. So, it was organised as if the important and the hard to attain knowledge resided in the Oxbridge and older universities and the vocational training or working knowledge/trades were available and taught in polytechnics and smaller colleges which trained people for work. Even though all this has now changed, with the polytechnics becoming full universities, the research councils, the general student population, other academicians, the government continues to feel the same. And so they get lesser money, their collegiate systems are not as well endowed. When they are lesser endowed they offer lesser scholarships, and so many "bright" students tend to chase Oxbridge and like.

I think shouldn't our education challenge this instead of perpetuating it?

So I was just thinking about this as I was looking through Uni rankings etc.

Do you people think that the smaller Universities are not given enough chances to increase in popularity, for example Oxbridge, Kings, Imperial and UCL will always remain at the top or top half but a Uni like Hertfordshire will not raise to the "same level".

Why is this?

Two very good answers. But doesn't wealth come into this as well? Generally the wealthier students go to better universities? Obviously some intelligence must be there but what if mummy and daddy are generous donators? There must be a flaw somewhere...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Two very good answers. But doesn't wealth come into this as well? Generally the wealthier students go to better universities? Obviously some intelligence must be there but what if mummy and daddy are generous donators? There must be a flaw somewhere...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

The universities with the most student would get more funding to invest in facilities, so would be 'better' unis.

Two very good answers. But doesn't wealth come into this as well? Generally the wealthier students go to better universities? Obviously some intelligence must be there but what if mummy and daddy are generous donators? There must be a flaw somewhere...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Isn't that just a market working? If the bright students want to go to Oxford, then who cares? I imagine they choose to go there because they want to rather than because they feel obligated to (those who feel obligated to go do not generally get into the very top universities).

You say when universities are less well off they offer lesser scholarships, so bright students chase top universities. This makes no sense because lower-ranked universities offer lower fees, so they are probably cheaper regardless of any scholarships available elsewhere.

There has to be a winner in any system. The top universities have a top reputation, so attract the top researchers and top students, so get more research from independent bodies, and this cycle generally continues because the best researchers want the best resources, as do the best students, who also want to be around other equally 'bright' students (what do you men by putting this in inverted commas? That you do not agree that those who go to top universities are not generally more intelligent? I would argue that they are more intelligent that students going to worse universities, because both students are pursuing the same type of intelligence. You can't compare a student to a carpenter, but comparing two students, you can easily say one is brighter than the other.)

Lastly, you mention how the Polies became full universities and still don't get the same research opportunities. Firstly, there are examples that show new universities can be among the best - York is only 50 years old, but frequently appears among the top universities in league tables (although it was never a poly I don't think). Secondly, the ex-polies don't get as much research funding because there is only so much funding to go around. There are too many universities at the moment, and not all can get as much funding as the Russell Group. I would argue that these universities would be better off offering better, vocational education in the true sense of the word (not the misunderstood modern meaning that equates to vocational=hairdressing). University education is not suitable and not necessary for a large proportion of current students and we should not be sending them to universities that have a poorer quality of teaching (due to lack of funding/prestige).

+1

The smaller universities are often smaller because less students choose to study there, so they have less money to expand. Good Universities become big, not the other way around.

So I was just thinking about this as I was looking through Uni rankings etc.

Do you people think that the smaller Universities are not given enough chances to increase in popularity, for example Oxbridge, Kings, Imperial and UCL will always remain at the top or top half but a Uni like Hertfordshire will not raise to the "same level".

Why is this?

Biggest load of XXX I ever heard.

Oxbridge are the best and they are both under 20k students, they could be 3x bigger if they wanted. On the other hand Manchester and Leeds have way over 30k and look at where they are.

In saying that smaller universities should continue to offer vocational courses and trades, aren't we saying that there is a working-class knowledge that working-class people should get. Pay less, learn what is relevant, and earn when learnt. But the 'real' knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, history, classics and such will continue to reside in the hallowed portals of the older universities. Should we not question this?

There is also something called the politics of knowledge production, which questions the ways and means by which knowledge is produced and who produces it and under what conditions. For a long time women academics had it harder and continue to do so. There have been socio-demographic studies which point to how women academics are less likely to marry and if they do, will have lesser children compared to male counterparts. Why do you think that is? Women's participation in the processes of knowledge production has always been challenging, more than it has been for women. The same argument extends to who produces real knowledge, the ex-polytechnics or the older universities.

As for lesser scholarships: check the college scholarships available through Oxford and Cambridge compared to those at Lancaster and even York and you will know what I am saying. In a PhD, it is not about the university but the supervisor, and if the supervisor is not backed by a research grant and funds he/she will fail to attract talent. So, the so called bright ones will leave their interest and go to the Oxbridge, Harvard and Yale.

And like the other person said, isn't it true that more students from better off families get to the richer universities than the lesser ones. There has been a lot of research into this, and you can google this up to check.

I am not saying that Oxbridge and Ivy League university graduates are not bright, but its not as if others aren't. And they are always told that this is good, but there is a better that exists within Cambridges, UK and Cambridge, US.

In a world replete with hierarchy, why erect more?