Lets have a real debate on the Mets

I am going to pretend I did not read the bit in bold, unless you really are naïve and believe research at brooks = research at Oxford.

Can anyone actually justify a Metropolitan University being allowed to operate?
They do nothing more than rip off students with £9000 fees, and offer relatively low teaching and support. (e.g IT and learning support) Many don't do much research (if any at all) and a fair few have low job prospects. If anything, the adverting agency should be cracking down on them for misleading adverts etc.

Anyone agree? If you don't why?

(no this is not related to my troll thread, this one is serious)

No, regular Army, not Royal Navy. I'm in it for the career, I'm already in the military as an officer (TA), I'm just getting my degree before I get transferred to regulars in 2016. I plan to get as far up the career ladder I can, then get an extension once I hit 22 years. So yes, they will be, I know I'll be ****ted on for the first 10 years or so by people higher than me who went to Mets (the commander of the land forces has a BSc in Agriculture at Reading University for ffs) , but the Army is/will be my life, I am determined to progress to higher command, I plan to be the best of the best, and I expect those under me to be the best of the best. Which is why I have no respect for Mets, they are time wasters and work for only mediocre results. We lost our edge because of incompetent officers and incompetent politicians (wrong decisions, insufficient resources), which is why we lost the guerrilla war In Iraq, and we were/are losing it in Afghanistan. (amongst other factors) The British Armed Forces is a shadow of its former self, and we have to hide behind the protective umbrella of NATO. I'm ranting now so I shall stop.

We will see how you get on. If this is representative of your character, my guess is that you will leave as a fairly embittered captain, with low scores for leadership (which you won't accept) and the prospect of years of 2nd line postings ahead of you.

Why do you have such a vendetta against them? Lots of people leave them having learned valuable skills in their field and end up with a good job. It's more the government's fault about the £9000 fees and not the unis anyway.

This is a famous example.

This is the official 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for history

http://www.rae.ac.uk/2001/results/byuoa/uoa59.htm

Look which of them got the 5* rating and which the 5 rating

This is why when the VCs of both universities appeared before the Commons select committee the first question was whether a 2:1 in history from each university was of the same standard and how would the two VCs know. The select committee failed toget a straight answer.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/mar/31/oxford-degree-worth

Unis can charge UP to 9k, that does not mean they are worth 9k. Unis have complete control over the fees, the government just gives a upper limit.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, because they act like pansies and cany just say "Oxford is better than Brooks, and a Oxford degree is worth more". Far too much pc in the education sector, and life in general. I also refuse to believe that Brooks is better than Oxford in terms of research. It is simply not true. These reports and assessments are subjective, and they are probably assessed by some leftist apologiser with a MA in sociolgy from uni of Bradford.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Some people would argue that though, rivers for example.

Which is wrong. Why try in this country when mediocre = best? Luckily, Oxbridge computer science graduates will usually all end up working for Blue chip companies, rather than your local IT business. But its the fact that people turn their noses up at you just because your better than them that annoys me, and they always try to justify their own university and come out with things like "oh wll we at salford have industrial placements, Manchester does not." Do I care? No, you still did not get AAA & I will still end up getting a better job and earning more in the long term. (happens all the time at school reunions as I'm the only one in my year to go Russell group)

Not a personal rant at you btw.

Of course polys do occasionaly produce world class quality research, however it is not on the same scale as Russell Group universities. Russell Groups produce more higher quality work, and usually produce a fair bit more work that is of unparrellel quality. For example MMU is not researching into graphene, University of Manchester is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You need to get out into the real world, life isn't just about getting high grades to succeed in life and have a well-paid job.
Jason Leech who was on the Apprentice, he was a graduate and I think did a masters from Oxford as well, was he good? no he was awful, and lacked common sense in the business side, sure he was well educated, but it hardly proved anything in the tasks he was doing on the show.

Well obviously not as good, or as intense research as the Russel Group. But let's say that someone did awful at school, either because they had family problems or whatever and they messed up. they end up going to a Met, get a 1:1 or 2:1, and then end up doing a masters or something at a 'well respected' university, such as Manchester. Is their degree still useless? even though it got them on to a masters degree of a well respected university (as you say)?

Yes, the degree from MMU will mean nothing compared to the masters from manchester when applying for jobs.

Getting a 1st from a poly is not the same as getting a 1st from a russell group. Russell groups attract morr intelligent people, and their courses are much more rigorous. You can not say that maths at UCL teaches the same modules to the same standard and produces the same level of knowledgeable graduates as maths from london met. It is simply wrong to say that.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Real world? I have a job, ive had several jobs. I know exactly what the real world is, and in my view standards are low. And ive never seen the apprentice, but 1 graduate is not representive of the entire oxford population.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'd be interested to know what actual jobs you've had. You sound like a first year student who's gone straight from A levels to uni and has maybe had a couple of part-time jobs and spent a short while in the TA. You won't have been financially independent or really had to experience much in the way of how stuff really works.

As someone who has actually worked (and recruited staff for/managed staff in graduate jobs, amongst other things), my experiences paint an almost mirror image to yours, which makes me think you're probably making far too many assumptions based on far too little information.

My advice would be to lose the blinkered attitude. You're at an age when you could actually learn a great deal about a lot of things, and an open mind is really useful. Too many people have this tunnel-visioned attitude and it can take them into their mid-20s before they begin to shake it off and learn valuable skills outside their oft-skewed view of the world.

Can tell me how and why a Met is superior/ equal to a Russell Group? You can not, because it is simply not true. I don't see why people on this thread can not see this (perhaps it is blind jealousy, or just being naïve, I do not know)

And I'm not going to start telling people on a public forum where I have been employed, perhaps in PM, but not here.

You are asking the wrong question. Employers don't hire universities; they hire graduates and the influence of university attended rather than inate ability, connections, hard work or charm is far lower than most young people, whose status hitherto has largely been defined by exam performance, realise.

Haven't you noticed the age gap on these threads? There is a strong negative correlation between a poster's views of the importance of university attended and the age of the poster.