Have I made a mistake going to an ex-poly? With really good A level grades?

I had the choice of Kent or Brookes to do Politics and History and I chose Oxford Brookes in the end, mainly because of it's location, the fact that it wasn't in the middle of nowhere, had a good emphasis on transferable skills to the workplace, for instance the history course gives me a chance to go on a placement at a school/museum etc, while Sussex and Kent don't. and it was near all the major cities in the country.

For me having experience is crucial more than good academic qualifications. Which is funny considering I got A*AB at A level.

But a part of me feels like I should go to somewhere really prestigious, so that my good grades worked for something, but I had a very specific choice of university in mind, i.e had to be near London, not to have too much emphasis on exams, and good work experience opportunities.

So in that respect, it only left Brookes, Kent and Sussex to compete

Sussex currently has vacancies for Politics and History am I am tempted, the course looks better too, but the university seems to have a strong left wing political culture, which might make me feel uncomfortable given my views. Plus it doesn't have the work-based emphasis like Brookes and isn't near all the major cities, just London.

I just feel like because I'm going to an ex-poly I am selling myself short, but another part of me just tells me to grow up, and it doesn't matter where you go, it's what you do there that matters to employers. My best mate got A*A*A for A level and he is going to Swansea, again like my course asking for BBC.

Is it bad that despite being someone who is good academically, I want to go to a university where it's practice for working life, rather than pure prestige?

Totally agree. The idea of 'prestige' is something that obsesses 17 year olds - mainly because they think this is is a 'easy' way to pick a University, without needing them to think beyond this. Instead of thinking, Why am I going to Uni at all? Isn't the course content a more important consideration? they use something similar to arguing about the 'quality' of Football teams to decide where they should apply.

Most of the Unis that were either Polytechnics or HE colleges etc before obtaining University status, started their life in the C19th. Many are therefore far 'older' than other established Universities.

Oxford Polytechnic (now Oxford Brookes) was the first University to introduce modular degrees that allowed students to combine a variety of subjects rather than a narrow 'one subject' degree. It revolutionised the approach towards University education in the 1970s and many Universities then went on to copy this degree structure. Polytechnics were the first to introduce the idea of Work Placements, Year Abroad etc.

Many of the comments here are a bit naive, and show a lack of understanding about what I can only describe as the 'real world'. Going to University is about far more than 'mine is better than yours'.

This is all absolute BS. I knew using this stupid website is a bad idea, it's just a bunch of middle-aged people that are too old to be students trying to outsmart teenagers who are going to uni. If you're all so successful and talented, why are you spending your spare time on a website for under 24s? ​Mmm hmm, bye.

Completely agree with you, assuming a university is the best for someone because of its 'prestige' is ridiculous.
I'm starting Brookes in September as well, it doesn't bother me that it has that 'ex-poly' tag. I love the course, the facilities are amazing, I love Oxford as a place and when I went to the open day I could see myself going there and being happy. I can't wait to start

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In a few cases I would give the ok to a top student to study at an ex-poly for a highly sought for and career enhancing course, but in most cases definitely not.

I will never ''grow out'' of what you perceive as bigotry, as it is imbedded deeply in society. For example, I did my BSc at Nottingham, then my MSc at Birkbeck, and then I applied and got rejected by UCL to do a PhD in Neuroscience, apparently because my MSc at Birkbeck was not up to scratch. UCL then offered me an MSc instead, which I accepted.

What did you do get for A level and what course are you doing mate?

UCL rejected a BBK Msc on its own merit ?

Find that hard to believe, the two are next door to each other.

He must have flunked or got a low pass, probably closer to the truth.

This is all absolute BS. I knew using this stupid website is a bad idea, it's just a bunch of middle-aged people that are too old to be students trying to outsmart teenagers who are going to uni. If you're all so successful and talented, why are you spending your spare time on a website for under 24s? ​Mmm hmm, bye.

Yes - it's not inconceivable that they felt the course content didn't prepare the poster adequately for a PhD (which is quite common). But that's not the same as saying the university wasn't good enough. When I did my MA+PhD one of our cohort did his UG degree at Hull in a different subject, did amazingly well at it, and proceeded to kick all of our Russell Group arses at postgraduate level. There were absolutely cases of non-admittance to PhDs but to the best of my knowledge this was nothing to do with the University, only admissions' inability to substantiate whether their previous education was enough to prepare them for a PhD (which was, that I can see, to do with the subject and content, not the institution). Obviously I don't know the poster, and he may have been explicitly told 'Birkbeck is not good enough' - but in the absence of that information, it's certainly not the conclusion I would draw.

HEY it's you ! The one who started the bumper thread. Ha Ha

Yes - it's not inconceivable that they felt the course content didn't prepare the poster adequately for a PhD (which is quite common). But that's not the same as saying the university wasn't good enough. When I did my MA+PhD one of our cohort did his UG degree at Hull in a different subject, did amazingly well at it, and proceeded to kick all of our Russell Group arses at postgraduate level. There were absolutely cases of non-admittance to PhDs but to the best of my knowledge this was nothing to do with the University, only admissions' inability to substantiate whether their previous education was enough to prepare them for a PhD (which was, that I can see, to do with the subject and content, not the institution). Obviously I don't know the poster, and he may have been explicitly told 'Birkbeck is not good enough' - but in the absence of that information, it's certainly not the conclusion I would draw.

I had the choice of Kent or Brookes to do Politics and History and I chose Oxford Brookes in the end, mainly because of it's location, the fact that it wasn't in the middle of nowhere, had a good emphasis on transferable skills to the workplace, for instance the history course gives me a chance to go on a placement at a school/museum etc, while Sussex and Kent don't. and it was near all the major cities in the country.

For me having experience is crucial more than good academic qualifications. Which is funny considering I got A*AB at A level.

But a part of me feels like I should go to somewhere really prestigious, so that my good grades worked for something, but I had a very specific choice of university in mind, i.e had to be near London, not to have too much emphasis on exams, and good work experience opportunities.

So in that respect, it only left Brookes, Kent and Sussex to compete

Sussex currently has vacancies for Politics and History am I am tempted, the course looks better too, but the university seems to have a strong left wing political culture, which might make me feel uncomfortable given my views. Plus it doesn't have the work-based emphasis like Brookes and isn't near all the major cities, just London.

I just feel like because I'm going to an ex-poly I am selling myself short, but another part of me just tells me to grow up, and it doesn't matter where you go, it's what you do there that matters to employers. My best mate got A*A*A for A level and he is going to Swansea, again like my course asking for BBC.

Is it bad that despite being someone who is good academically, I want to go to a university where it's practice for working life, rather than pure prestige?

Well obviously UCL didn't say, ''Sorry, Birbkeck isn't good enough for us''. They just said due to the high number of outstanding applications they receive at the Institute of Neurology for their PhD programmes, they felt there were other candidates better qualified. They suggested doing an MSc with them informally, and I accepted. Everyone knows Birkbeck is only a fairly good university, it is not in the same league as RG universities, let alone UCL. It may have had nothing to do with Birkbeck at all, as I read one case study from a guy who did his BSc at UCL, MSc at Imperial, and didn't get any offers for a PhD at either of them and KCL. The competition in certain medical fields is intense in London.

I'm not sure what more I can do to stop mrkl from stalking me on TSR. They have been told numerous times, and they have long since been on the ignore list, yet they keep coming back for more trash talk. This doesn't sound much like a typical Bristol alumni, unless one that has had some problems since.

So just to throw my 2 cents into the ring. I'm starting my PhD in Brookes in September in order to do this PhD I turned down two offers from Edinburgh University. I don't regret having done this in the slightest. Edinburgh is a juggernaut and an incredible academic powerhouse but Brookes provided a research topic which really inspired me and they have fantastic people with great contacts.

For example my PI is an understudy and collaborator with the worlds top researcher in her field who work in Oxford University this connection gives me massive benefits that simply wouldn't exist in Edinburgh. Also Brookes had better superresolution microscopy facilities.