Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "There's no way the UK universities are going to get bigger funding. Either the government shuts down 20 universities near the bottom of the tables (which is contraversial), or it makes people cough up lots, like in the US, for their education (which is even more contraversial)".

    mysticmin it's "controversial" not "contraversial" - uhm...where do you study again? Is it Imperial?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    Did you choose Warwick in the end Lepr? I can't remember.
    Yeah chose PPE at warwick in the end.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    Yeah chose PPE at warwick in the end.
    I like Warwick. I like the fact that they make millions from hospitality services and conferences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    At Gonville and Caius? Stephen Hawkings? We wouldn't know yet. Rumour has it that Hawkings didn't do much work throughout his undergrad years at oxford, but still did bloody well...how unfair...
    i thought hawking went to cambridge, at least that's where bbc2's documentary of his earlier years portrayed him...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    Most of MIT's research income actually comes from Government contracts.
    the gov gives MIT money to do research? why doesn't our government give money to institutions to do research
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otnemem)
    "There's no way the UK universities are going to get bigger funding. Either the government shuts down 20 universities near the bottom of the tables (which is contraversial), or it makes people cough up lots, like in the US, for their education (which is even more contraversial)".

    mysticmin it's "controversial" not "contraversial" - uhm...where do you study again? Is it Imperial?
    And that would mean that my spelling needs to absolutely tip top :eek: I don't study at imperial, im still doing my a-levels, needless to say they don't include english literature.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    the gov gives MIT money to do research? why doesn't our government give money to institutions to do research
    http://web.mit.edu/facts/research.shtml
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    i thought hawking went to cambridge, at least that's where bbc2's documentary of his earlier years portrayed him...
    Thought he did undergrad at oxford and then postgrad at cambridge?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    i thought hawking went to cambridge, at least that's where bbc2's documentary of his earlier years portrayed him...
    undergrad at oxford and postgrad at cambridge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    undergrad at oxford and postgrad at cambridge.
    ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    http://web.mit.edu/facts/research.shtml
    oh my gosh...it is quite a big chunk!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    the gov gives MIT money to do research? why doesn't our government give money to institutions to do research
    They do!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    the gov gives MIT money to do research? why doesn't our government give money to institutions to do research
    It does. The large majority, in fact. Where else do you think Imperial gets its money from?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    This post makes me chuckle, it is ridiculous!
    It is either just Oxbridge at the top OR it is Oxbridge/LSE AND Imperial PERIOD.

    The fact is you've attempted to measure all 4 universities using just one factor (how competitive it is to get into them, particularly at grad level it seems), whereas in real life there are a number of factors that have to be taken into account when assessing the quality of a university. It's very easy for me to pick a factor which Imperial beats LSE at e.g research income and say hey the top three universities are Oxbridge and Imperial (and not certainly LSE as they don't receive much research money), which is just as silly as what you've done. You can't just assess a university on one factor, otherwise it's easy to pick a factor that may favour your chosen university and then come to a very biast conclusion that it is elite.
    Made you chuckle due to your ability of being selective in your reading. I'll quote two passages to put what I've said into context:

    "You ask whether I can convincingly assert that LSE is better than IC when they have very little in common; no of course I cannot - nor did I intend to. I merely stated that it wasn't as selective at graduate level, and for me this is a critical point."


    "Perhaps this is because I'm a student in the social sciences and therefore biased, it's just that my interest is centred around mingling with first class students than having several million pounds spent on some machine in the Engineering faculty, that could be why I'm more interested in student selectivity and you're more into research funding."


    OK YES, you see, use whatever measure you like, and I shall prioritise whatever I wish to, if that's ok with you It's an individual decision, for me the above is important. I think a 'world class' university should be able to attract THE top students at graduate level - it's not really a particularly controversial measure, is it?

    In short, read the msg I wrote in reply to that other poster who misunderstood me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.S.)
    Made you chuckle due to your ability of being selective in your reading. I'll quote two passages to put what I've said into context:

    "You ask whether I can convincingly assert that LSE is better than IC when they have very little in common; no of course I cannot - nor did I intend to. I merely stated that it wasn't as selective at graduate level, and for me this is a critical point."


    "Perhaps this is because I'm a student in the social sciences and therefore biased, it's just that my interest is centred around mingling with first class students than having several million pounds spent on some machine in the Engineering faculty, that could be why I'm more interested in student selectivity and you're more into research funding."


    OK YES, you see, use whatever measure you like, and I shall prioritise whatever I wish to, if that's ok with you It's an individual decision, for me the above is important. I think a 'world class' university should be able to attract THE top students at graduate level - it's not really a particularly controversial measure, is it?

    In short, read the msg I wrote in reply to that other poster who misunderstood me.
    ACTUALLY if you reread what you originally posted you claimed that there should be a G3 consisting of oxbridge/lse because graduate level admissions are much harder into these universities. I was merely pointing out that it is a ridiculous thing to suggest and you can't possibly feel anyone would realistically adopt this G3 idea when it is based solely on one factor.
    You can measure university quality/strength in whatever way takes your fancy e.g price of the canteen's food, size of the gym etc, but to suggest to others as a realistic proposition that it should just be G3, based on one factor, however important that factor may be, is terribly silly.

    Btw my example of research funding was just that..an example, I was too lazy to compare scores from both places for other things, therefore your other message is irrelevant and you clearly missed the point of the post ie I could easily pick out a factor also that ICL wins at, as although you claim not to be comparing the institutions, by making the statement that there should only be a G3 , you already have done so! Obviously prioritise things how ever you feel you need too when assessing strengths, but then don't make ridiculous suggestions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    ACTUALLY if you reread what you originally posted you claimed that there should be a G3 consisting of oxbridge/lse because graduate level admissions are much harder into these universities. I was merely pointing out that it is a ridiculous thing to suggest and you can't possibly feel anyone would realistically adopt this G3 idea when it is based solely on one factor.
    You can measure university quality/strength in whatever way takes your fancy e.g price of the canteen's food, size of the gym etc, but to suggest to others as a realistic proposition that it should just be G3, based on one factor, however important that factor may be, is terribly silly.
    There are arguments against what I've done, but you've not expressed them, all you've done is declare just how terrible what I've said is.

    My point is pretty straightforward, so it shouldn't be that difficult to at least try and explain to me why what I'm saying is not valid. Lets just put the case to you again. I personally find it difficult to declare a university is 'world class' if it is unable to attract first rate students at graduate level. To an aspiring undergraduate, this may seem a little odd, but a truck load of middle class kids with A grades at 'A' level do not make for an intellectual, world class university in my book - what's needed is a consistent supply of first class students at higher levels across the university; just take a look at what makes Harvard, Yale and Princeton so special. This measure is of course limited to some extent, but not quite as limited as it may appear.

    Lets just take the examples of:

    LSE's Economics MSc/PhD
    Cambridge Maths at grad level.
    Oxford's BCL (Law)

    There are many other examples you could give across these 3 universities, but not for Imperial. So, what do the above 3 have in common? They only consider you if you have a first class degree. Next question, how can they get away with being so selective in their admissions? I think the answer is pretty obvious, each have a world class reputation, they attract something like 10 first class honours students for every one position, and they select the best of the best - literally. This is a big thing, and I think it's what separates those 3 universities from the rest. It's easier for a university, with even a very good national reputation to attract high grade students at undergraduate level (Bristol, Warwick, UCL, Durham) as there are so many to choose from. At graduate level, it's far more difficult, and only universities with a true world class reputation are able to attract the best of the best from across the world. Imperial College, I think is pretty good in this regard, however just falls short as I cannot see any course at that level which has the prestige and selectivity of those I've just mentioned. If I am wrong, please give me an example. It's ok to talk the talk, but if the institution is really all that great, I'll need examples of where it can demand and receive the best. Take a look at MIT, and from there you will see why IC is not 'world class' in quite the same way. So, for me the G3 are universities with a distinguished international reputation, and they're able to attract the very best. Imperial is an excellent university, has a very good reputation, however, not to the same extent as the 'G3'. It's all very well people pointing out that a few of their mates in China or Thailand know of it, the real measure would be in looking at why the elite students, those with the top marks across their national universities are not rushing to IC in quite the same way as they are with Oxbridge, and LSE.


    (Original post by BossLady)
    …and you clearly missed the point of the post ie I could easily pick out a factor also that ICL wins at, as although you claim not to be comparing the institutions, by making the statement that there should only be a G3 , you already have done so! Obviously prioritise things how ever you feel you need too when assessing strengths, but then don't make ridiculous suggestions.
    Sure, I'll take you up on it. Give me an alternative measure then, but do ensure that it's every bit as persuasive as what I have given you in support of what I call the G3. To call my suggestions ridiculous is just plain daft – quite ridiculous even You may not agree with what I’m saying, but the argument that a first rate university should be able to attract first rate students throughout is far from ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the same way one could claim that the Computer engineering programme at Southampton is the best and most respected by employers in the country attracting the most able students. Therefore Southampton should join the elite G4. Point defeated. A lot of universities have certain courses in which they are reknown for being excellent. That doesn't make them the best university in the land.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yannis)
    In the same way one could claim that the Computer engineering programme at Southampton is the best and most respected by employers in the country attracting the most able students. Therefore Southampton should join the elite G4. Point defeated. A lot of universities have certain courses in which they are reknown for being excellent. That doesn't make them the best university in the land.
    Well, ONE could make such a claim, but then it just goes to show such an immense lack of understanding regarding my previous argument that it must have taken a good deal of effort. So the min. entry requirement at graduate level at Southampton in a good handful of its departments is a first class honours and at this level it attracts 10 applicants for every one place from the top universities in the world? Point not defeated. Lets see if a remotely half decent attempt comes along anytime soon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysticmin)
    Perhaps if we accepted as many lucrative overseas students as LSE, it wouldn't be a problem.
    Yeah, butwould they be as good as the LSE overseas students?. Former LSE students include the prime-minister elect of India and the current prime minister of Japan, and there are many, many more of similar distinction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
    Yeah, butwould they be as good as the LSE overseas students?. Former LSE students include the prime-minister elect of India and the current prime minister of Japan, and there are many, many more of similar distinction.
    Imperial's old students are not going to be prime ministers, they're scientists, former students include Sir Alexander Fleming, Sir Andrew Huxely and HG Wells (And Brian May ). There are quite a few nobel laureates. Former students are not going to be in the lime light as much.

    Perhaps I'm biased, but these people to me are more distinguished, I consider the work they do far more challenging and beneficial to society.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.