The Student Room Group

Six universities told to change advertising claims

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Wired_1800
It is the Big 8, so there.


That's easy to say, it's a shame you have no real justification for it as to why it's 8, or any explanation as to why there should be a "big 8" when there's so much disparity and that you have a personal vested interest in ensuring that it exists; to make yourself feel better that you're part of an elite group.

Luckily, there's no one that actually believes in the "big 8" apart from you. So, you keep telling that to yourself.
Original post by black1blade
The requirements for Manchester are A*A*A and yeah of course if I get a Cambridge offer I wont go to Manchester but it's still a good uni regardless and I don't want to go to Imperial or Durham for various other reasons.


Yeah, this is the issue. Very few people reject Oxbridge.
Original post by nashhh2
That's easy to say, it's a shame you have no real justification for it as to why it's 8, or any explanation as to why there should be a "big 8" when there's so much disparity and that you have a personal vested interest in ensuring that it exists; to make yourself feel better that you're part of an elite group.

Luckily, there's no one that actually believes in the "big 8" apart from you. So, you keep telling that to yourself.


Ok
Original post by Wired_1800
Yeah, this is the issue. Very few people reject Oxbridge.


Is that really an issue? It just means cambridge gets the creme de la creme de la creme of the cohort that is applying that year.
Original post by black1blade
Is that really an issue? It just means cambridge gets the creme de la creme de la creme of the cohort that is applying that year.


Yes, that is true. But Manchester can hold its own against Cambridge in certain subjects like Physics or Chemical Engineering.

However, re-inforced perception has it scrambling for few top kids or Oxbridge rejects.
Original post by C_Richards99



I was unable to find data for 1992 rankings, would you be able to provide me with a source?



Herewith

Sorry for the poor quality. It wasn't a good quality scan from The Times to begin with and I'v had to paste a selection into Word to viably cut it down to what TSR will handle
Original post by Wired_1800
Your post is too long to respond to everything on my phone. If i miss anything, let me know.


lol, Don't worry about it...

On other boards I've used, I'm well known for responding to peoples posts with epic essays. I'm not very economical with words, but would rather take a long time to think about what I'm saying and try and ensure it's understood than rush an answer and either have it misinterpeted or my point(s) completely missed.

Just reply to the bits you're interested in or feel strongly about... I won't take it personally; honest guv


The idea of the Big 8 was drawn from the reference to the Ivy League, which has 8 universities. Other than that 8 is an arbitrary number and can be Big 7 or Big 9.


Fair enough, that makes a bit more sense now.

However, I believe the comparison is somewhat flawed. In the USA, there are a lot more universities / colleges than there are here in the UK (I believe there's well over 2,000?) compared to those we have here. Therefore if you were to view it as a percentage of the equivalent Ivy league, then there would only be room for one University from the UK (i.e. either Oxford or Cambridge)


I never said that any university outside the Big 8 is rubbish, but many are really poor. My point about top universities being few and far between is because the overall quality of universities to position as a top university consistently battling it out in the world goes to a limited group of Universities.


Thanks for clarifying.

It perhaps wasn't your intention, but as I said previously, that's how I interpeted your post. If I got it wrong, then fair enough, I take back my comments. Nonetheless, I trust you can see how it could be perceived as such to someone reading it.


There are about 166 universities in the UK, some of which offer little or no real value in the quality of education. Granted that I have no data to back up this statement but this is what is being debated, where universities are making bogus claims to position themselves as half as good as they claim to be.


According to the results of various Internet searches, it puts the number of UK universities much lower than 166 (circa 120-130)... so I don't know who to believe. Perhaps your list includes some colleges and other institutions who offer degree courses? I don't know.

I do think people are being harsh towards Leicester University though (not you, just some of the other comments in this thread). Granted, it's not a "premiership contender" but it regularly gets respectable positions in most of the league tables... so whilst it may not be in the "Top 1% world university" it's evidently one of the better universities out there.


Here are links to reports from the UK Government's former policy dorector, who came out to say that there are many poor universities, with tuition fees being a ponzi scheme.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_599534aae4b06ef724d65175/amp

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/tuition-fees-are-pointless-ponzi-scheme-says-pms-former-top-aide-nick-timothy


I don't have time to look at these links right now, but I will do at some point... and I'll post my thoughts when I do (if this debate is still going on then lol).


To back up my claims, I use the World Rankings, where on both the QS and THE, we see the same trend


Fair play to you.

It would be interesting to see how far back places like Warwick are in those world rankings though... just for balance.


For the argument about Prince William and going to Oxbridge, it was alleged that there was a big row both within the university and outside about Cambridge allowing Prince Charles to study there with his mediocre or very average abilities. So it was a no-brainer that William had to study elsewhere that would accept his level of abilities.


I accept your points.

As I said in another post, it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind choosing St Andrews above all the other higher profile universities (both nationally and internationally) where his grades would have been good enough on their own merit.


Finally, the idea of the Big 8 was entirely my idea. It was reference from the Ivy League. I recognise that there are the Golden triangle and G5 Universities. The Big 8 is an extension of the list if top global universities in the UK.


I've covered my response to this bit in an earlier part of this post.

I will still question the positioning of LSE in there though, as it seems like it's such a specialist institution and doesn't offer the same scope of subjects that the others do.
Original post by Old Skool Freak


According to the results of various Internet searches, it puts the number of UK universities much lower than 166 (circa 120-130)... so I don't know who to believe. Perhaps your list includes some colleges and other institutions who offer degree courses? I don't know.



This is an almost impossible question to answer.

Imperial is a university. We know that because its charter says so.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/secretariat/public/college-governance/charters-statutes-ordinances-regulations/charters-and-statutes/CHARTER---July-2007--(Rev--Nov-2014).pdf

But by that definition UCL is not a university. Here is its charter

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/governance-and-committees/governance/documents/charter-and-statutes

It is a college with degree awarding powers. Functionally it is a university.

The Royal Northern College of Music isn't a university like Imperial but it is a college with degree awarding powers. But you probably wouldn't say it is functionally a university.

The Archbishop of Canterbury can award degrees but to describe him as a university would be a bit of a stretch.
Original post by Doonesbury
LSE doesn't offer Physics...


I wanted to use a subject matter that was completely different to economics & business / financial matters to show a complete contrast. I could have (and should have) used History or Geography (assuming neither are taught with an economic bias).

Nonetheless, you caught me out there

Doonesbury - 1, Old Skool Freak - 0 :tongue:

My (official) excuse is that economics is not my subject matter, so it's not a university I would have naturally looked at.
Original post by Old Skool Freak
I wanted to use a subject matter that was completely different to economics & business / financial matters to show a complete contrast. I could have (and should have) used History or Geography (assuming neither are taught with an economic bias).

Nonetheless, you caught me out there

Doonesbury - 1, Old Skool Freak - 0 :tongue:

My (official) excuse is that economics is not my subject matter, so it's not a university I would have naturally looked at.


Just being pedantic. Apparently that's my thing.

:smile:
Original post by Old Skool Freak
lol, Don't worry about it...

On other boards I've used, I'm well known for responding to peoples posts with epic essays. I'm not very economical with words, but would rather take a long time to think about what I'm saying and try and ensure it's understood than rush an answer and either have it misinterpeted or my point(s) completely missed.

Just reply to the bits you're interested in or feel strongly about... I won't take it personally; honest guv



Fair enough, that makes a bit more sense now.

However, I believe the comparison is somewhat flawed. In the USA, there are a lot more universities / colleges than there are here in the UK (I believe there's well over 2,000?) compared to those we have here. Therefore if you were to view it as a percentage of the equivalent Ivy league, then there would only be room for one University from the UK (i.e. either Oxford or Cambridge)



Thanks for clarifying.

It perhaps wasn't your intention, but as I said previously, that's how I interpeted your post. If I got it wrong, then fair enough, I take back my comments. Nonetheless, I trust you can see how it could be perceived as such to someone reading it.



According to the results of various Internet searches, it puts the number of UK universities much lower than 166 (circa 120-130)... so I don't know who to believe. Perhaps your list includes some colleges and other institutions who offer degree courses? I don't know.

I do think people are being harsh towards Leicester University though (not you, just some of the other comments in this thread). Granted, it's not a "premiership contender" but it regularly gets respectable positions in most of the league tables... so whilst it may not be in the "Top 1% world university" it's evidently one of the better universities out there.



I don't have time to look at these links right now, but I will do at some point... and I'll post my thoughts when I do (if this debate is still going on then lol).



Fair play to you.

It would be interesting to see how far back places like Warwick are in those world rankings though... just for balance.



I accept your points.

As I said in another post, it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind choosing St Andrews above all the other higher profile universities (both nationally and internationally) where his grades would have been good enough on their own merit.



I've covered my response to this bit in an earlier part of this post.

I will still question the positioning of LSE in there though, as it seems like it's such a specialist institution and doesn't offer the same scope of subjects that the others do.


You are very forensic in your approach which is good. Let me try to respond to your points.

First, I am not into using ratios of universities to extrapolate a ranking table or group. My approach is simple, there are 8 in the Ivy League and therefore, i have used the Big 8.

To me, there is no need to start doing research into the whole American education system to try to replicate a group of universities.

If I go down that route, people may challenge my decision of putting UCL or LSE, which are constituent Colleges of the University of London and not UoL itself. Or why put in Imperial, when they are STEM focused. So, i left it simple.

Your perception of what I wrote is yours alone. It is up to you to ask me to clarify my position for you to establish more consistent conclusion. You can establish wrong conclusion from a false premise and blame it on the person that wrote the post. It is not my fault if you fail to understand a statement and dont ask for clarfiication. You are not a child, who needs everything spelt out for them. I think we have a duty to seek clarifications before reaching conclusions.

I think it has been responded to, but I think there are about 166 Universities. I have heard it bounded about in the media and other reports. If i can found one, I will share it with you.

Your opinion of Leicester is a fair one, but the main point of this thread (before we digressed slightly) was the bogus claims that Leicester used to lure students. I think a university normally knows where they stand with respect to other unis. I doubt that Oxbridge or UCL would make false claims to lure students to their classrooms.

I think Warwick was in the top 100 world universities, when i took screenshots of the Big 8. Like i have written on many occassions, I think universities like Warwick and Bristol are decent universities, but not just part of the Big 8. It is granted that students of those universities would want to challenge me to show loyalty.

No offence, but I don't care about the position of Warwick (just for balance). I was talking about the Big 8. If i ventured into that territory, someone else can ask me to show the position of Bath or Surrey or Newcastle, just to have balance. Those universities are none of my business.

I agree that it would be great to know why St Andrews instead of other universities. I think Prince William was lucky with his choice and got a good deal. I mean he got a 2.1, met a gorgeous woman, who became his wife, and made great friendships, as it has been claimed.

I think if you doubt LSE, then you open a massive can of worms. Imperial would also be challenged, then we would have to rank only universities with EXACTLY the same number of course offerings. Anything less and it can be argued that the university with fewer offerings is a "specialist" university.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Capricancer
Not surprised given how much more universities are spending on marketing to students... read somewhere before that only three universities in the UK, Oxbridge and St Andrews, spend nothing at all on advertising to students.


I've definitely seen loads of St Andrews ads on various social media sites lol
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I didn't doubt what she claimed she was trying to say, you're the one who's somehow clinging on to a point that is both irrelevant and not a point of debate at any point, in a discussion you weren't even a part of.

And hypocrite? I'm sorry but didn't your kindergarten teacher tell you past events should be described using the past tense?

Not to mention you're equating a misunderstanding I didn't insist to be the truth (note how I discussed the merit of her claim right after she told me what she meant?), to her seeing "...promotional activities which might be broadly described as 'marketing' are carried across the University" or "marketing, in many forms, is carried out" and still had the confidence to say according to the universities, they weren't marketing. I mean, how could "marketing is carried out" be understood as "marketing is not carried out"?

Besides, what she was accusing me of doing was "purposefully" misinterpreting what she said, which as I'd explained, I did not do. I simply read her sentence, and thought she perhaps meant to have a "the" before "only". There was nothing to apologize for when it was 1. not intentional, and 2. I didn't insist that was what she meant, but moved on immediately to talk about why her claim was incorrect, providing solid evidence. The fact that the two of you somehow saw that as a point of discussion showed how thin-skinned she was, and how perhaps you're a dupe.

But you know what? If you care about it so much, let me teach you a thing or two:

"Not surprised given how much more universities are spending on marketing to students... read somewhere before that only three universities in the UK, Oxbridge and St Andrews, spend nothing at all on advertising to students."

Before that? Before what? The only thing mentioned was "how much more universities are spending on marketing to students". She intended "that" to mean "the increase of marketing spending", which meant she was talking about the past. You cannot, logically, say "A happened before B", but actually "A is still in the present".

Let me make it simpler for you:

"Nowadays, a lot of Chinese tourists are travelling to Russia because of their new visa policy...before that, St Petersburg didn't receive that many tourists."

So are you really trying to argue that changing "didn't" to "doesn't" is correct?

The past tense should've been used no matter what she intended to say, and the very clearly incorrect grammar threw me off and I misunderstood it, and I didn't even drill on it, and instantly talked about how she was wrong. That was my attack. Not the grammar - or I would've explained it to her like I'm doing to you now.

Still don't get it? Let me give you more examples:

"I have a cup of yogurt for breakfast now that I know cornflakes aren't that healthy...before that, I had cereal for breakfast."

"London now has millions of people due to its economy...before that, there were only like some hundreds of thousands."

"I spend tens of thousands every month now that I've got a job...before that, I spent very little."

"I use the past tense when I'm talking about past events after Little Toy Gun kindly taught me how to write grammatical sentence...before that, I used the present tense."

Understand this now? Or do you need me to explain to you what the word "before" means? You can always just go and buy a dictionary, you know. There are even free apps.


It's hilarious seeing you go on that long rant basically calling him dumb. But you were literally the only one in the thread that didn't use common sense and understand the post anyway. Regardless of a tiny error.

Quick Reply

Latest