Your comment was ungrammatical so it's difficult to pinpoint where, but it'd be an inaccurate claim regardless, to say Oxbridge and St Andrews didn't spend anything at all, or that they were the only ones who did not.
how was any of what they wrote ungrammatical? talk about grasping at straws, you just randomly brought up that there are only three universities in the UK lol
But if the table only covers 1,000 universities it is not valid to say that all other universities in the world would be lower. The only reasonable assumption would be that, if 20% of the tabulated ones are better than you, so too will 20% of the rest.
That's not how it works. If you're listed at No 100 in Forbes's Top 500 rich people in the world, are you saying the rural Latin Americans and starving African children and poor Chinese children who have to walk a few hours to school should be considered than you are because they aren't on the list? A poll is a sample that should represent the general population proportionally, but a university ranking isn't a poll. With very few exceptions, you're not on the list simply because you're not good enough.
how was any of what they wrote ungrammatical? talk about grasping at straws, you just randomly brought up that there are only three universities in the UK lol
I had assumed she left out a "the" due to the odd grammar in that sentence. But that's irrelevant because that claim as she intended for it to mean was plainly false, as demonstrated by the FoI responses from two of those universities. They didn't have a centralized budget solely for marketing purposes, but in their own words, they had conducted marketing activities, drawing money from other sources that don't bear the name "marketing budget".
But if you're interested in why that was ungrammatical, as I'd said, it should've been with the past tense "spent" instead of "spend".
If you're talking about international fees, I think the fact that they are in the UK is their biggest appeal.
No, i am talking about home fees. A top University like Cambridge or Manchester should not be charging the same fee for their courses with Leicester.
The major issue is that people are being lied to about the so-called strength of certain universities.
Cambridge and Leicester can state that 95% of their students progress to employment or further education within 6 months. However, Cambridge grads may be progressing to Goldman Sachs or PhD at Harvard, while a Leicester grad might not.
This is a stark contrast of both educational institutions and their subsequent prospects, but are hidden in vague statistics and claims.
I had assumed she left out a "the" due to the odd grammar in that sentence. But that's irrelevant because that claim as she intended for it to mean was plainly false, as demonstrated by the FoI responses from two of those universities. They didn't have a centralized budget solely for marketing purposes, but in their own words, they had conducted marketing activities, drawing money from other sources that don't bear the name "marketing budget".
But if you're interested in why that was ungrammatical, as I'd said, it should've been with the past tense "spent" instead of "spend".
so, as she said, you purposefully misinterpreted what she said and stupidly thought that "there are only three universities in the UK and they spend nothing on marketing to students". brilliant.
she should have used 'spent' but if she didn't remember the year of publication, there's nothing wrong with her using spend
p.s. using an ellipsis followed by a complex sentence which treats two commas as a parenthetical element is not odd grammar or ungrammatical.
With very few exceptions, you're not on the list simply because you're not good enough.
No. Do you really think <name British newspaper> has surveyed 26,000 universities, even those in cities it has never heard of (working in languages it cannot speak)?
The truth is that all the rankers make an arbitrary choice of (say) 1,000 institutions, gain the information and then assign arbitrary weightings to arbitrary criteria.
Here is the reply by a QS World University Rankings staff member to someone who worked at an unranked institution:
Hi Klaled, there are thousands of universities around the world, and unfortunately it's not possible to rank every one of them. It may be that the University of Tripoli is not eligible for our rankings due to possibly being too specialized or not producing enough cited researh (to be eligible for inclusion, universities must conduct work in at least two of five possible faculty areas). Hope this helps to clarify.
In general, when a university needs to advertise itself, it’s probably because it’s not a very good university.
That is a fair point, but certain top universities have to advertise to reach out to certain groups of people, who would otherwise not bother applying to them. For example, poor people, black people and other groups might see top universities like Oxbridge and LSE are out of reach to them.
That is a fair point, but certain top universities have to advertise to reach out to certain groups of people, who would otherwise not bother applying to them. For example, poor people, black people and other groups might see top universities like Oxbridge and LSE are out of reach to them.
Maybe advertising in a way that encourages diversity and challenges stereotypes etc. But advertising that “Oxford is a world leading university” or something in the lines is not going to be helpful.
Oxbridge spend millions on advertising (aka outreach).
That's not really advertisement as much as it is raising awareness and encouraging more top students to apply. You won't see oxbridge claiming theyre the top uni for a certain course on posters on the tube.
Maybe advertising in a way that encourages diversity and challenges stereotypes etc. But advertising that “Oxford is a world leading university” or something in the lines is not going to be helpful.
Although, there probably aren't obscene levels of advertisements, i think Oxbridge do advertise themselves and might boast about certain achievements.