Money issues, 6th form & uni

Lokolo

The_One_Who wrote: »

Do you have any empirical evidence of this? Degree grade and relevant experience count for a lot more than a brand name of a university. For teaching, previous experience is essential just to get on a course.

I also didn't think a lot of 'redbrick' universities did things such as teaching courses? I could be wrong....

(I am thinking along the lines of PCGEs)

The_One_Who

Lokolo wrote: »

I also didn't think a lot of 'redbrick' universities did things such as teaching courses? I could be wrong....

(I am thinking along the lines of PCGEs)

I'm not sure. Most of the best teaching universities were old teaching colleges which are now annexed by the bigger universities. Teaching degrees should all be accredited (I think) anyway, so it doesn't actually matter where you do them.

For undergraduate degrees a university with links to local schools and opportunities to help teach in them is infinitely better than a university which doesn't, or which doesn't have as many opportunities.

rev_henry

Lokolo wrote: »

I also didn't think a lot of 'redbrick' universities did things such as teaching courses? I could be wrong....

(I am thinking along the lines of PCGEs)

Yes that's what I'm saying; its important to get your main UG degree from a good uni but less important where you do your PGCE.

No of course I don't have empirical evidence but you can't seriously suggest that all degrees are equal. What is a 'good' uni/degree course for going into teaching, however, may not be the same as someone who wants to do business then go and work for a company etc. I don't really know that much about teaching or business (I'm a science person) but I do know (a bit!) about degrees and uni in general.

rev_henry

I mean all UG degrees are not equal. I think where you do your teaching course doesn't matter so much as you say, but I don't really know.

The_One_Who

rev_henry wrote: »

No of course I don't have empirical evidence but you can't seriously suggest that all degrees are equal. What is a 'good' uni/degree course for going into teaching, however, may not be the same as someone who wants to do business then go and work for a company etc. I don't really know that much about teaching or business (I'm a science person) but I do know (a bit!) about degrees and uni in general.

It's not as simple as saying that a degree from X is better than one from Y, or a degree is course A is better than course B. I despise university snobbery and the reliance on league tables to decide which is a 'good' university and which isn't.

Oldernotwiser

I don't think there's any question that a 2:2 from Durham or Bristol (let alone Oxbridge) is worth more than a 2:1 from Lincoln or Bolton.

The_One_Who

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I don't think there's any question that a 2:2 from Durham or Bristol (let alone Oxbridge) is worth more than a 2:1 from Lincoln or Bolton.

That 2.2 won't get you on most graduate schemes, nor would it get you on a lot of masters courses. The 2.1 would at least open the door for you to get an interview.

rev_henry

The_One_Who wrote: »

It's not as simple as saying that a degree from X is better than one from Y, or a degree is course A is better than course B. I despise university snobbery and the reliance on league tables to decide which is a 'good' university and which isn't.

I'd agree with that, but I do think the league tables are a good starting point, and oldernotwiser is right about the Durham/Bristol type thing...

The_One_Who

League tables are nonsense. Which one do you use when they all come out with different results? What happens when your chosen university falls or leaps in the tables after a year or two? A university at 16 is really not much different from one at 23. They use arbitrary data that is often years out of date. The RAE has little impact on the education of undergraduate students, since the big-time researchers will have little time for teaching, or if they do they might not be a very good educator. Also, does having a low student:staff ratio really make much difference? I doubt it.

Subject tables aren't much better. With all departments having different interests, the 'best' department might not suit your interests. For example, Cambridge tops the table for my subject. I wouldn't go there if you paid me. It has absolutely no one who suits my interests (which aren't exactly obscure) and its general outlook seems to be stuck in the last century.

Lokolo

Isn't Exeter one of the best universities?

Just looked it up, The Times ranks it as #9.

Did you know they don't have a Computing department?

---

So all in all, league tables aren't everything!

My placement at the moment, I took over a role of an Oxford graduate who got a 1st in Maths. Yes, he is a bit better than me at the top, but doesn't mean I couldn't do it.....