Money issues, 6th form & uni

rev_henry

The_One_Who wrote: »

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 They use arbitrary data that is often years out of date.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.

I think there's one on UCAS which kinda collates info from several different league tables and then makes a league table from that. I think it includes the Times and the National Student Survey to name a couple. I think that's more helpful...

Oldernotwiser

League tables don't necessarily relate directly to a degree's acceptability, however, anyone who has an understanding of HE will give more credence to a degree from a reputable university, compared to some others.

To suggest that this isn't the case does a great disservice to applicants who come from families and schools with little or no knowledge of how HE operates.

The_One_Who

Lokolo wrote: »

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?

Warwick don't have a geography department. I find it funny that the Vice-Chancellor is Nigel Thrift, one of the UK's most esteemed geographers.

Rev Henry, do you have a link to this UCAS one?

ONW, how do you define 'reputable'? It's like when people say that entrance requirements are a sign of how 'good' or otherwise the course it. They show the popularity more than anything.

Indie_Kid

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 agree. There are around 4 universities in the Uk who do the course I currently study. The one I chose is ranked one of the lowest in league tables. (in general; not my subject) However, it's meant to be the best one for my subject.

The other unis were a little too far to travel too as well.

rev_henry

The_One_Who wrote: »

Warwick don't have a geography department. I find it funny that the Vice-Chancellor is Nigel Thrift, one of the UK's most esteemed geographers.

Rev Henry, do you have a link to this UCAS one?

ONW, how do you define 'reputable'? It's like when people say that entrance requirements are a sign of how 'good' or otherwise the course it. They show the popularity more than anything.

I think it was this one: http://www.unistats.com/

That's true about entrance requirements. I think my form teacher was telling us that requirements for some science subject at Glasgow had gone from BBB last year to AAB this year. :eek:

Oldernotwiser

The_One_Who wrote: »

It's like when people say that entrance requirements are a sign of how 'good' or otherwise the course it. They show the popularity more than anything.

But if a univerity is popular it will be able to ask for high entry qualifications and accept only the most able candidates, which will mean that the standards are higher.

You surely don't think that the level of work is the same at an institution where many people have only 2 Ds, compared to somewhere that almost everybody has 3 As?

The_One_Who

rev_henry wrote: »

I think it was this one: http://www.unistats.com/

That's true about entrance requirements. I think my form teacher was telling us that requirements for some science subject at Glasgow had gone from BBB last year to AAB this year. :eek:

Unistats isn't that great, imo. Just looked at my course and what it says doesn't actually exist. Also, using UCAS points as a factor will always disadvantage Scottish universities because of the different system in use.

All of Glasgow's entrance requirements have gone up, I think most other universities have increased grade requirements too.

Absinthe_Fairy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

League tables don't necessarily relate directly to a degree's acceptability, however, anyone who has an understanding of HE will give more credence to a degree from a reputable university, compared to some others.

To suggest that this isn't the case does a great disservice to applicants who come from families and schools with little or no knowledge of how HE operates.

I definitely agree with this. It made me so angry when the careers adviser at my sixth form told me I should apply for a history course based on whichever one I thought had the most interesting content even if it was low down the league tables (she gave Aberystwyth as an example), instead of applying for the good ones at Russell Group unis. Luckily I had a clued-up family who knew what rubbish this was, but I know quite a few people who stayed at home and studied history at Sunderland and thought that it was the same as studying history at York...

sh1305 wrote: »

I agree. There are around 4 universities in the Uk who do the course I currently study. The one I chose is ranked one of the lowest in league tables. (in general; not my subject) However, it's meant to be the best one for my subject.

The other unis were a little too far to travel too as well.

I think you're right here too: I reckon in cases where only a handful of unis do a particular course (especially when the course is vocational) things are different. To use the example of Aberystwyth again, it may be pretty low down in the league tables but I know it has an excellent reputation for library and information studies.

saverholic

hi 9217niall

"I know it seems like I don't know much but this is probably more than most people in my school. I've done some of my own research (though not much), but it's more than most."

you've started thinking about it, and that has to be the most important thing.

I'm going to chuck my two cents in

I wouldn't worry too much about the league tables. I remember pouring over them when I applied and now I know more about how they are compiled I wish I hadn't worried about them so much. Factors ranging from how many books are in the library to how much research the uni does can influence the rating. As long as people don't go 'where is that?' when you say the uni name you are probably ok. Look for a balance between a 'good' uni and somewhere that has a good rep for business.

Not sure, but would it be worth asking your business teachers where they studied and if they know of any particularly good universities for the courses you are considering. I know they probably went to uni sometime ago, but it might give you a starting point for your research. Just a thought.

Regarding funding. An option I want to suggest is scholarships and grants. They can range from a couple of hundred pounds to thousands for each year of your course and the eligibilty criteria vary widely. I remember seeing one where your parents had to be involved in green grocering .

The more usual ones are for academic excellence, financial need or for people who live in particular geographic areas. I know my local uni has substantial scholarships available for people who grew up and went to school in the local area.

You are, of course, not guarenteed to be eligible but it might be worth a look. If I remember correctly there is a computer programme available at Connexions were you can enter in your details and it throws out likely possibilities.

Good luck with your research

The_One_Who

Absinthe_Fairy wrote: »

I definitely agree with this. It made me so angry when the careers adviser at my sixth form told me I should apply for a history course based on whichever one I thought had the most interesting content even if it was low down the league tables (she gave Aberystwyth as an example), instead of applying for the good ones at Russell Group unis. Luckily I had a clued-up family who knew what rubbish this was, but I know quite a few people who stayed at home and studied history at Sunderland and thought that it was the same as studying history at York...

I don't often say this, but bravo to that careers advisor! Unless you want to go into the high circles of law or investment banking, your university name won't matter.

Why go to a university where the course content doesn't interest you?! That's ridiculous. It's like my previous Cambridge example, I would have a degree with the Cambridge brand, but would've had a miserable few years and probably less likely to get a good grade.

If you were so 'clued-up' you would also know just what the Russell Group is and how insignificant it is to undergraduates.