Money issues, 6th form & uni

Lokolo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

More obvious than Stafford?

lol its nice and peaceful there, not scummy and urgh. Apart from the giant prison.....

The campus is very green, has bunnies and everything!

The_One_Who

I apologise in advance for the length of this!

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Perhaps things are different in Scotland, but university choice really matters in England, in many areas of employment and further education. Of course content is important as well but it would be a terrible waste for someone really academic to go to many institutions, both for their personal development and for their future career.

I'm really glad that you're happy with your university choice (as a matter of information, where is that?) but to talk of Cambridge as simply a "brand" is just laughable and shows a lack of understanding.

I have many English friends (educated in England at very good institutions) who cringe at the idea of league tables and importance of university name. They all agree that degree classification, relevant experience and general personality matter so much more than the university.

I'm at Glasgow. Always find it funny when people use an argument of age as a sign of a good university, and then often in the same sentence are completely negative about Glasgow. I have a strange sense of humour.

I'm not saying Cambridge is simply a brand, I am well aware of the education it provides. It is not, however, the be-all and end-all in this life. It is not the 'best' university in the country either.

welshmoneylover wrote: »

I've never heard of the Russell Groups before, what are they?

Basically, a lobby group for the twenty largest, most research-intensive universities in the UK. A similar group exists (1994 Group) for the smaller research-intensive universities. Being a 'Russell Group' universities means little to an undergraduate since the research-intensive staff will do little, if any, teaching. If planning a career in academia (or doing any sort of postgraduate) it can certainly help since these universities usually have more council funding, but as an undergraduate this won't have any impact really. The university where you get your undergraduate degree won't matter either as long as you can string a coherent sentence together when you write your research proposal.

Absinthe_Fairy wrote: »

Sorry, I probably didn't explain properly. I didn't mean that you should go to a university where the course content doesn't interest you at all. I applied to universities that had both good reputations and interesting courses. Judging from what you've said, not going to Cambridge was the right decision for you. I personally didn't bother applying to Warwick because the course structure and focus didn't appeal to me at all. I didn't apply to Durham either because it was too close to home, so I did take many things into account other than the university's reputation!

I think name should come last on the list of choosing a university. Location, course content, facilities, clubs etc, nightlife, possible job/intern opportunities, etc, etc, all come before a name.

Oldernotwiser

The_One_Who wrote: »

I think name should come last on the list of choosing a university. Location, course content, facilities, clubs etc, nightlife, possible job/intern opportunities, etc, etc, all come before a name.

I cannot believe that you would seriously suggest that someone should choose to go to university at, say, Gloucester on the basis that there's better nightlife and clubs there if they had the chance of studying at Bristol!

I have to agree that you do have a strange sene of humour!

Lokolo

I think you need to go somewhere inbetween.

Theres no point in going to Cambridge if you do not have the personality of people around you, you'll have a crap time there and not get the experience you should as a student.

But, you shoudn't just go somewhere because drinks a £1 a pint each week and it's a crap uni with the student being able to aim higher.

The_One_Who

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I cannot believe that you would seriously suggest that someone should choose to go to university at, say, Gloucester on the basis that there's better nightlife and clubs there if they had the chance of studying at Bristol!

I have to agree that you do have a strange sene of humour!

No, but if the course at Gloucester is better for that person and the general place suits them better than Bristol then they should go where they feel suits them. It's not really a case of choosing between two extremes, it's often a case of balancing several factors. I think it is rarely a case of finding the perfect course, in the perfect location, with the perfect social scene and with a 'respected' name.

I would say that course content should always, always come before university name.

To give an example, although it is quite old now. In the early-mid nineties Lampeter was the place to be for geographers. It was attracting the big names of the time as well as the current big names who were fast-tracking their way up the academic ladder, many became professors in only a few years! Now, this course might have been perfect, but I can think of few students who would want to spend three years in such a place. The name also wouldn't be much to shout about. It's a case of compromising and finding a balance that suits that person. I would rather go for the 'lesser' university if it will give me a better course, better people (not all the big names are at Oxbridge, Cambridge don't have any really) and a better overall experience.

rev_henry

Lokolo wrote: »

I think you need to go somewhere inbetween.

Theres no point in going to Cambridge if you do not have the personality of people around you, you'll have a crap time there and not get the experience you should as a student.

But, you shoudn't just go somewhere because drinks a £1 a pint each week and it's a crap uni with the student being able to aim higher.

Tbh most places with a reasonably sized student population have £1 drinks night type things now...
but that's getting a bit off topic.

rev_henry

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The thing with Connexions advisers is that some of them are the qualified Careers Advisers who were with the Careers Service before it was demolished and replaced by Connexions. The newer Personal Advisers, who have trained since Connexions was introduced, are expected to have a much wider role (drug advice/accommodation/personal problems) and just don't have the depth or breadth of knowledge of traditional careers areas like university entry.

That sounds about right. I've even heard in some schools of connexions advisors being who you go to to get free condoms which is just ridiculous...
At our school we have one older advisor who I presume was around in the time of the careers service, and she's really good. There's another less good one (who is young and a bit of alright so is strangely enough rather popular at my boys only school ), but they're still both good.

Oldernotwiser

The_One_Who wrote: »

No, but if the course at Gloucester is better for that person and the general place suits them better than Bristol then they should go where they feel suits them. It's not really a case of choosing between two extremes, it's often a case of balancing several factors. I think it is rarely a case of finding the perfect course, in the perfect location, with the perfect social scene and with a 'respected' name.

I would say that course content should always, always come before university name.

.

I completely agree that many factors need to be taken into account when choosing a university; if you love theatre and the arts you wouldn't choose Aberystwyth and there's no point in someone who wants to spend her spare time windsurfing, going to Birmingham.

What I do object to is when people like teachers and advisers, whose job it is to advise students about HE entry, don't tell students that some universities are more prestigious and better thought of than others.

If a student, in possession of all of the facts, chooses Gloucester over Bristol then that's fine, but if she's under the impression that they are both of equal stature then that isn't an informed decision and is a failure of the people responsible for guiding her.

RosaBernicia

OP I have a couple of thoughts that may or may not be useful...

Are you completely sure that you want to go into teaching? It may be worth checking whether a business degree followed by a PGCE would give you more flexiblity than an undergrad teaching course. I say this partly because teaching can turn out to be hugely stressful (good friend of mine gave it up for stress related health reasons shortly after finishing his course) and it may give you time to work in another field before a PGCE if that turns out to be what you want (I also have a couple of friends who have taken PGCE in their late thirties, moving from their original field).

Re. university choice, basically find out absolutely everything you can about the places that interest you, including visiting. Only you can really judge the factors that matter to you and being happier will help you get a better degree regardless of where it's from.

(I get a bit wound up about this subject as I have now tried out 4 unis... had a miserable time at my original Russell Group top 5, but have to confess that having it on the CV probably made a big difference to getting in to my post grad courses. One of those was a very very good redbrick - they were marvellous both for teaching and looking after their students, and have a very good research reputation, and have raced up the tables in fact I think they're now top 10 - and the current one is also a Russell Group but a much smaller organisation with a very different atmosphere. I also have an undergrad degree from a 'new' uni who come out very low in the tables and I have to say that they absolutely deserve to - the teaching, facilities and student care were all appalling.)

A gap year may be a very sensible idea if it gives you time to save and plan so you can make the most of your time at uni. Don't forget to have fun though

Wishing you luck

Rosa xx