It has the highest suicide rate amongst all the universities in the UK and it's in the middle of nowhere.The Sheriff wrote:
Lancaster to study Computer Science.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
several nice student bars in house though.m3thod wrote:
It has the highest suicide rate amongst all the universities in the UK and it's in the middle of nowhere.The Sheriff wrote:
Lancaster to study Computer Science.
I'm sure it does! but hes not going there to booze....well i hope he isn't.
Remember newbies the choice of university is just as important as what you did and what you got. I know of one or two organisations that explicitly state oxbridge only.
Remember newbies the choice of university is just as important as what you did and what you got. I know of one or two organisations that explicitly state oxbridge only.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
And to be fair they're probably fools for subscribing to an old-fashioned and outdated view of the British higher-education system. All of the Russell Group Universities are just as good as Oxbridge in my opinion in certain areas or aspects of student-life, and it's a shame that some graduate employment schemes still use such an outdated form of classism and snobbery. They miss out though- I'm sure you can vouch for the high quality of other 'rival' Universities such as Durham, Warwick, Imperial College / LSE (depending on the specific sciences / economics etc.) They don't bring the prestige and the reputation but they still bring the same calibre of graduate in my honest opinion.m3thod wrote:
I'm sure it does! but hes not going there to booze....well i hope he isn't.
Remember newbies the choice of university is just as important as what you did and what you got. I know of one or two organisations that explicitly state oxbridge only.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i almost went there, but decided on University of California, Davis.blademaster wrote:
Purdue
hmmm nocyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
That's where all the azns who cant get into a decent college goblademaster wrote:
Purdue
UTex - next year. Undecided on a major though. They have a nice tech and business school....
Where are you living? I'm gonna be in Shreve, 6th floorblademaster wrote:
hmmm nocyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
That's where all the azns who cant get into a decent college goblademaster wrote:
Purdue
The opinion is slightly flawed though. It has been shown that sutdents learn much better if taught in small groups - which is technically unique in oxbridge, unless you take a subject which nobody else took.Uzique wrote:
And to be fair they're probably fools for subscribing to an old-fashioned and outdated view of the British higher-education system. All of the Russell Group Universities are just as good as Oxbridge in my opinion in certain areas or aspects of student-life, and it's a shame that some graduate employment schemes still use such an outdated form of classism and snobbery. They miss out though- I'm sure you can vouch for the high quality of other 'rival' Universities such as Durham, Warwick, Imperial College / LSE (depending on the specific sciences / economics etc.) They don't bring the prestige and the reputation but they still bring the same calibre of graduate in my honest opinion.m3thod wrote:
I'm sure it does! but hes not going there to booze....well i hope he isn't.
Remember newbies the choice of university is just as important as what you did and what you got. I know of one or two organisations that explicitly state oxbridge only.
I also thought the same; how Edinburgh, Warwick, Imperial were just as good if not better in some aspects; and for a "real life" experience, I guess they are, but just look at the McLaren F1 team of engineers ( this may be outdated, but I am sure it's not too old ) ALL of them graduated at Cambridge. Now take a look at how they have developed their cars... It's not because they came out of Cambridge that they were picked, they were picked because they were the best.
Although your comment about "prestige and reputation" is a bit wrong. You graduate from Imperial or Durham and, as the saying goes, the whole world is your oyster. There are the two top : Cambridge and Oxford, closely followed by Belfast, Durham, Imperial and Warwick, then followed by Glasgow, Edinburgh and the rest. I guess it's a narrow view I have, and maybe it's not totally right, but the way you are tought in those "superior" Unis is far better compared to the average one.
Still, the best Unis in the world are still Harvard and the great ones in the US ( according to educational reports ). Still, I wouldn't want to pay $40,000 a year.
The tutorial system works really great here at Oxford, some areas of English study - especially medieval - Chaucerian type stuff - I simply could not take onboard in large lectures. There's a lot to learn and the personal interaction and personal feedback does help significantly- I do think that the tutorial and seminar system they use in Oxford/Cambridge colleges basically guarantees a 2:1 at the very least.
I'd have to disagree about Harvard being the best University in the world Harvard, Yale, MIT, Colombia etc. are still epic institutions though.
By "prestige and reputation" I just meant the name-recognition and the elitist-snob power of the historical Oxford/Cambridge colleges. Of course all of the Top 10 Universities (and largely every British University within the Russell Group) empowers graduates with a great education and the ability to go places and take up great opportunities. I wasn't meaning to imply that it is exclusively only Oxbridge that grants graduates a free-pass to a high quality of life (and in fact it is often the opposite; Oxbridge does not statistically have the highest rates of graduate employment in the country).
I'd have to disagree about Harvard being the best University in the world Harvard, Yale, MIT, Colombia etc. are still epic institutions though.
By "prestige and reputation" I just meant the name-recognition and the elitist-snob power of the historical Oxford/Cambridge colleges. Of course all of the Top 10 Universities (and largely every British University within the Russell Group) empowers graduates with a great education and the ability to go places and take up great opportunities. I wasn't meaning to imply that it is exclusively only Oxbridge that grants graduates a free-pass to a high quality of life (and in fact it is often the opposite; Oxbridge does not statistically have the highest rates of graduate employment in the country).
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-15 01:27:50)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's okay, i'm taking a spare iPod with me.m3thod wrote:
It has the highest suicide rate amongst all the universities in the UK and it's in the middle of nowhere.The Sheriff wrote:
Lancaster to study Computer Science.
I'm sure there will be plenty of fit girls to not warrant a suicide attempt
Depends how many of them are Welsh.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'm sure there will be plenty of fit girls to not warrant a suicide attempt
That sort of thinking will get you nothing young manThe Sheriff wrote:
Depends how many of them are Welsh.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'm sure there will be plenty of fit girls to not warrant a suicide attempt
But you're also right
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-15 04:09:10)
I give long odds.The Sheriff wrote:
Depends how many of them are Welsh.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'm sure there will be plenty of fit girls to not warrant a suicide attempt
#rekt
Well, I never said it was the best. I was saying that according to educational reports it is. But then again, educational reports are often flawed.Uzique wrote:
The tutorial system works really great here at Oxford, some areas of English study - especially medieval - Chaucerian type stuff - I simply could not take onboard in large lectures. There's a lot to learn and the personal interaction and personal feedback does help significantly- I do think that the tutorial and seminar system they use in Oxford/Cambridge colleges basically guarantees a 2:1 at the very least.
I'd have to disagree about Harvard being the best University in the world Harvard, Yale, MIT, Colombia etc. are still epic institutions though.
By "prestige and reputation" I just meant the name-recognition and the elitist-snob power of the historical Oxford/Cambridge colleges. Of course all of the Top 10 Universities (and largely every British University within the Russell Group) empowers graduates with a great education and the ability to go places and take up great opportunities. I wasn't meaning to imply that it is exclusively only Oxbridge that grants graduates a free-pass to a high quality of life (and in fact it is often the opposite; Oxbridge does not statistically have the highest rates of graduate employment in the country).
The sad thing is, that A-levels are seriously fucked. Getting 3 As in your A levels means nothing anymore as more and more students are achieving just that. The "smarter" students are even going off to do 4 A levels because 3 is too easy. The fact that a lot of your grade is based upon internal assessments which can be taken over and over again is beyond stupid. I promise that in 3-5 years, the grades for A-levels will have de-valued so much that they will be asking for 4 As ( Oxbridge ). Just as a comparison, Advanced Higher here ( Scotland ) is valued much more that they will happily accept AAB in them.
Still, the best exam available for students is the IB and Britain still has one of the best educational systems in Europe.
And yeah, you are right about the "prestige and reputation" part. Companies tend to look at the 2nd best Unis because those students tend to be have been Oxbridge material ( i.e, engineering students graduating from Durham ) and they just didn't make it because of some small flaw. I know that companies like Shell and BP do ( I know one of the directors ) just that.
Reading was voted worst place to live in in UK wasn't it?All-I-C-Z-Rage wrote:
Reading - Pharmacy
Anyone been to Reading? It's pretty close to London, so that's awesome.
Yeah they were talking about that on the news.SizzlingMidget wrote:
I agree Zimmer, A-levels have become so devalued that more an more universities for more and more courses are looking at even GCSE results of applicants, which I think is ridiculous as a student's dreams and future could be ruined by some exams they take when they are 15/16. I have reason to believe that they will be introducing A* at A-level which will help universities to differentiate so it won't be as easy.
One time a student actually wrote on a GCSE question:
"I'm not fick yeah, i jus dont geddit"
Last edited by SEREVENT (2008-08-15 06:41:33)
I agree Zimmer, A-levels have become so devalued that more an more universities for more and more courses are looking at even GCSE results of applicants, which I think is ridiculous as a student's dreams and future could be ruined by some exams they take when they are 15/16. I have reason to believe that they will be introducing A* at A-level which will help universities to differentiate so it won't be as easy.
Oxbridge requires the UCAS equivalent of 3 A's, but the reality is that most students here have 4 A-levels, with actually a surprisingly large number having 5 or 6 A's at A-Level. I wouldn't say it's the A-Level system that is flawed as much as the independant school system that teaches lots of posh snobs exactly how to pass exams with an A. You'd be surprised how many people filter through the University application process that have no genuine interest or capability in their subject area/field-- they just went to a nice expensive school and walked away with the 'default' grades >.>.Zimmer wrote:
Well, I never said it was the best. I was saying that according to educational reports it is. But then again, educational reports are often flawed.
The sad thing is, that A-levels are seriously fucked. Getting 3 As in your A levels means nothing anymore as more and more students are achieving just that. The "smarter" students are even going off to do 4 A levels because 3 is too easy. The fact that a lot of your grade is based upon internal assessments which can be taken over and over again is beyond stupid. I promise that in 3-5 years, the grades for A-levels will have de-valued so much that they will be asking for 4 As ( Oxbridge ). Just as a comparison, Advanced Higher here ( Scotland ) is valued much more that they will happily accept AAB in them.
Still, the best exam available for students is the IB and Britain still has one of the best educational systems in Europe.
And yeah, you are right about the "prestige and reputation" part. Companies tend to look at the 2nd best Unis because those students tend to be have been Oxbridge material ( i.e, engineering students graduating from Durham ) and they just didn't make it because of some small flaw. I know that companies like Shell and BP do ( I know one of the directors ) just that.
And getting 3 A's at A-Level does mean something, you're just being far too easily led by the sensationalist media reports that always come out each year following A-Level performance increases. "Oh no, more students are passing their exams, therefore they must be ridiculously easy and worthless!" I definitely wouldn't discredit anyone that gained 3 A's at A-Level... it's still an academic achievement that all the 320-UCAS Universities recognise and demand. FYI Oxbridge won't even be using the new A* grade that is proposedly being pushed through the system... the AAA 'test' is perfectly fine.
As I said the top Universities won't even consider using a new and experimental grade in order to decide who is accepted into their old systems. And it has been common for any top10-top20 University to look at different statistics and academic achievements- such as your individual marks for exams and your GCSE grades. Competitive courses and prestigious Universities need more and more ways to differentiate between candidates in a quantitative manner. It shouldn't deter you too much anyway... the qualitative interview process and personal-statement still remains in place and still remains centrally important to your application.SizzlingMidget wrote:
I agree Zimmer, A-levels have become so devalued that more an more universities for more and more courses are looking at even GCSE results of applicants, which I think is ridiculous as a student's dreams and future could be ruined by some exams they take when they are 15/16. I have reason to believe that they will be introducing A* at A-level which will help universities to differentiate so it won't be as easy.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-15 07:11:01)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique, you have read it all wrong. All my comments are not coming from the media. I refuse to read anything in the media about education unless it's in the Education part of the Guardian and it has some truth to it. I know all that is sensationalist bollocks.
My comments are based on a woman who works in the SQA International relations board. She goes around the world looking at the educational alternatives to Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers. She especially keeps track of the IB and A-levels, has spoken to Oxbridge in depth about their thoughts on A levels and UCAS ( they are evaluating the points given again, and it's a huge process ) and it's proven that people with IBs or AHs that go into Oxbridge do better overall than those with basic 3 A-levels. Of course it means something, but you can get 3 As by being spoon fed throughout the 2 YEARS ( AHs are over 1 year and cover half of the first year at Uni as well ) whereas with the IB and AHs, it's nearly impossible to be spoon fed. Also, the fact that people are starting to do 5 and 6 A level DOES show that they are worthless crap. Why? Because you can't do that with AHs and IBs. If you did more than 4 AHs ( and that is SERIOUSLY pushing it, only the real geniouses do 4 AHs, and some schools forbid it ) you wouldn't manage. You couldn't complete them and you wouldn't get any As. Same goes with the IB, which is even more intense. Your comment about students taking more A-levels directly contradicts your comment about how they still mean something. If they were still good exams, then the norm of 3 A-levels would still be applied across England, but the fact is that it's not.
My comments are based on a woman who works in the SQA International relations board. She goes around the world looking at the educational alternatives to Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers. She especially keeps track of the IB and A-levels, has spoken to Oxbridge in depth about their thoughts on A levels and UCAS ( they are evaluating the points given again, and it's a huge process ) and it's proven that people with IBs or AHs that go into Oxbridge do better overall than those with basic 3 A-levels. Of course it means something, but you can get 3 As by being spoon fed throughout the 2 YEARS ( AHs are over 1 year and cover half of the first year at Uni as well ) whereas with the IB and AHs, it's nearly impossible to be spoon fed. Also, the fact that people are starting to do 5 and 6 A level DOES show that they are worthless crap. Why? Because you can't do that with AHs and IBs. If you did more than 4 AHs ( and that is SERIOUSLY pushing it, only the real geniouses do 4 AHs, and some schools forbid it ) you wouldn't manage. You couldn't complete them and you wouldn't get any As. Same goes with the IB, which is even more intense. Your comment about students taking more A-levels directly contradicts your comment about how they still mean something. If they were still good exams, then the norm of 3 A-levels would still be applied across England, but the fact is that it's not.
It's not contradiction because my point was that independant and private full-board schools teach a much higher-quality course and also have the advantage of fully boarded students. 3 A's from a college/sixth form is still an achievement and nobody should feel as though they've underperformed because they 'only' got 3 A's. If your close associate is an insider in the British education system then you should know that it is rife with class-related issues and a lack of opportunities for more working-class state educated applicants.
I don't think it is some bizarre coincidence that most people I meet have been raised with a silver spoon in their mouth.
What exactly did you get, and what bred your pessimism and anti A-Level stance? Why is it even such a bad thing that people are more capable of applying to the high-quality institutions that have been pretty much exclusive for the sons and daughters of middle-upper class aristocrats for the best part of their histories? As I said the qualitative interview and personal statement elements filter out the people that just breezed through the 'easy' 3 A-Levels anyway... it's not as if this 'flaw' is wreaking havoc in the British educational establishment.
I don't think it is some bizarre coincidence that most people I meet have been raised with a silver spoon in their mouth.
What exactly did you get, and what bred your pessimism and anti A-Level stance? Why is it even such a bad thing that people are more capable of applying to the high-quality institutions that have been pretty much exclusive for the sons and daughters of middle-upper class aristocrats for the best part of their histories? As I said the qualitative interview and personal statement elements filter out the people that just breezed through the 'easy' 3 A-Levels anyway... it's not as if this 'flaw' is wreaking havoc in the British educational establishment.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-15 07:33:12)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
im about to send a heartfelt email to QUB.
wish me luck!
wish me luck!
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Remember relative x died in war y.FatherTed wrote:
im about to send a heartfelt email to QUB.
wish me luck!
It's not pessimism. It's annoyance at the ignorance of Universities down south who miss out on better students who took the IB, EB or AHs because theyUzique wrote:
It's not contradiction because my point was that independant and private full-board schools teach a much higher-quality course and also have the advantage of fully boarded students. 3 A's from a college/sixth form is still an achievement and nobody should feel as though they've underperformed because they 'only' got 3 A's. If your close associate is an insider in the British education system then you should know that it is rife with class-related issues and a lack of opportunities for more working-class state educated applicants.
I don't think it is some bizarre coincidence that most people I meet have been raised with a silver spoon in their mouth.
What exactly did you get, and what bred your pessimism and anti A-Level stance? Why is it even such a bad thing that people are more capable of applying to the high-quality institutions that have been pretty much exclusive for the sons and daughters of middle-upper class aristocrats for the best part of their histories? As I said the qualitative interview and personal statement elements filter out the people that just breezed through the 'easy' 3 A-Levels anyway... it's not as if this 'flaw' is wreaking havoc in the British educational establishment.
A. Don't know how to rate them compared to A-levels
B. Prefer A-levels
C. Find it easier to just pick English people.
The woman I know is doing precisely that, trying to make other Organisations and Universities aware of the other options. Also, she doesn't work for the British education system, she works for the Scottish Education System ( SQA - Scottish Qualification Authority ) which is completely independent from English education systems. There is a huge difference, down in England, you have hundreds of A-level providers, whereas in Scotland you have 1. I just wish that Unis were more unbiased on their acceptances. Not that I was in any sort of position like that, but I know many guys who were, and it's annoying.
Wow, that was fast. I'm leaving tomorrow morning