English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-07 09:04:08 · 12 answers · asked by roxya153 4 in Education & Reference Higher Education (University +)

I should add that I'm in my first year...I was just pondering this over tea this morning.

2007-01-07 13:20:42 · update #1

12 answers

All but one of the UK's universities get given, on average, £4500 in funding per student per year. There are doubtless a few too many substandard courses in "ok" universities, with not very well-educated students, whose reason for existing is to get as many of these £4500s as they can!

I say "All but one" as there is one private university in the UK, the Uni of Buckingham, which doesn't receive any public funding. With so many good universities, and quite a few "ok" ones out there, I think we need more diversity, like Buckingham. Some smaller unis, like Napier Uni in Scotland, have great links with industry (I'm sure many ancient unis consider this a bit below themselves).

Examples of Buckingham's diversity and proof that private is usually better than public (although with only one, new, private uni, it's not easy to compare):

"Buckingham students gain their honours degrees in just two years because they work intensively and efficiently"

"Buckingham's student to staff ratio puts us in the top 5 of UK universities. We have one member of staff for every 9.7 students, whereas the UK university average is one member of staff to every 17.5 students"

"We spend more per student on information technology (IT) than most universities in the UK; only four others spend more ."

"we do not receive direct subsidy from the Government and so avoid concomitant regulatory interference."

"you could start your degree in September, January or July. Our international atmosphere is perfect for anyone who has enjoyed discovering different cultures."

It's interesting that our top politicians think that getting half of the UK's population through university is the direction we need to head in, when businesses usually complain that there are plenty of well-educated graduates out there, but not enough rank-and-file workers who are numerate and literate. The govt should divert more of those £4500s to colleges, where one picks up the skills one should have learned between the ages of 5 and 18.

2007-01-07 10:47:41 · answer #1 · answered by rage997 3 · 1 0

Because the definition of a "good" university is relative, not absolute, depending on the people you talk to.

Let's face it, Cambridge and Oxford are "good" universities, no doubt about it. So is Durham, St. Andrew's, LSE etc. Yale and Harvard are good. So is CalTech. No-one disputes this.

Yet if you speak to someone doing a course at the University of Central Lancashire, they will insist its a "good" university, that its the "best for this and for that" and that they are guaranteed a job at the end of it, despite the fact that this isn't true.

In the end, people see the university they end up in as "good", partly due to the institutions declaring that they are good and partly because the students don't want to think of themselves as not being in a good university.

Apologies for the cynicism.

2007-01-08 01:55:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

By offering courses the "good" universities don't do. Things like foresic science and nursing.

If you look at subject league tables you will find some poor universities excell at one or two subjects.

Also not everyoe wants to or is able to go to a "good" university. Someone with a family and commitments may want to study part time whaich means Oxford is out as they only do full time courses.

2007-01-08 01:24:40 · answer #3 · answered by sashs.geo 7 · 1 0

Well that's cos not everyone can go to the good unis even if everyone did get great grades, because they'd still filter students to get the best, like they do now by expecting people who do extra-curricular stuff and those with good personalities and those who get turned down or don't get good grades or even made bad subject choices have to go to the other universities.

2007-01-07 09:11:52 · answer #4 · answered by sherrynkb 3 · 2 0

Not everyone can afford to go to the best universities. Sometimes they make the decision based on other factors, such as WHERE the university is located. If it is close to home, that is a very attractive feature for some.

Also, not everyone gets the grades required.

2007-01-07 11:21:02 · answer #5 · answered by CanadianBlondie 5 · 2 0

Some students choose to go to a local university or college to study for their degree for financial or personal reasons - many college students are mature students who may have children at local schools or partners who work locally. It's not just about grades!

2007-01-07 21:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by kaleidoscope_girl 5 · 1 0

Because good universities can demand grades like AAA, when most people will not get this. Having a range of universities mean that a range of students can attend them.

2007-01-07 09:06:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

By taking the students who didn't get into the better universities

2007-01-07 09:17:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You just keep trying until one of the universities accepts you. You should have a list of where you'd want to go, and try for your favourite one first, then work down the list.
Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester all have far more applicants than there are places.

2007-01-07 09:09:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Because the ones who dont make the grade for the good Uni's have to go somewhere xxxxxx

2007-01-07 09:10:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers