League table of Ex Poly's ?(105 Posts)
I have no dc of university age, but i've been wondering, its been a few good yrs now since all poly's were upgraded to Uni's. Does anyone think that we might be seeing the emergence of a few climbing up the hierarchy ladder of status, maybe even entering Russell Group in future ? Oxford Brooke's in particular seems to be coming up a lot with youngsters who couldn't get into Oxford or Cambridge.
Even if RG is not on the card's which ex poly's would you say are higly rated at the moment ?
Well, I do hope my alma mater is still at the very bottom of all known leagues. Thames Valley Uni, since you ask.
My old one - Leeds Poly, now Leeds Metropolitan is at number 95 on here
Bunbaker - cause for celebration ? poor old Bolton . The Positions of most of the ex poly's on that table is so bad you can't cry even.
Also noticed Leeds is vying for that special position with the University of Creative Arts blimey who are they ? <wipes tears of laughter>
U creative arts are an amalgamation of Surrey and Kent institutes of art and design. TVU is now university of west London. Some ex poly in middle of table, Manchester met, uni of west of England, Oxford brookes.
My local university (loucestersire) used to languish at the bottom of the scale, but has improved now I see.
How are these crappy universities going to survive in the age of tuition fees? Nobody will waste money on a degree from a poor institution will they? DD made some mumblings about Gloucestershire and I told her to forget it.
YAY - go Plymouth 63rd - and no I didnt go there just because the ratio of men to women was 7:3 and it was by the seaside
U arts London, Oxford Brooke's and Herts all better than goldsmiths (94 group)!
Does anyone know who and what decides what institutions can be a R.G university?
gerrof Some former poly's aren't 'crappy'
RG - institution / vice chancellor makes it known they're interested in joining. RG committee decides whether to offer them an invitation. In theory anyway! In reality the VC's influence
who theyre mates with decides!
Oh that's good to know that RG means bog all and is just a random hierarchy!
PCL no.73 this year
The RG group were formed after the VCs of some of the biggest universities started meeting in the Russel Hotel (hence Russel Group) in London about collective lobbying of Government about potential cuts to research funding. The informal meetings later became a formal organisation.
They nominated themselves and membership has never had included any assessment of quality either of research or teaching!
southeast no I know not all former polys are crap - some of them are great (dd considering UWE for instance) but some of them are rubbish. What would be the point of forking out for a degree in Football Studies at Southampton Solent for instance (I know someone who did and has regretted it).
I went to Newcastle Poly - now Northumbria Uni. It seems that it has the best Student Union in the country . Also interesting to find from that link that I was there at the same time as Jonathan Ive who designed the iPhone. He seems to be doing considerably better than me
Creamteas that's very interesting. However Durham only joined recently didn't they ? wonder what the criteria was for them.
since its now a formal organisation, they must have a constitution.
Gerrof -aha! but it would still be 'crap' even if they forked out for Football Studies at Oxford! but I suppose crap course and crap uni is a double whammy.
The RG is just a lobbying group. There are plenty of great universities that aren't in it.
Tbh, it's a bit pointless talking of universities as a whole anyway as the different departments and degree programmes within them will be very different. Not all departments are equal and pretty much every university has some duff departments and some better ones (although the duff departments in high ranking universities are probably better than the duff departments in the universities at the bottom of the tables). Even low ranking universities might have some really great degree programmes or research groups; they're just pulled down by the rest of the university.
So, I'd say it really depends on what they want to study and what their particular interests within that are.
And universities come in more than just RG and ex-polys. There are all manner of ways to group them, and other ways that they group and position themselves for their own nefarious purposes.
There are plenty of decent universities out there that aren't RG branded.
Arbitraryy - Yes i totally agree.
However Durham only joined recently didn't they ? wonder what the criteria was for them.
Didn't Durham fail to turn up at the original meeting that set up the Russell Group (at the Russell Hotel in London)? Perhaps someone turned up this time? Exeter also admitted at same time as Durham. Originally RG was only for the large research based universities, so many good universities weren't large enough - e.g. St Andrews, York etc.
Originally large research intensive - yes (plus the LSE!!!)
Oh and Warwick was both RG and 94 group for many years!!!
Sticking up for Southampton, I know someone who studied sports science there, secured a related paid job overseas each summer and has been accepted for PGCE so at least some head on in a positive direction.
Durham was part of the 1994 group of unis
another gang of smaller unis. However RG seems to have become a better known brand so presumably they decided they preferred to be in their gang part of that.
It is all about course and department though... My uni not especially high in general tables but top of some subject tables.
Newcastle Poly was always a great party place
Southampton Solent (as against Southampton Uni) was not even a poly.
It was the Southampton Institute and is notorious for bogroll degrees.
Thanks for all the info about the R.G organisation. Very enlightening indeed.
The cruise management one sounds like something Alan partridge would do!
My grandpa always used to grin at the idea of Pond-street tec, where he used to teach, becoming Sheffield Hallam University
2 A levels ...
UWE (Bristol Poly) is pretty good I am told
TVU - wasn't that Slough Tech in another life.... I know someone offered a place there with one E at A level!!! Enough said.
(My uni offer was 2 Es...but from a university at the other end of the scale....just saying that it's not always a predictor...)
in my day a one E offer was standard for Oxbridge when they wanted you whatever your result. Needless to say is was usually given to those who were going to get straight As whatever happened.
No, TVU is definitely not offering 1E to those of Oxbridge Calibre. MY DH got offered 2es for oxford but he had passed the entrance exam.
amothersplace they don't have an entrance exam anymore, interviews, and some subjects have aptitude tests but your DS has done well, they rarely give 2E offers these days, certainly not as often as in the past.
Huddersfield is getting a very good reputation. I think some of its courses are among the best in the countr and it's becoming quite big. I'm not sure it even used to have the status of being a poly.
What would I know though- I went to the 'university' once described as the place people go when they can't get in anywhere else .
Yes I think DH just had to pass his A levels in tbe days of the Oxbridge entrance test.
My RG offer was something like BBC for a course that asks at least AAB today.
My DF, who is now a constant only need BBB for med. School.
I agree it should be about course and department rather than the 'right' place. But some uni's are doing students no favours - I saw the other day that Staffordshire offer a degree in celebrity journalism
Sheffield Hallam, U.W.E and Northumbria are well regarded, and call me cynical but I bet the R.G uni's in those cities would put up a hell of a fight if they suspected the former poly's were going to apply to be part of the R.G org.
2E offer was the standard Oxford one if you did the entrance exam. If you chose not to you got a "normal" offer. You had to get 2Es at the stage when you got grants because you weren't elegible for the grant without that, so that was the lowest offer you could get.
I got 3 2E offers. One from somewhere obviously so desperate to have me I decided if they were that desperate, then I probably didn't want to go there . It must have come back return of post from the UCAS form.
The other was Cardiff who used to do a "sell to Oxbridge candidate day"-we had an official "interview" with lots of other people who when talking had all also applied to Oxbridge. They then gave us all (that I met up with later) a 2E offer. Quite canny really. It would have definitely been my insurance offer if I hadn't got into Oxford.
My school pushed people to apply to Oxford Brooks, the reason became clear when they published the list of universities that year sixth form had gone too. They went down as "Oxford University: Brooks College"!
But it was a good place even when I went which was not long after it became a university, really good for some things like nursing in particular. But it was also full of people who you'd think of as "Oxbridge types", much more than Oxford University itself.
Kingston is well-regarded for some courses.
My school pushed people to apply to Oxford Brooks, the reason became clear when they published the list of universities that year sixth form had gone too. They went down as "Oxford University: Brooks College"!
how far back are you counting as a "former poly"? My uni was a poly in the 60's and when I went in the early 80's was still known as Splott Poly (Splott was slightly dodgy studenty part of cardiff)... now in RG.
Ha! I went to Oxford Poly to do my nursing degree and graduated from Oxford Brookes. At the time it was one of the few places to offer a 4 year degree course for nursing and Oxford Poly was one of the top ones at the time.
Just looked at the league tables for nursing education and OBU doesn't seem to be doing so well, these days. 31st out of 70.
I have seen two examples (work stuff ) where people have said they went to Cambridge (one was Anglia something or other but not the Cambridge university the person was misrepresenting they were at) and another similar one. Some employers should be more thorough in looking at original certificates and asking the institution.
The important thing is that schools and parents make sure their children know which are the kinds of institutions which recruit for the sort of careers that child wants so no one is misled. Someone I know has a daughter who received the best A levels in her comp and went to Oxford Brookes as all her friends were going there. For the career she wanted in the types of companies she wanted that was very silly as it was a hard to enter career where Oxford itself would have been much better. No one told her.
Kewcumber - As far back early nineties, when all poly's/colleges started being called Universities, think that was 1993 ? what's splott Poly's current name?
Mind boggles at how anyone would think they could get away with lying about which university they went to never mind Cambridge, what happens when you start to ask more questions, like 'and which college did you go to ?, who was your professor ?'
1992 was when the former polys gained their degree awarding powers and thus became eligible to use the term 'university'.
what, like Jeffrey Archer did
certainly a colourful character i'd say! Seems to have a knack for attending instituations closely named after famous ones, one of my pet hates! You'll always feel second best. Still unclear after reafing that wether he actually got a degree . i liked his books a lot as a teenager.
its now Cardiff University (after merger) but was UWIST when I went there, its university status in 1967 so obviously has gained respectability in the meantime!
TVU is now University of West London it changed a couple of years ago.
Lots of former technical institutes etc became universities in the 1960s and 70s. They're often very good for STEM degrees. Places like Aston, Strathclyde or Heriott-Watt.
Lots of the former polys (universities from 1993 onward) are much better for degrees like nursing than their more highly regarded counterparts. When I was an UG I knew people doing nursing at both Glasgow and caley (formerly Glasgow poly). Caley was much better for nursing (Glasgow was good at training doctors). I think northumbria (or Newcastle poly as you're all calling it) is good for nursing too.
I know many who are very successful in enviable jobs that are Oxford Brookes graduates, editors on the glossies, high up in TV and the media etc.
Universities where the Rich List went:
1) Oxford - 401 super-rich graduates worth an average £83m each - alumni include Michael Palin
2) Cambridge - 361, £169m - including Sacha Baron Cohen
3) LSE - 273, £84m - including Sir Mick Jagger
4) Imperial - 127, £67m - including Brian May
5) London Business School - 106, £99m - including Cyrus Mistry
6) Manchester - 102, £22m - including Sir Terry Leahy
7) UCL - 99, £29m - including Ricky Gervais
8) Nottingham - 92, £22m - including Sir John Sawers
9) Edinburgh - 80, £52m - including Sir Chris Hoy
10) Birmingham - 68, £69m - including David Gill
It is interesting that so many of those are in London.
Mine is no.30 for my subject
I don't measure success with salary (although we obviously want enough to live comfortably on) - job satisfaction is far more important to me.
Do you think Mick Jagger would be less rich if he'd dropped out of a poly rather than the LSE, Xenia?
Possibly. It's like Branson dropped out of a private school but at least he'd had that good education before that. In other words the ones in that top 10 list above will be clever people as those places are hard to get into so they are more likely to do well than those who go to places you can get into with lower grades.
In other words the ones in that top 10 list above will be clever people as those places are hard to get into
Not necessarily. When many of the people currently at the top of the rich list went to university, there was neither the same level of competition for places, and nepotism was much more rife.
Some brilliantly successful people went to polys/ex polys.
Jonathan Ive (guy who designed the iPod etc, and is some kind of Very Important Person at apple these days) went to Newcastle poly. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done any better for himself if he'd gone to one of the institutions on that list.
I did my MBA at one the most highly rated business schools and the best and most memorable session, for all the right reasons, was run by someone from Oxford Brookes. The most memorable session, for all the wrong reasons, got himself into such confusion trying to explain hedging that we had to explain it to him, is now a Professor at Warwick. RG certainly do not have a monopoly on good teaching.
Tbh, RG don't necessarily give a shit about good teaching. All they really care about is your REF score and how much grant money you've got.
On the whole career advancement is easier if you go to the better universities and if your exam grades including GCSE and A level are good. No one really disputes that. Obviously some people leave school without qualifications and still do well but it is harder.
Is the thread heading a joke by the way? Or is that how poly people write?
"Poly's" like "apple's for sale"
On the whole career advancement is easier if you go to the better universities and if your exam grades including GCSE and A level are good. No one really disputes that.
What, even if you want to be famous rock star?
^Is the thread heading a joke by the way? Or is that how poly people write?
"Poly's" like "apple's for sale"^
I thought the apostrophe was indicate omission rather than possession eg 'technic' is missing. And 'polys' looks rather odd, while 'polies' looks like it should be preceded 'roly'.
Xenia - I'm a bit at your so many in London comment.
4 unis from your list of 10 is north of Watford Gap. Oxford and Cambridge are north of me and I'm north of London. That leaves 4 London unis
Quite a few in London plus Oxbridge is South.
On the more important topic most people agree that if you abbreviate you don't add the apostrophe in that case. In fact when educated people write say MBAs they do not add the apostrophe. When their secretaries get hold of the document they always write MBA's. I was looking at it on a conference programme the other day - the conference organisers ex poly type people had the relevant acronym with the apostrophe and every document written by the professionals did not.
If you write don't for do not that is correct.
However if you were going to put an apostrophe for every missing letter in MBAs you would have to write M'B'A's and that's ridiculous.
If you meant The MBA is going to make her do well you could write
The MBA's going to make her do well.
Only in that context is the apostrophe right.
Surely MBA is an acronym (for Master of Business Administration) - and acronyms do not have apostrophes (IBM, ICT etc). Therefore plural is MBAs (should probably be MsBA but that is not the convention), and MBA's the possessive form or where 'is' is abbreviated.
Wheras Poly is an abbrevation - and it is common, though not universal, to put apostrophes in abbreviations (don't...though sha'n't lost its first apostrophe some time ago). The discussion is probably around whether, when the contraction is at the end, an apostrophe that is not used in the singular (Poly, not Poly' to indicate the missing -technic) should suddenly appear in the plural.
xenia You never fail to entertain me. As an ex-poly grad, I would love to know how you think you can identify some of us.
I went to one of the universities on xenia's list. I still put apostrophes in the wrong place sometimes. And spell stuff wrong. And all manner of things.
It's an interesting assumption that only ex-poly graduates would think it was fine to go to one. I doubt I'm the only one on this thread who has an all RG higher education.
Technically, MBA is not an acronym. It's only an acronym when it forms a word in itself, i.e. UNESCO which doesn't have to be read as U. N. E. S. C. O.. whereas MBA has to be read as M. B. A.
Just sayin'. (ex-Poly grad.)
Oooh, thank you (laps up information). So what is the 'proper' term for what were commonly known as 'TLAs' (Three Letter Acronyms) when I was doing management training in the 1990s [late career changer]?
Indeed. I think we are agree. poly's will always be wrong and perhaps sends out a signal that someone went to a polytechnic. Actually plenty of us tend never to use uni or poly anyway as using it suggests you are either 18 or badly educated.
We went into the MBA's or MBAs or whatever it was that was relevant in my other place and there was that big divide - the better educated people do not put the apostrophe in. There is no possessive and also if you were putting it in as in don't because of missing letters you would have to put it in after each letter.
Anyway I am just pointing out how some people who read what you write may take the view so mumsnetters putting in job applications do not write something that some people will hold against them.
Xenia, you are creating a problem where there isn't one. It really doesn't matter a jot whether people type MBA's or MBAs and, while the latter might be considered more modern, I don't think the convention is sufficiently established for one to be right and the other wrong.
I doubt if mumsnetters need your lessons in grammar, Xenia, as on a job application they would list the names of the institutions they attended in full rather than, if they did indeed attend more than one poly, write, 'I attended 2 poly's/polys/polies'.
poly's will always be wrong and perhaps sends out a signal that someone went to a polytechnic.
Poly's might be wrong, but it gives absolutely no indication at all about the education of the person who wrote it. How could it? I have worked at both RG and post-1992 universities, and in both settings there is a full range of ability in English grammar.
Indeed, my mother left school at 14, but she is still better at English than me with my 3 degrees from RG universities .
I am sent a lot of CVs. Employers have to much choice they reject them for the smallest of errors. I was only trying to be helpful. Apostrophes can be the litmus test.
Xenia you are so far up your own tight arse that you seem to think every Mner on here would be approaching you with their cv. I can assure you I am very successful in my own field but we don't all boast about it on MN, its boring.
I couldnt really care less what you thynk about my grammer or spellingz, apostrophies whatever. When I come on mn i come to let my hair down away from all the dotting the i's and crossing the t's, just like some people like to swear all the time on MN it doesn't mean thats how they speak in a professional setting. My spellings on mn are no indication of how I might write a report or a professional email. I enjoy the freedom of being able to type anyhow i like and when last i checked it wasn't a requirement to join MN.
Now why dont you jump off that high horse you're on before it throws you off and correct all the errors here, after which you should get your nice thin blond man to give you a good 'seeing to' so you can breath.
I most definitely didn't go to oxbridge!
Xenia, in my brief Google, it was clear that several reputable grammar guides published within the last 20 - 30 years actually stated that MBA's was the correct form. The emerging consensus that 'MBAs is the only correct form' is really quite recent - so those using it may not be 'less educated', simply taught the previous rule.
(I am of the era - 1970s - when grammar was not taught in schools at all. So while I am very well educated - 1st class degree + PhD in a science subject from Oxbridge - it is not an area in which I was taught 'the rules'. I have learned more grammar in the past 4-5 years, while doing my PGCE and then teaching, than I did in my entire formal schooling,)
Xenia, you'd have have a hard time figuring me out. I didn't even go to university but am able to use apostrophes correctly. I've also taught English successfully to doctors, lawyers, scientists and architects. My bog standard comprehensive must have done something right, despite the fact I quit just before A levels.
I have worked with several graduates of Russell group universities who are barely able to string a grammatically correct sentence together.
As has my friend, who left school at 16 to shovel shit at a riding stables and is now at director level in her organisation.
Keep on feeling superior though, by all means. You're very entertaining.
If my CV gets rejected because of a misplaced punctuation mark, despite a couple of decades experience and a Msc, then it's not a place I would be happy in.
Been to 3 RG unis, BA, MBA, Dip MRS, Dip CIM, and MA and I have never mastered the apostrophe, and once, before the days of Spellcheck, managed to spell Emperor four different ways in an essay........ Being dyslexic I am a great believer that it is important to look beyond such trivialities to the quality of the ideas and argument, especially on Mumsnet which is enough of a timewaster without spending hours checking your grammar and spelling!
I am talking about new graduates. The genuinely are rejected because of issues like that and it is crucial parents tell their children that and schools and universities tell them.
I also think we all learn something new every day. I do. So if mumsnet helps some posters learn that poly's makes them look a bit silly then they can choose to carry on using it or give it up, but at least have the information.
I've read through this thread and the only person looking very very silly here is you Xenia you sound more and more of a silly woman with every post!
and to add, many on here don't care about all this silly spelling stuff, its an internet forum not a job application.
"I am sent a lot of CVs. Employers have to much choice they reject them for the smallest of errors. I was only trying to be helpful. Apostrophes can be the litmus test."
Misusing apostrophes is a silly schoolboy error. Almost as bad as not knowing the difference between to, too and two.
lady lech Of course a CV has to be impressive in every way but worrying about a post on Mumsnet? A bit anal, and life is too short.....
Totally agree, there are times where I would expect spelling, punctuation and grammar to be correct and this would include CVs, letters of job applications, documents from schools and the like.
However, pointing out other people's errors on facebook, twitter a forum etc is something I consider to be quite rude and unnecessary. It also leaves you with egg on your face when you point out someone else's errors and you then have your own errors subsequently pointed out.
[now waits for someone to come along and point out my errors]. Disclaimer: I only have a pseudo RG degree, so I can be excused as inferior.
I do not usually on the internet point it out, but I thought it might be a helpful lesson. "poly's " is never right and it makes people look foolish and of course it does not matter on here, but it matters on CVs.
Where on earth did you hear that Oxford Brookes is popular with those who didn't get into Oxbridge?
Anyone who had the grades to even apply would be going to UCL, Manchester, Exeter, Bristol, Kings, Imperial, LSE, St. Andrews, Edinburgh- not UCAS points offering Oxford Brookes
POV, absolutely. This is why it is so important schools and parents do tell teenagers these things. No one would have a list in order of Oxford, Cambridge, Oxford B ex poly.
..unless you were wanting to marry an Oxford undergraduate in which case some women do deliberately target the town.
..unless you were wanting to marry an Oxford undergraduate in which case some women do deliberately target the town
What evidence do you have for such a claim?
As a university lecturer who does a lot of outreach work in a huge range of schools, I would be extremely surprised if you had any.
Universities are chosen for a range of reasons, some more personal than academic. Yes, there are cases where young people chose universities in particular places because of existing relationships. Both male and female BTW, rather than your sexist assumptions.
But the idea that many young women sweat blood over their A levels for the marriage market is absurd. What century do you think we are living in?
Loads. In fact Oxbridge men used to marry the language student girls in the towns. It's very well known.
Look at how many mumsnetters earn much less or nothing compared to their men and live off male earnings for most of their lives - it's common practice - women marry up and men's ego is flattered by the pretty little thing who was never up to much and could never have got into Oxbridge.
You do not have to sweat much blood over A levels for ex polys or language or cookery courses in towns were richer young men hang out.
Sadly I live in a century where 4 in 5 women choose to marry up, someone who earns more who is sa bit older and a bit better educated. It comes up on just about every mumsnet thread when we ask why the woman gave up work and not the man.
I second Xenia. I only filled in my UCAS form 4 years ago and there were girls applying Angela Ruskin and Oxford Brookes for this reason!
In fact Oxbridge men used to marry the language student girls in the towns. It's very well known
That is not evidence. First it is an anecdote, and second just because the marriages took place, that does not mean that the women chose their universities because they were planning to marry someone from Oxbridge.
If you have two earners it can make sense for the one of the lower income to reduce their work to care for children. It is usually the women because we live in a sexist society which generally pays women less and current state policy which gives massively more maternity rights than paternity encourage this.
I can't even work out what 'marrying up' or down means. But I guess that is because I believe in all forms of equality and reject the idea that some people are inherently better than other.
I'm obviously a 1 in 5 then...
Despite actively choosing to be a SAHM for 7 years, I am better educated than my husband (Oxbridge PhD vs London BA), and at the point I had children we earned exactly the same (to the £1 as I recall).
I cared for my children in their early years from a deep conviction - just as deep as yours, Xenia, but different - that my particular children would benefit more from having me as their primary carer and first educator in their early years than they would have done by me subcontracting that role and choosing to earn money instead.
So far I have no evidence whatever that my strategy has not been wholly successful.
What a strange and antiquated view. One thing that has struck me about my DDs and their peers is that they are not remotely interested in the idea of marriage or children, and certainly would not make any life decisions based on finding a man, of any description. Even those sorts of girls who are known as "Sloanes" are a very different animal to the ones in my day, who admittedly went for wealthy upper class men like heat seeking missiles, now they are bleached blonde, slightly orange and just as prone to falling out of nightclubs and sleeping around as their Newcastle and Cardiff peers, just with a posher accent.
And now that there are equal numbers of the sexes at universities including Oxbridge it can't be such a meat market anyway. The 1 girl for every 10 boys was a magnet for all those attending crappy secretarial colleges back in the 70s but now anyone forking out for that sort of thing would have much less chance of finding a husband, or getting a job...............
Employers have to much choice they reject them for the smallest of errors
Ha ha Xenia You do make such a fool of yourself sometimes, it's almost endearing
And another here who very much married down In fact when I met DH I was the one with a nice flat and well paid job.
I want to be wrong. Women earn more than men up to age 30 in the UK and 60% of UK graduates are female. Yet even under 30 those higher earning women still tend to marry men who earn a bit more, are a bit older, are a bit better educated. I am hoping that will change. As it has not changed yet by the time it comes to age 32 who gives up work to make babies, if any of them do, then the lower earner - women because she earns less gives up work. It is one of the main reasons women continue to do badly at work over age of 30. Hopefully it will change.
Xenia, As I have said before - and I am only playing this game at all because my view stems for a conviction as deep seated, as focused, and in many ways immovable as your own - the question of who earned more did not come into the equation when deciding who stayed at home with our children.
I will reiterate - I stayed at home with my children (not babies, children: tbh I would cheerfully have handed over my 3 month olds to anyone, but from 9 months to 5, that's a different story) because of a deep-rooted conviction that I was absolutely the right person to be their primary carer. Money was equal for either of us, but I was the right person.
Join the discussion
Please login first.