What You Need to Know When Choosing a University
I have studied in Universities from those at the top of the league tables (Cambridge) to those at the other end (West London), as well as having taught, studied and worked with colleagues at a number of others in between.
When selecting a university, The Times Higher or Guardian and QS league tables are invaluable.
https://lnkd.in/epHd27Eg
https://lnkd.in/efFyYDKR
https://lnkd.in/eGUFAsaM
Basically, go for a university that is as high up the league tables as you can get (will accept you). My advice is - if you cannot get into one in the top third then think seriously about reapplying or an alternative career. Unless it is for a professional qualification and/or there are other factors to consider.
It is not a question or prejudice; it is a question of professionalism.
It is a truism that people who are good at what they do, do not need to put others down.
AS A RULE, the higher up the league tables you go the more professional (better) the attitude of the people you will meet there.
A university education used to be about teaching people to think critically so that they could go on to solve society’s problems. (Develop new medicines, grow crops better, predict economic behaviour, etc.)
You are more likely to get this kind of education in those institutions in the top third of the league tables. Those occupying the 33%-50% bracket are still likely to be ‘old’ universities with this ethos but they will be the weaker of the bunch.
The lower half of the league tables tend to be occupied by former polytechnics (‘new universities’) who tend to emphasis the importance of teaching over research, principally because they cannot compete with the old universities on research publications.
This is a bit of a red herring – as mentioned, a degree is intended to be more than just ‘A’- levels on steroids; it is intended to teach you how to think critically about problems.
In my experience, the staff in the universities occupying the bottom half of the league tables are more likely to be the kind of people who think that putting others down is synonymous with intelligence.
It is a way of keeping down the competition (others who might make them look as 'average' as they really are) and it goes without saying that this attitude is not conducive to the objectives for which universities were founded.
Similarly, the students in such institutions tend to be those who take the attitude that others are to blame for their failings. Since they are good enough to be accepted there (and by implication, good enough to get a degree) any failings must, therefore, be down to the teaching, rather than their lack of ability or willingness to persevere.
It is horses for courses - well students for courses, but you get what I mean.
