Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,844
- Location
- Leeds
not really adding to the topic but don't go to leeds met, bloody useless
Old polytechnics
- Thread starter sniffy
- Start date
Whatever you do, I'd say make sure you pick a sandwich course. A year out in industry is likely to be your best bet for securing a job at the end of the degree (especially so if you're not relying on your University's reputation to sell your abilities).
If you don't do a sandwich course, then definitely make use of your summers and apply for internships early. You'd be amazed at the number of doors opened by doing just a 4-6 week placement at large companies like Deloitte, Shell etc...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,759
- Location
- Falling...
Loughborough was a polytech, now it's one of the top unis for engineering. It's also well regarded for it's business and computer studies. Obviously sport is the main thing it's known for.
I'd personally do something like business management and IT or something a bit broader and more useful.
I'd personally do something like business management and IT or something a bit broader and more useful.
The colloquial usage of "Polytechnic" universities generally means these ones... the post-1992 or "modern" universities.
Updated with overall university rankings from The Times. Make of them what you will.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 2,240
- Location
- Hampshire
Most grad schemes don't desciminate on university until after the automated filtering. Hence if you want to get into a big corporate then any degree is good for getting past the first round and it's probably easier to get a 1st at a poly than a uni due to the competition you're facing.
That said when I asked much the same question during my own build up to uni I got the rough answer 2.2 from Oxbridge => 1st from Poly => 2.1 from uni. Another point is that you are more likely to build up a network of successful people who will help you the more respectable (in employer's eyes) a university you attend.
That said when I asked much the same question during my own build up to uni I got the rough answer 2.2 from Oxbridge => 1st from Poly => 2.1 from uni. Another point is that you are more likely to build up a network of successful people who will help you the more respectable (in employer's eyes) a university you attend.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
Correct me if i'm wrong, but when polys mark their students work it was (maybe still is?) marked collectively, whereas the 'real' universities mark internally so there's usually more corruption (allegedly) about who gets a first and such. Maybe all change now, but this is just what my dad said when he attended a polytechnic in the 80's
My old department (KCL, physics) has nearly done away with the coursework components of most courses (apart from project and the like) simply because there is so much paperwork when things need to be marked, double marked and sent off for external checking and validation etc... so they just stick to exams mainly now.
In the good old days of the proper polys this could very much be the case, many polys offered degrees through other bodies. For example at what is now Oxford Brookes you could do what was knows as the London External Degree. The lectureres at the Poly taut the sylabus as prescribed by one of the London Uni's and then at the end of the year students sat the same exam as their London counterparts. These were all then marked back at the London Univerosty, obviously candiadates at the London Univeristy had relationships with and access to the tutours who set out the cousrse and the exam papers so it was considered harder to get a good degree as a London External candiadate than if you attended the proper London University.
Not really the case anymore and having attended both a 'proper' university (Nottingham) and an ex poly (Derby) the standards at the 'real' University were much much higher, allthough that hasn't prevented many of my friends from Derby getting good jobs with the like of deloitte, I would say if your going to an ex poly a 2:1 or better is the minimum that you should leave with.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
That explains that one! But it's still the case that you want to leave an ex-poly with a good degree to make it worth while I see, whereas you could in theory get away with a lower one from a 'real' university. Though to be honest, if I myself got lower than a 2-1 I'd personally deem going to uni a waste of time 
I think it should be pointed out that ex poly's are "real" universities now and have been for nearly 2 decades.
The practices in most of them are akin to the practices found in former "real" universities.
This thread makes it sound like by going to an institution that was a poly nearly 20 years ago, you will have a much easier time of it. That simply isnt the case. They are all "proper" universities now and the difficulty of the course and how strict the marking is, is very much defined by the staff at that specific institution.
The staffs Comp Sci department for example is (or at least was) run by a fairly strict and clever little guy who taught some very in depth mathematical encryption modules, certainly above anything manc uni teaches their undergrads on that subject! His marking (and therefore the departments) was very harsh and many people i fully expected to get a first got a 2:1. The number of people getting firsts was still around the same percentage as universites like this one.
Similarly im not sure the 1st at a ex poly = 2:1 at a "good" uni = 2:2 at Oxford is a comparison that can be realistically made at all.
For me the only major difference between universities is a) their location and b) how good their staff are and c) their research rating.
often a and c are where the ex poly's fall below the "real" universities. and for a lot of people, that doesn't matter.
The practices in most of them are akin to the practices found in former "real" universities.
This thread makes it sound like by going to an institution that was a poly nearly 20 years ago, you will have a much easier time of it. That simply isnt the case. They are all "proper" universities now and the difficulty of the course and how strict the marking is, is very much defined by the staff at that specific institution.
The staffs Comp Sci department for example is (or at least was) run by a fairly strict and clever little guy who taught some very in depth mathematical encryption modules, certainly above anything manc uni teaches their undergrads on that subject! His marking (and therefore the departments) was very harsh and many people i fully expected to get a first got a 2:1. The number of people getting firsts was still around the same percentage as universites like this one.
Similarly im not sure the 1st at a ex poly = 2:1 at a "good" uni = 2:2 at Oxford is a comparison that can be realistically made at all.
For me the only major difference between universities is a) their location and b) how good their staff are and c) their research rating.
often a and c are where the ex poly's fall below the "real" universities. and for a lot of people, that doesn't matter.
If you really believe that then I'm afraid your living in an alternate reality, yes there are some very very good ex polys out there but there is a much longer list of very average establishments handing out very average degrees to very average students. I re-iterate I have ettended both types of institution and seen this with my own eyes. I would certainly consider anything less than a 2:1 from most of the old polys a failure and put a 1st on about a par with a 2:1 from a redbrick establishment. I don't put oxbridge above the other red bricks unless you are pursuing a career like politics where Oxbridge is a percieved advantage.
BTEC National Diploma for IT Practitioners, with no particular specialtyI'm not entirely sure how favourably they looked on it, I was accepted before the interview, but I think my reference did a lot to help me
Burnsy
Oh right
I've seen my reference and it is very good so hopefully that helps me in this instance. Well I'm going to apply to Southampton anyway (without effecting my current choices), I'll see what happens. Chance I will get offered a place is slim but it's better then nothing By the way, are you doing a MEng or BSC? I see the MEng involves work within the industry.Seriously, thanks to everyone who has replied. I still appreciate further comments
Last edited:
I have also experienced both types of university and i still maintain you cannot judge a university simply based on whether it was deemed a polytech nearly 20 years ago or whether it was officially a "university".
You HAVE to look at it objectively, from a department to department basis, based on the staff and also the institutions main aim. Is it to turn people who want to be industry workers into researchers? or is it the other way round etc etc. Whats right for one is totally wrong for another, hence i believe saying that all polys are bad is just blinkered and illogical. Similarly sayign that all redbricks are definately better in every respect is just as blinkered.
Horses for courses.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
a lot of allied health professions degrees - are run through ex polys
anything that used to be taught just in hospital - radiography, podiatry, speech and language therapy, occupational health - which now has to be taught to a degree level - have been taken in by the polys as the 'red brick' established unis couldn't accommodate another department
i graduated from UCE (now Birmingham City Uni) - according to UCAS there are only 8 universities that teach the degree, so it's makes a mockery of the university ranking system for courses like this
people who suggest that ex poly degrees are less well respected - cannot generalise to courses that are only (or mostly) run by polys - as there is no 'red brick' alternative to compare them to
anything that used to be taught just in hospital - radiography, podiatry, speech and language therapy, occupational health - which now has to be taught to a degree level - have been taken in by the polys as the 'red brick' established unis couldn't accommodate another department
i graduated from UCE (now Birmingham City Uni) - according to UCAS there are only 8 universities that teach the degree, so it's makes a mockery of the university ranking system for courses like this
people who suggest that ex poly degrees are less well respected - cannot generalise to courses that are only (or mostly) run by polys - as there is no 'red brick' alternative to compare them to
Last edited:
What about universities that teach medicine and have an affiliated hospital, e.g. King's/GKT (Guys, King's, St Thomas Hospitals) and UCL (University College Hospital)..?
What is computing if not maths
This is one area the "business" uni's (mostly ex poly's) and the "research" uni's (mostly the original universities) do differ. The research unis do put a greater bias on pure maths applications while the "business" unis tend to focus on implementation rather than how the implementations themselves work. Again, whichever is right for your own needs.
My A Level maths are exactly why I ended up at Staffs rather than Manchester or York etc for my BSc. I went through an odd period where I believed I couldnt do maths at all in any real way... the "gentler" approach to the maths side of things at Staffs actually led to me building my confidence to the point where my maths skills dont show me up even at PhD level at Manchester, yet I dont even have an A Level in maths!
I think the major differences lie in the fact that "cs maths" doesnt tend to focus on formal definition, rather usage, while for pure mathmeticians, the ability to formally define formulae is fundamental to their cause. Both subjects go hand in hand but are still disperate enough so as not to be lumped together.