31–40 of 446 posts
"Durham University improved by 30 places year-on-year"
Seems a bit suspicious, no? What methodology change led to this result? How can a university that was previously not as well-regarded become the #3 in the country overnight?
pg thinks this is because of letting in poor people: https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1969334665375813679
The comic in https://pjhollis123.medium.com/careful-mate-that-foreigner-w... is, as ever, very relevant.
See also, Bernie 10 years ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0&pp=ygUVYmVybmllIG9...
I don't know at what point people were convinced that the push against immigration is some kind of billionaire plot, but is has been great cover for said billionaires.
Edit: Sorry, I only looked at the Engineering ans Technology ranking. Anyway, QS ranking is vastly different from the Times' ranking.
I remember the joke in "Yes Minister" about LSE. How times have changed.
I also wonder the world is now more American focused, how do they rank against Harvard, MIT or other US Universities.
1. LSE 2. University of St Andrews 3. Durham University 4. Oxford and Cambridge 6. Imperial College London
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be wonderful if we could, just once, have a conversation about something happening outside the US without bringing in US culture war talking points.
Publicly cheering Kirk's murder is what made Abaraonye notable. I provided a citation for the ABB grades, which is relevant to the comment I replied to.
An extremely tenuous connection. Abaraonye (and even less his words on Kirk) had absolutely no relevance to the criteria by which the Times assesses universities, thus had no impact on Oxfords placement, thus has no relevance to the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Is it? Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, Prince Charles with his private school and dedicated personal tutors.
We're not talking about individual cases, we're talking about statistical averages.
pg thinks this is because of letting in poor people: https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1969334665375813679
This is extremely unfair framing. Oxford University has been discriminating people from independent schools for a while now. To get in, you need 4 A* from an independent schools, or just 3 As from state schools. That's not "letting in poor people" as you framed it. It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Lots of that is mainly based on classism (against people from middle class), racism (against white people).…
It's a very bold assertion that A level grades are the ultimate arbiter of "dumbness".
pg thinks this is because of letting in poor people: https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/1969334665375813679
The list is semi-bullshit and not just based on student performance, so I'd say he's talking out of his arse.
None of my Cambridge uni friends would have applied to go to America because of contextual admissions criteria.
In any case taking someone's background into account is actually the logical thing to do. Who do you think would do better: an Eton student who scored 50% on the test, or a comprehensive student who scored 49%? The answer is pretty obvious and they're right to try and get the best students; not just those that score best on admission tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Is it? Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, Prince Charles with his private school and dedicated personal tutors.
We're not talking about individual cases, we're talking about statistical averages.
An article on the site says “Durham wins University of the Year and dismisses Oxbridge reject stereotype.”
Not to be cold, but willing to bet that a good chunk of the Durham student population are those that were passed over by Oxbridge.