Why is everyone going to UNSW? (1 Viewer)

[mecramarathon]

ok enough

no one should rely on a "bible" solely for their uni choies. u should realise the potential for the GUG to be flawed (esp how many parts in the book e.g. overall satisfaction, were left blank for the less well known universities) and how ratings can change dramatically in the long term. as well, how did the GUG get their data? is it a heterogenous sample of the student population? is it accredited?

IMO both USYD and UNSW are universities that are the envy of international students worldwide, they have fantastic teaching resources, leading academics and reputable alumni. so it really doesn't matter which one you pick, and i say that for all universities in australia. going to uni is a privilege and increasingly a necessity in this modern age.

but to choose a uni because it doesn't have "fobby asians" or "rich snobs" or it has a "better social vibe" or "not a shit location" or "ugly gargoyle buildings" or "u never see whites" should play very little or no influence on your decision

just my 2 cents

 

[Shadowdude]

They were left blank, to my understanding - because not enough people had returned the Course Experience Questionnaire.

The GUG get their data from the Government (DEEWR), those Course Experience Questionnaires from recent graduates and from the universities themselves. So from my perspective, it's pretty reputable. Other people don't think so. But as I've said before, it's a guide - not the answer.

 

[tommykins]

Freeworld - you won't talk to the hot chicks, so many kids like you go to uni with the whole ZOMG SOCIALISE AND TALK TO HOT CHIXX - but you won't

ShadowDude - you really gotta stfu about your GUG and all this shit. it's so retarded. as much as i think usyd is overrated (just due to mates experience/people that go there..) doesn't really make it a better or worse univeristy.f

 

[Shadowdude]

Freeworld - you won't talk to the hot chicks, so many kids like you go to uni with the whole ZOMG SOCIALISE AND TALK TO HOT CHIXX - but you won't

ShadowDude - you really gotta stfu about your GUG and all this shit. it's so retarded. as much as i think usyd is overrated (just due to mates experience/people that go there..) doesn't really make it a better or worse univeristy.f

It's an opinion thing though.

 

[FreeWorld]

To the nerdy asian tommykins, I'm in my 2nd year in uni and I've talked to a lot of girls already. So please don't compare your ugly face with others...

I mean of course you don't socialise because you're doing civil eng, all ugly ass people.

 

[FreeWorld]

Freeworld - you won't talk to the hot chicks, so many kids like you go to uni with the whole ZOMG SOCIALISE AND TALK TO HOT CHIXX - but you won't

ShadowDude - you really gotta stfu about your GUG and all this shit. it's so retarded. as much as i think usyd is overrated (just due to mates experience/people that go there..) doesn't really make it a better or worse univeristy.f

u mad bro?

 

[xXmuffin0manXx]

It's not misleading, iSplicer... it's government information. Official government information. Say what you want, but it's true. You can even check the DEEWR data yourself. Who is to say the government information is wrong?

I suppose I just have a lot of trust when it comes to authorities and what they tell me?

oxymoron? or am i just a pessimist lol

 

[slyhunter]

u mad bro?

Wtf.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

this guy in one of my class last semester said that usyd is technologically backwards compared to unsw

 

[Mature Lamb]

this guy in one of my class last semester said that usyd is technologically backwards compared to unsw

Dude your sig is disturbing.. my childhood innocence

I love USyd vs. UNSW threads

 

[fuckit1991]

fuckit1991, concede? No, that's called finality. I compared you successfully to a 12 year old. So it's end of debate, and you lose.

Dude, don't be such a fucking loser. Go hang your head in shame, you pathetic dweeb.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Dude your sig is disturbing.. my childhood innocence

I love USyd vs. UNSW threads

grow a penus

 

[Shadowdude]

So anyway, after I won - we can move onwards to more pressing matters. And yes, that signature pic is quite... wierd. And disturbing somewhat. <_<

 

[fuckit1991]

So anyway, after I won - we can move onwards to more pressing matters. And yes, that signature pic is quite... wierd. And disturbing somewhat. <_<

Don't try that deflecting shit, you scumbag. At least eat your crow when it's served to you, you tool.

 

[Shadowdude]

Don't try that deflecting shit, you scumbag. At least eat your crow when it's served to you, you tool.

Dude, I already won. Or, in picture form:

= fuckit1991

 

[fuckit1991]

Dude, I already won. So right now you are:

Lol, go put up your win on your whiteboard, you pathetic tool. Gosh, please don't fucking reproduce for the sake of humanity though thankfully, given your shitness, there's a pretty low chance of that.

 

[Shadowdude]

Again:

To the OP, I took the liberty of looking at a few more world rankings.

The 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' uses a formula as such: "alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories (20 percent), articles published in Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (20 percent) and the per capita academic performance (on the indicators above) of an institution (10 percent)". The creators explained that that is for only finding academic and research performance.

I don't see anything there that has any direct relevance to an undergrad student.

The 4icu.org Ranking ranks by web popularity. Again, absolutely nothing relevant to learning environments for undergrad students.

And the prestigious 'Times Higher Education World University Rankings' has 13 separate performance indicators. 30% of the overall ranking score is based on the learning environment.

Reputation, income and research volume is worth 30%. But do we really care about that as an undergrad student? In my opinion, no - because it has nothing to do with my experience at university. Research influence is worth 32.5%, and that is absolutely useless for us as well - because it counts the times that an academic work by a person at the university was cited. Again, nothing to do with what I'm going to do in undergrad work. International mix? Not much as well - but that has 5% weighting.

A picture is below that explains their methodology:

So on the surface, it appears only 30% of their factors directly influences us. But let's look at that more closely.

PhD awards per academic? 6%? A good lecturer doesn't have to be a PhD to be good. So let's lessen that to 24% of their ranking has direct relevance to undergrad students.
Income per academic? 2.25%? What does that have to do with anything?

Say the same thing for ratio of PhD awards to bachelors awards... that has little to no relevance at all. Perhaps only the reputational survey of teaching and undergraduates admitted per academics - totalling 19.5% of the Times rankings has any direct relevance to us.


So can you see why I don't trust these world rankings as much as some people here say I should?

 

[fuckit1991]

Again:

Man, we get it. You can use a fucking emoticon. Glad the Good Emoticon Guide taught you some good shit. Now just stop it, you fuckwit.

 

[Shadowdude]

You know, I use pictures because you couldn't understand it when I said, "I won the argument. Now you're flogging a dead horse". So hopefully you'll get it with the picture cue:

And to add on to my previous post - the 6% weighted factor of PhD awards per academic staff may actually have some consequences in better undergrad learning.

 

[fuckit1991]

You know, I use pictures because you couldn't understand it when I said, "I won the argument. Now you're flogging a dead horse". So hopefully you'll get it with the picture cue:

The one thing we all get is you're a fucking loser who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.