UWS: Flying to hell or heaven???? (2 Viewers)

[Chahoud]

you are as dumb as a fucking doorknob. unlike you & your friends at uws, I dont define "success" as becoming pregnant at age 17 and dropping out of school then convincing the government i am disabled so i get additional welfare

i dont think you understand what the term ignorant means, I think you meant arrogant. But YOU, are infact ignorant. anyone that tried and got 60/70 atar should not be going to university in the first place, its just not for them, chances are they will drop out anyways or worse, scrape by with 30k of debt and a worthless degree. they should pick up a trade or learn to suck good cock.

no kid UWS is not the same any other university, why dont you get that?[/QUOTE]

thanks man really apperciate it , actually i dont even go to uws but ive been there and i can say its pretty good, and for your information im 17 and im not pregnant and havent dropped out of school and i wasnt talking about shit like that i was talking about actual successful people in life when you do your research come back to me
and i do understand what ignorant is and i actually meant "ignorant" not arrogant so get your facts right. you are such an ass its people like you that make no where in life.
yes it is.

 

[RANK 1]

Yes but saying that one uni is better than the other doesn't equate to saying that the latter is crap.

The problem is not in sayin that UNSW is better than UWS, the problem is in you saying UWS is not a good uni

this really depends on what u consider as a good uni. its pretty much universally accepted that top tier is usyd and unsw, second tier is uts and macquarie, and then u have the rest of the uni's like uws, australian catholic university, etc. just because uws may not be a shit uni doesnt mean its good. (uni's in nsw)

 

[mirakon]

this really depends on what u consider as a good uni. its pretty much universally accepted that top tier is usyd and unsw, second tier is uts and macquarie, and then u have the rest of uni's like uws, australian catholic university. just because uws may not be a shit uni doesnt mean its good.

as outlined earlier UWS is only considered "lower tier" because its new. Otherwise its getting more funding than top tier unis and lecturers from said top tier unis are lining up for UWS because Usyd treats them like crap. Objectively speaking its actually pretty good, not to mention for certain people its a lot easier to get to than other unis.

I don't see how its "not good". The only remotely "not good" thing highlighted by anyone is the lower ATAr cut-offs and even then this isn't an intrinsically bad thing at all.

 

[hungwell1337]

quite a few people make a great deal of money after dropping out of school. Uni is not the only parameter by which to define success.

are you retarded, not once did i provide a definition of success? not once did i doubt the ability of people like bill gates, but most of the time, your dropouts tend not to succeed.

no its got nothing to do with race

 

[mirakon]

you implied that drop outs aren't successful in a previous post. Also obviously if you're going to UWS you're not a drop-out derp.

again tell me what's wrong with the people at UWS. I know one guy who is a top bloke who goes to UWS

 

[RANK 1]

as outlined earlier UWS is only considered "lower tier" because its new. Otherwise its getting more funding than top tier unis and lecturers from said top tier unis are lining up for UWS because Usyd treats them like crap. Objectively speaking its actually pretty good, not to mention for certain people its a lot easier to get to than other unis.

I don't see how its "not good". The only remotely "not good" thing highlighted by anyone is the lower ATAr cut-offs and even then this isn't an intrinsically bad thing at all.

what about facility wise, i havent been to uws so i dont know how it is there, but i would doubt its as good as usyd or unsw

 

[RANK 1]

I know one guy who is a top bloke who goes to UWS

lol, just one?

 

[mirakon]

what about facility wise, i havent been to uws so i dont know how it is there, but i would doubt its as good as usyd or unsw

Facilities are actually pretty good from what I've seen of the faculty of medicine (the only part I visisted) and from the feedback I got facilities are good throughout. Its getting more funding as well because its in the GWS meaning that facilities will further improve in future most likely.

YEah I know of "just one"

 

[hungwell1337]

as outlined earlier UWS is only considered "lower tier" because its new. Otherwise its getting more funding than top tier unis and lecturers from said top tier unis are lining up for UWS because Usyd treats them like crap. Objectively speaking its actually pretty good, not to mention for certain people its a lot easier to get to than other unis.

I don't see how its "not good". The only remotely "not good" thing highlighted by anyone is the lower ATAr cut-offs and even then this isn't an intrinsically bad thing at all.

1. no, its because upon graduation, salary + employment within relevant fields is low compared to other universities

2. yes its getting more funding, because its got more campuses, and as a result of the low cutoffs there might be more students

3. where are you sourcing your information on lecturers from? last i checked, people only went to uws to attain more senior positions because they wouldnt attain them elsewhere

 

[Azure]

this really depends on what u consider as a good uni. its pretty much universally accepted that top tier is usyd and unsw, second tier is uts and macquarie, and then u have the rest of the uni's like uws, australian catholic university, etc. just because uws may not be a shit uni doesnt mean its good. (uni's in nsw)

I am literally laughing out loud at this. It's always the HSC kids (with no real world experience) who make these kind of baseless assumptions and attempt to pass them off as fact.

No it's not as black and white as what you're insinuating. Each university you just listed has it's strengths and weaknesses and when you make the claim that an institution is second tier, you need to take these factors into consideration. This is a classic example where context is paramount. A university is not a second tier institution because you find it convenient to neatly categorise it as one.

For example, USYD is known for the quality of it's law degree with UNSW not too far behind. In this context both UTS and MACQ lag behind. In the context of commerce and actuarial studies, Macquarie is extremely well regarded in industry (with the former being accepted as on par with USYD's commerce degree and the latter accepted as exceeding UNSW's offering in quality and reputation).

 

[RANK 1]

I am literally laughing out loud at this. It's always the HSC kids (with no real world experience) who make these kind of baseless assumptions and attempt to pass them off as fact.

No it's not as black and white as what you're insinuating. Each university you just listed has it's strengths and weaknesses and when you make the claim that an institution is second tier, you need to take these factors into consideration. This is a classic example where context is paramount. A university is not a second tier institution because you find it convenient to neatly categorise it as one.

For example, USYD is known for the quality of it's law degree with UNSW not too far behind. In this context both UTS and MACQ lag behind. In the context of commerce and actuarial studies, Macquarie is extremely well regarded in industry (with the former being accepted as on par with USYD's commerce degree and the latter accepted as exceeding UNSW's offering in quality and reputation).

yeh but this doesnt change the fact that overall usyd and unsw would be better than macquarie, i already know that macquarie is the strongest in the finance area.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

mi yewne iz beta den urz
fap fap fap 2 da thawt ov how gud mi yewni iz

 

[kaz1]

I am literally laughing out loud at this. It's always the HSC kids (with no real world experience) who make these kind of baseless assumptions and attempt to pass them off as fact.

No it's not as black and white as what you're insinuating. Each university you just listed has it's strengths and weaknesses and when you make the claim that an institution is second tier, you need to take these factors into consideration. This is a classic example where context is paramount. A university is not a second tier institution because you find it convenient to neatly categorise it as one.

For example, USYD is known for the quality of it's law degree with UNSW not too far behind. In this context both UTS and MACQ lag behind. In the context of commerce and actuarial studies, Macquarie is extremely well regarded in industry (with the former being accepted as on par with USYD's commerce degree and the latter accepted as exceeding UNSW's offering in quality and reputation).

macq student is mad

 

[Azure]

yeh but this doesnt change the fact that overall usyd and unsw would be better than macquarie, i already know that macquarie is the strongest in the finance area.

Yeah that's the problem, it's not a fact. You're making the implication that Macquarie is only highly regarded for its finance offerings, which is obviously demonstrative of your ignorance on the topic. But I digress because I'm not arguing for Macquarie University, I'm arguing against the way you reached your borderline ridiculous answer.

You missed the entire bit about context in my post (i.e. the entire post). What makes UNSW and UYSD better than UTS and MQ or even ACU (which is very well regarded for its teaching qualification by catholic schools)? There isn't just one thing. No university is going to be the best at everything.

 

[Azure]

macq student is mad

So very mad i cry at night and sing michael jackson songs before going to sleep (unsw 4 lyf bro)

Lol I honestly couldn't care less about how MQ is viewed as long as I find a good job. The point I'm trying to make is that people with no idea shouldn't pretend to know what they're talking about, because it gives some people a rather blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[RANK 1]

Yeah that's the problem, it's not a fact. You're making the implication that Macquarie is only highly regarded for its finance offerings, which is obviously demonstrative of your ignorance on the topic.

ok, what else is macquarie boss at ?

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Quality isn't going to differ to any real significant extent.

If you don't have a good reason (idk what but there probably are some), not going to the uni closest to you that offers the degree you want (where distance doesn't matter if you live in a location where multiple unis are similarish distance) is pretty dumb, imo.

 

[Azure]

ok, what else is macquarie boss at ?

Yeah that's the problem, it's not a fact. You're making the implication that Macquarie is only highly regarded for its finance offerings, which is obviously demonstrative of your ignorance on the topic. But I digress because I'm not arguing for Macquarie University, I'm arguing against the way you reached your borderline ridiculous answer.

You missed the entire bit about context in my post (i.e. the entire post). What makes UNSW and UYSD better than UTS and MQ or even ACU (which is very well regarded for its teaching qualification by catholic schools)? There isn't just one thing. No university is going to be the best at everything.

You're not reading my posts are you?

It has a reputation in: Accounting/Finance/Actuarial/Psychology/Economics/Anything international (ie international studies majors since it has a very impressive list of overseas connections/I could go on but this is deviating from what I was actually saying above.

I'm sure you're capable of doing your own research.

The whole basis of my post is to basically make the point that it is very hard to define the "best" university without taking into consideration context. Therefore the above list may be irrelevant to you. For example, I might decide that I don't like the subjects involved in a particular course of study at one university because they don't play on my strengths. This university may therefore not be "best" for me in this context. To further elaborate, think of a finance major. Some universities may have a very quantitative focus and as a student you might decide that you want to study more qualitative stuff. I'm sure you get my point.

 

[mirakon]

1. no, its because upon graduation, salary + employment within relevant fields is low compared to other universities

2. yes its getting more funding, because its got more campuses, and as a result of the low cutoffs there might be more students

3. where are you sourcing your information on lecturers from? last i checked, people only went to uws to attain more senior positions because they wouldnt attain them elsewhere

1. What do you mean "relevant fields"? Plus where's your evidence. Provide a source.

2. The reason why it gets more funding is irrelevant. The point is its getting a lot which equates to potentially better facilities in the near future.

3. I'm sourcing it from a guy who knows a lot of uni lecturers IRL

 

[hungwell1337]

1. What do you mean "relevant fields"? Plus where's your evidence. Provide a source.

2. The reason why it gets more funding is irrelevant. The point is its getting a lot which equates to potentially better facilities in the near future.

3. I'm sourcing it from a guy who knows a lot of uni lecturers IRL

1. By relevant fields i mean, someone that studies arts/law becomes a lawyer instead of working at kings cross

2. unsw spends their funding improving their campus etc. UWS has to divide their funding across a few campuses. The benefit each campus reaps is less as a result, how is that irrelevant?

3. my father is an academic, i think my sources are more reliable than yours