| Body | Hey folks, I've been having a bit of a dilemma choosing which uni I should go to for my history postgraduate. I've had offers for Glasgow's Modern History and Strathclyde's Historical Studies courses and I accepted the Strathclyde one. Part of the reason why I went with it is because one of my school pals did her undergraduate in history at Glasgow and didn't really like it at all, she said that the department barely offered any support and it was as if they wanted students to fail (she isn't just lazy either, she got nearly all A's at school, much better than me). She didn't even bother doing her honours and just went straight into a teaching course. Tuition fees also factored into it - after SAAS, Strathclyde is £1300 compared to £3000 at Glasgow. It would obviously be easier to fund the Strathclyde course, but if I can pull the money together for it, Glasgow might ultimately be the most beneficial in the longterm.
I just found today that my Glasgow offer hasn't been revoked (thought it would have been by now) and I've been thinking about accepting it instead. My pals from my undergraduate have been telling me the entire time that I should be going for Glasgow, but I don't know if this is really for any reason other than the prestige of a Russell Group uni (they can be pretty snobby and elitist). I'm wondering if I've maybe just been influenced by their way of thinking, but I'm aware that Strathclyde isn't really known for its humanities department, whereas Glasgow is, and it seems to have better onhand resources. It does seem to have a lot more variety anyway in its teaching anyway.
Thought it might be worth asking here to see what others think, cheers! |
|---|