In a message dated 17/12/2005 21:27:57 GMT Standard Time,
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Entirely likely, Peter, because Lancaster was built at the
same
time in exactly the same piecemeal fashion - but I will
still
maintain that Lancaster managed to create an environment
where
the collegiate system seemed to be regarded much more
favourably
than was the case at UKC.
The difference IMO is
that Kent seemed to be fashioned much more
on the Oxbridge model,
with each college a self-contained unit.
This wasn't the case with
Lancaster, at least during my time
there the system positively
encouraged you to mix between
colleges, e.g. as regards food. My own
college had nothing but
the coffee bar, the next college down the
line had the infamous
"grease pit", the long-hours snack bar and the
only place for
breakfast, the next college had a standard refectory,
the next
the salad bar, then came the one with the fish and chip shop
-
well, you get the idea. Which college you ate in depended more
or
less on what you wanted to eat.
I had
Lancaster as my 1st Choice and they gave my a brilliant offer of a C
and 2 D's, but once I had seen UKC (which was my last choice), I didn't
want to go to Lancaster any more amd I accepted Kent's then standard offer
of a B and a C and had Lancaster as my back up offer. My husband's cousin
and her husband were professors at Lancaster and I did visit it after we
were married and I had graduated from UKC - I'm even more glad I went to
UKC after I saw the Lancaster
campus!
