>>12796971depends on the field, as stated by
>>12794031my uni is pretty much mid to shin in everything except for about 2-3 subfields where its really top notch. not world class, but still pretty good. and one of those fields is where im doing my research in. doesnt matter if it is overall 500+, in my field our competitors are 100+ unis. but getting into a 500+ uni is much easier while I still do work in labs equivalent to 100+ uni. whos the retard now, retard?
also, by your logic everyone should study/work for a top 10 uni and everyone else should just not bother - a very flawed line of thinking, because the top unis are using work from other, lesser unis to develop it further. most research in the world is in fact done by them. top research is worth nothing without prior research used to support it/develop it. "if i have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
Also, to finally refute your point at is core - for a theorist equipment means absolute shit because theorists are not using any equipment - only pen and paper, sometimes - a basic desktop computer. And regarding funding: know-how is always more important than funding or equipment, because if you have sufficient know-how, you can get by with little funding just fine, you just have to not waste it and use it in a smart way. On the other hand, no amount of funding will ever be enough if you misuse it because you dont know what you're doin or (in your case) are just stupid
