Which UK universities apart from Oxbridge are comparable to the Ivy Leagues?

Indulge me. What is a 'throwaway degree'

PM me.

Frankly, I don't believe that any non oxbridge school can compete with the likes of Columbia, Penn, and Duke let alone Harvard, Yale and Princeton. These schools are perpetually ranked among the best schools in the world, have won many nobel prizes in the last few years, and are extremely selective. I go to St Andrews and was rejected from all the above schools without even being wait listed. Furthermore, we cannot complete with their massive endowments and great research output.

No offence but getting into American universities requires a different skill set to that of UK ones. Plus, assuming you applied as an international student from England, it is little wonder you didn't get in, as they hardly take anyone at all. You have to be good at things like sport, extra-curricular activities, etc. So that comparison means nothing.

They are ranked among the best in the world because league tables are weighted to be advantageous to US institutions. If you are going on nobel prize winners, Oxford hasn't won a noble prize since the 1980s....

Again, do you actually understand what an endowment is?

Also obviously if you compare somewhere like St. Andrews to the top universities, it won't be good for research. St. Andrews isn't that research focussed....



Compare the likes of LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, it isn't too different... The first 3 actually rank higher than the likes of Duke on almost all of the rankings you cited. So the whole thing seems illogical...

Well, LSE doesn't rank higher than Duke or Penn on either times or QS historically. ICL ranks higher than Columbia, but that doesn't make it a better school. The US schools are far more selective, and produce more research. Duke for instance receives $ 1 billion every year just to conduct research. Do you believe ICL or UCL can hold a candle to those numbers? Also, the historical difference between Duke and UCL is a mere 3 spots. Do you think that number compensates for the disparity in research and student faculty interaction? To put the rankings more in perspective, Duke went from being ranked 52nd in the world in 2004 to 11th in the world in 2005. How much emphasis can you really place on rankings that are so variable? Do you really think the University of Edinburgh is 50 spots better than Dartmouth?? The fact remains that these rankings try to accommodate more European and Asian schools in an effort to come across as egalitarian. Whether we like it or not, we cannot compete with the Americans in the education market. To illustrate the anti US bias, take a look at the financial times MBA rankings. Previously unranked IIM A (india) is ranked higher than Chicago's Booth. This is in spite of the fact that an IIM A grad earns $25,000 dollars on average, and a Booth grad earns $170,000 on average. See what I mean?

So you're saying that the US schools don't have higher endowments? Don't they offer higher salaries to faculty members? Also, most IIM kids work abroad, the average of the students who work abroad is only marginally higher at $27,000. What do you have to say about that? Don't act disdainful just because you can't compete on an equal footing. I'm english myself, but there is no way we can compete with the american schools. It's a fact that we must learn to accept.

Oxford won a nobel prize most recently in 2007, 21 since 1980 and 14 since 1995.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/oxford_people/oxonian_award_winners/index.html

I'm currently an international student interested in applying to both sides of the atlantic for university. I was wondering apart from Oxbridge, which British universities can compete with the Ivy League schools in terms of:

-Teaching Quality
-Job prospects (in general)
-International Prestige/Reputation/wow factor (whatever you wanna call it)

Oxford won a nobel prize most recently in 2007, 21 since 1980 and 14 since 1995.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/oxford_people/oxonian_award_winners/index.html

There's a difference between an Oxonian winning it/someone with an affiliation of Oxford and it being done at Oxford.

There hasn't been one that has been won at Oxford since the 1980s. I.E Where the research is carried out. In that respect, it is fair to say, that our American counterparts are well ahead. Fact.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/andrew-oswald-theres-nothing-nobel-in-deceiving-ourselves-764880.html

'Let us instead, a bit more coolly, do what people in universities are paid to do. Let us use reliable data to try to discern the truth. In the last 20 years, Oxford has won no Nobel Prizes. (Nor has Warwick.) Cambridge has done only slightly better. Stanford University in the United States, purportedly number 19 in the world, garnered three times as many Nobel Prizes over the past two decades as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge did combined.' - Andrew Oswald; who I am pretty sure knows his stuff.

Why did you delete and post the same point like 4 times? I guess you wanted a response.

Ok, Nobel prize-winning research hasn't been conducted at Oxford in the last 20 years. However, that doesn't bother me as I'm an ugrad, and nobel prize-winning research isn't going to have any impact on the teaching quality. So long as the university can attract researchers of nobel prize winning calibre, and attracts good students, some of whom, will go on to do nobel-prize winning research that's probably good enough and probably good enough for the reputation of the university.

What's that got to do with the thread.... I don't care about your personal education, we were talking about how Oxford hasn't had any nobel prize winning research done in 20 odds years which you wrongly challenged.

Anyway, I didn't mean to post it four times, it happened because the posts weren't approved for some reason until later on and so it appeared as spam. So I deleted it to not spam.

There's a difference between an Oxonian winning it/someone with an affiliation of Oxford and it being done at Oxford.

There hasn't been one that has been won at Oxford since the 1980s. I.E Where the research is carried out.

This isn't true.

Heaney (1995) wrote some of the poetry mentioned in his citation whilst Professor at Oxford

Amartya Sen (1998) carried out much of the research for which he received his prize at Oxford.

Mirrlees (1996) carried out all of his prize-winning research at Oxford.

Well, I am inclined to take the word of Andrew Oswald who is carrying out research in this area and is a notable professor at at top UK institution who I have quoted and given the source for above.

I don't think the first two really count at all. I am not sure about the third one but as I say, I am inclined to take the word of a top professor carrying out research in this area.

Over the last 20 years, the US has been awarded 126 Nobel Prizes compared to Britain's nine.

Well, I am afraid he is just plain wrong. He also says in his article you quoted published in 2007:-



You can check these names and nationalities on the Nobel Prize site http://www.nobelprize.org/

Doris Lessing 2007
Martin Evans 2007
Harold Pinter 2005
Clive Granger 2003
Tony Leggett 2003
Peter Mansfield 2003
Sydney Brenner 2002
John Sulston 2002
Tim Hunt 2001
Paul Nurse 2001
V S Naipal 2001
John Hume 1998
David Trimble 1998

That is 13 names in 10 years.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers.

In any case, whether it is 7 or 13, our US counterparts are blowing us out of the water here. Also can't you be a British national but win it in America (as in at an US institution)? So what he said isn't necessarily wrong.