[wer343lit]

What do you mean by "gifted"?

If you mean all round very talented, then I imagine it could well be the Ivies, if they consider extra-curriculars to a greater extent than Oxbridge.

[Bramlow]

London Met has an abundance of 'special' people.

[TheProdigy2k9]

(Original post by ritchie888)
Well it was Reading from 2006 to 2009, but I'm going to Imperial this September so the most gifted will be there then.

Haha, nice.

[Toiletpaper8]

Central St Martins, IMO.

[Farhan.Hanif93]

Gifted with what? I'm confused, most people who use the word 'gifted' to describe a person tend to be referring to a particular trait. Which trait are you thinking of OP?

[Henerz]

(Original post by Leto)
Why would lots of ECs make a person more intelligent?

Because if you juggle having a life with doing well at uni, you're clearly more intelligent/gifted than someone who studies constantly and gets the same grades.

[im so academic]

(Original post by Bramlow)
London Met has an abundance of 'special' people.

But really, Oxbridge.

I would imagine Imperial to be up there as well.

[Complex Simplicity]

(Original post by tengil)
As the topic. At which university in the world will i find the truly gifted people.

The ones that are naturally intelligent and havent just studied their way to the top.

I've got the impression that you find more of these people at the top colleges in the US since they tend do focus more on the applicants essay and extra curriculars than pure grades.

What I'm basically asking is if it is equally likely to find these kinds of people in oxbridge as it is in the Ivies.

No. The UK universities, unlike their US counter parts, do not offer places at university based on full sports scholarships. Whilst there are anomalous exceptions, e.g. the former New Zealand Rugby captain's admittance into Oxford, these cases are so exception that they aren't even worth noting. UK universities put all their emphasis on academic brilliance as well as suitability to the course. Oxbridge in particular focus on admitting highly gifted individuals who'll lead their subject area in future. This is the reason why many people achieve perfect grades yet fail the interview (in addition to the high applicants).

So in short, there are likely to be a greater proportion of naturally gifted students at Oxbridge than Ivies as all get in through academic merit; moreover Oxbridge puts on emphasis specifically in admitting the exceptionally gifted.

[Complex Simplicity]

(Original post by Henerz)
Because if you juggle having a life with doing well at uni, you're clearly more intelligent/gifted than someone who studies constantly and gets the same grades.

This is nonsense. Having good time-management is not the same as being academically brilliant. There are many highly intelligent individuals who do not possess good time management skills. Moreover, time management; the ability to juggle studying with sports; is a skill that can easily be acquired.

[f00ddude]

as of next year i would deffo say plymouth
realistically though this is something that no one will ever know and any guesses will be purely guesses
a lot of people are screwed by the UKs school system

[Leto]

(Original post by Henerz)
Because if you juggle having a life with doing well at uni, you're clearly more intelligent/gifted than someone who studies constantly and gets the same grades.

But what about the people who get the grades without studying constantly but don't bother doing ECs. They'd get into Oxbridge but not the Ivies. Intelligence is just intelligence- it doesn't matter if you're captain of the football team or not. And even the captain of the football team may still study for exams.

[Complex Simplicity]

(Original post by Leto)
But what about the people who get the grades without studying constantly but don't bother doing ECs. They'd get into Oxbridge but not the Ivies. Intelligence is just intelligence- it doesn't matter if you're captain of the football team or not. And even the captain of the football team may still study for exams.

Indeed. And the people who can achieve a high standard without studying but choose to study to push themselves even further.

[PrinceOfCats]

I think we can all agree: mine.

[starforsure]

Ok so I was looking at the Guardian good uni guide and saw that RHUL and QMUL are really low in the list and unis like UEA and Surrey are much higher. Does this really mean that UEA and Surrey are better because it is much harder to get into the London unis.

So basically are these rankings relevant?

[Redreynard]

well some of the rankings are a bit politically correct. the key thing is to get into a university with a good research reputation. now the good london colleges are ucl, imperial, lse. king's and soas are also good. for some things goldsmith's. royal holloway and queen mary are good, but not as good as the other colleges i've mentioned. for my money they are probably at about the same level as surrey and UEA.

[starforsure]

(Original post by Redreynard)
well some of the rankings are a bit politically correct. the key thing is to get into a university with a good research reputation. now the good london colleges are ucl, imperial, lse. king's and soas are also good. for some things goldsmith's. royal holloway and queen mary are good, but not as good as the other colleges i've mentioned. for my money they are probably at about the same level as surrey and UEA.

So a first class English Lit degree from RHUL is the same as a first from Surrey? I dont know.

Also what about unis in the South of England like Kent, Sussex, Southampton?

[GnMvP]

Rankings are fine if you just wanna get an idea of how well respected each uni is.
Other than that it's more important to check the rankings per course..

[starforsure]

I see. But its still confusing because I did think RHUL was good. Its part of UoL. It looks classy plus my mates there act as if its the coolest uni ever ha.

But rankings change everything.

[Quady]

No they are the most important thing to know which university is best.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by starforsure)
Ok so I was looking at the Guardian good uni guide and saw that RHUL and QMUL are really low in the list and unis like UEA and Surrey are much higher. Does this really mean that UEA and Surrey are better because it is much harder to get into the London unis.

So basically are these rankings relevant?

Yes and no. Take them all with a pinch of salt, but there's a grain of truth in them.

It's probably best to take universities in bands. I'd say those unis were in the same band as Leeds, Liverpool and a few other red bricks, but behind Manchester, Nottingham, Edinburgh, etc, who in turn are behind UCL, Warwick, Durham, LSE and ICL, who are behind Oxbridge.

There's no point nitpicking over which uni may or may not have a marginally better reputation than any other.

In medicine rankings were completely useless. Guardian rankings are nothing like Times, they chance vastly from one year to the next and nobody cares where you studied anyway.