Is Lancaster a good university?

Don't have much to say, but don't you support the point, that we can't compare universities overall? Every single university has strong departments among with some not that good departments. The same is here. You might call me biased as I'm going to be a fresher this year, but from everything I read, Lancaster's power is in the Business/Management School. Lanc Management School and one more business department of university (cant remember the name) are the only rated 6* schools in the UK. And talking about research quality, lets take a look in RAE 2008 UNIT 36 Business and Managemenet Studies. It looks like Manchester, Warwick and Cardiff are the only universities with more overall research points. So what does that mean? That none of the so called "top 10" universities pay enough attention to researches and those researches show how up-to-date the teaching is.

How's Sheffield in comparison to Lancaster?

Hmmm...you're not one of those who thinks Newcastle and Liverpool are amongst the weaker Russell Group universities, but have nothing to back that up with?

It's hard to compare universities. Reading and Newcastle are of very different sizes for a start, with different strengths (Newcastle having a large medical school - something lacking in Reading). Reading's strengths being areas like business (through Henley) and Real Estate.

I think Newcastle is 15th in terms of research income. Higher than Warwick, LSE, Durham and certainly higher than Reading.

Even going by league tables Newcastle is often in the late teens and early 20s (with Reading, and Liverpool, in the 30s - 40s).

This, especially the last point, doesn't mean that I think Newcastle is significantly stronger than Reading. I just don't see why Newcastle is weaker than other universities who I'm assuming you (and others) think are stronger. From St Andrews, to Exeter, to Bath, to Leeds.

This isn't directed so much at orca92, but it will be interesting to know which universities he consider to be of a similar standard to Manchester.

You refer to Manchester's research quality, and is is certainy a university with very large research power. But in a number ofvdepartments Lancaster and Manchester having in common then it's Lancaster who offer research of a higher quality (and quantity) or there isn't too much in it. The difference between the two being size with Manchester having a far, far greater breadth of departments.

x

lol. how can you put those two wors together.''lancaster'' and ''good''

You're probably one of those people who go:

'ZOMG NOT TOP 5 THEREFORE NOT A GOOD UNI LOLOLOL'

Truth of the matter is that Lancaster is a great university.

lol.i was being sarcastic.

It is not only good for business, it is also good for arts and humanities; in fact it is rated 31st in the world for that.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/arts-and-humanities.html

I didn't say it was only good for business, I agree it has lots of strong subjects As do most universities.

It's a bloody good University. The grade requirements are AAA-AAB and in all of the league tables it comes very highly:

The Guardian - 7th
Complete University Guide - 9th
The Times - 9th
The Sunday Times - 18th

Now, as many have said, this doesn't provide absolute proof that it's a good University, but it shows the trend. Lancaster is highly-regarded, has high student satisfaction rates, a lot of spending and 98% of its research is considered 'world class', not to mention its Management School is considered the best in the country.