Loughborough or Nottingham or Newcastle????

I have applied to study Media and Communication to all three places. I am not originally from the UK however so i would appreciate it if you guys could tell me which one of these you think is best. I have checked the league tables and they all point Loughborough and Nottingham as better but i have also heard a lot about Loughborough still having a reputation mostly for sport rather than academic achievements.
THANKS!!!!!

Reply 1

TheSownRose

Original post by Ellie844

They're all pretty much even for academic reputation.

Haven't been to any, so these are just things I've picked from other people (but then, what else is reputation?), but Loughborough is a sporty 'lads' uni, Newcastle is a party uni and Nottingham is a social uni.

Reply 2

polka_dott

There is far more to Loughborough than sports...one good thing about that though is that there are open green spaces :smile:

Reply 3

booksnob

Here's my two cents: I've met loads of intelligent yet unassuming, lovely people from Loughborough :smile:

Reply 4

AfghanistanBananistan

Nottingham ranks better domestically and internationally (majorly so over the last 2 decades), has always had a better quality of students in terms of A-Level grades, is more targeted by top recruiters and more prominent in major careers like the media, law and banking. Nottingham is also richer and bigger than the other two and a major player in the Russel Group.

It is as the Fulbright Commission says: 'Nottingham is one of the UK's oldest, largest and most prestigious universities'. It neglects to mention the other two in such lofty terms.

Seems no contest to me and the above are all facts if you want to check.

In terms of social life, Nottingham and Newcastle are about tied and you would enjoy both, whereas Loughborough students wish they were in Nottingham because the latter is very very boring.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5

River85

Original post by AfghanistanBananistan

Media? Kate Adie went to Newcastle :p:

Nottingham is also richer and bigger than the other two and a major player in the Russel Group.

Bigger isn't necessarily better. Newcastle in particular is still a relatively large university. But why is Nottingham, being a "major player in the Russel (sic) Group", of any significant benefit to the undergraduate applicant? If you think it is then fair enough but explain why. Otherwise you're just going around stating semi-facts

Most importantly, how is it much more of a "major player" in the Russell Group than Newcastle? The difference in research income wasn't huge last time I checked and both are amongst the top fifteen in the country.

It is as the Fulbright Commission says: 'Nottingham is one of the UK's oldest, largest and most prestigious universities'. It neglects to mention the other two in such lofty terms.

Seems no contest to me and the above are all facts if you want to check.

Not really.

The Fullbright Commission quote. It is fact that they made that statement, yes, but that statement is opinion disguised as fact.

But let's look at the statement.

1. Nottingham is one of the largest universities in the UK. Yes, that is true, but as already mentioned does large equal better? Do people always want big? It doesn't follow that that Nottingham being larger than Newcastle (which is still relatively large) means it's better. Just like Newcastle isn't better than Loughborough on the basis of its size alone.

The key words being "one of" for, according to their criteria, they'd probably also including Newcastle.

2. Nottingham is one of the oldest universities in the UK.....not really. Depending on which date we take Newcastle is actually older than Nottingham. Newcastle, as a place of higher education, can be traced back to the 1830s. Nottingham can be traced back to 1881.

Yes, Newcastle didn't become an independent university until the early 1960s. But you fail to mention that Nottingham only an independent university in 1948. So both are post-war. I don't think those fifteen years or so are significant?

At the end of the day age doesn't necessarily equal quality. Even if it did then Nottingham isn't exceptionally old. Outside Oxford, Cambridge and the Scottish Ancients a significant number of the remaining universities of a similar age - most founded within the same generation or two (Durham, UCL, KCL, redbricks...).

Nottingham (and Durham, UCL and the rest) are infants, or at best toddlers, compared to the ancients. So don't exaggerate just how old it is. As an independent university it isn't even 80 years old.

2. Nottingham is one of the most prestigious. Erm...can they define and measure prestige? Do they even attempt to define it in the report? Going around and using words, without it making it clear what you're actually referring to, means that what you say is almost meaningless.

I've read loads of profiles and reports, anything from the Sunday Times profiles to prominent groups and commissions, who are equally glowing of Newcastle or Loughborough. I seem to remember Newcastle being described. Places like Birmingham being "grand, prestigious heavyweight of the British higher education system).

Nottingham is not unique in being creamed over in this way.

As far as rankings go, you're on shaky ground whenever you use them given how arbitary and flawed they are. Basing an argument on things so flawed risks fatally destabalising your argument.

Whilst Nottingham has consistantly outranked the other. If you are to take league tables seriously then surely what matters is the here and now? I know that these days, although it still outranks the other three as far as I'm away, there's often only a few places between them. Higher Education is not some ladder where university number 15 is better than 20 and so on.

In terms of social life, Nottingham and Newcastle are about tied and you would enjoy both, whereas Loughborough students wish they were in Nottingham because the latter is very very boring.