Overrated and underrated universities

Glasgow is old news! It is not going anywhere now.

What makes you say that? And don't give me the spiel about York investing hundreds of millions. All universities invest in facilities with many universities currently undergoing or finishing investment programmes of £200 million+

York was built in the 1960s and in that small time frame it over took Glasgow 1451

Glasgow and most old places just trading their old name to just get by.

How has it overtaken Glasgow? In what sense? The domestic tables rank York higher (but the difference is not significant) and the international tables ranks Glasgow, who have an impressive research output and a higher research income than York (last I checked), as above York?



Course they are.

York is a target university for IB. (go look it up)
Unlike Glasgow.

lololololololololololol. Yes. In front of a plethora of Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, UCL, Warwick grads, not to mention other top unis from around the world (Ivy League, Stanford, Berkeley, Duke, Michigan, Sorbonne, ZIT etc.) They will accept a graduate from Uni of York.

You ain't getting into Goldman Sachs fo' sho.

And do you realise how bad a uni King Fahad is? Kinda embarrassing that York is below them in international rankings, doncha think?

Please get your facts right
Glasgow has more people but the reseach at york is much higher if you compared the sizes of the two universities.

The University of Glasgow annual research income of more than £116m.

York is consistently a top 10 UK research university and attracted over £200 million of funding last year

I couldn't be bothered checking and, knowing that York has (I think) the largest research income of all universities in the 1994 Group I knew it would be...close.

But this still doesn't explain why you think Glasgow is just getting by on its old name, particularly when it still has one of the largest research incomes of all universities in the country.



£130 million or so in 2009-2010, I think.



Really depends on how you interpret the 2008 RAE.

Why do I get the feeling you're just copying and pasting from York's website? Oh, because you are...

Are you trying to say York website are telling lies about the £200 million Maybe you should take this up with Greg Dyke the chancellor of York.

For the large size and age of Glasgow, it is punching under its weight relative to University of York.

Please get your facts right
Glasgow has more people but the reseach at york is much higher if you compared the sizes of the two universities.

York research income exceeds our teaching income

The University of Glasgow annual research income of more than £116m.

York is consistently a top 10 UK research university and attracted over £200 million of funding last year

"Targeting students at university is a tradition among big graduate recruiters. However, they still have "target schools" universities where they particularly focus their effort. Included in this group are Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Imperial College, Bath, Bristol, Edinburgh, Durham, York, Manchester, Sheffield, Trinity College Dublin, the London School of Economics and University College London. Recruiters often run a number of events at "target schools" including interview preparation classes and talks by senior bankers. These events are vital to potential candidates as they give them an idea of what to expected when interview day arrives"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/may/19/choosingadegree.highereducation7

Harvard has a budget of 3.2bn dollars




And did you see how York was after Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Imperial, Bath, Bristol, Edinburgh and Durham and alongside such stellar names as TCB, Sheffield and Manchester.

Admit it. You go to a good uni, not a great uni. Outside England, no one would have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

You're certainly right about. Well as long as you have the required A'levels then I see no reason why you can't go on to study it at a quite reputable university.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Theology+%26+Religious+Studies
^^^^ Hope that helps, you've probably seen it already.

I think the University of Liverpool gets overlooked quite often in favour of its more populous (but in no way better) neighbour Manchester.

To be perfectly fair I'd say that Trinity College Dublin is a stellar name and as prestigious as any of those universities listed. Oscar Wilde studied there, innit.

Though I've got no idea why it's listed in that manner, suggest it's a UK university.

I put that down to the respective football clubs in the city, as we know United and City has had more success than Liverpool/Everton in recent years and because they still think Merseysiders just steal things..

"Targeting students at university is a tradition among big graduate recruiters. However, they still have "target schools" universities where they particularly focus their effort. Included in this group are Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Imperial College, Bath, Bristol, Edinburgh, Durham, York, Manchester, Sheffield, Trinity College Dublin, the London School of Economics and University College London. Recruiters often run a number of events at "target schools" including interview preparation classes and talks by senior bankers. These events are vital to potential candidates as they give them an idea of what to expected when interview day arrives"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/may/19/choosingadegree.highereducation7

To be honest I don't understand why some of those universities are on that list. But don't think the are the best universities in the UK and why IB recruiters are always after them. I fail to see why Lancaster or St Andrews (which is seen as more prestigious) isn't on that list. Again I fail to see why Manchester still remains on the list. I don't know if it's true or not but the university's performance seems to be deteriorating and doing so poor on all league tables.

You just seem to be defending York on a whole new scale. Universities like Aston, SOAS, Sussex, Essex are all doing decent despite all being relatively small universities with few students.

Manchester does crap in UK league tables because they're are plenty of smaller universities who aren't as big that do worse. Manchester offer of 500 degree programmes, 40,000 students, it's international, as well as accessible to all. They offer courses from Economics to Nursing, and Manchester is one of the most targeted universities by employers after the golden triangle unis of London, Oxford and Cambridge. They have produced over 20 Noble prize winners and are always expanding, don't forget the VUM and UMIST only merged in 2004. And are ranked 29th in the World. The global rankings are more important than domestic rankings imo. In part, when you go to London, 99% of the time you will be applying to a world wide company that is not from the UK, hence there's more stature about Manchester than say SAOS or Exeter..

And no uni in the UK (apart from LSE, maybe UCL) is a patch on Oxbridge.

Harvard has a budget of 3.2bn dollars

Manchester does crap in UK league tables because they're are plenty of smaller universities who aren't as big that do worse. Manchester offer of 500 degree programmes, 40,000 students, it's international, as well as accessible to all. They offer courses from Economics to Nursing, and Manchester is one of the most targeted universities by employers after the golden triangle unis of London, Oxford and Cambridge. They have produced over 20 Noble prize winners and are always expanding, don't forget the VUM and UMIST only merged in 2004. And are ranked 29th in the World. The global rankings are more important than domestic rankings imo. In part, when you go to London, 99% of the time you will be applying to a world wide company that is not from the UK, hence there's more stature about Manchester than say SAOS or Exeter..