[Hopefull]

(Original post by silverspoonmess)
Simple question, simple answer.
Lancaster is not pretigious. While yes, in league tables it may do similarly to Durham etc etc, and now be considered a 'top 10 uni', it doesn't have the same PRESTIGE.

And I am educated, just so you know.

Could not put it better myself.

[Altruistic1]

(Original post by Expatriate1)
Short answer: Yes it is prestigious.

Forbes just ranked the MBA program here 7th in the world and 3rd in the UK in its rankings of non-US 1-year MBA programs. Equally, the Financial Times has the course ranked 3rd in the world for value for money.

Accounting and Finance at undergrad is currently ranked 2nd in the country by the Times, etc etc etc. Essentially the management school here has an exceedingly good reputation. The physics dept. also receives similar sorts of praise.

As for your second question 'Is is "posh"?', no, not particularly. The vast majority of the undergrads here have been state school educated (if that's how you want to measure 'poshness').


So yes. It is a good university, and to refute the previous poster, there are an enormous amount of career prospects here across the subject spectrum. Certainly b/c of the strength of the management school businesses take a high level of interest in employing graduates. Equally, the strength of the research here means that outside academic institutions are v. interested in recruitment from the university. Over the past summer I obtained placement as an Intern at the US Library of Congress, due in large part to the reputation of the University both here in the UK and overseas (certainly the number of European and Asian students would also seem to imply that Lancaster has a high-profile international presence).

Sorry but.... no. Quoting MBA tables is useless - unless the applicant is an MBA student (unlikely). As for calling it second best in the UK for A&F UG... that's false too. Warwick and LSE are the top 2. As an example, investment banks don't recruit at this university... they recruit from Oxbridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL & Imperial. Other firms tend to follow the same logic... it's not how good your department is, it's how good the uni is.

[Planto]

(Original post by I Murder Carrots 4 Fun)
It's not really terrible but if you want a university whose graduates are sought after you should really be looking at Russell Group universities

Horse ****.

[jellyfish123]

Purely in terms of an outsider's impression (which may not be accurate but which reflects what I believe to be the *image* of the uni) I'd say it ranks as a decent, mid-range, solid but in no way 'outstanding' uni, purely in terms of perception. That said, many of the courses may be excellent.

[mikeyb1604]

(Original post by Altruistic1)
Sorry but.... no. Quoting MBA tables is useless - unless the applicant is an MBA student (unlikely). As for calling it second best in the UK for A&F UG... that's false too. Warwick and LSE are the top 2. As an example, investment banks don't recruit at this university... they recruit from Oxbridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL & Imperial. Other firms tend to follow the same logic... it's not how good your department is, it's how good the uni is.

Knowing that investment bankers don't go anywhere near Lancaster is the best advert I have had yet to go to there. I'm sold.

[J1mjam]

(Original post by silverspoonmess)
I'd be interested to know how you're making this judgement. I gave the OP my opinion, stop trolling.

ill explain.

(Original post by silverspoonmess)
Simple question, simple answer.
Lancaster is not pretigious. While yes, in league tables it may do similarly to Durham etc etc, and now be considered a 'top 10 uni', it doesn't have the same PRESTIGE.

And I am educated, just so you know.

now this answer would have been so much better to start with. im not trolling, why would i troll my own forum.. anyways, responses like "no" are just so unhelpful. your explanation was great and i understand where youre coming from.

but i think the OP is getting 'prestige' and 'desirability' slightly confused. while lancaster is no oxbridge prestige wise, the desirability of its students to employers is growing year on year to rival that of the most 'prestigious' universities.

[Altruistic1]

(Original post by mikeyb1604)
Knowing that investment bankers don't go anywhere near Lancaster is the best advert I have had yet to go to there. I'm sold.

Nah, it sucks for you. Investment Banking events have (LOTS of) free food .

Can the people who neg repped me please let me know why? Nothing I've said is inaccurate. Truth is, Lancaster is a good university, but it isn't prestigious and it certainly isn't the best.

[Aszbaz]

(Original post by h_naimun94)
So between Bath and Bristol for business management you would choose Bristol?

Theyre both good. My friend attends bath, she loves it but I think Bristol probably would have a higher employment rate in Business.

[Everisingstar]

Being in the Russel Group isn't everything!!! Lancaster is just overlooked cuz of it's location! It's ranked top ten in the complete university guide, the guardian and some other places
e.g. http://ukeas.com.tw/rankings.htm

I guess it doesnt have the same reputation as the other unis in the russel group but it's definately a good university. ^_^

[Cherrymuckle]

Lancaster University Management School is prestigious. It produced good quality graduates especially on its MBA programme. I recently read the story of a Lancaster University MBA grad who went on exchange to SP Jain and Peking University. She was so inspired that she decided to set up her own consultancy business. She gave great insight on how she's been using her MBA. It was on MBA news and networking site BusinessBecause http://www.businessbecause.com/news/...business-81272

[Demise]

(Original post by silverspoonmess)
Simple question, simple answer.
Lancaster is not pretigious. While yes, in league tables it may do similarly to Durham etc etc, and now be considered a 'top 10 uni', it doesn't have the same PRESTIGE.

And I am educated, just so you know.

'Prestige' is a superficial concept based on arbitrary factors such as age and location, which have little bearing on the quality of a university. If Lancaster received its Royal Charter a century or two ago, was located in a large and industrial city - then, most of the posts in this thread would be stating 'yes' in response to the thread title, even if this hypothetical redbrick Lancaster University mirrored the quality of the plate glass Lancaster University that exists in reality.

The problem with 'prestige' is that it is static - unless a university commits academic suicide somehow, its status as 'prestigious' will remain, even if its quality falters or newer universities surpass it in certain areas.

That is why I reject 'prestige' as a measurement of the quality of a university. Employers that do not consist of old boys clubs who still define the quality of a university by Victorian standards recognise that Lancaster is a very good university. No, it doesn't have the history and size associated with Russell Group universities, but it is continually excelling in numerous areas and can certainly give quite a few of the Russell Group members a run for their money in terms of quality.

(Original post by jellyfish123)
Purely in terms of an outsider's impression (which may not be accurate but which reflects what I believe to be the *image* of the uni) I'd say it ranks as a decent, mid-range, solid but in no way 'outstanding' uni, purely in terms of perception. That said, many of the courses may be excellent.

Your 'outsider's impression' reflects the ignorance associated with societal norms of what is considered a 'prestigious' university - again: arbitrary factors such as history and location. Lancaster is not 'mid-range'. You only need to take a look at the 'mid-range' universities in the league tables to confirm this. Fortunately, many employers, such as those in commercial and financial industries, are not following your 'outsider's impression'.

[silverspoonmess]

(Original post by Demise)
'Prestige' is a superficial concept based on arbitrary factors such as age and location, which have little bearing on the quality of a university. If Lancaster received its Royal Charter a century or two ago, was located in a large and industrial city - then, most of the posts in this thread would be stating 'yes' in response to the thread title, even if this hypothetical redbrick Lancaster University mirrored the quality of the plate glass Lancaster University that exists in reality.

The problem with 'prestige' is that it is static - unless a university commits academic suicide somehow, its status as 'prestigious' will remain, even if its quality falters or newer universities surpass it in certain areas.

That is why I reject 'prestige' as a measurement of the quality of a university. Employers that do not consist of old boys clubs who still define the quality of a university by Victorian standards recognise that Lancaster is a very good university. No, it doesn't have the history and size associated with Russell Group universities, but it is continually excelling in numerous areas and can certainly give quite a few of the Russell Group members a run for their money in terms of quality.

I completely agree with you, but I was just answering the OP's question; it is not comparably prestigious. Prestige is not the most important thing, or arguably worth any consideration, but that wasn't the question. I think most people would agree that Lancaster is not a prestigious university. I acknowleged that it has ranked in the top 10, a pretty impressive feat (though also based on statistics), and its lacking prestige hasn't changed that.

Your comment might be of more relevance had the original question been "is Lancaster a GOOD university?"

[North Irelandman]

If I told my granny or 'the man on the street' I was going to Lancaster they probably wouldn't make anything of it; over here, Queen's and Oxbridge are the only real household uni names recognised as successful. Obviously the opinion of the general public has nothing to do with employers, and I would think that the majority of firms will not be as ignorant as some posters in this thread. Reputation of the university obviously matters, but if you take full advantage of the opportunities available during your time at (any) university I feel this can be offset.

Lancaster has been improving and now looks to be consistently a top 10 UK university, with strong points in Physics and the Management School. If that is clear for us to see, do you expect much better informed employers to not establish connections with the university? The "Russel Group of leading universities" does not result in all other highly ranking unis to be ignored, consider St Andrews and Durham; both in the 1994 Group with Lancaster. At the end of the day, an Oxbridge graduate is most likely to be more employable, fair considering the requirements to be accepted (over the top in my opinion), but - attending a top 10 uni for a 'good' degree, making the most of your time (experience, society involvement etc) and achieving a 1st will by no means make life difficult for you. And as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, once you are in your first job, the importance of continuing to network and prove your worth to your superiors will be massively important for your career.

[jellyfish123]

(Original post by Demise)
'Prestige' is a superficial concept based on arbitrary factors such as age and location, which have little bearing on the quality of a university. If Lancaster received its Royal Charter a century or two ago, was located in a large and industrial city - then, most of the posts in this thread would be stating 'yes' in response to the thread title, even if this hypothetical redbrick Lancaster University mirrored the quality of the plate glass Lancaster University that exists in reality.

The problem with 'prestige' is that it is static - unless a university commits academic suicide somehow, its status as 'prestigious' will remain, even if its quality falters or newer universities surpass it in certain areas.

That is why I reject 'prestige' as a measurement of the quality of a university. Employers that do not consist of old boys clubs who still define the quality of a university by Victorian standards recognise that Lancaster is a very good university. No, it doesn't have the history and size associated with Russell Group universities, but it is continually excelling in numerous areas and can certainly give quite a few of the Russell Group members a run for their money in terms of quality.



Your 'outsider's impression' reflects the ignorance associated with societal norms of what is considered a 'prestigious' university - again: arbitrary factors such as history and location. Lancaster is not 'mid-range'. You only need to take a look at the 'mid-range' universities in the league tables to confirm this. Fortunately, many employers, such as those in commercial and financial industries, are not following your 'outsider's impression'.

I am delighted to hear it. If you read my post I explicitly was NOT saying what I thought the true worth of the course was (I even said that many of their courses may be excellent), nor whether I thought that, objectively, it was a 'good' uni or not. I was merely responding to the OP's question, which was how people SEE Lancaster, what the 'general social perception is'. I attempted to provide this, making NO JUDGEMENT as to whether or not this impression was fair or not. I have just never seen Lancaster, in terms of general social reputation, as being automatically associated with being a 'prestigious' university. Which again, does NOT mean that it doesn't provide very good teaching, and that employers much better informed that I am are on the case and recruiting Lancaster graduates. Calm down , I was only answering the question as posed. Most stereotypes are unfair - saying what the stereotype is doesn't mean you agree with it.

[Groww a Pear]

It's a top 10 Uni so the short answer is yes.

However, it has only recently climbed up the league table.. and so is not traditionally thought of as a renowned high quality university.

It's a great uni though and will likely gain prestige within a few years. I love it here.

[Demise]

(Original post by jellyfish123)
I am delighted to hear it. If you read my post I explicitly was NOT saying what I thought the true worth of the course was (I even said that many of their courses may be excellent), nor whether I thought that, objectively, it was a 'good' uni or not. I was merely responding to the OP's question, which was how people SEE Lancaster, what the 'general social perception is'. I attempted to provide this, making NO JUDGEMENT as to whether or not this impression was fair or not. I have just never seen Lancaster, in terms of general social reputation, as being automatically associated with being a 'prestigious' university. Which again, does NOT mean that it doesn't provide very good teaching, and that employers much better informed that I am are on the case and recruiting Lancaster graduates. Calm down , I was only answering the question as posed. Most stereotypes are unfair - saying what the stereotype is doesn't mean you agree with it.

Approach the average person on the street, say a shop worker from Hull, and ask them how prestigious or reputable UCL is. Now, unless they are personally attached to UCL (having a relative who studied there for example), they will probably respond with: 'what does UCL stand for?' let alone making any comments as to its prestigiousness or academic reputation.

How people 'see' Lancaster, i.e. the general societal view, is divided into tiers and different interest groups. The shop worker from Hull will probably have never heard of it, apart from their GCSE History studies on the War of the Roses. The same goes for the retired lawyer from Surrey - he judges universities by Victorian standards and has probably never heard of or rates Warwick, York, Lancaster, etc. The receptionist from Preston may have a different view and rate Lancaster highly, because she is from the North West where it receives a lot of coverage. The same goes for certain employers, such as those in business, finance and law who are aware of the university's rising status and the quality of its Management School.

So, despite my broad generalisations, it's hard to judge 'how people SEE Lancaster'. If you are going by the standards of the average man or woman on the street - then I can understand that they won't consider it 'prestigious' (I have already rejected this term and it has largely separated from quality in this thread), but their general ignorance of such things - beyond Oxbridge, some of the big city universities (by mere virtue of being located in a big, traditionally industrial city) and perhaps their local university - does little to endow their views with much weight or standing.

[Haushinka13]

So would you say that Lancaster is more or less prestigious than the University of Liverpool which is in the Russel Group but does not score as highly on league tables as Lancaster does. I'm choosing between these two so I just wondered.

[North Irelandman]

(Original post by Haushinka13)
So would you say that Lancaster is more or less prestigious than the University of Liverpool which is in the Russel Group but does not score as highly on league tables as Lancaster does. I'm choosing between these two so I just wondered.

I'm in a very similar situation with Lancaster and Queen's and will be going with Lancaster as long as I like what I see at the open day.

[Haushinka13]

(Original post by North Irelandman)
I'm in a very similar situation with Lancaster and Queen's and will be going with Lancaster as long as I like what I see at the open day.

What course have you applied for?

[North Irelandman]

(Original post by Haushinka13)
What course have you applied for?

Economics at Queens and Economics (Study Abroad) at Lancaster, yourself?