UCL VS Nottingham?

J Nottingham definitely saw the greed of dollar bills in their eyes after doubling student places, but at least they have invested some of the increased revenue in the new Vet School (2006) and the campuses in China and Malaysia.

I love Nottingham's Trent Building in this video, it rivals anything UCL has.

Just alright? A Russell Group heavyweight with the fifth most research funding received from industry, and ranked 7th in the 2008 RAE assessment. I remember the days when Nottingham was always in the Times top 10 rankings in the 90s. The expansion of the uni has diluted quality a bit, mainly too much teaching in overcrowded lecture halls, and far less seminars and tutorials than UCL perhaps. Nottingham definitely saw the greed of dollar bills in their eyes after doubling student places, but at least they have invested some of the increased revenue in the new Vet School (2006) and the campuses in China and Malaysia.

[video="youtube;2jAbWws842E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jAbWws842E[/video]

I love Nottingham's Trent Building in this video, it rivals anything UCL has.

I'm sorry - but what is that about, if not generating more money?

That's really, really reaching to compare what the buildings look like.

If you're going to do that, I'd like to nominate the Lasagne at the Print Room Cafe as better pasta than anything available at Nottingham.

It may have been a top 10, but it's completely unknown abroad. And IMO, UCL's Portico > gap > Trent Building. But of course, an university isn't made by buildings, so discussing buildings is almost completely useless when it comes to qualify an university.

The new campuses were of course built to make more money, and to add a broader international profile for Nottingham.

Comparing uni buildings is fine, I have seen those of UCL and the main building is also very grand. People frequently compare Oxbridge buildings, Cambridge just gets the nod between these, but very little in it as both are strikingly pretty unis.

It may have been a top 10, but it's completely unknown abroad. And IMO, UCL's Portico > gap > Trent Building. But of course, an university isn't made by buildings, so discussing buildings is almost completely useless when it comes to qualify an university.

As UCL is such a high uni, wouldn't there be more stress and pressure? Idk Both are impressive

To be frank, getting into any Russell Group uni, and many outside the group (St Andrews, Bath, Royal Holloway etc) is a grand achievement, and exciting for the prospective student during uni and after graduation. It certainly opens lots of new doors in the business world, and in academia.

I don't know whether exams are harder at UCL than other top unis, my guess is that standards would be just as rigorous at any Russell Group uni generally. Oxbridge has always been the exception though, and Imperial and LSE may well have tougher exams from the gossip I have heard.

I assure you, Nottingham is completely unknown in the US and South America, even Europe. Don't know about its reputation in Asia tho.

Getting into UCL is extremely difficult in general, in pair with LSE and Imperial. If you consider the low applicant per place ratio in Oxbridge, those 3 unis are the most disputed and rigorous to get a place in the UK.

The question posed by the OP is simple, which one is better. So wasting time trying to point out values like buildings and the reputation in the 90s is worthless to help him. Nottingham is surely a fine institution, but it can't compete with UCL. Therefore, UCL > Nottingham. You can argue that it is much cheaper to study at Nottingham, but regarding prestige, academia and resources, UCL is the best option.

I don't dispute UCL has the edge traditionally, I was offered a place at UCL for Biotechnology in 2002 but turned it down for Biochemistry at Nottingham, I just could not think how I could afford the rent and travel costs if I chose UCL. Also many of my hall mates also rejected UCL and Imperial as they felt these unis were like 40-50% flooded with South East Asians, meaning a cultural fit was hard to envisage.

As I mentioned above, UCL has always been a whisker better over the decades, is is genuinely the 5th best uni in the UK, but it is just a notch below Imperial and LSE, with Oxbridge further head still. Just keep it in perspective, Nottingham is only marginally behind on UCL, and in the job market a graduate would be equally in demand.

Well, I don't have stats or data to prove you wrong, but my overall perception is really different from yours. UCL is the third best multi faculty uni in the UK (even overcoming Oxford in a few subjects), and considering all high education institutions, it would be the 4th, ahead of LSE (LSE is better in only a few subjects, UCL Law department is better than the LSE one, the same goes for Public Policy, Anthropology, ...).

So the real gap is between the G5 and the rest of the country. The only uni outside of it that shows some real effort and quality to join those 5 is Warwick. The rest can't be compared to. You can say that Nottingham prospects are as good as UCL, that's perfectly fine, but if you place a UCL grad and Nottingham grad in the same interview, the UCL grad will have the advantage. I could go much further with this, but this kind of discussion doesn't add anything to our lifes. Both unis are great, and that's what matters. In the end, no matter which one, most students will do fine.

UCL > Nottingham. UCL is a great university, I went there for a summer school and the place was amazing.

It isn't just about the overall reputation. UCL has the edge, but not by much as Nottingham has always been a solid alternative to Oxbridge, and has a really pretty campus that will spellbind anyone once they visit for themselves. The fact is, many English students will not want to go to UCL because they currently live too close to Central London to make it worthwhile, they don't fancy the enormous rent bills and travel costs of London, or they just don't want to be at a Uni which has as many foreign students as it does English students. A lot of students I met at Nottingham rejected UCL & Imperial for that very reason, they didn't think these unis offered a good cultural fit. Nottingham, Durham, Exeter etc seemed more of a better fit people wise.

UCL is simply on another level. Nottingham is alright tho.

If you can afford London, and get the grades, and can handle the classes excessively flooded with students mostly from Asia, go for it. If not, choose Notingham or Durham, or Edinburgh.

Are you aware this thread is like 2 years old?

I've already chosen Newcastle and got an offer but I did apply to Edinburgh though. I was going to apply for Nottingham actually but decided to apply for Newcastle instead. London is really expensive though!

If I could do it all again, I would choose Edinburgh first choice (best uni buildings ever), Durham second (just gets the nod over my beloved Nottingham due to extra tradition). UCL is just too damn expensive, and I don't think I would want a lecture theatre with 40-50% SE Asians with little command of English for company. Had it been 10-20% then no probs, I like diversity but not excessively.

I don't live too far away from Edinburgh so I've been to the university loads and you're right, it's beautiful as well as being in a beautiful city. It was just a little too close to home for me. I love the liberal and multicultural vibe UCL has, it has a progressive and cosmopolitan feeling that I don't think you can find at any other universities of similar rank. I applied for Newcastle, Edinburgh, Bristol and Goldsmiths and decided to go to Newcastle but if I could apply again then I'd apply to Kings.