Is really Cambridge the best university in the Uk?

Again I must clarify I'm not saying that UCL, Imperial, LSE, Durham, St.Andrews and so on are better than Oxbridge- or even on par with Oxbridge. I'm saying that because of some subject overlap, and close rankings on several ranking tables- they are immediately behind Oxbridge in terms of standard, but I wouldn't say they're in a different "league". That just seems a bit strong, s'all, in the same way Oxford is ranked below Cambridge, but it's not in an entirely different league.

Interestingly, you mentioned the guardian ranked Imperial as 10th in the UK this year, which is very true: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012

But arrange that league table by "Average entry tariff" and then arrange by "Career after 6 months" and you see that the grades achieved by unis like Imperial are just behind Oxbridge, and as for careers after 6 months, well see for yourself.

Oxbridge is the best, but not by so much that everyone else is an idiot, there are plenty of people with phenomenal grades that just didn't make Oxbridge due to space restriction. A mate of mine was rejected from Jesus College, Cambridge without even pooling for classics, but has received an offer for Liberal Arts at Harvard. There is definitely some overlap, is all I'm saying.

For all the various disputes about 'tiering' of universities...

Cambridge and Oxford are pretty much neck-and-neck.

The three London powerhouses are a step below (Imperial, UCL, LSE (LSE is actually #1 in the country for the amount of world-leading research submitted in the 2008 RAE...) )

Then there's pretty much the next 30 Universities, all more-or-less on a par with each other - made up of most of the remainder of the Russell / 1994 Groups. And yes, this includes the Universities that are supposedly in a league above the 'inferior' ones. Durham, Warwick, KCL etc., in spite of how TSR users would like to delude themselves, are basically within the same league as the rest of the top 35.

If you actually look at the research statistics, the difference in the quantity of 'world-leading / internationally excellent' research, between a university ranked ~30th and a university ranked ~7th, is negligible.

well no. It depends on the subject really doesn't it? For example, for some engineering courses, Imperial is ranked higher than oxford-

"In the Guardian University Guide subject tables it is currently ranked 2nd for chemical engineering, 1st for civil engineering, 3rd for materials and mineral engineering and 3rd for mechanical engineering. The college has been the only institution to have displaced Oxford from the top two spots in a major university league table." - references: ^ "University guide 2011 subjects". The Guardian (London). 4 June 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
^ "Cambridge Tops League Tables". Admin.cam.ac.uk. 14 April 2000. Retrieved 2011-06-16.

Here's the official QS world rank as well: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/subject-rankings/engineering/civil-engineering

Generally speaking, Imperial have a very high graduate employment rate, and one of the highest average starting salaries of all gradutes, even though its current overall position on QS is 6th in the world: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011

So actually speaking in such a derogatory manner about Imperial, or even other unis such as UCL and LSE (which are also fantastic, amongst others in the UK), sounds quite petty, and also comes across as pseudo narcissistic.

"your tiny mind" - pah.

I think it's pretty fair to include Nottingham in the top 14 uni's in the UK (assuming 'group 3' isn't actually ordered). It is certainly a well established, research-led and large university in terms of size, student population, resources and funding. It came 8th in the league table by the Sunday Times (or I think it was the ST) that took an average of league table positions over 10 years between 1997-2007, which shows consistent performance nationally at least.

On top of this it is rated strongly in international league tables compared to it's UK counterparts, is a staple member of the Russell Group and part of the "Sutton 13".

It's campuses in China and Malaysia have given it a genuinely strong international reputation, or at least a reputation in Asia, and this is expected to grow.

To add to this, Nottingham's position in the league tables is believed to have taken a hit in recent years due to the 'Shottingham' reputation. Go back five years and I'm under the impression that it was viewed as a solid top ten UK university, a belief that is certainly backed up by the aforementioned '10 year average' league table... This suggests it has a reasonable amount of 'prestige' in the UK, even if it has been viewed more in the top 15 these days.

However, as has stated by others previously, in practice it is extremely difficult to distinguish between the UK universities that make up the group outside of Oxbridge, LSE, ICL, UCL, and the particular subject you're looking at can be crucial. International league tables also cater strongly towards physically larger universities (ie. Manchester).

(Worth mentioning I don't go to Nottingham, though I did apply there, which is why I know the above information.)

UCL is odd, it's a great uni -It's a top notch uni, but I feel that its closer to unis like Durham and Warwick in terms of undergraduate teaching (postgrad it trounces them, and hence its awesome world ranking) in terms of overall entry requirements, and it is a bit lower than that of Imperial and LSE, which pretty much ask for A*s in all courses.

I don't think I've been kind to Nottingham at all - in terms of entry requirements, graduate employment and long term league table position, it has a lot more in common with the other group three unis than universities such as Birmingham or Sheffield which would be group 4. I believe that it's average league table position over ten years (Times) was higher than Durham's and King's. It certainly has more in common with universities such as Bristol rather than such as Leeds.

You're crazy. I guess you go to one of those 'London powerhouses' If you're going to go with the view that the difference between the top 35 universities is minimal then really you shouldn't be putting UCL or LSE in a seperate category. Either you believe that its Oxbridge> the rest or Oxbridge and then rankings of the next set of universities i.e LSE Imperial UCL and then so on. It's not practical to end it at three tiers. UCL and LSE graduates are not significantly advantaged (if at all) to Warwick and St Andrews graduates. I do not know of many who share the view, that you're endorsing which suggests that a ranking exists only for six universities. Its odd to claim that there is six universities which are above the rest by a considerable margin. I don't know anyone who would claim that Kent is as well regarded as Warwick or Durham. I don't think its wise to think that university's are on an equal footing outside of your top five, since its not the case and from my experiences its only when you get out of the top 10 and are discussing the top 20-40 that your claim holds weight.

while im not trying to say cambridge is the best for every subject, it doesnt actually offer a course under those names- it considers all engineering under the engineering tripos (with chem eng as a possible exception) and so wouldnt be relevant for those subjects you have quoted

Hi, I am aware of this, which is why my comparison in the post is made with Oxford, not Cambridge

Edit: And even with the fact that engineering in Cambridge is considered under the engineering tripos, it still ranks in the table I posted a link to- However I felt that because Cambridge don't specifically do "Civil Engineering" as a course on its own, it would be rather unfair of me to compare it with other universities using that rank on QS.

Actually, he's not crazy. As I am going to study in the UK next year, I did quite a lot research the last couple of days with regard to the best universities. Oxford and Cambridge are the top tier. They are consistently ranked the best universities in most rankings. All I can say is QS is not considered a realistic reflection of what most companies in Ibanking and Biglaw consider to be the best universities (perhaps this differs in other fields, but I don't see any reason why..)

Although I am not a big fan of wikipedia, it gives a comprehensive overview of 4 of UK's frequently used rankings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom

Guess what, Oxford and Cambridge are consistently ranked first and second. The average ranking of LSE/UCL/Imperial is higher than any other university (apart from Oxbridge) listed there, which places them in the second tier.

After that, it is hard to establish a small third tier, so basically placing approximately 10 other universities in this tier, is not a bad choice.

Nobody disputes Oxbridge being the top two by a margin. I'm not even sure how that sources supports your view. Seriously for example UCL
7th 5th and then 7th again. In one ranking Imperial is 10th below Lancaster which is 8th. The LSE is the only with a consistently high ranking (3rd 4th 4th 4th) Imperial is 3, 10,4 and isn't even in the top ten for one of the rankings) This clearly doesn't back up the view that the University of London are in their own tier, if we were to believe the rankings, it'd be LSE in its own tier.

Also that poster was putting around 35 universities in the next tier.

I want to become an actuary and study mathematics with actuarial science. which university is best for that? to get the best education?

How are people classing Warwick/Durham above KCL?!
it depends on your course, for some I imagine they're better however overall (and for sciences) kcl wins hands down!

haha sorry to burst your bubble, but Warwick and Durham are better than KCL overall generally speaking. Kings's isn't even strong for science so WTF?!

King's isn't in the same league as the main London unis (ICL, LSE and UCL) It typically houses the rejects of those three universities.

King's is a very good university and I'd say the difference between it and Warwick/Durham is minimal, but if pushed many would go for Warwick over it, except internationals.

what are some other GOOD universities? [uk]

I'd definitely disagree there. For certain courses, warwick is rated the same as bath/exeter, and certainly not above kcl. Maybe it has advantages for grads, but I certainly don't know of anyone who would choose warwick over kcl
But each to their own, im not saying warwick is necessarily bad, just not for everyone.

How are people classing Warwick/Durham above KCL?!
it depends on your course, for some I imagine they're better however overall (and for sciences) kcl wins hands down!