This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- Loughborough- russell groups
- Non-Russel group Law, what are my chances?
- Russel Group vs Bath
- Law
- Getting onto a Law Masters course at Uni of Manchester
- Russell Group universities
- Applying to Russell group unis with average grades
- Uni of Southampton or Uni of Surrey
- A level results
- Is DT accepted by universities?
- marketing @ uni
- Law / history at university
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- Kingston or Brunel?
- Do my average GCSE grades matter? Will they inconvenience my future career?
- Law universities for 2025
- Non-Russell Group universities for Law (Urgent)
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- can i have a good career with out going to a russel group
Non-Russell Group Unis That Are Good
Scroll to see replies
Original post by PSxxx
Maybe not bad in the sense that of TVU perhaps but worse than the top half of the 94 group?
Whats so good about Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, Bham ?
St A's is better all of them by a mile.
Sussex, L'boro, UEA, SOAS, RHUL are better than Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, and probably Bham.
This RG necessarily = quality is a nonsense idea, won't matter anyway, the way things are, most half decent unis will be in the Rg anyway.
Whats so good about Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, Bham ?
St A's is better all of them by a mile.
Sussex, L'boro, UEA, SOAS, RHUL are better than Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, and probably Bham.
This RG necessarily = quality is a nonsense idea, won't matter anyway, the way things are, most half decent unis will be in the Rg anyway.
I would agree apart from Sheffield, Bham and Manchester - they're excellent research institutions with international prestige.
Original post by PSxxx
A better question is - are there any bad universities in the RG ?
Are Liverpool and Cardiff really as good as the others? I hear different things, but get the impression there's a slight doubt about those two.
Original post by PSxxx
Maybe not bad in the sense that of TVU perhaps but worse than the top half of the 94 group?
Whats so good about Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, Bham ?
St A's is better all of them by a mile.
Sussex, L'boro, UEA, SOAS, RHUL are better than Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, and probably Bham.
This RG necessarily = quality is a nonsense idea, won't matter anyway, the way things are, most half decent unis will be in the Rg anyway.
Whats so good about Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, Bham ?
St A's is better all of them by a mile.
Sussex, L'boro, UEA, SOAS, RHUL are better than Liverpool, Queen's Belfast, Queen Mary, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff, Manchester, and probably Bham.
This RG necessarily = quality is a nonsense idea, won't matter anyway, the way things are, most half decent unis will be in the Rg anyway.
It's really a stretch to put Holloway above the likes of Manchester, Newcastle, etc. Similarly, are you really really honestly putting Loughborough above Leeds and Birmingham?? I get a slight sense of monkeying around from things like this - the big redbricks are still pretty firmly ahead on most things.
Original post by swbp
I would agree apart from Sheffield, Bham and Manchester - they're excellent research institutions with international prestige.
Research is only relevant to the Phd level and almost completely irrelevant to taught courses.
I disagree with the 2nd part, no university has automatic prestige in UK except for Oxbridge.
If these 3 ( more Bham and Manchester ) were so " prestigious ", they would not be languishing relatively low to where they think they should be AND also they are relatively easy to get into.
Can I ask if you are a student/ grad @ one of these places ?
Original post by cuckoo99
is Reading university anygood ?
Mediocre
Original post by Fires
It's really a stretch to put Holloway above the likes of Manchester, Newcastle, etc. Similarly, are you really really honestly putting Loughborough above Leeds and Birmingham?? I get a slight sense of monkeying around from things like this - the big redbricks are still pretty firmly ahead on most things.
Why not? Have you seen UoM's rankings in the last 5-7 years, they are BAD.
What's so prestigious about UoM anyway.
And Newcastle - even more so the same question, what's the " big " deal, It's not even a pre war university. No, sorry I see a paper effigy here, Lboro, UEA, Sussex, RHUL >Leeds, & N'castle and probably Bham too.
Same with Leeds and Bham.
Ahead on what ? half of them are rated lower than the 94's I've mentioned. No sorry, i don't buy that 1 bit and by the looks of neither does the market.
Original post by PSxxx
Research is only relevant to the Phd level and almost completely irrelevant to taught courses.
I disagree with the 2nd part, no university has automatic prestige in UK except for Oxbridge.
If these 3 ( more Bham and Manchester ) were so " prestigious ", they would not be languishing relatively low to where they think they should be AND also they are relatively easy to get into.
Can I ask if you are a student/ grad @ one of these places ?
I disagree with the 2nd part, no university has automatic prestige in UK except for Oxbridge.
If these 3 ( more Bham and Manchester ) were so " prestigious ", they would not be languishing relatively low to where they think they should be AND also they are relatively easy to get into.
Can I ask if you are a student/ grad @ one of these places ?
Nope haha, i'm actually starting at Sussex this September! I agree with you mostly - I rejected 2 offers from RG universities, and find it irritating how people assume that any outside the group are not as good.
Manchester only ranks low in table due to satisfaction I believe, Birmingham i'm not so sure of :/
Original post by PSxxx
Why not? Have you seen UoM's rankings in the last 5-7 years, they are BAD.
What's so prestigious about UoM anyway.
And Newcastle - even more so the same question, what's the " big " deal, It's not even a pre war university. No, sorry I see a paper effigy here, Lboro, UEA, Sussex, RHUL >Leeds, & N'castle and probably Bham too.
Same with Leeds and Bham.
Ahead on what ? half of them are rated lower than the 94's I've mentioned. No sorry, i don't buy that 1 bit and by the looks of neither does the market.
What's so prestigious about UoM anyway.
And Newcastle - even more so the same question, what's the " big " deal, It's not even a pre war university. No, sorry I see a paper effigy here, Lboro, UEA, Sussex, RHUL >Leeds, & N'castle and probably Bham too.
Same with Leeds and Bham.
Ahead on what ? half of them are rated lower than the 94's I've mentioned. No sorry, i don't buy that 1 bit and by the looks of neither does the market.
I agree. UoM has really gone downhill in the last 10 years-all the domestic league tables seem to agree too. I know people who have left there pretty disappointed too.
Agreed about those 94 unis being better too. They're also just as good as Liverpool and Cardiff.
Original post by swbp
Nope haha, i'm actually starting at Sussex this September! I agree with you mostly - I rejected 2 offers from RG universities, and find it irritating how people assume that any outside the group are not as good.
Manchester only ranks low in table due to satisfaction I believe, Birmingham i'm not so sure of :/
Manchester only ranks low in table due to satisfaction I believe, Birmingham i'm not so sure of :/
Might be seeing you there dude, ho ho. Agree with the irritation bit.
That's course satisfaction and nothing to do with being happy which is ironic since a lot of people go to Manc to party.
Bham ranks lower than SU in all local rankings and is neck and neck with UEA but loses on the THES. My best friend goes there and he complains all the time.
Original post by fnm
I agree. UoM has really gone downhill in the last 10 years-all the domestic league tables seem to agree too. I know people who have left there pretty disappointed too.
Agreed about those 94 unis being better too. They're also just as good as Liverpool and Cardiff.
Agreed about those 94 unis being better too. They're also just as good as Liverpool and Cardiff.
Their mega university model is killing them and I'm scared that a lot of other uni's are going to copy them and then everything will go South.
Original post by PSxxx
Their mega university model is killing them and I'm scared that a lot of other uni's are going to copy them and then everything will go South.
I was wondering what you think of Exeter uni? I know it's been really high recently, but in 2005 it was ranked 46th in one table, and before about 2007 didn't get into the top 30. I know from talking to former students it really began pushing itself in terms of putting money into advertising and it's image, dunno if this has caused the rise or just aided it.
Original post by fnm
I was wondering what you think of Exeter uni? I know it's been really high recently, but in 2005 it was ranked 46th in one table, and before about 2007 didn't get into the top 30. I know from talking to former students it really began pushing itself in terms of putting money into advertising and it's image, dunno if this has caused the rise or just aided it.
I think they help produce the Times ranks so that may have something to do with it. What I think of it? Well I feel the situation is complicated by their involvement with the Times and their deliberate advertising push, so mixed feelings there.
Original post by swbp
I would agree apart from Sheffield, Bham and Manchester - they're excellent research institutions with international prestige.
And Newcastle, Leeds and QUB aren't?
(they are).
Original post by PSxxx
Why not? Have you seen UoM's rankings in the last 5-7 years, they are BAD.
What's so prestigious about UoM anyway.
And Newcastle - even more so the same question, what's the " big " deal, It's not even a pre war university. No, sorry I see a paper effigy here, Lboro, UEA, Sussex, RHUL >Leeds, & N'castle and probably Bham too.
Same with Leeds and Bham.
Ahead on what ? half of them are rated lower than the 94's I've mentioned. No sorry, i don't buy that 1 bit and by the looks of neither does the market.
What's so prestigious about UoM anyway.
And Newcastle - even more so the same question, what's the " big " deal, It's not even a pre war university. No, sorry I see a paper effigy here, Lboro, UEA, Sussex, RHUL >Leeds, & N'castle and probably Bham too.
Same with Leeds and Bham.
Ahead on what ? half of them are rated lower than the 94's I've mentioned. No sorry, i don't buy that 1 bit and by the looks of neither does the market.
Newcastle, partly as a result of its large and internationally famous medical school, as well as its dental school, has a research income which places itfirmly in the top 20 of the country with greater research power than Royal Holloway. It is a "legitimate" member of the RG.
Alongside this, as with all mulri-faculty universities, it has numerous strengths across all faculities.
What makes you think Royal Holloway is "better" than them?
Why does a university's age matter and why is it particularly important to be pre-war in particular (many of the universities you've listed as being better than Newcastle are not pre-war either, so age alone can't be the factor).
It's a bit misleading to say Newcastle isn't a pre-war university. It has existed since the ninteenth century, just not as an independent university. It didn't spring out of nowhere in the 1960s (like many plate glass universities did).
Universities are big, complex, organic things. It is really not possible to simply state that university x is better than university y particularly when comparing universities of different sizes and who have different strengths. What sense does saying Royal Holloway is better than Newcastle? I don't think a medicine, engineering, architecure, linguistics, history of art or agriculture student would agree.
As for comparing their rankings, this assumes that league tables are an objective measurement of university quality. You'll find that all the universities you've listed usually rank between 15 - 30. As a result the different in their positions is negligible. Moreoever, the international tables will often place the Russell Group universities higher.
Royal Holloway is not better than Newcastle/Leeds/Birmingham (or vice versa). Just be happy that this country has got a relatively large number of good multi-faculty universities, rated wordwide, but have their own strengths and mediocore departments across the faculties.
Original post by swbp
SOAS, Leicester and Sussex definately belong on the top tier
Look at the league tables - Bath, Lancaster, St Andrews are almost always in the top 10, with Loughborough usually top 15.
Original post by River85
Newcastle, partly as a result of its large and internationally famous medical school, as well as its dental school, has a research income which places itfirmly in the top 20 of the country with greater research power than Royal Holloway. It is a "legitimate" member of the RG.
Alongside this, as with all mulri-faculty universities, it has numerous strengths across all faculities.
What makes you think Royal Holloway is "better" than them?
Why does a university's age matter and why is it particularly important to be pre-war in particular (many of the universities you've listed as being better than Newcastle are not pre-war either, so age alone can't be the factor).
It's a bit misleading to say Newcastle isn't a pre-war university. It has existed since the ninteenth century, just not as an independent university. It didn't spring out of nowhere in the 1960s (like many plate glass universities did).
Universities are big, complex, organic things. It is really not possible to simply state that university x is better than university y particularly when comparing universities of different sizes and who have different strengths. What sense does saying Royal Holloway is better than Newcastle? I don't think a medicine, engineering, architecure, linguistics, history of art or agriculture student would agree.
As for comparing their rankings, this assumes that league tables are an objective measurement of university quality. You'll find that all the universities you've listed usually rank between 15 - 30. As a result the different in their positions is negligible. Moreoever, the international tables will often place the Russell Group universities higher.
Royal Holloway is not better than Newcastle/Leeds/Birmingham (or vice versa). Just be happy that this country has got a relatively large number of good multi-faculty universities, rated wordwide, but have their own strengths and mediocore departments across the faculties.
Alongside this, as with all mulri-faculty universities, it has numerous strengths across all faculities.
What makes you think Royal Holloway is "better" than them?
Why does a university's age matter and why is it particularly important to be pre-war in particular (many of the universities you've listed as being better than Newcastle are not pre-war either, so age alone can't be the factor).
It's a bit misleading to say Newcastle isn't a pre-war university. It has existed since the ninteenth century, just not as an independent university. It didn't spring out of nowhere in the 1960s (like many plate glass universities did).
Universities are big, complex, organic things. It is really not possible to simply state that university x is better than university y particularly when comparing universities of different sizes and who have different strengths. What sense does saying Royal Holloway is better than Newcastle? I don't think a medicine, engineering, architecure, linguistics, history of art or agriculture student would agree.
As for comparing their rankings, this assumes that league tables are an objective measurement of university quality. You'll find that all the universities you've listed usually rank between 15 - 30. As a result the different in their positions is negligible. Moreoever, the international tables will often place the Russell Group universities higher.
Royal Holloway is not better than Newcastle/Leeds/Birmingham (or vice versa). Just be happy that this country has got a relatively large number of good multi-faculty universities, rated wordwide, but have their own strengths and mediocore departments across the faculties.
Yes, and you also have to factor in things like the undergraduate experience; undergrads are likely to have a much better time at the big city Unis like Leeds, Manchester, etc, than they are at sad little RHUL, stuck away in the suburbs with a lot of rich girls who couldn't make into Oxford. (sad, but true) TBH there's no comparison. I suspect international rep also matters to most people in terms of long-range career and the widely known Unis tend to be the big ones + Oxbridge.
Original post by JDWhite1995
UCLan
Sussex
UEA
Kent
Leicester?
Also: how hard are their GCSE requirements - would AAACCC suffice for GCSE providing you met A level req.s?
Sussex
UEA
Kent
Leicester?
Also: how hard are their GCSE requirements - would AAACCC suffice for GCSE providing you met A level req.s?
really really REALLY do not worry about GCSE's. A really strong set is lovely to have obviously and can only work in your favour, but addmissions tutors will accept that people develop at different ages and are necessarily the same at 21 as they were when they were 14...
Original post by Lord-Voldemort
Look at the league tables - Bath, Lancaster, St Andrews are almost always in the top 10, with Loughborough usually top 15.
Loughborough's entry standards/research are basically equal to that of Sussex and Leicester, and lower than SOAS (entry), so why should it be considered above?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by swbp
Loughborough's entry standards/research are basically equal to that of Sussex and Leicester, and lower than SOAS (entry), so why should it be considered above?
Entry standards aren't the only factor that makes a university 'good'. By that logic, if London Met upped its entry requirements on par with UCL, King's and so on - it would be 'good'.
Original post by River85
Newcastle, partly as a result of its large and internationally famous medical school, as well as its dental school, has a research income which places itfirmly in the top 20 of the country with greater research power than Royal Holloway. It is a "legitimate" member of the RG.
Alongside this, as with all mulri-faculty universities, it has numerous strengths across all faculities.
What makes you think Royal Holloway is "better" than them?
Why does a university's age matter and why is it particularly important to be pre-war in particular (many of the universities you've listed as being better than Newcastle are not pre-war either, so age alone can't be the factor).
It's a bit misleading to say Newcastle isn't a pre-war university. It has existed since the ninteenth century, just not as an independent university. It didn't spring out of nowhere in the 1960s (like many plate glass universities did).
Universities are big, complex, organic things. It is really not possible to simply state that university x is better than university y particularly when comparing universities of different sizes and who have different strengths. What sense does saying Royal Holloway is better than Newcastle? I don't think a medicine, engineering, architecure, linguistics, history of art or agriculture student would agree.
As for comparing their rankings, this assumes that league tables are an objective measurement of university quality. You'll find that all the universities you've listed usually rank between 15 - 30. As a result the different in their positions is negligible. Moreoever, the international tables will often place the Russell Group universities higher.
Royal Holloway is not better than Newcastle/Leeds/Birmingham (or vice versa). Just be happy that this country has got a relatively large number of good multi-faculty universities, rated wordwide, but have their own strengths and mediocore departments across the faculties.
Alongside this, as with all mulri-faculty universities, it has numerous strengths across all faculities.
What makes you think Royal Holloway is "better" than them?
Why does a university's age matter and why is it particularly important to be pre-war in particular (many of the universities you've listed as being better than Newcastle are not pre-war either, so age alone can't be the factor).
It's a bit misleading to say Newcastle isn't a pre-war university. It has existed since the ninteenth century, just not as an independent university. It didn't spring out of nowhere in the 1960s (like many plate glass universities did).
Universities are big, complex, organic things. It is really not possible to simply state that university x is better than university y particularly when comparing universities of different sizes and who have different strengths. What sense does saying Royal Holloway is better than Newcastle? I don't think a medicine, engineering, architecure, linguistics, history of art or agriculture student would agree.
As for comparing their rankings, this assumes that league tables are an objective measurement of university quality. You'll find that all the universities you've listed usually rank between 15 - 30. As a result the different in their positions is negligible. Moreoever, the international tables will often place the Russell Group universities higher.
Royal Holloway is not better than Newcastle/Leeds/Birmingham (or vice versa). Just be happy that this country has got a relatively large number of good multi-faculty universities, rated wordwide, but have their own strengths and mediocore departments across the faculties.
Research is only relevant to the Phd level and almost completely irrelevant to taught courses. Large size to me is the death knell of teaching quality, not sure why you are defending size per se.
Small places are GOOD. Look at St A's.
Well, I referred to RHUL only as part of a group and I'm not a particular fan of theirs. But for certain subjects and criteria I'd still pick them over Newcastle.
Sussex, L'boro, UEA, SOAS are in my view better than Newastle, globally – it is beneath UEA and Sussex, so I can't see where this world famous talk comes from, they ranked 20 locally something NOT top 20.
So they have no right to anything - they are not well established and must work for the recognition.
Also what range of expertise is this ?
Most of their ' expertise ' comes from minority subjects allied to medical and engineering, which very few universities actually offer and so their rank must be discounted for this. Apart from this, they got A + F and Iberian Languages, " wow ".
Age is contextually important, those who postulate to be ancient or pre-war for its presumed prestige, but who are not or cannot live up to it, will be exposed and rightly chastised for it. The same goes for those who massage their dates.
A university only becomes a university when it gets its Charter, and that was 1966 for Newcastle, very clear and not misleading in the slightest.
This leads directly to your implication about Newcastle university being older than 1966, I'd think that is misleading.
What it was before is of no consequence, otherwise why get the charter in the 1st place ? Or why do we constantly make a distinction between the older universities and the ex-polys ? That cannot be denied.
In fact I wouldn't even mentioned a non university past, since it is much better kudos to be specifically chosen and built as a university.
You seem quite defensive of Newcastle, I think you may be affiliated to them.
All sorts of people / organisations are comparing universities all the time – I suggest you get used to it. Right or wrong is I'm afraid is not for you to say, people will decide for themselves what the believe.
No that is a falsehood that the international tables often place the Russell Group universities higher ( specifically the bottom half ).
Please see the table.
York beats : QMUL, Soton, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle, Birmingham, Exeter, Warwick.
Lancaster beats : Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle, Birmingham, Exeter, Warwick.
UEA beats : Newcastle, Birmingham, Exeter, Warwick.
RUHL beats all of them
Hell of a trouncing I'd say. Might hurt to hear but truth is many RG universities' “ repute “ was built on " fluff ", nothing more than “ football fame “ and the like, and are very overrated.
Thus, I would choose all the 94 group mentioned here over all RG mentioned.
107 Royal Holloway, University of London 94
122 University of York United Kingdom 94
127 Queen Mary, University of London United Kingdom RG
127 University of Southampton United Kingdom RG
131 Lancaster University United Kingdom 94
133 University of Leeds United Kingdom RG
140 University of Nottingham United Kingdom RG
145 University of East Anglia United Kingdom 94
146 Newcastle University United Kingdom RG
148 University of Birmingham United Kingdom RG
156 University of Exeter United Kingdom RG
157 University of Warwick United Kingdom RG
(edited 11 years ago)
Related discussions
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- Loughborough- russell groups
- Non-Russel group Law, what are my chances?
- Russel Group vs Bath
- Law
- Getting onto a Law Masters course at Uni of Manchester
- Russell Group universities
- Applying to Russell group unis with average grades
- Uni of Southampton or Uni of Surrey
- A level results
- Is DT accepted by universities?
- marketing @ uni
- Law / history at university
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- Kingston or Brunel?
- Do my average GCSE grades matter? Will they inconvenience my future career?
- Law universities for 2025
- Non-Russell Group universities for Law (Urgent)
- Will going to Trent lower my graduate prospects?
- can i have a good career with out going to a russel group
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
