[ResultantForce]

I was wondering whether Engineering is taught at the same overall standard at different universities, excluding Oxbridge and Imperial, for obvious reasons.
Eg. Is the Mecheng course at UCL harder than for example Manchester, Southampton, QMUL etc?

[Astronomical]

Why is it obvious to exclude those three universities?

[ResultantForce]

Since I assume that they're the top ones, so their courses must be more demanding.

[Smack]

You could maybe make the case the courses that focus more on the theoretical side and in areas that are more mathematically intensive e.g. signal processing, control theory etc. are more difficult than courses that are have a greater element of practical work, design, project management etc.

But I'm not sure which courses are more theoretical than practice since I've only been to one university and only really looked at courses at two other universities when I was applying.

But overall all mechanical engineering courses are going to be broadly the same since they all have goals to meet due to external accreditation.

[ResultantForce]

(Original post by Smack)
You could maybe make the case the courses that focus more on the theoretical side and in areas that are more mathematically intensive e.g. signal processing, control theory etc. are more difficult than courses that are have a greater element of practical work, design, project management etc.

But I'm not sure which courses are more theoretical than practice since I've only been to one university and only really looked at courses at two other universities when I was applying.

But overall all mechanical engineering courses are going to be broadly the same since they all have goals to meet due to external accreditation.

Thank you, this has been quite helpful.

[kaosu_souzousha]

(Original post by ResultantForce)
I was wondering whether Engineering is taught at the same overall standard at different universities, excluding Oxbridge and Imperial, for obvious reasons.
Eg. Is the Mecheng course at UCL harder than for example Manchester, Southampton, QMUL etc?

Your name was once my youtube channel, lol.

Courses are overall the same. The difference is the extra stuff which they throw at you during the year. By extra stuff I mean more deadlines, some optional work, interesting projects etc...

[Iceblade2]

Dont do Mech eng at UCL. My mate says the department is old fashioned and terrible. The department even got a shout out in the Guardian University Tables article stating, UCL dropped one place due to a poor ranking in Mechanical engineering and also from other subjects.

In response to your question, all the Unis should have the same standard of general course content. Teaching, labs, equipment etc would differ.

[djpailo]

I've heard Cambridge is much more mathematical base but not 100% sure.

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by djpailo)
I've heard Cambridge is much more mathematical base but not 100% sure.

I remember ebam showing me some of his first term work, it was filled with hyperbolics and ****

[thefish_uk]

(Original post by Smack)
You could maybe make the case the courses that focus more on the theoretical side and in areas that are more mathematically intensive e.g. signal processing, control theory etc. are more difficult than courses that are have a greater element of practical work, design, project management etc.

But I'm not sure which courses are more theoretical than practice since I've only been to one university and only really looked at courses at two other universities when I was applying.

But overall all mechanical engineering courses are going to be broadly the same since they all have goals to meet due to external accreditation.

You could argue that the broad-based sort of course, which Oxford and Cambridge run, is more challenging as you will be studying more things which are out of your comfort zone. For example even if you plan on studying Civil Engineering (traditionally the least theoretical discipline) you will spend your 2nd year studying topics in aerodynamics and information engineering (which is basically maths) which students on specialised courses at other unis will be doing in their 2nd/3rd years.

Coming out of a broad-based course you are certainly going to have had a different education to those studying fully specialised courses as you will have studied things from other disciplines which they certainly won't have. Whether any of the universities offering these courses leave out some of the in-depth knowledge, however, in favour of including more content from other disciplines, I have no idea.

[kaosu_souzousha]

(Original post by thefish_uk)
You could argue that the broad-based sort of course, which Oxford and Cambridge run, is more challenging as you will be studying more things which are out of your comfort zone. For example even if you plan on studying Civil Engineering (traditionally the least theoretical discipline) you will spend your 2nd year studying topics in aerodynamics and information engineering (which is basically maths) which students on specialised courses at other unis will be doing in their 2nd/3rd years.

Coming out of a broad-based course you are certainly going to have had a different education to those studying fully specialised courses as you will have studied things from other disciplines which they certainly won't have. Whether any of the universities offering these courses leave out some of the in-depth knowledge, however, in favour of including more content from other disciplines, I have no idea.

Did you know that the first year at Cambridge is nearly identical to what we do on a specialised Mech. Eng course at Imperial ^^ . Second year is about 45% different. Essentially, by the end of your degree, you will have a strong foundation in Mech. Eng with a chosen specialty. My friend from Cambridge wants to do EEE and always questions the purpose of studying fluid dynamics.

[Proud2BAnEngineer]

(Original post by ResultantForce)
Since I assume that they're the top ones, so their courses must be more demanding.

Top does not equal most demanding. The culture at Oxbridge is quite different compared to other universities as it involves more one to one tuition, so is in fact "easier" because you have a tutor who is always on hand to explain things you don't understand.

You have to appreciate how universities are ranked. It's a flawed system with a very high proportion of individual scores coming from "peer reviews" based on opinions of other academics around the world. Everyone has heard of Oxford and Cambridge, hence they always come out on top because they are the most famous and well renowned.

Read this article to see what I mean...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...es-764880.html

[pheonix254]

If the course is accredited, then its of a sufficient standard.

I studied at Southampton. I seriously doubt that courses at Imperial or Cambridge where more difficult or demanding. Perhaps because we beat both of them in the rankings, but that's by the by.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of companies couldn't care less where your degree came from, only that it is accredited and legitimate. Some investment banks and city fraternities excepted - but do you really want to work somewhere that the school you went to is more important than your abilities?

They have different specialisations. Different industries work with them for different research, that's what moulds a research-led university department, and that's where they differ. you'll get the opportunity to do different projects in 3rd or 4th year based on what industries the university collaborates with. I based my choice on the projects that students got to do in their third year. I did high-voltage destructive testing of cryogenic materials, so I'm fairly sure I chose the best university for my interests.

They all teach you the same basic foundations of how to teach yourself. That is the point of university, it's the way it's done that differs from institution to institution.