The Student Room Group

Third best uni in UK?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jack33
My friend at UCL says they are very strong in English.
See london is the best for everything! :biggrin:


And the best place to go if you want to live in a closet for £700 a month!
Reply 21
Original post by Engineerchap
And the best place to go if you want to live in a closet for £700 a month!


It is the best city in the world though. But I know what you mean. I was just talking about the quality of the departments.
Original post by Jack33
My friend at UCL says they are very strong in English.
See london is the best for everything! :biggrin:


What is your friend basing this on? If they are going by League tables, then UCL is not as strong in English as Durham or York. In addition, UCL, like Durham, has an engineering department that is outstripped by many other uni's, such as Southampton. London is not the best at everything, not by a long way, though it is competitive to the extreme!
Reply 23
Original post by Meat is Murder
What is your friend basing this on? If they are going by League tables, then UCL is not as strong in English as Durham or York. In addition, UCL, like Durham, has an engineering department that is outstripped by many other uni's, such as Southampton. London is not the best at everything, not by a long way, though it is competitive to the extreme!


Maybe he's biased. :redface: What English do you study?
Reply 24
Can we keep this thread on topic with serious replies please? I probably should close this, as it is something that has been discussed a few times on TSR and I doubt will see any new discussion. However, I cannot seem to find the old threads and I do still hope this thread can generate some useful discussion so please cut down on the spam. Thank yoy :hat2:

Original post by ILIGAN
The 3rd best university in the UK is a toss up amongst the ff unis:

Imperial, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Durham, Bristol, St. Andrews and Edinburgh.

So, depending on your personal taste, preference, location, etc., all unis mentioned above could very well be the 3rd best uni in the UK.


You're still alive!

I have no idea what makes, say, Durham or St Andrews (or Warwick, Edinburgh, Bristol) better than any Russell Group university not mentioned above. But I'm sure you'll prove an interesting defence!

Original post by Meat is Murder
I am an English student, so the strength of Imperial and LSE are irrelevant. This question is too ambiguous to be answered. Departments within uni's vary dramatically in standard which mean that no one institution can be properly compared to another. It's like comparing Apples with Oranges. Durham is great for English, but its engineering courses are less desirable.

In my opinion, there is Oxbridge, and then one needs to look at specific departments within a uni to get a better idea of its strengths.

However, what I have said is refutable, when considering courses like Dentistry or Vet Med.


Durham's not really all that for English generally speaking. I believe it's lost one or two academics and its research output has declined slightly in recent years (or it hasn't kept up with three or four other universities) and contact hours have always been poor compared to its other departments in the arts faculty. This isn't to say its teaching is poor or it doesn't offer a vibrant course. Its general engineering programme is actually rather good, I think, though places like Bath and Southampton will offer strong programmes in chemical, electronic and the other specialisms.

But I take your point. Any multi-faculty university, including those in the Russell Group, will have mediocore departments. Only Oxford and Cambridge are possible exceptions but even when it comes to OXford or Cambridge they can still be matched by departments elsewhere, or offer courses that are no more targeted (And whose graduates are no more successful) than courses at other universities.
Reply 25
Like I've said millions of times on threads like this IT DEPENDS ON THE COURSE!

What relevance is there in knowing where your uni stands overall? What matters is how good your course is at the uni. I've never understood how people choose the unis overall status rather than being at the uni which teaches the course better....

Also people always assume Oxbridge are at the top of the list for EVERYTHING. This is not true. For example maybe LSE is better for economics?

Sorry for the rant, just giving my two cents....
It all depends on courses. Each league table says completely different things so you can't go off them.
Original post by Llewellyn_J
:eek4: How come London Met is not on the poll list!?!!?!? :eek4:


oh wow you are so funny! :rolleyes:
Original post by River85
Can we keep this thread on topic with serious replies please? I probably should close this, as it is something that has been discussed a few times on TSR and I doubt will see any new discussion. However, I cannot seem to find the old threads and I do still hope this thread can generate some useful discussion so please cut down on the spam. Thank yoy :hat2:



You're still alive!


I have no idea what makes, say, Durham or St Andrews (or Warwick, Edinburgh, Bristol) better than any Russell Group university not mentioned above. But I'm sure you'll prove an interesting defence!



Durham's not really all that for English generally speaking. I believe it's lost one or two academics and its research output has declined slightly in recent years (or it hasn't kept up with three or four other universities) and contact hours have always been poor compared to its other departments in the arts faculty. This isn't to say its teaching is poor or it doesn't offer a vibrant course. Its general engineering programme is actually rather good, I think, though places like Bath and Southampton will offer strong programmes in chemical, electronic and the other specialisms.

But I take your point. Any multi-faculty university, including those in the Russell Group, will have mediocore departments. Only Oxford and Cambridge are possible exceptions but even when it comes to OXford or Cambridge they can still be matched by departments elsewhere, or offer courses that are no more targeted (And whose graduates are no more successful) than courses at other universities.


Pleasure to have the main man back.

I'll attempt to answer your question nonetheless.

You could lay claim to the 3rd best university to these universities because they have very strong (top) departments in certain traditional fields.

Warwick - Economics/Maths
Durham - History
Edinburgh - Medicine

etc. etc.

I can't see places like Liverpool doing the same.

On top of that, these universities are continuously ranked around the 10 in all national rankings so clearly they have solid reputations that other places (sorry to use Liverpool again) will struggle to compete with.

They also have the highest entry tariffs, which is always a good indicator of strength of student intake and hence, quality.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 29
Imperial Collage London - seriously?
Reply 30
Original post by JongKey
Imperial Collage London - seriously?


Dawg, I heard they're pro at making collages using just Mint Imperials.
Reply 31
University of Manchester...
Reply 32
How can a uni which really only does social sciences be third best in the UK??? Doesn't make sense to me. UCL=3rd.
Reply 33
Original post by Deep456
Pleasure to have the main man back.

I'll attempt to answer your question nonetheless.

You could lay claim to the 3rd best university to these universities because they have very strong (top) departments in certain traditional fields.

Warwick - Economics/Maths
Durham - History
Edinburgh - Medicine

etc. etc.

I can't see places like Liverpool doing the same.


As soon as I saw Durham I knew it would be an art subject. Actually, (human) geography, maybe physics, or philosophy would have been better choices for Durham than history.

Medicine isn't a particularly traditional subject. The professionalisation of medicine is a relatively recent phenomenen (Though I appreciate some medical schools have been in existence for centuries). It wasn't that long ago a barber would be your surgeon.

I don't understand why the subjects' "traditionalness" is relevant.

On top of that, these universities are continuously ranked around the 10 in all national rankings so clearly they have solid reputations that other places (sorry to use Liverpool) will struggle to compete in.


So Liverpool hasn't ranked in the top 10. It perhaps isn't quite as highly favoured by the public schools as, say, Durham (resulting in slightly worse entry requirements) yet still does take in a broadly comparable standard of student and also, unlike Durham (or Warwick) has Nobel laureates to its name. Does these nobel laureates, or the fact that Liverpool still has considerable research power (with a larger research income than Durham or Warwick), competes with these universities in the RAE (in "traditional" subjects), and that it offers quality undergraduate teaching across the faculities (as Warwick and Durham do) not mean anything?

If you're talking reputation then you need to consider peer reviews or perhaps employer reviews. If you do then you'll find redbricks appear as high, or higher, than some of those universities.

Finally, why must there be this perceived large gap between top ten and non top ten?

Edit: - As I touched on early, higher UCAS tarriffs just mean that certain universities or more highly favoured than others by the middle class There are some truly excellent departments (and universities) who, for whatever reason, have modest entry tarrifs. It doesn't detract from the excellent teaching and research they provide, or that many of their students are as capable as those at universities who have a higher tarriff.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Llewellyn_J
:eek4: How come London Met is not on the poll list!?!!?!? :eek4:


Not enough foreign students apparently.
Original post by River85
As soon as I saw Durham I knew it would be an art subject. Actually, (human) geography, maybe physics, or philosophy would have been better choices for Durham than history.

Medicine isn't a particularly traditional subject. The professionalisation of medicine is a relatively recent phenomenen (Though I appreciate some medical schools have been in existence for centuries). It wasn't that long ago a barber would be your surgeon.

I don't understand why the subjects' "traditionalness" is relevant.



So Liverpool hasn't ranked in the top 10. It perhaps isn't quite as highly favoured by the public schools as, say, Durham (resulting in slightly worse entry requirements) yet still does take in a broadly comparable standard of student and also, unlike Durham (or Warwick) has Nobel laureates to its name. Does these nobel laureates, or the fact that Liverpool still has considerable research power (with a larger research income than Durham or Warwick), competes with these universities in the RAE (in "traditional" subjects), and that it offers quality undergraduate teaching across the faculities (as Warwick and Durham do) not mean anything?

If you're talking reputation then you need to consider peer reviews or perhaps employer reviews. If you do then you'll find redbricks appear as high, or higher, than some of those universities.

Finally, why must there be this perceived large gap between top ten and non top ten?

Edit: - As I touched on early, higher UCAS tarriffs just mean that certain universities or more highly favoured than others by the middle class There are some truly excellent departments (and universities) who, for whatever reason, have modest entry tarrifs. It doesn't detract from the excellent teaching and research they provide, or that many of their students are as capable as those at universities who have a higher tarriff.


To be perfectly honest, having noble laureates is a bit irrelevant. Firstly, this will obviously be biased towards universities that have been existence longer meaning the likes of Warwick, York, Bath, will be penalised because they have been created later. Also noble laureates is the work of one man (woman), a genius, he/she could have gone virtually anywhere and done this - I wouldn't say it was too dependent on the university.

The past is well the past, on current standing, there is no way you can say that Liverpool across the board (appreciate might be for some subjects) is anywhere near as good as the likes of Warwick, Bristol, etc.

On top of that, as a targeted university, it is not. I remember going to a talk by the Bank of England, where they made clear, they have a list of 10-15 universities which they value over others and it would be virtually impossible to be recruited from elsewhere. The majority of people go to university as a means to a job (yes, you can argue with this until you are blue in the face but it is what it is), and this would form a vital basis of what is a good university.

What is a good university to me? One with higher entry standards (more likely to have better students, strength of cohort), good employment prospects, good facilities and good student satisfaction. The first two being particularly key.

Just like to say, I don't buy this public school argument. As an economist, increased demand means an increased price (more valuable qualification), perfectly justifiable to use entry tariff is a differentiator. If you are then arguing public school children get better results, they are on average more intelligent than your local state school children. They sat competitive examinations to win a place at the school fending of other applicants, etc. etc. Please note, said on average before someone jumps on this point.
(edited 11 years ago)
Sooo: 4 different unis - each is strong in a different field - and you're trying to seek out the best overall. Makes sense.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by thecookiemonster
oh wow you are so funny! :rolleyes:


Hehe tbh I just said that for some cheap thumbs up. It does not reflect my own personal opinion.
Reply 38
I'm not biased here as I'm going to Cambridge. In all honesty though I think it's a tossup between LSE and Imperial. While they don't offer as many subjects as UCL, they are more prestigious and more difficult to get into.
Its a difficult one. Imperial only has 110 undergrad programs, LSE even less. For LSE they need very few world class staff to teach 30-40 odd courses often of very similar natures. Similarly for Imperial. UCL and Durham have far more courses, and are therefore required to source many more lectures of the same stature across a far wider range.

At Undergrad they are broadly the same, beyond that its hard to classify just a university as different studies, even within departments will vary. Some may be pretty average all round but conduct world leading research on XYZ.

Its irrelevant for most people. I don't know of a single business that doesn't have those unis and more in their recruitment list.

Quick Reply