The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

From casual discussions with people in some EU countries and the US, I've learned that LSE seems to be the one that quite a few people are casually aware of beyond the obvious Oxbridge name recognition. People in academia or with wider knowledge have heard of more. I think they would probably give UCL and maybe Imperial a mention. Beyond that, the reality is that only folks with a lot of knowledge would generally be aware of any of the others.
Original post by pateknautilus
I mean generally speaking


Is a cucumber, a Volkswagen or pink better, generally speaking?

In other words some questions are too general to have meaningful answers.
Reply 22
Original post by Fullofsurprises
From casual discussions with people in some EU countries and the US, I've learned that LSE seems to be the one that quite a few people are casually aware of beyond the obvious Oxbridge name recognition. People in academia or with wider knowledge have heard of more. I think they would probably give UCL and maybe Imperial a mention. Beyond that, the reality is that only folks with a lot of knowledge would generally be aware of any of the others.


As I mentioned above, St Andrews has been the most talked about university in my country. :biggrin:
Original post by Josb
As I mentioned above, St Andrews has been the most talked about university in my country. :biggrin:


Hmmm. Just because Wills 'n Kate went there presumably. Not sure that counts. :wink:
Original post by nulli tertius
Is a cucumber, a Volkswagen or pink better, generally speaking?

In other words some questions are too general to have meaningful answers.

:biggrin: Quite right.
Contra what is being said by the big beasts, I think that there is a pretty well definitive answer to the question "is either Warwick or the LSE better regarded than Imperial either domestically or internationally" and that the answer is "no". I think there is no need to contextualize here just because areas of overlap are so few.

Saying "well, the LSE is better regarded for politics" isn't sensibly contextualising the question. It's doing the opposite.

With UCL subbed in for Imperial, we could be here all night, but with these two it only boils down to the asking of two questions:

Warwick Maths > Imperial Maths? No, not really, 'bout the same.
LSE Msc Finance > Imperial MSc Finance? Likely not to the extent that it makes any difference.

And then that's it.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Hmmm. Just because Wills 'n Kate went there presumably. Not sure that counts. :wink:


It counts when we're discussing the most well-known UK universities and one of the most publicised, well-known couples in the world attended it.
A difference of c.0.0000550%...
Original post by clh_hilary
S/he asked for it being prestigious though.


King's seen as prestigious? Dunno 'bout that...
Also, virtually no one really knows about Imperial where I come from except for students looking at studying abroad. LSE's relatively known and gets 'Wow's. Having said that, domestically, Imperial obviously carries a name.
I don't really know what people mean by reputation, though. Recognition among the general public or with employers? Domestic or worldwide?
Original post by Smushy
Could UCL not be an initialism used to refer to other things though? :smile:


https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=university+of+St+Andrews%2CUniversity+College+London%2CImperial+college&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cuniversity%20of%20St%20Andrews%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUniversity%20College%20London%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CImperial%20college%3B%2Cc0

Makes no difference

To the OP - it will depend country to country

I don't really pay attention to what the average Joe knows about anyway. I only care about how a university is perceived in academia and by employers. So tables like QS World Rankings and the following come into mind http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/10/25/world/asia/25iht-sreducemerging25-graphic.html?ref=asia
Original post by Birkenhead
A difference of c.0.0000550%...


Your maths is wrong.

Using this link instead (university college london is used instead of UCL) - https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=university+of+St+Andrews%2CUniversity+College+London%2CImperial+college&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cuniversity%20of%20St%20Andrews%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUniversity%20College%20London%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CImperial%20college%3B%2Cc0

For 2008:
UCL: 0.000039%
St. A: 0.000000069%

Let's compare these two as Imperial is very similar to St. A anyway

0.000039%/0.000000069% = 565.22

Therefore UCL appears in books 465.22% more than St. Andrews
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 33
Original post by Birkenhead
It counts when we're discussing the most well-known UK universities and one of the most publicised, well-known couples in the world attended it.


True.

A big reason we know about so many American Universities is due to American pop culture being so huge globally, and therefore the references are there with it. Just think of how much name-dropping Lisa Simpson has done in the run of the Simpsons.

Whenever a British television programme wants an intelligent character to reveal their alma mater, it always seems to be either Oxford or Cambridge chosen, being regarded as 'the best of the best'. Both also make stunning scenery and generally have lengthy lists of fictional alumni. My mum hadn't even heard of UCL, and we live an hour away from London!

I'm talking purely outside of Academic circles here though.
Original post by jessology
True.

A big reason we know about so many American Universities is due to American pop culture being so huge globally, and therefore the references are there with it. Just think of how much name-dropping Lisa Simpson has done in the run of the Simpsons.

Whenever a British television programme wants an intelligent character to reveal their alma mater, it always seems to be either Oxford or Cambridge chosen, being regarded as 'the best of the best'. Both also make stunning scenery and generally have lengthy lists of fictional alumni. My mum hadn't even heard of UCL, and we live an hour away from London!

I'm talking purely outside of Academic circles here though.


That's all pretty accurate. The only thing I wonder about is how genuinely different it is in global academic circles. For sure they will have heard of other British universities via books, the odd scientific article or news report, but if asked to just come up with the names of UK universities off the top of their heads? I doubt the results would be very thrilling for the so-called 'other top universities' like Warwick, Manchester, etc.
Original post by clh_hilary
They are well known with a good reputation, but when I read prestigious I think status and history.

Warwick is too green for that.

Perhaps Durham would be better but I know very little about it.


Actually Warwick was the first University I ever heard of, beside Oxbridge.

Other: Imperial, Cranfield, LSE
then: UCL, St. Andrews, University of the Arts London: Central St. Martins

Source: Heard of
Original post by Smushy
Could UCL not be an initialism used to refer to other things though? :smile:


There don't seem to be many convincing alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCL
:beard:
I'd say *most* of the Russell Group, and a couple of others - I'd argue that Bath is more prestigious than quite a few RG institutions (but then I would!)

Edited to add: although league tables aren't the be all and end all, you could do worse than to see which unis consistently appear in the top 15-20 or so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ParetoOptimum
Your maths is wrong.

Using this link instead (university college london is used instead of UCL) - https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=university+of+St+Andrews%2CUniversity+College+London%2CImperial+college&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cuniversity%20of%20St%20Andrews%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUniversity%20College%20London%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CImperial%20college%3B%2Cc0

For 2008:
UCL: 0.000039%
St. A: 0.000000069%

Let's compare these two as Imperial is very similar to St. A anyway

0.000039%/0.000000069% = 565.22

Therefore UCL appears in books 465.22% more than St. Andrews


Fair point, but one that doesn't touch the point I made when you take into account the fact that St Andrews itself appears in just 0.000000069% and that a 465.22% increase of this (to just 0.000039%) is therefore still not worth citing as evidence of one being more well-known than the other. I'd bet that a large majority of these references are passing and many of them will probably also be found in books which the vast majority of people have never heard of, so its value in comparing the fame of universities remains nil.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 39
Original post by ParetoOptimum
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=university+of+St+Andrews%2CUniversity+College+London%2CImperial+college&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cuniversity%20of%20St%20Andrews%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUniversity%20College%20London%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CImperial%20college%3B%2Cc0

Makes no difference

To the OP - it will depend country to country

I don't really pay attention to what the average Joe knows about anyway. I only care about how a university is perceived in academia and by employers. So tables like QS World Rankings and the following come into mind http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/10/25/world/asia/25iht-sreducemerging25-graphic.html?ref=asia



Original post by Fullofsurprises
There don't seem to be many convincing alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCL
:beard:


I can go back to feeling my future uni is far superior :colone: