Getting into a top uni (UCL, Imperial, etc.) with a 2.2?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The Right
So you can not explain why it is a low rank university which proves my point, that UCL while good is a mediocre university
For any doubt hers who thinks UCL isn't up there, I am currently doing ComputerScience degree at UCL. I took a gap year b4 headed to uni when took gap year firmed imperial but changed it to ucl at the end of my gap year, UCL is competing with all the top unis in the world while it's got very laid back atmosphere so u enjoy ur life probably 10 times more than students at IXbridge and perhaps 5 times more than Imperial/LSC. Here QS world ranking ucl been ranked num. 4th ahead of Oxford, imperial and LSC\
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=}
Original post by The Right
So you can not explain why it is a low rank university which proves my point, that UCL while good is a mediocre university
A lot of ranking tables (esp undergrad ones) are based on very woolly criteria - usually things like "student satisfaction". One even takes into account entry standards - which would mean that a university's standing is entirely under their own control.
One thing about UCL is that there are two types of students there - the ones who are really bitter and cross that they didn't get into Oxford or Cambridge, and the ones who are really happy that they managed to get in.
So if you are going to rank a university by student satisfaction, it's hardly surprising you're not doing so well if a large number of your students are in the mindset that they've got the boobie prize. Nothing will ever be good enough for them.
Additionally, just like the other London unis, more or less everything is a mare, and everything can be expensive too. For some people, the idea of life in Central London is the best thing in the whole world - others would prefer to have been in collegiate halls or some beautiful enclosed countryside campus - but they had to go to UCL as it was the "best" on their list. It's no wonder they're going to be pissed off.
Original post by Clip
Additionally, just like the other London unis, more or less everything is a mare, and everything can be expensive too. For some people, the idea of life in Central London is the best thing in the whole world - others would prefer to have been in collegiate halls or some beautiful enclosed countryside campus - but they had to go to UCL as it was the "best" on their list. It's no wonder they're going to be pissed off.
Additionally, just like the other London unis, more or less everything is a mare, and everything can be expensive too. For some people, the idea of life in Central London is the best thing in the whole world - others would prefer to have been in collegiate halls or some beautiful enclosed countryside campus - but they had to go to UCL as it was the "best" on their list. It's no wonder they're going to be pissed off.
Imperial is the place that comes off worst here. UCL has the advantage of being next to Kings Cross, which is a major transport hub and essentially allows you to live anywhere in the South East and commute in. To a lesser extent, LSE and Kings also have the benefit of being walkable from Waterloo. Imperial, on the other hand, is stuck out in West London in the highest cost-of-living area in Europe, and takes ages to reach from anywhere remotely affordable. And despite all that it isn't even 'central' - South Kensington is pretty boring and lacks the vibrancy of Bloomsbury or /the City.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Clip
A lot of ranking tables (esp undergrad ones) are based on very woolly criteria - usually things like "student satisfaction". One even takes into account entry standards - which would mean that a university's standing is entirely under their own control.
One thing about UCL is that there are two types of students there - the ones who are really bitter and cross that they didn't get into Oxford or Cambridge, and the ones who are really happy that they managed to get in.
So if you are going to rank a university by student satisfaction, it's hardly surprising you're not doing so well if a large number of your students are in the mindset that they've got the boobie prize. Nothing will ever be good enough for them.
Additionally, just like the other London unis, more or less everything is a mare, and everything can be expensive too. For some people, the idea of life in Central London is the best thing in the whole world - others would prefer to have been in collegiate halls or some beautiful enclosed countryside campus - but they had to go to UCL as it was the "best" on their list. It's no wonder they're going to be pissed off.
One thing about UCL is that there are two types of students there - the ones who are really bitter and cross that they didn't get into Oxford or Cambridge, and the ones who are really happy that they managed to get in.
So if you are going to rank a university by student satisfaction, it's hardly surprising you're not doing so well if a large number of your students are in the mindset that they've got the boobie prize. Nothing will ever be good enough for them.
Additionally, just like the other London unis, more or less everything is a mare, and everything can be expensive too. For some people, the idea of life in Central London is the best thing in the whole world - others would prefer to have been in collegiate halls or some beautiful enclosed countryside campus - but they had to go to UCL as it was the "best" on their list. It's no wonder they're going to be pissed off.
Actually you are right. The guardian table has 3 scores for student satisfaction with teaching, course and feedback. Then you have student/staff ratio along with spend per student. To be honest there is not really any score category that reflects the university's academic ability, opportunity or reputation, not to mention it's research capability. Damn that is one mis leading league table, I should of seen that before.
Original post by The Right
Actually you are right. The guardian table has 3 scores for student satisfaction with teaching, course and feedback. Then you have student/staff ratio along with spend per student. To be honest there is not really any score category that reflects the university's academic ability, opportunity or reputation, not to mention it's research capability. Damn that is one mis leading league table, I should of seen that before.
Almost everyone at the Guardian is from Oxford, too.
Original post by poohat
Don't rule out the statistics MSc in the maths department too, which has a very applied focus. Imperial is stronger for statistics than it is for ML (which is one if the reasons they don't run a dedicated ML masters degree and instead just have a few optional ML modules bolted onto a general computing MSc). There is a lot of overlap between applied statistics and ML, and one is essentially as good as the other for most purposes.
UCLs CSML degree is probably the best ML option in London but would be harder to get into with a 2:2 since it is quite competitive (but you should apply anyway). The straight ML degree there is also worth applying to.
UCLs CSML degree is probably the best ML option in London but would be harder to get into with a 2:2 since it is quite competitive (but you should apply anyway). The straight ML degree there is also worth applying to.
ML does have a lot to do with statistics (things like regression, optimization, clustering for sure), but I'd imagine there are things that have not much to do with statistics, too - things like neural nets. Are those taught in a statistics course as well?
To me, statistics is also a lot more about data modelling and requiring formal proofs for most things, whereas ML tends to be more practical and is willing to accept many more things without proofs. But then again, my knowledge of stats is on the first year university level.
I don't think whether offering a dedicated ML degree or not really means anything. If you look at the course list for Advanced Computing for example, there are more than enough courses to make one's degree almost entirely ML. They also have plenty of courses in other parts of AI.
Many/most/all American universities that are very strong in ML also don't offer ML degrees (because they believe it's either part of CS or stats). Stanford, CMU, UCB, etc.
Original post by Clip
You don't understand UC. They don't want to compete with Oxford and Cambridge. They want to compete with Harvard and Yale - in the financial sense. The endowments these American private schools have are enormous compared to UK ones - in the tens of billions.
Why should UC worry about LSE being "better" when they might be thinking about owning them in years to come? As it stands, UC look to be taking a lot of what was the University of London, most recently the IoE, and the amount of property they have in London is quite amazing. It wouldn't surprise me if they take a few other small schools and colleges soon. I think in the next ten years they will move for LSHTM and the ULU building, and will effectively own half of Bloomsbury as an enclosed campus. In fifty years, SOAS and maybe Birkbeck.
Why should UC worry about LSE being "better" when they might be thinking about owning them in years to come? As it stands, UC look to be taking a lot of what was the University of London, most recently the IoE, and the amount of property they have in London is quite amazing. It wouldn't surprise me if they take a few other small schools and colleges soon. I think in the next ten years they will move for LSHTM and the ULU building, and will effectively own half of Bloomsbury as an enclosed campus. In fifty years, SOAS and maybe Birkbeck.
If that's the case I need to get myself a degree from UCL before its too late
Original post by returnmigrant
Based on what evidence exactly?
UCL ranks Top 5 globally. No 4 on QS actually.
Original post by returnmigrant
Much of which is based on nothing more complicated than 'lots of advertising on Asian TV channels'.
That is wrong. As someone who lives in Asia, I can confirm to you that top universities do not have advertisements. The only universities which do have been Surrey, Essex, University of Canberra, Newcastle (the one in Australia), UNSW, Nottingham Trent, Manchester Metropolitan, and foundation programmes. In education fairs, there are better universities, but never any better than Monash, Durham, and Birmingham.
Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, King's, Edinburgh, etc are very well-known but none of them do any sort of advertisement. Oxbridge don't need to do anything obviously, as 'Oxford' has tagged itself on to 'dictionaries' if not the English language whilst 'Cambridge' has 'IELTS' and many other language tests.
Original post by Clip
They don't want to compete with Oxford and Cambridge. They want to compete with Harvard and Yale - in the financial sense.
How does that work when UCL is only No 12 in the UK based on endowment, and has only around 1.7% of what Cambridge has or 2.1% of what Oxford has?
In terms of endowments, the universities in the UK rank like this:
1. University of Cambridge
2. University of Oxford
3. University of Edinburgh
4. University of Manchester
5. King's College London
6. University of Glasgow
7. University of Liverpool
8. Imperial College London
9. London School of Economics and Political Sciences
10. University of Reading
11. University of Birmingham
12. University College London
So even within London itself, UCL ranks only No 4.
What if we throw US universities into the mix?
UCL has around USD$0.14 billion. The United States has 80 universities with more than USD$1 billion.
They want to be compared with Harvard and Yale? Too bad, UCL is only 0.4% of Harvard and less than 0.7% of Yale. To say 'they don't want to be compared to Oxford or Cambridge but Harvard and Yale' is like London Metropolitan saying they don't want to be compared to Manchester Metropolitan or City University London but Oxford and Cambridge.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
UCL ranks Top 5 globally. No 4 on QS actually.
Those tables are biased and skewed. In actual fact UCL ranks in the high 20s in the country below the likes of oxbridge, warwick, surrey, imperial, york, glasgow, birmimgham, exeter, UAE, lancaster and royal holloway for example
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The Right
Those tables are biased and skewed. In actual fact UCL ranks in the high 20s in the country below the likes of oxbridge, warwick, surrey, imperial, york, glasgow, birmimgham, exeter, UAE, lancaster and royal holloway for example
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why is QS 'biased and skewed' but your personal ranking not?
Alternatively, one could (uncharitably) view his situation as : 'Bright enough to get into Cambridge but couldn't hack it once he was there'.
Original post by clh_hilary
Why is QS 'biased and skewed' but your personal ranking not?
This is the methodological procedure:
40 per cent -- academic reputation from a global survey
10 per cent -- from employer reputation
20 per cent -- from citations by faculty
20 per cent -- from student faculty ratio
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign students
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign faculty
This is flawed as it first undermines the performance of US universities who lack foreign students and staff compared to European universities for starters.
You could easily replace the 20% for citations with of 20% for your name or historic record because it is that pointless and does not reflect on the true ability.
The rankings do not take into consideration the research capabilities or academic input into the respected subject fields.
Mine was not a personal but more accurate version of what the rankings really are.
The point is do you disagree that UCl belongs in the 30s for national rankings and around 300s for international rankings. UCL has next to no global reputation compared to the likes of Oxbridge, imperial, LSE...
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The Right
This is the methodological procedure:
40 per cent -- academic reputation from a global survey
10 per cent -- from employer reputation
20 per cent -- from citations by faculty
20 per cent -- from student faculty ratio
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign students
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign faculty
This is flawed as it first undermines the performance of US universities who lack foreign students and staff compared to European universities for starters.
You could easily replace the 20% for citations with of 20% for your name or historic record because it is that pointless and does not reflect on the true ability.
The rankings do not take into consideration the research capabilities or academic input into the respected subject fields.
Mine was not a personal but more accurate version of what the rankings really are.
The point is do you disagree that UCl belongs in the 30s for national rankings and around 300s for international rankings. UCL has next to no global reputation compared to the likes of Oxbridge, imperial, LSE...
40 per cent -- academic reputation from a global survey
10 per cent -- from employer reputation
20 per cent -- from citations by faculty
20 per cent -- from student faculty ratio
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign students
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign faculty
This is flawed as it first undermines the performance of US universities who lack foreign students and staff compared to European universities for starters.
You could easily replace the 20% for citations with of 20% for your name or historic record because it is that pointless and does not reflect on the true ability.
The rankings do not take into consideration the research capabilities or academic input into the respected subject fields.
Mine was not a personal but more accurate version of what the rankings really are.
The point is do you disagree that UCl belongs in the 30s for national rankings and around 300s for international rankings. UCL has next to no global reputation compared to the likes of Oxbridge, imperial, LSE...
So you're saying by having a 5% advantage (which UCL couldn't have gotten in full), UCL jumps over 300 universities world-wide with most of them not even American? Your point on international faculty is ridiculous. American universities do have a lot of international academics.
Citation is a direct reflection of research and academic ability. Nobody would be citing a paper if it has no research or academic value. Your ranking is entirely personal as you cannot even put out any evidence (or an actual rank) to support your 'reasoning' that UCL belongs in the 30s.
UCL's global reputation cannot be compared to Oxbridge, but that's just two universities. Imperial is quite little known internationally (as an international myself I can confirm this) so I don't know what you're trying to establish, let alone the fact that you mentioned four universities but said there would be 30-something above UCL.
Original post by clh_hilary
So you're saying by having a 5% advantage (which UCL couldn't have gotten in full), UCL jumps over 300 universities world-wide with most of them not even American? Your point on international faculty is ridiculous. American universities do have a lot of international academics.
Citation is a direct reflection of research and academic ability. Nobody would be citing a paper if it has no research or academic value. Your ranking is entirely personal as you cannot even put out any evidence (or an actual rank) to support your 'reasoning' that UCL belongs in the 30s.
UCL's global reputation cannot be compared to Oxbridge, but that's just two universities. Imperial is quite little known internationally (as an international myself I can confirm this) so I don't know what you're trying to establish, let alone the fact that you mentioned four universities but said there would be 30-something above UCL.
Citation is a direct reflection of research and academic ability. Nobody would be citing a paper if it has no research or academic value. Your ranking is entirely personal as you cannot even put out any evidence (or an actual rank) to support your 'reasoning' that UCL belongs in the 30s.
UCL's global reputation cannot be compared to Oxbridge, but that's just two universities. Imperial is quite little known internationally (as an international myself I can confirm this) so I don't know what you're trying to establish, let alone the fact that you mentioned four universities but said there would be 30-something above UCL.
I am interested to think how you would rank ucl?
Original post by The Right
I am interested to think how you would rank ucl?
Well you were talking about global reputation, so I don't need to go any further than seeing if a university is known by different groups of people in different places, and if it is talked about.
Most people overseas know only 'University of London'.
Original post by The Right
This is the methodological procedure:
40 per cent -- academic reputation from a global survey
10 per cent -- from employer reputation
20 per cent -- from citations by faculty
20 per cent -- from student faculty ratio
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign students
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign faculty
This is flawed as it first undermines the performance of US universities who lack foreign students and staff compared to European universities for starters.
You could easily replace the 20% for citations with of 20% for your name or historic record because it is that pointless and does not reflect on the true ability.
The rankings do not take into consideration the research capabilities or academic input into the respected subject fields.
Mine was not a personal but more accurate version of what the rankings really are.
The point is do you disagree that UCl belongs in the 30s for national rankings and around 300s for international rankings. UCL has next to no global reputation compared to the likes of Oxbridge, imperial, LSE...
40 per cent -- academic reputation from a global survey
10 per cent -- from employer reputation
20 per cent -- from citations by faculty
20 per cent -- from student faculty ratio
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign students
5 per cent -- proportion of foreign faculty
This is flawed as it first undermines the performance of US universities who lack foreign students and staff compared to European universities for starters.
You could easily replace the 20% for citations with of 20% for your name or historic record because it is that pointless and does not reflect on the true ability.
The rankings do not take into consideration the research capabilities or academic input into the respected subject fields.
Mine was not a personal but more accurate version of what the rankings really are.
The point is do you disagree that UCl belongs in the 30s for national rankings and around 300s for international rankings. UCL has next to no global reputation compared to the likes of Oxbridge, imperial, LSE...
This is all ignorant nonsense but the real question is why you care so much. You seem quite obsessed by this, despite everyone telling you that you are wrong. Also, you don't seem to know what 'citations' are.
edit: the one correct thing in your post is that QS (and THES) slightly overrates UK universities relative to the US by giving too much weight to international faculty/students, but this affects all UK places roughly equally. Oxbridge clearly aren't world top 5 universities and UCl/Imperial aren't top 10, by any sensible definition. When you remove the effect of internationals, you get the more accurate picture that Oxbridge is world top 10, and UCL/Imperial are around world top 25, which is roughly also where they all are in ARWU
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
So you're saying by having a 5% advantage (which UCL couldn't have gotten in full), UCL jumps over 300 universities world-wide with most of them not even American? Your point on international faculty is ridiculous. American universities do have a lot of international academics.
Its actually 10% and it does seem to matter a fair bit, although obviously nowhere near as much as The_Right thinks. If you look at the invididual QS component scores then Imperial is 14th on academic reputation while UCL is 16th. Similarly on Employer Reputation, Imperial is 9th and UCL is 22nd. Both are more accurate reflections of those universities than the (slightly absurd) overall scores that put them in the top 5.
The reason why it matters so much despite 'only' being 10% is because the gap between the UK and US universities is much, much larger on those scores than it is on the (more important) reputation scores. For example, on international faculty Imperial and UCL get 100% and 97% respectively, while Stanford only gets 75% and Princeton gets 76%. Similarly on International students, both UCL and Imperial get 100% while Stanfrord gets 76% and Princeton gets 69%. Wheras if you look at academic reputation, both Stanford and Princeton get 100% while UCL/Imperial get 99.9%. Similarly on most other scores, the difference between Stanfrod/Princeton and UCL/imperial is only 1-2% at most. So when you have that enormous 20%+ gap on the international scores, it has a huge effect on the overall weighted ranking despite its low weight, which results in UCL/Imperial finishing above Princeton/Stanford (and others) despite clearly not being quite on that level (although both are very good universities)
Again though, this affects all UK universities equally, they are all overrated on QS. ARWU is probably the most accurate ranking.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by poohat
This is all ignorant nonsense but the real question is why you care so much. You seem quite obsessed by this, despite everyone telling you that you are wrong. Also, you don't seem to know what 'citations' are.
edit: the one correct thing in your post is that QS (and THES) slightly overrates UK universities relative to the US by giving too much weight to international faculty/students, but this affects all UK places roughly equally. Oxbridge clearly aren't world top 5 universities and UCl/Imperial aren't top 10, by any sensible definition. When you remove the effect of internationals, you get the more accurate picture that Oxbridge is world top 10, and UCL/Imperial are around world top 25, which is roughly also where they all are in ARWU
edit: the one correct thing in your post is that QS (and THES) slightly overrates UK universities relative to the US by giving too much weight to international faculty/students, but this affects all UK places roughly equally. Oxbridge clearly aren't world top 5 universities and UCl/Imperial aren't top 10, by any sensible definition. When you remove the effect of internationals, you get the more accurate picture that Oxbridge is world top 10, and UCL/Imperial are around world top 25, which is roughly also where they all are in ARWU
I am sorry, you are right
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UCL or imperial?
- Masters with a 2.2 UG degree?
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- Official MATHS APPLICANTS 2023 entry
- UCL reputation in uk
- Do I firm UCL medicine or Imperial medicine
- 2024 entry Pharmacology applicants
- Is Queen Mary good for CS?
- Is imperial that much better than ucl?
- Is it worth is to transfer from KCL to a better university?
- msc application - worst 30 credits
- comp sci, maths, physics, further maths?
- Computer Science degree (Imperial,UCL,KCL)
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Best university for (mechanical) engineering?
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- MSc Finance advice needed
- What degree should I pick?
- GCSE resits for uni
- Computer science needed A levels oxbridge? HELP
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)
