Is UCL overrated?

UCL is a great uni,but I chose king's over it

For what course if you don't mind me asking?

I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..

Paragraphs. Utilise them please.

Biomedical science

A bit random, but is kings better than qmul for your course? (only asking cause my freind is applying to both)

A bit random, but is kings better than qmul for your course? (only asking cause my freind is applying to both)

No, UCL is great. Much better than King's and equal to LSE in social sciences (economics, politics) and humanities (law especially).

I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..

Hm, not sure if this applies to other subjects (I'm an offer holder for Biological Sciences), but here's my rationale in choosing UCL over imperial:

- UCL (or their faculty of life sciences) said it themselves they base their decision on whether or not to offer a candidate on ps and references, providing they meet their entry requirements (AAA). This suits me because I think biological sciences require far more skills than needed in A-level exams, such as 'seeing the big picture'.

- Although Imperial is more 'prestigious' in terms of rankings, it seems like UCL is very strong (or even stronger) in evolution which is a subject I want to utilise throughout my studies, including work in other modules.

- UCL's course structure suits me better as it appears to be more holistic. (In terms of looking at many different things, but at the angle of your specialisation if you do specialise.)

- UCL doesn't only do sciences and is highly ranked for most, if not all, of the subjects they offer. This means opportunity for interdisciplinary research with fields like geology, anthropology, philosophy of science, etc are easily possible.

I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..

OP - I got an AB offer from UCL for Biochemical Engineering, which is advertised as an A*AA course.

This is no real metric for prestige. It doesn't diminish their academic excellence, and from what I saw of that department, it was world-class.

I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..