The Student Room Group

Durham vs St Andrews vs Manchester

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Cobalt_
What dont you agree with..
I basically said, its not that prestigious as science degrees, the job market isnt great but if you're passionate about it go for it.

Funny enough, I am telling you from someone who has studied pharmacy. If you think the prospects are "very good, and salaries rise to £40k plus within a few years of qualifying" then you are seriously need to do some research.
If you want to study it because you're passionate about it go ahead! Follow your dreams but doing it because you think you're gonna be granted a stable job with a 40k income at 23 is just stupid.

Good luck with everything.


The tone of this thread has been professional, the above post is starting to head in a different direction, one which I don't want to indulge in.
Original post by unclebulgaria
The tone of this thread has been professional, the above post is starting to head in a different direction, one which I don't want to indulge in.


Im just giving you advice.

Like I said, Follow your dreams kid. If you want to do it because you enjoy it and its your dream job go for it!! :biggrin:
I'd go with University of Glasgow when it comes to ranking, living cost and employment rate. It is also in the Russell Group with University of Edinburgh, which is ranked higher. However, I have also heard it is very lecture based, whereas UofG is more hands on.

St. Andrews is very expensive, and I have read it's rank has fluctuated quite often in the past. Many also believe it has gotten such rankings due to the Royal family members attending it...

Out of the three, though, it would probably be St. Andrews.
Original post by majatheaztec
I'd go with University of Glasgow when it comes to ranking, living cost and employment rate. It is also in the Russell Group with University of Edinburgh, which is ranked higher. However, I have also heard it is very lecture based, whereas UofG is more hands on.

St. Andrews is very expensive, and I have read it's rank has fluctuated quite often in the past. Many also believe it has gotten such rankings due to the Royal family members attending it...

Out of the three, though, it would probably be St. Andrews.


Glasgow is underrated south of the border I think.
Original post by unclebulgaria
I'm sure Edinburgh could topple Oxbridge and be ranked number 1 in the UK rankings if that was their objective. Some universities (St Andrews, Durham, Exeter etc) have gone down that route, but in the longer term the World rankings will matter more, and thus income streams come into play. That is why I believe Edinburgh chose to expand, to ensure they have the resources to compete at the global stage, not just in the UK.


#1 is not possible, Oxbridge still have a longer history, more famous alumni and more funding. In order for Edinburgh to really become in the same league which is the best it can hope for it would probably have to get a lot more funding and drop its undergrad numbers while keeping its postgrad numbers level. If it was wealthy enough to lets say offer something similar to tutorials, for it to offer a better campus experience and student satisfaction then it could rise.

To be honest it is probably one of the few universities in the position to be in the same league as Oxbridge in the sense that it has the history, the alumni, the size and the city to make it happen, it just needs money and the right direction.

No other university in the UK apart from Oxbridge has as many PMs, Supreme Court Judges as Edinburgh and the fact it is an ancient allows it to have that historical atmosphere. PMs/Supreme Court stuff is built upon decades and the only other multifaculty university able to compete is UCL but its location in London and lack of history and PMs/Supreme Court Justices hurts it in that regard, its name University College London also doesn't help.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by unclebulgaria
I'm sure Edinburgh could topple Oxbridge and be ranked number 1 in the UK rankings if that was their objective.

I don't think that will ever happen in our lifetime. It takes a LOT of time to build and maintain prestige in the academic community. It doesn't happen overnight. I haven't known or heard any school that has done that. Take a look at the case of Warwick. It has been ranked the 3rd in the world and 1st in Europe as the fastest-rising young universities in the world. Yet, at the rate of its success, it now has somewhat plateaued. I don't think it would ever rise to Oxford's level anytime soon, despite its very aggressive nature to become a top player in British education. It will still rise. But I don't think it will rise to Oxford's level in our lifetime.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/the-7-fastest-rising-young-universities-in-the-world/2019337.fullarticle



but in the longer term the World rankings will matter more, and thus income streams come into play.


I would politely disagree. World rankings don't mean a lot for undergraduate education. Local rankings are more reliable tools, if you're interested to know which is closer to reality.

Take a look at the Liberal Arts Colleges (LAC) in the US. All those colleges are unranked, yet they continue to attract some of the brightest students. You probably have heard of Cornell University and not of Williams College, Pomona College or Harvey Mudd College. These 3 colleges are unranked, yet when the students have the choice to pick between Cornell and one of these colleges, I'm quite certain they would most likely pick one of these 3 colleges and not Cornell. Yet, they all are unranked.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Mr. Roxas

I would politely disagree. World rankings don't mean a lot for undergraduate education. Local rankings are more reliable tools, if you're interested to know which is closer to reality.


I don't think UK rankings tell the full story, and they also bring some strange results. Loughborough is in the top 15, yet I hear one student got into BSc Chemistry with Advanced GNVQs? Lancaster is likewise in the top 15, but is ranked around 350-400 in World rankings.
Original post by unclebulgaria
I don't think UK rankings tell the full story, and they also bring some strange results. Loughborough is in the top 15, yet I hear one student got into BSc Chemistry with Advanced GNVQs? Lancaster is likewise in the top 15, but is ranked around 350-400 in World rankings.


I agree with you on this. Some strange things pop up on local league tables once in a while. But, by and large, they are more reliable tools than ones that cover international.

What i would suggest you'd do is to gather all the league tables which cover local scope, sum them up and get the average. I would venture that you would probably get the closest ranking to the acceptable level.

Another way to filter this is by carefully selecting the criteria which matter to you the most. For example, the The times ranking includes Student Satisfaction rate. if you'd take that out of the equation, what would the result be.

You can't trust one survey result whole-heartedly and automatically. You really have to investigate and scrutinize what those numbers imply. The main point is local rankings are much closer to reality than rankings that cover global scale.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Mr. Roxas
I agree with you on this. Some strange things pop up one in a while. So, what you'd do is to gather all the league tables which cover local scope, sum them up and get the average. I would venture that you would probably get the closest ranking to the acceptable level. Another way to filter this is by carefully selecting the criteria which matter to you the most. For example, the The times ranking includes Student Satisfaction rate. if you'd take that out of the equation, what would the result be. You can't trust one survey result whole-heartedly and automatically. You really have to scrutinize that those numbers imply. The main point is local rankings are much closer to reality than rankings that cover global scale.


I agree, the student satisfaction survey should be taken out and retained as a score which is independent from league tables.
Original post by unclebulgaria
I agree, the student satisfaction survey should be taken out and retained as a score which is independent from league tables.


It's an opinion survey which is therefore subjective. It should not have been factored in to rank universities for undergrad education.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
It's an opinion survey which is therefore subjective. It should not have been factored in to rank universities for undergrad education.


It was probably added to help sell more newspapers.
Original post by unclebulgaria
It was probably added to help sell more newspapers.


Perhaps you're correct, but which screwed the results out. Nevertheless, they're closer to reality than the ones with global scope.

So, when you will scout for a university to go to for undergraduate education, don't rely on what the global rankings say, such as the ones made by the Times, because they are biased towards research-based schools, and some of the more important factors for undergraduate students such as the teaching standards, student-to-faculty ratio, freshmen retention rate, graduation rate and so on, were undermined, if at all were considered and factored in.

If you will based your decision on the global rankings of the Times, you'd probably end up at U of Texas instead of Rice University. Outside the US, more people believe that UT-Austin is a much better place than Rice for undergraduate education. But in reality in the US, people who go to UT-Austin is mostly because they don't have an offer from Rice. But when the students are given the choice, they would most likely choose Rive over UT-Austin. You see, global rankings could be very deceiving...
Reply 52
Original post by unclebulgaria
They are more prestigious and rigorous than most courses, with almost all students going into lucrative careers £40k plus within the first few years post qualifying.



come on..all Pharmacy courses were in extra..even UCL.
Who actually cares? All three are occupied by the academic elite of the U.K., are extremely prestigious, and most of their students will attain professional positions- and many of them will become the leaders of the U.K. labour force. On the other hand, I selected Durham, simply because, growing up in the North East, near to Durham, it's reputation in the region is legendary and is recognised a lot amongst people in that region- and so I selected it because my friends and relatives would hold me in high esteem, and because I wish to be employed locally, so that wow factor will help. Besides that, nothing else separated them for me, though if I had to choose two offers from the three, they'd be Durham and St Andrews.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 54
Academically and prestige-wise Manchester is nowhere near Durham or St Andrews (Manchester is easier to get into, with lower entry standards and ranked lower)- international rankings are affected by the size of the university etc

If you go to Durham or St Andrews you'll be amongst some of the best students in the country; If you go to Manchester you will be amongst some pretty average students.

As for Optometry and Pharmacy being reputable courses- you've got to be joking right?
(edited 8 years ago)
I guess its always the best idea to just check out the ranking, program, living cost, and employment of your specific course, if you need to decide on a uni :smile:
Original post by 2014
Academically and prestige-wise Manchester is nowhere near Durham or St Andrews (Manchester is easier to get into, with lower entry standards and ranked lower)- international rankings are affected by the size of the university etc

If you go to Durham or St Andrews you'll be amongst some of the best students in the country; If you go to Manchester you will be amongst some pretty average students.

As for Optometry and Pharmacy being reputable courses- you've got to be joking right?


You have to take into account that Durham and St Andrews are only relatively small universities, so they don't offer many subjects, and of the ones they do, not many are prestigious courses. They aren't renowned for being strong in the Sciences either, so what may seem prestigious for an Arts student may not be the case for a Maths or Science student.

Pharmacy, if done at a top school (Bath, Manchester, Nottingham, Cardiff etc), is more prestigious than most courses. Optometry is also a good career subject which is AAB/A*AA material. Who cares if you are doing subjects like Archaeology or Ancient History or Hebrew studies at Durham or St Andrews? They may well carry more weight if done at Oxbridge, but not really anywhere else.

Manchester is a research powerhouse, with huge resources. They average AAB over many thousands of students they take each year, so that dispels the myth that they only take average students. They also take more students who have done Science and Maths A levels, which are obviously harder than many other softer subjects.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by unclebulgaria
You have to take into account that Durham and St Andrews are only relatively small universities, so they don't offer many subjects, and of the ones they do, not many are prestigious courses. They aren't renowned for being strong in the Sciences either, so what may seem prestigious for an Arts student may not be the case for a Maths or Science student.

Pharmacy, if done at a top school (Bath, Manchester, Nottingham, Cardiff etc), is more prestigious than most courses. Optometry is also a good career subject which is AAB/A*AA material. Who cares if you are doing subjects like Archaeology or Ancient History or Hebrew studies at Durham or St Andrews? They may well carry more weight if done at Oxbridge, but not really anywhere else.


Actually St Andrews is pretty well known for sciences, they don't have as many publications as a larger uni but they tend to focus their research into a few select sub-fields of the sciences and are world leading there. I wouldn't call Pharmacy prestigious, its a great course and it leads to a good job true but it is too vocational for me to be prestigious. Although pharmacists can end up in research its true.

St Andrews still offers many prestigious courses like Medicine, IR, Chemistry, CS, Physics, Maths etc

Durham actually isn't that small, St Andrews actually is pretty small.

Same goes for Durham. I think when you are comparing St Andrews and Durham to Manchester its pretty clear that St Andrews and Durham are better especially in undergrad. If you are looking for the big uni/big city/large research uni sort of experience, there are more prestigious unis than Manchester to go to like UCL, Edinburgh, Imperial etc. If you are looking more for a smaller close knit undergrad experience you really only have St Andrews, Durham and Warwick to choose from, all leading smaller universities.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 58
Original post by unclebulgaria
You have to take into account that Durham and St Andrews are only relatively small universities, so they don't offer many subjects, and of the ones they do, not many are prestigious courses. They aren't renowned for being strong in the Sciences either, so what may seem prestigious for an Arts student may not be the case for a Maths or Science student.

Pharmacy, if done at a top school (Bath, Manchester, Nottingham, Cardiff etc), is more prestigious than most courses. Optometry is also a good career subject which is AAB/A*AA material. Who cares if you are doing subjects like Archaeology or Ancient History or Hebrew studies at Durham or St Andrews? They may well carry more weight if done at Oxbridge, but not really anywhere else.

Manchester is a research powerhouse, with huge resources. They average AAB over many thousands of students they take each year, so that dispels the myth that they only take average students. They also take more students who have done Science and Maths A levels, which are obviously harder than many other softer subjects.



Both Durham and St Andrews are better than Manchester.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by taeht

Both Durham and St Andrews are better than Manchester.



Mods please edit the above post.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply